Box Turtle Bulletin

Judge Ware confirms Walker’s Prop 8 decision

LA Times

A federal judge on Tuesday refused to invalidate last year’s ruling against Proposition 8, deciding the gay jurist who overturned the same-sex marriage ban had no obligation to step aside because of a possible conflict of interest.

The decision by Chief Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco left the ruling by retired Judge Vaughn R. Walker in place. Walker’s decision remains on hold pending a separate appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Pretty much as expected.

Now the focus turns to the CA Supreme Court who will determine if California law allows for the authors of propositions (or other people who are not named in lawsuits) to step in when the defendants decide not to appeal a court’s decision.

UPDATE: The beautiful language that I’m sure the Prop 8 Proponents did not want to be established as precedent (idiots):

After considering the Oppositions to the Motion and the governing law, as discussed below, the Court finds that neither recusal nor disqualification was required based on the asserted grounds. The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification under Section 455(b)(4). Further, under Section 455(a), it is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceedings. Accordingly, the Motion to Vacate Judgment on the sole ground of Judge Walker’s same-sex relationship is DENIED.

In other words, even if Judge Walker wanted to marry his partner, such a wish is no different from any other member of the general public and would not be grounds for recusal. And read this:

[I]t is inconsistent with the general principles of constitutional adjudication to presume that a member of a minority group reaps a greater benefit from application of the substantive protections of our Constitution than would a member of the majority. The fact that this is a case challenging a law on equal protection and due process grounds being prosecuted by members of a minority group does not mean that members of the minority group have a greater interest in equal protection and due process than the rest of society. In our society, a variety of citizens of different backgrounds coexist because we have constitutionally bound ourselves to protect the fundamental rights of one another from being violated by unlawful treatment. Thus, we all have an equal stake in a case that challenges the constitutionality of a restriction on a fundamental right. One of the duties placed on the shoulders of federal judges is the obligation to review the law to determine when unequal treatment violates our Constitution and when it does not. To the extent that a law is adjudged violative, enjoining enforcement of that law is a public good that benefits all in our society equally. Although this case was filed by same-sex couples seeking to end a California constitutional restriction on their right to marry, all Californians have an equal interest in the outcome of the case. The single characteristic that Judge Walker shares with the Plaintiffs, albeit one that might not have been shared with the majority of Californians, gave him no greater interest in a proper decision on the merits than would exist for any other judge or citizen.

Wow. Just, wow.

NY Daily News’ wide-eyed expose of NOM

Okay, it’s a little breathless. And, yeah, it could probably be classified as “liberal media bias”. (NY Daily News)

A shadowy group run by religious fundamentalists is bankrolling a pitched crusade against same-sex marriage in New York.

Secretive and flush with cash, the National Organization for Marriage is igniting a culture war as it battles Gov. Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg in their campaign to legalize gay wedlock.

But that is the way that thePost writes and, well, it’s the facts ma’am. As ooky-spooky nefarious as it sounds, they’re spot-on:

“They came into the state with a big splash,” said civil rights lawyer Evan Wolfson, president of Chelsea-based Freedom to Marry. “They’re basically just a shell group that exists to funnel money into anti-gay causes from a small set of secret donors.”

Some day we will know exactly which super-rich Catholics are using NOM as an intermediary in their effort to finance the institutionalization of Catholic Doctrine into civil law. But in the meantime, New Yorkers need to know the truth about NOM and their purpose. Even if it is a bit over the top in style.

[Ugh…. No, this was not a NY Post article. It’s the Daily News]

France votes “no” on to marriage equality

France has a limited second-tier recognition it allows for same sex couples, pacte civil de solidarité. It appears that this will remain the case for a while (Pink News)

The French parliament has rejected a bill designed to give gay couples the right to marry.

Today, lawmakers voted by 293 votes to 222 to block the bill, which was not expected to pass.

This is a bit ironic. One of the unexpected results of offering the second tier PACS is that many opposite-sex couples are opting for PACS as a sort of trial-marriage rather than take on the full obligations in marriage. Those who voted for religious beliefs about marriage being ideal or who sought to “protect marriage” actually hurt their cause.

Daily Agenda for Tuesday, June 14

This is an extremely light day. Other than it being Flag Day (U.S.) and Boy George’s birthday (1961), there’s just not a whole lot happening as far as I know. We’ll try this again tomorrow.

U.S. Bankruptcy Court Declares DOMA Unconstitutional

When Gene Douglas Balas and Carlos A. Morales, a married couple in California, tried to file a joint bankruptcy petition, the U.S Trustee in the case moved to dismiss the case because the couple were both males, and thus didn’t qualify for a joint bankruptcy filing because of DOMA. The judge was skeptical. “The debtors are already married to each other, and allowing them to proceed jointly in this bankruptcy case cannot have the slightest cognizable effect on anyone else’s marriage,” Judge Thomas B. Donovan said.

Because the case was filed after Attorney General Eric Holder revealed that the Justice Department would not defend DOMA under a rational basis test, the bankruptcy court forwarded to case to the U.S House of Representatives’ Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which is defending the Defense of Marriage Act in several other cases. But the BLAG chose not to respond, leaving the bankruptcy court to conclude:

This court cannot conclude from the evidence or the record in this case that any valid governmental interest is advanced by DOMA as applied to the Debtors. Debtors have urged that recent governmental defenses of the statute assert that DOMA also serves such interests as “preserving the status quo,” “eliminating inconsistencies and easing administrative burdens” of the government. None of these post hoc defenses of DOMA withstands heightened scrutiny. In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion: the Debtors have made their case persuasively that DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled.

One more nail in the coffin…

[Timothy: This ruling was not signed solely by Judge Donovan, but by twenty of the twenty-five judges who serve the Central California Division (Los Angeles) of the US Bankruptcy Court. In my employment, I’ve worked with a number of these judges and they are very diverse in temperament and perspective. It is rather amazing to get this level of agreement.]

LezAin’tReal

It was just last week when we learned that the so-called Lesbian Syrian Blogger known as Amina Arraff was actually Tom MacMaster, a man who was born in Georgia and is currently living in Scotland. Before MacMaster revealed his hoax, one of “Amina’s” strongest defenders was LezGetReal’s Executive Editor Paula Brooks:

On Friday, the editor of Lez Get Real, a lesbian news Web site based in Washington, told readers she and Amina had corresponded after Amina posted a thoughtful comment on her site. The editor said she had determined that Amina’s e-mails had been sent from a computer in Edinburgh.

In several interviews, the editor — who spoke on condition that she be identified only by her pseudonym, Paula Brooks — said she encouraged Amina to write more, first on Lez Get Real and later on a new blog, titled “A Gay Girl in Damascus.”

Yesterday, MacMaster apologized on the blog, saying “While the narrative voice may have been fictional, the facts on thıs blog are true and not mısleading as to the situation on the ground, I do not believe that I have harmed anyone — I feel that I have created an important voice for issues that I feel strongly about.”

Others on the ground in Syrian disagree sharply. MacMaster really did put a lot of people in harm’s way because of his vanity:

“MacMaster’s hoax aimed at enhancing continuous fabrications and lies against Syria in term (sic) of kidnapping bloggers and activists,” a report on state-run news agency SANA said.

Syrian state TV aired a report on MacMaster’s “lies.”

Linda S. Carbonell, Managing Editor of LezGetReal, also worried about MacMaster’s lies causing harm as well — to their web site:

The website that identified you, Electronic Intifada, thinks we are zionists working against the Palestinians. …Worse, that same site is accusing us of not existing. They accused our executive editor of being an avatar, called into question her qualifications and entire life experiences. …

Both Paula (Brooks) and I have close family members who work for the government. … Paula and I have always worked under pseudonyms to protect our families. Furthermore, because our site is blatantly and unapologetically liberal, we risk our own jobs if our site is connected to us. America is not free. It just pretends to be.

That was yesterday. And so today, we now learn that Paula Brooks isn’t who she says she is:

Just one day after the author behind a popular Syrian lesbian blog admitted to being a married, American man named Tom MacMaster, the editor of the lesbian news site Lez Get Real, with the tag­line “A Gay Girl’s View on the World,” acknowledged that he is also a man.

“Paula Brooks,” editor of Lez Get Real since its founding in 2008, is actually Bill Graber, 58, a retired Ohio military man and construction worker who said he had adopted his wife’s identity online. Graber said she was unaware he had been using her name on his site.

Linda S. Corbonell responds to this latest body-blow to LezGetReal’s credibility with this rambling post just hours ago:

I am Linda Carbonell. That’s my maiden name. Back in the stone age when I got married, there was no question of keeping my own name, but it’s the name I call myself, and when one of the people my husband worked for in the Federal Judiciary threatened his job if I ever wrote another letter to an editor, I started using my maiden name to keep writing those letters and joining on-line political groups. Even though he’s retired, I’ve kept it up because I am me, not an extension of him.  So I will continue to write as Linda Carbonell, even though the Washington Post has, in my sister’s words, “outed” me as Linda Carbonell LaVictoire.

Maybe I’m too naive. It honestly never occurred to me that there were people who could take someone like my Reiny and create a life on the internet with it. I’m not dumb enough to believe everything on the net – heaven knows there is way too much junk, hate and conspiracy nonsense out there, but I never really questioned whether or not the people were real.

The past three days have been devastating for all of us on LezGetReal. “Paula Brooks” has been a part of our lives for three years now. I’m still trying to wrap my mind around this. It has been especially hard for Bridgette because theirs was a very good friendship.

Would that be Bridgette P. LaVictoire — who now happens to share the same last name as Linda Carbonell LaVictoire? Bridgette’s “interview” of “Dr. Paula Brooks” seems rather fawning, don’t you think?

If I sound suspicious, it is because at this point I don’t know who or what to believe over there. I can vouch for the real-life existence of Melanie Nathan, one of the writers at LezGetReal. I met her last year at the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association convention in San Francisco. She does appear to be who she says she is. Melanie is no longer associated with LezGetReal. But as for the others I think a heavy dose of skepticism is in order for everything posted over there until all of this is sorted out.

I can also personally vouch for all the writers here at BTB. I have often wanted to expand the number of writers at this web site, but I have always insisted on watching, vetting, and getting to know something about each of our writers before inviting them on. I’ve met them all except one, and that one I’ve spoken to on the phone and he came highly recommended by other good friends of mine who know him.

And everyone writes under their own given name. BTB is a pseudonym-free zone. It didn’t become that way because of policy; it’s just the way it has worked out. But I do think that it will be a good policy to have from now on.

UPDATE: I’m told that Bridgette P. LaVictoire is Linda Carbonell LaVictoire’s daughter. I’m waiting for the long form birth certificate.

Judge Walker’s day (not) in court

Perry v. Schwarzenegger’s retired Judge Vaughn Walker was not physically in court today. However, he was the only topic of debate.

Today Judge James Ware, Walker’s replacement, listened to arguments on two issues: First, should all copies of the trial tapes be rounded up and put under lock and key? Second, should the results of Perry v. Schwarzenegger be thrown out because Walker, a gay man in a relationship, should have recused himself?

Courage Campaign’s Prop8TrialTracker was there again to provide us with sometimes-almost-transcripts of the arguments. And it did not go well for the Proponents of Proposition 8.

The supporters of Proposition 8 were irate that Judge Walker had removed the tapes of the trial from his chambers and shown them on national TV!! (Actually this was a three minute clip used during a lecture which CSPAN filmed from across the room – without zoom – at an angle. I honestly couldn’t make out the person’s age, race or gender, much less who they were. It might have been Alf, for all I could tell –was Alf one of their witnesses?). But as part of their “we’re afraid of marauding gays” tactic, they sought to discredit Judge Walker as not being respectful of the danger to their witnesses.

In a fascinating turn of events, Judge Ware cleared up just how Walker had the trial tapes in his personal possession for sampling in lectures: it seems that he had given them to Walker during a gavel-passing ceremony when he retired. And then the discussion quickly became an agreement that this really wasn’t an issue after all.

The second question was even more interesting. Judge Ware started off by disclosing that he had conducted same-sex weddings, and commented that a reversal would only be a delay as whoever was the new judge would come to the same conclusion. Dinner is not going to be a happy meal at Maggie Gallagher’s tonight.

The legal question of whether Judge Walker should have recused himself goes a bit like this:

First, was there any financial component? If Walker could have made a cent one way or the other, then he HAD to recuse himself. That one went no where.

Secondly, was Perry a case that would effect Walker personally. If a reasonable person, knowing the facts, would think that the judge might be impartial, there is an argument for recusal.

This is a touchy one for the Proponents. Ware is a black man married to a white woman. Not only was yesterday’s 44th anniversary of the Loving decision still a fresh reminder, but Ware could recall the days when racists argued that a black judge couldn’t be unbiased in a civil rights case. And Ware was not hesitant to make such comparisons.

Charles Cooper, for the Proponents, agreed that there was no reason a gay man could not judge a case involving, say, some issue that would not effect him personally. No, no, no. It’s not because Walker is gay (it really is) but because he’s in a relationship. And here’s where it got interesting.

Judge Ware is not all that fond of the reasonableness test. He thinks that reasonable people have all sorts of biases and bigotries they carry around with them, but that doesn’t make them constitutional. (And he’s right. Just because one can reason, doesn’t mean that they are right. Plenty of very reasonable people hold prejudices. Of course, over time – being reasonable people – many think, educate themselves, grow, and evolve.)

And there was also the problem about “knowing the facts”. Cooper kept asserting that because Walker has been in a relationship for ten years, then therefore this equates to being “similarly situated to the plaintiffs.” Judge Ware had to remind him repeatedly that it was not a “fact” that Walker intended, wanted, or even considered marrying his partner. It was only speculation, not a fact, that Cooper has to support his claim.

Cooper, unable to assert that Walker truly wanted to marry, focused on Walker’s failure to disclose his relationship. Ware wasn’t easy on that issue. He posed some other questions about disclosure and recusal:

You’ve raised the disclosure question many times. You seem to say that judge is required to disclose. In a case where race is involved, sometimes disclosure not made because obvious. We are bound by our past which is largely irrelevant. If a female judge has suffered rape or sexual assault and is hearing a case on rape/assault, must she disclose?

Ware wasn’t all that pleased with the argument that a judge is presumed to be biased and must disclose all the details of their history. He seemed resistant to Cooper’s idea that if Walker didn’t have an interest in marrying, he should have announced his relationship along with his disinclination to marry and let “reasonable people” decide whether to ask for recusal.

Ted Boutrous, for the Plaintiffs, took a rather aggressive position. He asserted that in cases of race, ethnicity, religion, members of a minority group can act without bias, even if they themselves are in a position to benefit from a civil rights case. He argued that gay people get in relationships – that’s what people do. And do insist that ‘gay in a relationship’ was inherently biased is really to argue that gay judges are incapable of judging a case fairly.

Courts do not presume that a judge is biased. Rather, they presume the opposite – that a judge, who has gone through appointment, vetting, and approval is capable of performing his job without bias. To presume that Walker is biased, is to make the special presumption that gay judges (and by implication all minority judges) are unlike other judges.

Ware did not ready to agree that Walker should have presided over a marriage case if he, himself, intended to marry. And he was not without some questions for Ted Boutrous.

He noted that race is often obvious and need no disclosure, while orientation is often not. So he questioned whether Boutrous believed that the judge in Perry v. Schwarzenegger should disclose religious affiliation? What if he were Mormon?

Boutrous responded that regardless of a judge’s religious affiliation “we presume that judge is able to live up to his duty of impartiality.” (This is an interesting direction, considering that both Judge Walker and Judge Ware are Republicans, another non-obvious attribute that clearly didn’t direct their judgement on marriages).

Judge Ware noted that while race, religion, and gender issues had been addressed in the past, this was the first time that the question has been raised about the impartiality of gay people and that it had to given due seriousness. Nevertheless, he indicated that he will make his judgement promptly, probably within 24 hours.

We have reason to be cautiously optimistic.

New Hope for NY Marriage

The man who tells you that he can predict what Albany will do is either a fool or a liar. However, there is some very promising last-minute news out of New York. First, the NYTimes tells us that the last Democratic Senator holdouts (other than Sen. Diaz) have pledged support:

The three Democratic senators — Joseph P. Addabbo Jr. and Shirley L. Huntley of Queens and Carl Kruger of Brooklyn — all voted against the measure in 2009, when it failed by a wide margin. Their switch to the yes column leaves all but one Senate Democrat supporting same-sex marriage — and the fate of the legislation in the hands of the Republican majority in the chamber.

This brings the total support count among Democrats to 29. The bill needs the support of at least 3 Republicans to reach the 32 majority. But the New York Post reports that this may be more than possible.

Seven or more Senate Republicans have signaled Gov. Cuomo that they’re ready to legalize same-sex marriage, more than enough to put the controversial and historic measure over the top this week, The Post has learned.

A highly knowledgeable Senate insider said yesterday that “far more of the [GOP] members are in play than anyone realizes, including some surprising names from conservative upstate areas.”

Among the unexpected potential Senate Republican “yes” votes, insiders say, are Kemp Hannon of Nassau County, Charles Fuscillo of Suffolk County, Betty Little of Glens Falls, Andrew Lanza of Staten Island, Greg Ball of Putnam County, James Alesi of Rochester, and Roy McDonald of Rensselaer County — all of whom helped defeat gay marriage when the vote was held in December 2009.

Of course, all of that can change in a heartbeat.

UPDATE: Republican Senator James Alesi has confirmed that he will vote for marriage

“I am doing this on my own initiative. I really am not down here because I have been guaranteed that we will have enough votes to pass this. It is my hope, not just here in New York State, but all across the nation that if a Republican senator can stand before his constituents and say that he supports marriage equality, that he supports equality for all Americans without regard for their gender or their sexual preference that we can start here in New York State and look at it as is a national initiative that America is for Freedom and equality.”

Petition Calls On Southern Baptists To Apologize

A large group of Southern Baptists will gather in Phoenix this week for their annual convention. As leading proponents of ex-gay ministries, they have been front and center of a larger anti-gay political movement. Several LGBT advocacy groups plan to greet the convention with a gathering of their own. Faith in America, Soulforce, Truth Wins Out, Get Equal, and the Association of Affirming and Welcoming Baptists will join a local group of Phoenix-area clergy known as Believe Out Loud for a demonstration calling on the Southern Baptist Convention to apologize for the harm its teachings have caused the LGBT community, particularly to the youth. There is an online petition which will be hand-delivered following a protest outside the SBC’s annual meeting in Phoenix on Wednesday, a day that marks the religious group’s historic apology to African Americans for supporting slavery and Jim Crow laws.

So far, more than 5,000 people have signed the petition calling on the SBC to apologize. You can add your name to the petition here.

The Daily Agenda for Monday, June 13

TODAY’S AGENDA:
Prop 8 Appeals Hearing: San Francisco, CA. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California will hold oral arguments on a motion filed by Prop 8 proponents seeking to overturn Judge Walker’s ruling striking down Prop 8 as unconstitutional because he has been in a relationship with another man for ten years. Supporters counter that since courts have held in similar cases involving race and sex descrimination that the race or gender of the judge has no bearing on that judge’s ability to render a fair verdict, the same principle should apply to LGBT judges as well. That hearing will take place today beginning at 9:00 a.m. PDT.

Webby Awards: New York. The 15th annual Webby Awards will take place on this evening at The Hammerstein Ballroom in New York City. It’s not a gay event per se, but Dan Savage will likely gay it up a bit as he accepts a Webby Special Achievement Award for his “It Gets Better” online-video project aimed at stopping bullying against LGBT youth. Lisa Kudrow will host the awards, which will you can watch live, appropriately enough, on YouTube and Facebook.

GOP Presidential Debate: Manchester, NH. Much of the GOP Presidential line-up will take the stage at Saint Anselm College for the first New Hampshire presidential debate. Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, businessman Herman Cain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum are all expected to participate. The debate will air live from 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. EDT on CNN. It should be very entertaining.

TODAY’S BIRTHDAY:
Paul Lynde: 1926. He studied drama at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois with fellow students Cloris Leachman, Charlotte Rae, Patricia Neal, Jeffrey Hunter and Claude Akins. Imagine what that class must have been like. After graduating in 1948, he moved to New York and became a stand-up comic and a Broadway actor. In 1960, he appeared in Broadway’s Bye Bye Birdie, as well as in its film adaptation in 1963. But most of his work would be on television, where he appeared in numerous sitcoms (he was Uncle Arthur in Bewitched) and lent his voice to animated cartoons. He is probably best known as the “center square” for the game show Hollywood Squares, where he became famous for his one-liners and double entendres. They say his sexual orientation was an open secret in Hollywood. It’s hard to imagine any secret being more open than his. Especially considering Hollywood Squares “answers” like these:

Peter Marshall: In the “Wizard of Oz,” the lion wanted courage and the tin man wanted a heart. What did the scarecrow want?
Paul Lynde: He wanted the tin man to notice him.

Peter Marshall: What do you call a man who gives you diamonds and pearls?
Paul Lynde: I’d call him “darling”!

Peter Marshall: Paul, in what famous book will you read about a talking ass who wonders why it’s being beaten?
Paul Lynde: I read it, “The Joy of Sex.”

Peter Marshall: Paul, why do Hell’s Angels wear leather?
Paul Lynde: Because chiffon wrinkles too easily.

Peter Marshall: According to legend, who looks better, a pixie or a fairy?
Paul Lynde (in deeper voice): Well, looks aren’t everything! (laughter) Well, I guess I would say…I would have to go with the fairy. (more laughter)

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 Daily Agenda for Saturday, June 11

TODAY’S AGENDA:
The Reality of Will and Grace: A Refutation of the Ex-Gay Movement: Asheville, NC. Exodus International;s annual “Freedom Conference” wraps up today outside of Asheville, while The Reality of Will and Grace counter-conference continues today at the First Congregational United Church of Christ, 20 Oak St, with SoulForce founder Mel White giving a keynote address beginning at 8:00 p.m. The doors open at 6:00 p.m., for an exhibit consisting of informational panels on Paul Cameron and Richard Cohen, Exodus International and other groups, SB-106 (the North Carolina constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage), and a memorial to David Kato Kisule, the Ugandan LGBT advocate who was murdered earlier this year.

Pride Celebrations This Week: Albany, NY; Albuquerque, NM; Blackpool, UK; Boston, MA; Brisbane, QLD; Brooklyn, NY; Des Moines, IA; Edmonton, AB; El Paso, TX; Erie, PA; Key West, FL; Long Island, NY; Los Angeles, CA; Milwaukee, WI; Newark-Essex, NJ; Olympia, WA; Oxford, UK; Philadelphia, PA; Pittsburgh, PA; Rome (Europride); San Antonio, TX; Saskatoon, SK; Shreveport, LA; Spokane, WA; Talin, Estonia (Baltic Pride); Tel Aviv, Israel (Friday); Thunder Bay, ON; Tulsa, OK and Washington, DC.

TODAY’S BIRTHDAYS:
Wilma Burgess: 1939. It may be a much-needed morale-booster for young LGBT country music fans to hail Chely Wright as the first country star to come out as a lesbian, but it’s not historically accurate. Wilma Burgess was openly gay throughout her career. She enjoyed recording romantic ballads, but in a break from most “girl singers,” she generally avoided recording gender-specific songs whenever she could. A southerner from Orlando, Wilma wasn’t much interested in country music when she first began singing professionally. But when she attended an Eddie Arnold concert, she was struck by the emotional honesty of Arnold’s music. She made her way to Nashville in 1962 where she cut her first single. “Confuses” didn’t really go anywhere, but it got her a contract for Decca Records.

After a several singles, she landed pay dirt in 1965 with “Baby,” which peaked at #7 in the country music charts. That same year, she purchased Patsy Cline’s old home in Nashville. In 1966 she recorded two more notable hits, “Don’t Touch Me” and “Misty Blue,” which became her signature song. That song was eventually covered by the man who inspired her to perform country music, Eddie Arnold. She had several more top forty country hits, but by the mid-1970s she decided to retire from the music business. She then opened the Hitching Post, Nashville’s first lesbian bar, where she regularly performed. She also purchased Patsy Cline’s old home. She died suddenly in 2003 of a massive heart attack.

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).

If You Watch Anderson Cooper 360 Tonight… (Continued)

….Okay, no kidding this time. I’ll be heading off to a local studio in a couple of hours. Don’t forget to fire up the Admiral and tune in.

UPDATE: Okay, I just got out of the taping but it won’t air tonight. My national nightmare will be next week sometime. You can safely switch the Admiral over to “Gomer Pyle.”

WELCOME

Welcome to those joining us from CNN or from other links. Many of you are here to read the details of our investigation into Kirk Murphy’s life, and you can find our coverage here:

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

This is our central site for our seven part investigation, touching eulogies from Kirk’s friends and family, documentation on the “Kraig” case study, statements from professional organizations, a epilogues.

Additional related articles can be found through the following links:

BTB Original Investigation: The True Story of George Rekers And “Kraig” – June 7, 2011 synopsis

CNN’s “Sissy Boy Experiment” – June 7, 2011

Rekers Responds In CNN’s “Sissy Boy Experiments” Tonight – June 7, 2011

The other option – June 7, 2011

My Top Five Surprises While Investigating The Kirk Murphy Story – June 7, 2011

Follow-up On Rekers’s Rentboy Scandal and UCLA Therapy Program – June 8, 2011

What You Didn’t See On CNN’s “The Sissy Boy Experiment” – June 8, 2011

No that is NOT Kirk in a dress – June 8, 2011

The Truth Behind George Rekers’s “Independent Evaluations” – June 9, 2011

Kathleen Gilbert, writer for anti-gay Catholic LifeSite, twists Kirk Murphy story – June 9, 2011

NARTH’s Joseph Nicolosi on Rekers’s “Pioneering Research” – June 10, 2011

Chuck Colson v. Warren Throckmorton on preventing homosexuality – June 10, 2011

We are honored to have been entrusted with Kirk’s story and hope that it informs and inspires you. We also invite you to stay and join the BTB community.

Chuck Colson v. Warren Throckmorton on preventing homosexuality

In an ironic bit of timing, Watergate felon turned conservative Christian commentator Chuck Colson has recently been informing the readers of Crosswalk, a webzine for evangelical Christians, about how fathers cause their sons to be gay and what can be done to prevent it. He began his series with a now-familiar scenario:

A little boy I’ll call “Stevie” was a beautiful, healthy child. But by age five, his parents suspected something was wrong. Stevie loved Barbie dolls, the color pink, and dancing around like a ballerina.

His parents took Stevie to see Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, a psychologist who specializes in gender disorders. Nicolosi listened as they described their son’s fascination with feminine activities, which had begun when he was three. Nicolosi confirmed that Stevie was a “prehomosexual male.” Without intervention, Nicolosi said, Stevie had a 75-percent chance of growing up homosexual, bisexual, or transgender.

Colson’s articles provide a rather simple narrative about homosexuality. “Stevie” failed to adequately link with his father. Jessica had been molested by an uncle and “viewed her mother as weak.” Colson even assures us that liberals don’t really believe what they say “because deep down, most people recognize there is a moral order to the universe.”

And he knows all of this because Chuck Colson has read Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s book, A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.

And, yes, that would be the same Dr. Joseph Nicolosi who was on AC360 last night claiming he had no recollection whatsoever of former patient Ryan Kendall (a rather fascinating claim considering that Kendall testified in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial). And, yes, that would be the same A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality that refers to George Rekers over 20 times, and gives special emphasis to the “Kraig” case study.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor at Grove City College, an evangelical Christian university, has to a large extent assumed the burden of correcting much of the inaccurate information about homosexuality that is promoted within the Christian community. Although a defender of the conservative sexual ethic, Throckmorton does not believe that the debate is enhanced by foolishness, deceit, or baseless assertions.

On June 2, several days before we broke the truth behind George Rekers’ famous “Kraig” study, Throckmorton reminded the Crosswalk readers,

Fighting a political agenda is not a good reason to promote questionable theories. There is currently no scientific consensus about why sexual orientation takes the direction it does. Homosexuality is not strongly related to genetics but that does not mean that parenting is the only alternative non-genetic factor. Other prenatal factors, such hormonal variations during prenatal development, are being investigated and might be a part of the picture. The jury is out with much more research to be done, but what has been done on parenting does not inspire confidence in the claim that distant fathers and smothering mothers create gay men.

After the research by Box Turtle Bulletin and CNN was revealed, Dr. Throckmorton returned to Crosswalk to warn evangelical Christians that theories on preventing homosexuality are not strongly based and may even harm their children.

In their book, A Parent’s Guide, the Nicolosis refer to Kirk as an illustration of Rekers success story. The following description is from Rekers 1974 paper on Kirk’s treatment:

When we first saw him, the extent of his feminine identification was so profound (his mannerisms, gestures, fantasies, flirtations, etc., as shown in his “swishing” around the home and clinic, fully dressed as a woman with long dress, wig, nail polish, high screechy voice, slovenly seductive eyes) that it suggested irreversible neurological and biochemical determinants. At the 26-month follow-up he looked and acted like any other boy. People who view the videotaped recordings of him before and after treatment talk of him as “two different boys”. (p. 38)

Rekers built his career on cases like Kirk’s and others like Nicolosi have used these studies as evidence for the efficacy of their recommendations to parents. As the reports point out, what the doctors reported was at odds with what the family recalls, and may, in some cases, have adverse effects. At the least, parents should exercise caution and ask for additional evidence and get other opinions when considering how to respond to children who display gender non-conforming actions and preferences.

I think it might be fair to say that Colson may regret the timing of his series. And those readers here with a faith background could hardly be faulted for humming the 1771 hymn by William Cowper, “God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform.”

NARTH’s Joseph Nicolosi on Rekers’s “Pioneering Research”

In last night’s installment of “The Sissy Boy Experiment,” CNN’s Randi Kaye reports on how George Rekers’s research is still being used to “treat” gay kids and teens. Here, she interviews Joseph Nicolosi, the founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, said “George Rekers has done pioneering work in this for many, many years.”

Ryan Kendall, one of Joseph Nicolosi’s former patients, explains the rationale that leads many parents to take their children in for treatment: that being gay is sinful, that it’s a choice, and that it can be fixed. His experience also illustrates how ex-gay therapy tears families apart.

I had hoped that I would be able to present to you a final epilogue to our original investigation, “What Are Little Boys Made Of?“, discussing the connections between Rekers’s so-called “pioneering research” and the ex-gay movement today. But as you can imagine, this has been an extraordinarily busy week. So I’m afraid that piece will have to wait until Monday.

But in the meantime, I would encourage you to read this epilogue, The Doctor’s Word, where we discuss the dangers of accepting at face value, well, the doctor’s word. And you can also review our newest epilogue, Blind Man’s Bluff, in which we discover the influence on the particular brand of treatment that Kirk experienced known as Behavioral Therapy, along with its obvious limitations.

And tune in again tonight to Anderson Cooper 360 for a wrap-up of this week’s series, “The Sissy Boy Experiments.” AC360 begins at 10:00 p.m. Eastern, 7:00 Pacific.