Box Turtle Bulletin

The Daily Agenda for Satuday, August 13

TODAY’S AGENDA:
Ames Straw Poll: Ames, IA. GOP Candidates will trek to Hilton Coliseum on the campus of Iowa State University today for the crucial Ames Straw Poll. The Straw Poll is part of a day-long event filled with speeches, barbecues, and fundraising for the Iowa Republican Party, which is why only those candidates who purchased space from the party, at a minimum price of $15,000, will be allowed to speak. For many candidates, this is the first test of their organizational strength and name recognition among Iowa voters. But other than that, the poll is utterly meaningless. As Politico’s Roger Simon puts it: “The Ames Straw Poll is a delightful fraud, an amiable hoax, that most people in Iowa don’t care about, but the national media eat up because the event seems so charmingly ‘Iowan.’ … It is organized bribery on a grand scale.” Today’s schedule goes like this:

Noon: Program begins

12:40: Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum

1:15: Texas Rep. Ron Paul

1:50: Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty

2:20: Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann

3:15: Godfather Pizza Magnate Herman Cain

4:00: Straw poll voting closes

Also scheduled to speak are Iowa Reps. Steve King and Tom Latham, and Sen. Chuck Grassley.

Rick Perry Announces Presidential Run: Charleston, SC. Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been scheduled for quite some time to deliver a speech at the RedState.com Gathering taking place this weekend in Charleston. Aides say that speech will be Perry’s official announcement that he is running for the GOP nomination for President. Following his speech tomorrow he will head off to New Hampshire for a fundraiser, and then tomorrow he will speak at the Black Hawk GOP’s Lincoln Day Dinner Fundraiser in Waterloo, Iowa.  Rep. Michele Bachmann, the Waterloo native who is seen as Perry’s chief rival for the social conservative vote, will also speak at the dinner. Perry’s “I’m Not A Mormon” Christians-only prayer event last weekend in Houston was seen by many as a prelude to today’s kick-off.

Perry’s entry into the race rounds out a thoroughly anti-gay lineup for the GOP nomination. When Texas voters approved a state constitutional amendment in 2005 banning same-sex marriage, Perry took the extraordinary step of convening a special signing ceremony in a Fort Worth megachurch — even though the Texas Constitution has no provision whatsoever for a governor’s signing of a constitutional amendment.

HRC’s Equality Bus Tour Launches: Salt Lake City, UT. The Human Rights Campaign has launched a twelve-week nationwide bus tour to spread the message of equality. Dubbed the “On the Road to Equality”, the bus tour will cover twelve cities in twelve weekends, with the first stop this weekend in Salt Lake City, Utah as guests of the Utah Pride Center. The event kicked off yesterday with a press conference. Today, HRC and UPC will host a a panel discussion featuring Dr. Caitlin Ryan of the Family Acceptance Project titled, Pathway to Acceptance: Supportive Families, Healthy Communities at the Salt Lake City Library (210 E 400) in Conference Room 4, from 2:00 to 4:00. HRC will also host a presentation and Open House at the Paris Ballroom at the Hotel Monaco, beginning at 4:00 p.m. Tomorrow there will be a 5K Fun Run at Liberty Park beginning at 10:00 a.m.

Australians Rally for Marriage Equality This Weekend: Adelaide, SA; Brisbane, QLD; Canberra, ACT; Melbourne, VIC; Perth, WA and Sydney, NWS.

Pride Celebrations This Weekend: Brighton, UK; Charleston, SC; Eugene, OR; Fargo, ND; Indianapolis, IN (Black Pride); Irvine, CA; Mannheim, Germany; Montréal, QC; New York, NY (Black Pride); Palouse/Moscow ID; Prague, Czech Rep.; Sligo, Ireland; and Wakefield, UK.

AIDS Walk This Weekend: Denver, CO.

Also This Weekend: Northalstead Market Days, Chicago, IL and Provincetown Carnival, MA.

Good news for a change

TODAY IN HISTORY:
“No Obits”: 1996. For the first time in more than seventeen years, the San Fransisco weekly Bay Area Reporter made the news because of a lack of news: there were no obituaries of AIDS victims in the August 13, 1996 edition. The rate of obituaries had been declining for the previous two years following the introduction of the so-called “AIDS cocktail, which surprised scientists and AIDS advocates alike for its effectiveness in halting and even reversing the health declines of those on medications. According to an AP article at the time, “The few days leading up to Monday’s deadline for submitting obits were tense at the newspaper. In the previous two weeks, none had been delivered until the last minute. ‘It was like watching a no-hitter in baseball unfolding,’ (news editor Mike) Salinas said. “We didn’t really want to discuss it until it became obvious that it was going to happen. We held our breath waiting.'” But the obit never came by the time the deadline arrived, and the paper celebrated with a front-page headline proclaiming “No Obits.”

Australia Amends Marriage Law Banning Same-Sex Marriage: 2004. The opposition Labor party joined the governing right-of-center Liberal Party to pass an amendment to Australia’s marriage law to ban same-sex marriage. Critics of the law challenged the government’s priorities, asking why there was a such a rush to ban same-sex marriage when the proposed anti-terrorism law hadn’t been voted on yet. Government and Labor responded by switching the schedule for the two bills and passed the anti-terrorism law first. Then both parties joined to cut off debate in the Senate. Democrat leader Sen. Andrew Bartlett condemned the move: “This is just an absolute disgrace … (you are saying) we have to do it now, otherwise society will crumble and the world will end. You are saying, ‘It is urgent that we take away as many freedoms and rights from people as possible and do it really quickly before they notice and get a chance to be upset about it’.” But that is exactly what they did, and the measure passed the Senate by a vote of 38-6.

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. PLEASE, don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

The militant homosexual savage attack on the religious freedom of little old lady affidavit signers

Anti-gay activists have a sense of entitlement that seems to know no bounds. They are entitled, they believe, to live their life without even acknowledging the existence of gay people. And furthermore, they are entitled to be free of the offense of knowing that you exist even when they have to hunt you down (like The Peter sneaking into a Leatherman event) in order to be offended.

When marriage equality was proposed in New York, victims abounded.

First there were the children, oh the children, same-sex marriage would harm the children. But after years of marriage in other states, they haven’t been able to identify any children who were in any way harmed.

So on they went to Society and the sacred institute of the marriage registry. But the harm to Society is intangible and it’s hard to pity a computer file, so it was religious freedom that they built their claim. The poor preachers and priests who would be forced to sanctify sin.

But most gay people (and all elected officials) are sympathetic to the indignity of a minister being forced to go against her beliefs, so exceptions were made for religious marriage. Even church halls are exempt.

The anti-gay ran individual business owners up the flagpole, but that one didn’t resonate. In this economy, there were probably more business owners secretly thinking “I hope my pastor doesn’t find out that I ran an ad in the gay newspaper” than were wanting to alienate any potential customers. And they’ve learned that when someone tells a news reporter, “I don’t want to sell to that kind of person” that it’s not a winning situation.

But the anti-gays didn’t have anything other options, so they stuck with their “religious freedom” guns. Surely there were victims if they looked hard enough. If gay people marry then someone will… well, be less religiously free in some way and we’ll get back to you on the details.

Laura Fotusky

Then they found their victims, the town clerks who are forced to put their signature – their very own personal signature – on homosexual “marriage” licenses. And a clerk promptly came forward to sacrifice her job, to live by her values rather than cooperate with sin. Laura L. Fotusky, the Town Clerk of Barker, resigned:

“I believe that there is a higher law than the law of the land. It is the law of God in the Bible. In Acts 5:29, it states, ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.'”
…
“I would be compromising my moral conscience if I participated in the licensing procedure. Therefore, I will be resigning as of July 21. I wanted you to know my position as I understand the marriage law goes into effect on July 24.”

Now, I am one who completely supports Ms. Fotusky’s decision to obey God rather than man. Provided, of course, that God is signing her paycheck. Otherwise, taxpayers are taxpayers.

Actually, I do pity poor Laura. It’s not likely that she would have given it a second thought, if the anti-gay activists hadn’t told her what her moral conscience has to say. After all, it didn’t seem to be troubled by divorced people, mixed faith couples, those who were clearly incompatible, or those who were not financial prepared for marriage. And unless her Bishop has hired her as church secretary, he really owe her an apology.

But much as I sympathize for poor Laura’s plight, I may be alone in that. Her story got lost in the celebrations. With couples beaming through their tears, mayors toasting champagne, churches hanging out banners, and people dancing in the streets, Laura’s tale of woe got lost. And martyr’s aren’t much use if no hears about them.

So another approach had to be crafted. What they need is a martyr whose story can drag on a while, someone who gets enough attention that their lost cause has a name attached.

So the Alliance Defense Fund decided that there was an extra-special exemption in state law that allows government employees to not do anything they don’t want to do, provided that they could put it in religious terms. By their reasoning, if a bureaucrat felt that they couldn’t “participate in the licensing procedure” unless the spouses-to-be passed their personal religious test, then the city was obligated to make special accommodations.

The law said nothing of the kind, of course, but going to court would surely get some attention. Someone would feel badly for the poor civic servant. So they cobbled together a memorandum and set out to find a sympathetic character.

If they could.

But that isn’t as easy as it might seem. The funny thing about town clerks is that they get into that job because they like marriage, they enjoy seeing people in love, they believe commitment makes society better. And, based on what I’ve seen over the years, even in conservative communities the marriage clerks tend to support marriage equality. And in New York, rather than boycott, they opened on the weekend, some even opening at midnight.

But now their efforts have paid off. The town clerk in Ledyard in Cayuga County decided to let ADF crucify her for the cause. (Auburnpub.com)

Ledyard Town Clerk Rose Marie Belforti submitted a letter to the Ledyard Town Board saying that her religious beliefs prevented her from signing marriage licenses for same-sex couples and the board discussed Belforti’s letter at Monday’s meeting, according to John Binns, a member of the town board.

When reached for comment Thursday, Belforti said “that’s not your business” before hanging up the phone.

Rose Marie Belforti (left)

Okay, well she may not be the most sympathetic character, perhaps, but you use what you’ve got.

Now if the town council is smart they’ll just say, “let’s deal with that when it comes up”. With a population of less than 2,000 residents, it might be a long long time before Rose Marie’s religious liberties are put to the test.

But, whatever they do, I think it’s important to keep in mind exactly what Rose Marie’s role is in the licensing procedure. Rose Marie doesn’t conduct the marriage. She doesn’t bless the marriage. She doesn’t attend the marriage. She doesn’t offer approval of the marriage. She doesn’t validate the information on the marriage license. She doesn’t even confirm that the marriage took place.

Rose Marie looks at identification to prove that the spouses are old enough to marry and that they are who they are, she watches them sign the marriage license, she has them swear that the information on the form is true, and she signs the affidavit: “Subscribed and sworn to/affirmed before me”.

Rose Marie’s role is nothing but a notary. I’m not putting down the importance of a notary in recognizing which documents are legally valid, but they don’t exactly participate in the negotiation or agreement that they are notarizing. They don’t object to the terms of the agreement – they don’t pay attention to them.

And according to notarywise.com,

“The only circumstances in which the notary may refuse to serve you is if the Notary is uncertain of a signer’s identity, willingness, mental awareness, or has cause to suspect fraud. Notaries may not refuse service on the basis of race, religion, nationality, lifestyle, or because the person is not a client or customer.

So Rose Marie essentially wants to do the job of a notary, on the taxpayer’s dollar, but unlike other notaries she wants to get veto power over the documents she signs.

Yeah…. I’m not feeling much sympathy.

Santorum Supports Tenth Amendment Except When He Doesn’t

And in last night’s GOP debate in Iowa, he carved out a HUGE exception for the Tenth Amendment when it comes to marriage equality:

Chris Wallace: Sen. Santorum, I see you wanting to jump in, your thoughts about RomneyCare.

Rick Santorum: Well, first, I was the first author of medical savings accounts back in 1992 whith John Kasich in the House. But this is a very important argument here. This is the Tenth Amendment run amuck. Michele Bachmanm says that she would go in and fight health care being imposed by states mandatory-up, but she wouldn’t go in and fight marriage being imposed by the states. That would be okay. We have Ron Paul saying, oh, whatever the states want to do under the Tenth Amendment’s fine. So if the states want to pass polygamy, that’s fine. If the states want to pass impose sterilization, that’s fine. No, our country is based on moral laws, ladies and gentlemen. There are things the states can’t do. Abraham Lincoln said, “the states do not have the right to do wrong.” I respect the Tenth Amendment, but we are a nation that has values. We are a nation that was built on a moral enterprise. And states don’t have the right to tramp over those because of the Tenth Amendment.

We are accustomed to seeing anti-gay extremists like Santorum lie unashamedly when it comes to gay people. And so it is a special treat to see him running amuck and lying about the positions of fellow Republicans right to their faces. Reagan must be rolling over in his grave. Bachmann has been an unwavering supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment which would short-circuit the Tenth Amendment exactly as Santorum argues it should. She reiterated her support again last night.  And as for polygamy, Paul handed Santorum’s head right back to him on a platter: “It’s sort of like asking the question if the states wanted to legalize slavery or something like that, that is so past reality that no state is going to do that.” But who ever said that Santorum was working with reality in the first place?

NOM Loses Another Attempt To Flout Campaign Laws

The National Organization for Marriage lost two more court cases yesterday when the First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their bid to avoid complying with Rhode Island’s and Maine’s campaign disclosure laws. NOM had asked a federal district judge to exempt them from Rhode Island’s requirement that they disclose money they spent to support various candidates. This case involves NOM’s support for political candidates. A separate case in Maine concerning NOM’s support for a ballot question that overturned Maine’s marriage equality law in 2009 is still pending before the First Circuit Court. A lower court had upheld Maine’s financial disclosure laws concerning ballot measures.

Do They Really Think This Will Work?

A church in Wilmington, NC.

It never ceases to amaze me how inept churches can be. Their “Great Commission,” according to the bible they claim to follow, is a simple one: bring in converts from all over the world. So how many gay people do you think will walk through the door after seeing a sign like this and say, “Gee, I never thought of it that way. Sign me up!”

By the way, the church’s facebook page is a riot with comments. A comment posted by the page owner says:

No comments will be deleted. Instead they are a testimony against you recorded in heaven to be used in heaven. Have at it.

[via Joe.My.God]

Another Anti-Gay Lawmaker Caught In Rentboy Scandal

At least he's a good tipper.

This time it’s Indiana state Rep. Phillip Hinkle (R-Wayne, Pike Twps). The Indianapolis Star has emails that were exchanged between Hinkle’s personal email account and a young man who had placed an ad in the “Casual Encounters” section on the Craigslist under “m4m.” The two met at a downtown Indianapolis Marriott after Hinkle offered Kameryn Gibson $80 with the promise of a $50 to $60 tip for a “really good time.” Part of the email exchange went like this:

The email offers “to make it worth (your) while” in cash, and offers a personal description: “I am an in shape married professional, 5’8″, fit 170 lbs, and love getting and staying naked.”

Fifteen minutes later, Kameryn Gibson replied: “Yes I can!” He also sent along his phone number.

What followed was an email exchange between phinkle46 @comcast.net and Kameryn Gibson. One email from Hinkle’s account asks “what will make you happy for giving me a couple hours of your time tonight?”

Gibson: “Wat (sic) can you give me?”

Phinkle46 @comcast.net: “How about $80 for services rendered and if real satisfied a healthy tip? That make it worth while?”

The two agreed on the price and discussed logistics. An email sent at 9:44 a.m., also with the signature “Sent from Phil’s iPad” and sent from Hinkle’s personal account, lays clear the parameters for the tip: “Final for the record, for a really good time, you could get another 50, 60 bucks. That sound good?”

Gibson said that after they met in the hotel room, he tried to leave after Hinkle told him he was a state lawmaker. He said Hinkle at first told him he could not leave, grabbed him in the rear, and sat down on the bed and let the towel he was wearing drop to the floor. Hinkle  later gave Gibson an iPad, BlackBerry cellphone and $100 cash to keep quiet.

Hinkle responded to the Star’s story by saying only that claims that “I am aware of a shakedown taking place.” He referred all other questions to his attorney. No police report alleging blackmail has been filed.

On February 15, 2011, the Indiana House approved a proposed amendment to the state Constitution banning same-sex marriage and civil unions. The vote was 70-26, with Hinkle supporting the measure (PDF: 4 KB/1 page).

Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) called the scandal a “family tragedy,” but refused to say whether Hinkle should resign the seat he’s held since 2000. State House Speaker Brian Bosma (R-Indianapolis) called it “an extremely sad and disappointing situation,” and said the would discuss the matter with Hinkle “and chart a course from there.”

The Daily Agenda for Friday, August 12

TODAY’S AGENDA:
Political “Soap Box” At Iowa State Fair: Des Moines, IA. . The Des Moines Register is hosting an old-fashioned political soapbox at the Iowa State Fair where presidential candidates can address attendees for up to twenty minutes on any topic they choose. Only one candidate spoke yesterday, but Mitt Romney’s turn on the soap box ended up becoming major news. Members of the Des Moines-based Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement who confronted Romney over proposed cuts to Medicare and Social Security.  Romney denounced the alternative of raising revenue from taxes on corporations, saying “Corporations are people too.” Today’s schedule at the soapbox will go like this:

• 10:30 a.m.: Businessman Herman Cain
• 11 a.m.: Michigan Rep. Thaddeus McCotter
• 11:30 a.m.: Former Sen. Rick Santorum
• 12:00 p.m.: Texas Rep. Ron Paul
• 12:30 p.m.: Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty
• 1:00 p.m.: Texas farmer Jared Blankenship
• 1:30 p.m.: GOP activist Fred Karger
• 2:00 p.m.: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair, Democratic National Committee (not a presidential candidate)
• 2:30 p.m.: Former Rep. Newt Gingrich
• 4 p.m.: Rep. Michele Bachmann

Out In Africa Film Festival: Johannesburg and Cape Town, South Africa. The 18th Out In Africa South African Gay & Lesbian Film Festival begins today. The lineup includes six feature films, four documentaries, and nine shorts from fourteen countries. On documentary, Getting Out, shows three gay Africans seeking asylum, but find that neither South Africa nor Europe are reliable sanctuaries for them. Another documentary, Waited For, follows a lesbian couple’s difficulties in adopting a child in South Africa. Glitterboys and Ganglands give a behind-the-scenes view of preparations for Miss Gay Western Cape. The festival runs through August 21.

Texas Transgender Nondiscrimination Summit: Houston, TX. After Texas A&M’s student council moved to force a shutdown of the school’s LGBT resource center last spring, organizers of the the statewide transgender conference feared that the campus would be an unsafe venue for their third annual meeting. Consequently, the Texas Transgender Nondiscrimination Summit, has been moved to the University of Houston to protect “the safety for the participants.” The 2011 summit begins today on the campus of the University of Houston and continues through tomorrow.

Australians Rally for Marriage Equality This Weekend: Adelaide, SA; Brisbane, QLD; Canberra, ACT; Melbourne, VIC; Perth, WA and Sydney, NWS.

Pride Celebrations This Weekend: Brighton, UK; Charleston, SC; Eugene, OR; Fargo, ND; Indianapolis, IN (Black Pride); Irvine, CA; Mannheim, Germany; Montréal, QC; New York, NY (Black Pride); Palouse/Moscow ID; Prague, Czech Rep.; Sligo, Ireland; and Wakefield, UK.

AIDS Walk This Weekend: Denver, CO.

Also This Weekend: Northalstead Market Days, Chicago, IL and Provincetown Carnival, MA.

Click to view the full broadsheet.

TODAY IN HISTORY:
Captain Nichols Hanged for “Buggery”: 1833. Yes, that was the actual British legal term for homosexual activity, and it was a capital offense until 1861, when the laws were finally relaxed to allow for life imprisonment. But that change came almost thirty years too late for Captain Henry Nichols. In 1833, the the London Courier printed the following account:

Captain Henry Nicholas Nicholls, who was one of the unnatural gang to which the late Captain Beauclerk belonged, (and which latter gentleman put an end to his existence), was convicted on the clearest evidence at Croydon, on Saturday last, of the capital offence of Sodomy; the prisoner was perfectly calm and unmoved throughout the trial, and even when sentence of death was passed upon him. In performing the duty of passing sentence of death upon the prisoner, Mr. Justice Park told him that it would be inconsistent with that duty if he held out the slightest hope that the law would not be allowed to take its severest course. At 9 o’clock in the morning the sentence was carried into effect. The culprit, who was fifty years of age, was a fine looking man, and had served in the Peninsular war. He was connected with a highly respectable family; but, since his apprehension not a single member of it visited him.

You can also read a different account from a popular broadsheet by clicking the above image.

[via ExecutedToday.com (which proves that there is truly a blog for everything)]

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. PLEASE, don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

GOP Candidates On Same-Sex Marriage

Think Progress has a handy compilation clip from Thursday night’s GOP debate in Iowa of candidates discussing same-sex marriage. One of my favorite reactions comes from across the Pond, with The Guardian’s Richard Adams responding to Romney’s argument that “marriage is a status“:

Looking back through some clips, there’s Romney saying: “Marriage is a status, it’s not an activity.” Who says romance is dead, eh? Calling marriage a “status” makes it sound like a Facebook update.

The emerging consensus, albeit a snarky one,  is that the debate’s real winner was Rick Perry, who doesn’t officially declare his candidacy until tomorrow.

Here’s the clip and transcript.

Mitt Romney: Marriage should be decided at the federal level. … Marriage is a status. It’s not an activity that goes on within the walls of a state and as a result, our marriage status relationship should be constant across the country. I believe we should have a federal amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman because I believe the ideal place to raise a child is in a home with a mom and a dad.

Jon Huntsman: I also believe in civil unions, because I think this nation can do a better job when it comes to equality. And I think this nation can do a better job when it comes to reciprocal beneficiary rights rights. And I believe that this is something that ought to be discussed among the various states. I don’t have any problem with the states having this discussion. But as for me, I support civil unions.

Ron Paul: (About whether polygamy would “be okay too”) It’s sort of like asking the question if the states wanted to legalize slavery or something like that, that is so past reality that no state is going to do that. But on the issue of marriage, I think marriage should be between a single man and a single woman and that the federal government shouldn’t be involved. I want less government involvement. I don’t want the federal government having a marriage police.

Rick Santorum: It sounds to me like Rep. Paul would actually say polygamous marriages are okay. If the state has the right to do it, they have the right to do it.

Michele Bachmann: I support the Federal Marriage Amendment because I believe that we will see this issue at the Supreme Court someday, and as president I would not nominate activist judges who legislate from the bench. I also want to say that when I was in Minnesota, I was the chief author of the Constitutional amendment to define marriage as one-man, one-woman. I have an absolutely unblemished record when it comes to this issue of man-woman marriage.

Santorum Supports Gay Rights — In Iran

Just when you think you know a guy…

Of course this particular point about gays is moot. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad famously declared in 2007 that there are no beers in Iran.

The Idiocy of Making Men from Straw

The National Organization “for” Marriage is upset with us again. According Jennifer Roback Morse (NOM’s resident big-brain), we’re guilty of intimidation though breathing.

Seriously.

No, seriously.

Morse writes in her article, Intelligent Replies to Idiotic Comments, Part 2, (Gasp!!!):

“But same sex couples already have children!” This is not, strictly speaking, an idiotic comment, since it is a statement of fact.  However, I want to call your attention to the exasperated gasp (EG for short) that usually accompanies this comment.  The EG is designed to intimidate the listener into believing that some deeply important conclusion follows instantly and obviously from the observation that same sex couples already have children in their homes.  The Exasperated Gasp is supposed to convey that the whole issue is a done deal, and we shouldn’t offer any resistance to further social change.

And again, at the end,

The true statement, But same sex couples already have children!” accompanied by an Exasperated Gasp, is either an intimidation tactic, or another idiotic comment.  Take your pick.

Have you noticed a shift in NOM’s rhetoric? As their public support dwindles, they’re now casting themselves as the bullied victims of power-mad gays out to strip them of their basic rights.

And apparently we’ve gotten so good we can do it with a single breath.

I do have to point one thing out (because it may be confusing). Her warning that we breathe while exasperated is intended to be her intelligent reply to our idiotic respiration. Whoa.

Morse continues:

Let’s examine this. What exactly is it that supposedly follows automatically and obviously [from the true statement that same sex couples already have children]?

She offers several possibilities, some merely straw men, some genuinely offensive.

Same sex couples should be encouraged to have more children. No, that doesn’t follow.  You’d have to make an argument to support that conclusion.

She’s right, it doesn’t follow. But when did we ever say it does. The fact is, same-sex couples already have children! Those children exist, will continue to exist, and would benefit from marriage rights bestowed on their parents. Whether same-sexers should be encouraged to have more kids or not is entirely beside the point — the point being that these children exist.

So that’s a straw man. Next?

Same sex couples will continue to have more children, no matter what the law does or doesn’t do. No, that doesn’t follow either. As a matter of fact, the law can, if it chooses, make it quite difficult for same sex couples to share parenting rights.

In the first place, it doesn’t matter that much, because these children already exist. And same-sexers will continue to have kids and raise them. Even if the law can “make it quite difficult for same sex couples to share parenting rights” (nice veiled threat there, Jennifer, and the “quite” adds a great James-Bond-villain flavor, circa 1967 — I can see you sitting in a huge chair stroking a white kitty saying, We can make it quite difficult to share parenting rights, Mr. Bond), the law will have a hard time keeping us from sharing parenting responsibilities. We’d just have to do so without the legal protections put in place to safeguard the child, things like the child’s access to both parents’ healthcare plans.

That makes this a factually incorrect straw man offering a repugnant veiled threat. Next?

Same sex couples have children the same way opposite sex couples do.

I don’t know anyone who says this, or even hopes to convey it through an Exasperated Gasp. We do say that same sex couples can raise children the same way opposite sex couples do, which is a different point entirely

Straw man. Next?

Same sex couples should be allowed to marry so “their” children can have all the benefits of marriage.

STOP!  I can’t handle the scare quotes around “their.”  This is one of NOM’s most despicable and frequent insinuations: that adoptive parents aren’t a child’s real parents. And I truly don’t get it. Morse herself has adopted a child and I can’t believe she introduces the kid by saying, This is “my” child, complete with air quotes on the my.

Anyway, this is not a straw man. If our offensive exhalations mean to signify anything, it’s that children of same sex parents deserve the protections of marriage. What is Morse’s intelligent reply?

No, this doesn’t follow either.  This assumes that the “marriage” of a same sex couple will work in the same way as the marriage of a man and a woman. This is highly doubtful. We already know that in terms of economic behavior, male couples are different from female couples, and both are different from married couples. We also know that separation rates (ie divorces) are different for male couples and for female couples and both are different (higher, like way higher) than for married couples.  We have no reason to assume that  same sex “marriage” will function in the same way, and convey all the same benefits to children, as natural, conjugal marriage does.

So many things wrong here,  I’ll have to number them.

1. Dr. Morse, please explain how these (unspecified) economic differences will lead to differences in the way marriages function, especially as they relate to parenting. It’s not enough to toss out “highly doubtful” and pretend you’ve said something real.

2. “We already know that in terms of economic behavior, male couples are different from female couples, and both are different from married couples.” Well that’s easy: let all these couples become married couples, and those (unspecified) difference will disappear! Wait, too glib? Sorry, Dr. Morse, but if your argument is glib, it’s tough to give any other kind of reply.

3. “We also know that separation rates (ie divorces)…” No, you can’t get away with that. An unmarried couple separating is not the same as a married couple divorcing. Straight people themselves generally enter and end a number of relationships before finally marrying. More to the point, though: Morse’s own rhetoric stresses the importance of a strong “marriage culture” for keeping a child’s parents together. She can’t deny that culture to same-sex couples and then blame them for not staying together — not if she want usto take your ideology seriously.

4. The whole line of reasoning based on “separation rates” is ugly. I’ve dealt with this before. Morse introduced it last May with a Gary Gates study on these rates. Here’s the thing: this same study says that both partners being African-American is negatively correlated with staying together. Or both partners being Asian/Pacific Islander. Or the couple being interracial.  Yet I’m sure Morse would never conclude that “there is no reason to believe” that interracial marriage, or marriage between African-Americans, or between Asians, would function the same as marriage between two white people. Surely she would denounce such a conclusion. So why is she so eager to say it about gays?

I’m sorry. I have to stop now. I let slip a few Exasperated Gasps as I typed this piece, and I wouldn’t want such intimidating idiocy to violate Morse’s right to share her intelligent replies. I could only continue if I stopped breathing altogether, and Morse surely wouldn’t want that.

LA Times covers Fred

On Tuesday the LA Times ran an article by Mark Barabak about gay Jewish Republican presidential candidate Fred Karger,

By running for president and trying to get on stage for at least one debate — the overriding goal of his candidacy — Karger hopes to send a message to people like himself: a boy growing up outside Chicago and, later, a closeted adult, shamed by society’s view of his sexuality and too scared to admit, even to himself, who he was.

They need to understand, Karger says, that not only is it OK to be gay, it’s also possible to be gay and an unflinching candidate for the nation’s highest office.

Ultimately, Fred’s goal is revolutionary. If he is successful, he will – at some point – walk onto a stage in front of cameras and show the world that the quest for the American Presidency actually is open to anyone who is dedicated to the fight and whose positions can resonate with voters.

And, to the horror of much of the Republican Party, Fred mere presence would demonstrate that “anyone” doesn’t come with an *asterisk.

(* – except gay people)

Now It’s Tea And Not Basketball

The metaphors become even more strained:

Rick Santorum today finally wrapped up his 50-city tour de Iowa. He continued to press anti-gay views, saying that calling same-sex marriage a marriage would be like calling a cup of tea a basketball. He repeatedly quoted a study that families do better in heterosexual marriages. Though that study actually uses the phrase “nuclear” family, which can include same-sex couples.

He made those remarks yesterday at a very lonely stop of the “Value Voters Bus Tour” which is making its way through Iowa. He’s really been straining at the metaphors: napkins and not paper towels, water and not beer. But none of those metaphors have the punchiness of “frothy mix.” His weird metaphors may go on a temporary hiatus: Santorum is reportedly developing  laryngitis. That development will be particularly timely if it affects his participation in tonight’s GOP debate.

The Daily Agenda for Thursday, August 11

TODAY’S AGENDA:
Fox News Hosts Iowa Presidential Debate: Ames, IA. And all the GOP candidates will be there: former Utah Gov. Jon Hunstman, former Massachusetts Gov. Mit Romney, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Rep. Ron Paul, former Sen. Rich Santorum, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, businessman Herman Cain — and openly gay candidate Fred Karger. But Karger won’t be on the stage tonight, despite meeting all of the criteria that Fox News set out as qualifications for participating. Attorneys for Karger say they are preparing a complaint to the Federal Elections Commission, saying that Fox News is in violation of FEC rules governing all presidential debates. The debate begins tonight at 9:00 p.m. EDT and will air on Fox News.

Political “Soap Box” At Iowa State Fair: Des Moines, IA. Iowa hosts one of the largest state fairs in the country, which opens today. And this year it coincides with a big weekend for Iowa’s political junkies, what with tonight’s Fox News debate and the Ames Straw Poll on Saturday. The Des Moines Register is hosting an old-fashioned political soapbox at the State Fair, where presidential candidates can address attendees for up to twenty minutes on any topic they choose. And unlike Fox News, the Register’s forum is pretty open to just about everyone, including Fred Karger and an obscure farmer from Texas. Today is the first day of the fair, and so the soapbox schedule is extremely light. The only candidate scheduled to speak today is Mitt Romney, beginning at 10:30 a.m. Tomorrow’s schedule looks like this:

• 10:30 a.m.: Businessman Herman Cain
• 11 a.m.: Michigan Rep. Thaddeus McCotter
• 11:30 a.m.: Former Sen. Rick Santorum
• 12:00 p.m.: Texas Rep. Ron Paul
• 12:30 p.m.: Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty
• 1:00 p.m.: Texas farmer Jared Blankenship
• 1:30 p.m.: GOP activist Fred Karger
• 2:00 p.m.: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair, Democratic National Committee (not a presidential candidate)
• 2:30 p.m.: Former Rep. Newt Gingrich
• 4 p.m.: Rep. Michele Bachmann

Australians Rally for Marriage Equality: Adelaide, SA; Brisbane, QLD; Canberra, ACT; Melbourne, VIC;   Perth, WA and Sydney, NWS. Seven years ago this Saturday, Prime Minister John Howard’s government, with support from the opposition Labour Party, attached an amendment to the Marriage Act restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Every years sine then, large crowds have observed the anniversary with demands to repeal the law. This weekend, rallies will be held in the nation’s capital of Canberra and in six state capitals. Members of the House of Representatives are currently on break for consultations with their constituents, and many report that they are hearing overwhelming responses against same-sex marriage despite public opinions polls showing that a solid majority of Australians support marriage equality. Advocates hope that these rallies will grab their representatives’ attention.

Pride Celebrations This Weekend: Brighton, UK; Charleston, SC; Eugene, OR; Fargo, ND; Indianapolis, IN (Black Pride); Irvine, CA; Mannheim, Germany; Montréal, QC; New York, NY (Black Pride); Palouse/Moscow ID; Prague, Czech Rep.; Sligo, Ireland; and Wakefield, UK.

AIDS Walk This Weekend: Denver, CO.

Also This Weekend: Northalstead Market Days, Chicago, IL and Provincetown Carnival, MA.

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. PLEASE, don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

Homosexuality Is Like An Ice Cream Flavor

Either that, or it’s like riding a scooter:

Vanillaphobe

Rep. Allen West (R-FL): You cannot compare me and my race to a behavior. Sexuality is a behavior. And so yeah, I say it: I cannot change my color. People can change their sexual behavior. And I’ve seen people do that. You know, I grew up in Atlanta, Georgia, so I’ve seen a very different perspective on human behaviors. So that’s where I’m coming from with that. Now everyone has the same basic rights. No one is telling people in the gay community that they don’t the same basic rights that any American has.

Q: You say people can change their behavior. Do you think gay people should change their behavior?

West: Oh, Tony, come on, no. I don’t think that. I mean, I like chocolate chip ice cream, and I will continue to like chocolate chip ice cream. So there’s no worry about me changing to vanilla. I like to, you know, I like to ride my motorcycle. What do you want me to do? You want me to change my behavior and ride a scooter? I’m not into that.

Yeah, more crappy metaphors, and reaching for ice cream flavors puts him dangerously close to becoming a political Forrest Gump. But at least I can find two silver linings here: 1) West doesn’t think gay people should change, and 2) he finds homosexuality to be kinda vanilla. Both opinions put him at odds with several other fellow party-members. But on the other hand, he also can’t seem to understand that marriage is “the same basic right” that he enjoys. Talk about your oxymorons.

Update: West took some flack for comparing homosexuality to ice cream flavors and hit back by saying that vanilla ice cream should be banned form the military. Or something like that:

I think that what I said is that is behavior, and so what I talked about is, look, I prefer or I like chocolate chip ice cream, and I’m not going against what someone prefers or has as their behavioral preference in their life. But when you start to understand about the United States military, the United States military serves one mission — that’s to fight and win our nation’s wars. And if we start to take the military and try to conform it to individual behaviors, no matter what those individual behaviors are, we’re going to lose the essence of what the United States military is.

Couple recognition in Latin America

As it stands, much of Latin America either has some form of couple recognition or is in the process of doing so.

Marriage – Argentina 2010
Marriage – Mexico 2010 – marriage must occur in Mexico City but recognized throughout
Civil Unions – Uruguay 2007
Civil Unions – Ecuador 2008
Civil Unions – Brazil 2011
Proposed – Colombia 2011 – Court directed the legislature to draft law
Proposed – Chile 2011 – President proposed Life Partnership (Civil Unions) bill