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 lobbyJanuary 10th, 2012
A while back it was noted that discussing the issue of marriage using the term “gay marriage” played into the notion that there were various different types of marriage, one of which was gay. Of course, marriage is marriage and there is no material difference between a marriage in which the partners are of different sex, different race, different religion, or of all the same sex, race, and religion. We were advised to adopt “marriage equality” as an alternate term, one that more correctly addressed the issue. And, as this seemed right and fair, I quickly complied.
But I am now ready to let go of the term “marriage equality”. For the same reason that I adopted it.
Equality is equality. It is not compartmentalized. One does not support equality for all (but not for people with red hair) or equality for all (but not for the poor, or Latinos, or middle age white men with executive jobs). Equality is a simple term and easily understood. It doesn’t need qualifiers.
I don’t support “racial equality” or “religious equality” or “marriage equality” or equality with any other adjective.
What I support and demand is equality, the unfiltered equality expressed in the engraving on the face of the Supreme Court Building: “Equal justice under law” and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law” and the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Equality is equality and it should not be presumed to come with asterisks, qualifiers, exceptions, and omissions. Nor should my language suggest that one can be in favor of equality, but well there’s this other thing over here called “marriage equality” that is maybe not really part of the package and you don’t have to fully accept it. And so, when possible (which I recognize will not be always), I intend to remove that qualifier from my writing.
The question is no longer, “Do you support marriage equality?”, but “Do you support equality?” Let those who make exceptions to their concept of “equal” explain and defend them. Let’s not make it easy on them.
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:
Lindoro Almaviva
January 10th, 2012
well, at first I thought you had gome off the deep end, but you know? I kind of agree with you.
At the same time, I think that we need to continue to point out the ugly fact that one of the reasons why we demand equality is because there is inequality in marriage laws. We do need to continue to talk about marriage inequality when we at the same time express our outrage over it and demand those inequalities to be destroyed so we can finally have “equality”.
If we just talk about equality, I think it would be very easy for someone to overlook the fact that there is inequalicy in marriage laws. After all, whites in the south did not believe that blacks were been treated any different than they were.
esurience
January 10th, 2012
The problem is it’s too vague. There are lots of people who will claim, maybe sincerely, that they support “equality” for gay and lesbian people. And then you find out that they think marriage is something that should only be between a “man and a woman.”
Our current president, for example.
So you can ask the question of “Do you support equality?” — but I wouldn’t know how to interpret the answer without asking follow-up questions.
Hyhybt
January 10th, 2012
I still prefer “gay marriage.” Using an adjective does not necessarily mean lesser or separate or any of the negative things that people (on this side) opposing the term claim it does. It just makes things a bit more specific, when that specificity is needed. Which it sometimes is and sometimes isn’t.
“Marriage equality,” similarly, is simply specifying what form of inequality you’re addressing at the moment, including that you think marriage is an area where inequality exists.
Eliminate too many words and all you do is make it hard to know what you’re saying.
Timothy Kincaid
January 10th, 2012
esurience,
yes, it does require follow-up:
Q: Do you support equality?
A: Yes, of course I support equality!
Q: Equality for gay people?
(believe me, there isn’t anyone who doesn’t know what that question is asking)
A: Well… I believe that blah blah blah family, special, history, church blah blah blah
Q: So then you don’t support equality?
I think we have erred a bit in allowing the conversation to go off on the tangent of “marriage” when “equality” is the issue. If we keep saying “marriage equality” they can keep saying “marriage is…”. But when we talk about “equality” that defines the conversation more narrowly.
Either they have to say, “Nope, I oppose equality” or come up with something that explains how their position is all for equality when it isn’t.
Priya Lynn
January 10th, 2012
“I think we have erred a bit in allowing the conversation to go off on the tangent of “marriage†when “equality†is the issue. If we keep saying “marriage equality†they can keep saying “marriage is…â€. But when we talk about “equality†that defines the conversation more narrowly.”.
Marriage equality is not a tangent, its one of the main goals, if not the main goal. Going from “marriage equality” to “equality” isn’t narrowing the conversation, its broadening it, which, if that’s what you want to do, have at it.
Lynn David
January 11th, 2012
I’m not sure which organization suggested it several years ago (it might have been HRC). But that group suggested “marriage for gays and lesbians” be used when talking about marriage. I’ve always used that form when speaking about marriage ever since.
Jonathan
January 11th, 2012
Maybe the question should be:
“Do you support marriage?”
Timothy Kincaid
January 11th, 2012
Jonathan, also a good way to put it. It assumes us to be a part of the equation and forces those who make exceptions to explain them. Sadly, anti-gays have already began using that term so the connotations are theirs
Jonathan
January 11th, 2012
Timothy, understand. It wasn’t meant to be a political question, but rather a personal one. I’ve made a public declaration and will repeat it ad-infinitem. “I’m married to a man and my marriage is just as good as any other.” In that context, the conversation becomes:
“You’re not married.”
“Really? Do you support marriage?”
“Yes. Just not yours.”
In the long haul, our opponents can’t sustain their position. We win in a war of attrition because we live as married couples every minute of the day and the anti-marriage advocates drive around with bumper stickers but they can’t lay claim to our reality. They can try to redefine words but not the idea of what marriage really is.
Btw, anti-gay advocates also wouldn’t support the Watson’s marriage, and by not doing so, they look like monsters.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/couple-renews-vows-after-husband-has-sex-change-66768/
Timothy Kincaid
January 11th, 2012
Jonathan
You are absolutely correct. Living your life is the best argument that can be made.
Leave A Comment