Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyDecember 13th, 2011
It’s a crazy time when a GOP presidential candidate can’t walk into a diner, spot on older guy in a red flannel jacket wearing a cap identifying him as a Vietnam veteran (“We have a veteran, a Vietnam Veteran! Wow!”), go over to sit down with him for some friendly-territory conversations, and suddenly find himself having his head handed to him over same-sex marriage. But that’s what happened when former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney stopped to talk with Bob Garon of Ebson, N.H., who was having breakfast with his husband, who he had married in June. Romney gave the standard plattitude (“I believe that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, and we apparently disagree.”) before an aide called him away (“Governor, we’ve got to get on with Fox News right now.”).
Garon then talked with reporters about why that question was so important to him:
“Because I’m gay, alright? And I happen to love a man just like you probably love your wife. Alright? And I think that he or she or whatever are entitled to the same rights that I have. I fought for my country, I did my thing, and I think that my spouse should be entitled to the same entitlements as if I was married to a woman. What the hell is the difference? I was definitely offended. He doesn’t even open the door to a conversation. It’s just a boom! But I did ask him ‘yes or no,’ so I got what I asked for.”
Ta-Nehisi Coates says that “asking people to die for this country, while denying them the full rights accorded other citizens is an ancient and disreputable tradition.”
Blacks fighting in the Civil War suffered mortality rates 35 percent higher than their white comrades. Moreover, they faced court martial and execution at much higher rates. If they surrendered they were subject to enslavement, torture or massacre. Ten percent of all troops who fought for the Union were black. For their sorrows, they were turned over to the tender mercies of Red Shirts and White Liners and their sacrifice was erased from the history books.
…Others smarter than me can fill in the history of Native Americans, of Japanese-Americans, of Latinos, of women, who fought and loved their country in spite of itself. But the tradition of asking people to die for America abroad, while denying their American-ness at home, is one fully embraced by modern conservatism. And not simply by its rabble-rousers, but by its intellectual architects like William F. Buckley.
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
MattNYC
December 13th, 2011
Stick a fork in him…
Blake
December 13th, 2011
The Cherokee fought for the United States in the War of 1812 under General Andrew Jackson and General John Coffee (of GA). They were enlisted into the regular militia and payed the same as white men (a decency Jackson & Coffee fought for at the time over the objections of westerners who did not view the Cherokees as deserving of the same pay). The Cherokees thought their service in the War of 1812 on the side of the United States meant they were to be given the full rights of citizenship in the several states where they resided. Instead TN, AL, GA & NC all declared Cherokees to be the legal equivalent of freed slaves (disenfranchised semi-citizens who could not testify in court against a white man). Also the states refused to repay Cherokees for property destroyed by Militia men from TN & NC passing through Cherokee land on their way home from fighting the British-Allied Creek. Apparently, the frontier whites were so blinded by their racism as to not make a distinction between Creeks and Cherokees and raided Cherokees for spoils on their way home.
In repayment for the Cherokee’s service, the surrounding states made it a national political priority to remove all Cherokee claims to the land they currently resided on. The local and national political powers in GA, TN, NC, SC, & later AL & MS spent the next 25 years constantly working to destabilize the internal workings of the Cherokee government in order to better divide them and leave them in a position where immigration became the only viable option. Andrew Jackson was physically present in the Cherokee Nation throughout the 1820’s personally working to destabilize the Nation by convincing Chiefs outside of the Cherokee central government to make illegal deals to move west to join a band of Cherokees in Arkansas who left when it became apparent that the states around the Cherokee Nation would not grant equal citizenship to them after the war of 1812.
When President Andrew Jackson decided to toss the Cherokees over the Mississippi, in defiance of the US Constitution & Supreme Court, he enlisted the help of General Coffee to do so. I knew about the SC (and the famous line: “John Marshall has made his decision and now he can enforce it”) but I didn’t know a thing about Jackson’s total involvement until I did my own research. Its really shameful what gets glossed over.
All I remember from History Class about Andrew Jackson was that he was a “good guy” out for the common folk. What they failed to mention was that the common folk were unforgivably racist and more concerned with personal enrichment than the US Constitution. Jackson himself was a land speculator in southeastern Indian lands!
I guess what I think (and the point of that whole story) is that we need to address this undercurrent in our history every chance we get. There is a long history of people fighting for the US and then being ignored/oppressed by the people of the United States and their popularly elected government. Each one of these stories illustrates, individually, the ability of democratically elected governments to subject its subjects to grave evils. And also, the power of the American Promise of equality and self-determination. Each shafted group represents an indictment against our way of government and each successive group willing to give their life for the American promise illustrates the powerful pull of the ideal as articulated in the DoI.
Democracy is not always good, but I dare you to find a history teacher in a US High School who is willing to give the more nuanced and interesting picture of American history. It all gets distilled down into “good-guy” “bad-guy”.
Its as if History curricula seem to be ignoring the fact that good people can do bad things and vice-verse. Wilson is more remembered for his League of Nations than his virulent racism. Jackson more for his populous policies then for his profiteering off of Indian removals. FDR for winning WW2 with scant mention of court-packing or what that would’ve done to American institutions and political freedom. MLK & JFK were womanizers. And it goes on…
At least that’s how it was when I was in school.
Why must history constantly repeat itself? Are we really so ignorant to our own prejudices? Do we really, as a people, have such a poor understanding of our form of government and what it was designed to protect? And why does it feel that one side of the political debate insists that the good-evil dynamic is the best way to view the world (as illustrated by Michelle Backman turning to conservative politics after she thought Gore Vidal’s novels were offensive)?
I suppose what I’m saying is that its our fault, as the crowd. Our politicians are just giving us what they think we want to hear.
Okay, rant over.
MJC
December 13th, 2011
This is an embarrassment for our country. Romney should read the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution which states that no one should assume that rights NOT enumerated in the Constitution nevertheless ARE RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE.
cowboy
December 13th, 2011
Romney’s religion has two types of “marriages”. One is the civil ceremony you do in a Courthouse, Las Vegas, or some backyard. The other one is a “sealing” in their Temples and only Mormons in good standing with their Bishop are allowed to have a “sealing” inside their sacred Temples.
Why can’t Mitt allow the LGBT community have their civil marriages and the Mormons continue with their Temple marriages.
I have yet to hear anyone wanting a same-sex ‘sealing’ in a Mormon Temple.
dave
December 14th, 2011
Romney said when the Constitution was written, it was clear that marriage was between a man and a woman. Of course it was, they were ignorant bigots back then. Now that things are more open and have changed, marriage should change. I watch Romney in this clip with that smirk on his face and can see what the definition of a bigot is. From Merriam-Webster on line dictionary : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Leave A Comment