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 16th, 2012
Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman has dropped his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. Huntman, though from one of the most socially conservative states in the union, had taken positions that were far more favorable to the gay community than most other candidates. In pulling out of the race, Huntsman threw his endorsement to Mitt Romney and called for Republican unity.
Remaining candidates are:
Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, is relatively moderate. He supports civil unions which, depending on the day and the audience, appear to be either worthless or the complete equal of marriage. He endorses a Federal Marriage Amendment banning equality but it isn’t clear which version (some versions only ban court rulings, some ban the state legislators from enacting equality). Mitt kinda dislikes open service of gay personnel in the military but would do nothing to revert back to DADT. He “supports equality” but is pretty vague about what that means. He signed NOM’s anti-gay pledge, including the clauses supporting a commission to look at religious discrimination and the pledge to defend DOMA in court.
Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania, is an obsessed social conservative. While Santorum has opinions on fiscal issues he primarily sees government as one aspect of society and firmly believes that society should be strongly influenced and directed by the teachings and positions of the Roman Catholic Church. In short, his perspective on the role of President is probably something akin to colonial governor serving at the direction of the Holy See. He’s also significantly dumber than a box of rocks.
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, is also a social conservative. But his religious devotion appears to be secondary to his personal advancement. Gingrich is intelligent, cunning, and articulate. He is also reviled by a significant stripe of the population and comes with more baggage than can fit in a Pullman coach.
Rick Perry, governor of Texas, seems unaware that he has no support. What few votes he gets are probably from voters who confuse him with Perry Como.
Ron Paul, is a libertarian. Well, more so than most other candidates, anyway. He believes marriage should not be determined by government but should be up to churches. However, until that unlikely even occurs, he would probably oppose any equal treatment of gay and straight couples. Paul’s libertarianism has appeal, but he has been an outsider and contrarian for so long that he’s racked up a pretty impressive list of gaffes, faux pas, wacky positions, questionable statements, and downright lunacy. He’s now discovering that statements which garner attention as a challenger and opponent of the status quo can get you attention of a different kind when considered in terms of a credible candidate.
Which candidate is best for our community depends on what you think will happen in November.
While he is far from perfect, the continuation of President Obama’s administration for four more years is probably more likely to result in increased equality for gay and lesbian Americans than any of the Republican alternatives, if for no other reason than that the President will not defend DOMA in court and each Republican option is likely to do so (yes, including Ron Paul). So, on one hand, the weakest Republican – the one most likely to lose – is the best choice. Under that thinking, we should hope for Rick Santorum to be the nominee.
But if you are not a gambler and if you have witnessed far too many “unelectable” candidates win races, you will want the Republican nominee to be the candidate that will do the least damage. Should an “unelectable” candidate like Santorum by some fluke win, rough days would be ahead. Unlike President George W. Bush – whose advocacy for a Federal Marriage Amendment pretty much dried up on the day of the election – Santorum would actively seek ways to harm the lives and freedoms of gay Americans. And little things like separation of powers or the limitations of the office would certainly not deter him. If we are uncertain that Obama will prevail, Romney is probably best – though Paul supporters may challenge that claim.
But irrespective of who might be best for us, Mitt Romney seems at this point to be the likely Republican Nominee. And once he cinches that position, look for a change in rhetoric. Romney’s opposition to marriage will take lower status to his support for civil unions (of some sort) and he will increasingly talk about equal rights (though probably not actually endorsing policies that would achieve such).
From the perspective of the long run, a Romney candidacy is probably a good thing.
If Romney utilizes the language of civil equality – even if it is solely for cynical manipulation – it is valuable to our community to have such language heard from the Republican nominee. If Romney speaks favorably of civil unions – especially if he commits to federal recognition of such – this is a game changer. It shifts the mid-point and establishes “the Republican position” to be at a place which has until very recently been the home of moderate Democrats – and which is, as of today, the official position of President Obama.
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:
occono
January 16th, 2012
“Unlike President George W. Bush – whose advocacy for a Federal Marriage Amendment ended on the day of the election…”
What? Bush pushed for the FMA repeatedly in office.
Timothy Kincaid
January 16th, 2012
Occono,
No he didn’t. In fact in 2005 he panicked the conservatives by telling a reporter that he wasn’t pushing for an amendment. (He had to hold a meeting to assure African American churches that he really did oppose equality.)
Bush endorsed the 2006 effort, and even gave a speech. But if he put any political capital into it, no one could detect it. And once the 2006 election cycle was over you never heard from the FMA again.
Bush’s FMA support was pure political cynicism and nothing more than a tool to dupe the rubes into voting for him. Once elected, he couldn’t be bothered. (But to be more accurate, I revised the language from “ended” to “pretty much dried up on”.)
In fact, by 2006, there were very very few who were principally opposed and who saw the FMA as anything other than a campaign tool.
Santorum is the exception. He is a true believer.
You may, of course, disagree. But I’d really prefer not to turn this thread into a ‘did Bush or didn’t Bush’ thread of total irrelevance.
tristram
January 16th, 2012
Romney will say almost anything to get elected (‘almost’ because there is no way he’s going to endorse federal recognition of civil unions – NO WAY), but none of it will mean anything if and when he becomes President. If he is elected, it is likely the Republicans will also control both houses of Congress. And the Republican Senate and House will be significantly to the right of Romney on virtually all issues – meaning that (like Obama with the ‘blue dog dems’) he will have to bargain with and appease them.
The easy way for him to do this will be to veer further right on social issues. And he has vowed to appoint judges who essentially agree with Scalia and Thomas on legal issues that impact lgbt Americans, including thinking that Lawrence v. Texas should be reversed – something which could happen with a one-vote swing in the SC.
PJB863
January 16th, 2012
Pretty much spot on. Barring something unforeseen, the nomination is Romney’s to lose (again, barring a scandal or something). He won’t energize the GOP base, however. The wild card here is a Paul run as an independent.
Assuming an Obama/Romney contest, either way don’t expect any great changes to recognition of marriage equality. I suppose Obama would be better to a degree, but only to a small degree.
Steve
January 16th, 2012
Huntsman was the only candidate who didn’t distinguish himself by other insanity or flip-floppery. Gingrich and Romney are amoral liars and frauds who will do and say anything to get elected. The rest, including Ron Paul, are certifiable insane and belong in a padded cell rather than an office
codyj
January 16th, 2012
“gingrich comes with more baggage than you can fit in a “Pullman coach?” HA HA HA,. thats too funny, wonder if most here even know about ‘all pullman trains’…go safely-go pullman,lol..anyhow,Box Turtle, you need to add a Pullman Sleeper for gingrich..hes no STRANGER there ,lol.
cowboy
January 16th, 2012
I honestly thought Huntsman would really give Obama a real challenge for the election.
But we all said before Huntsman got on the campaign wagon that he really was working for the 2016 election and this short soiree into national politics is just a precursor, a needed step, in politics.
And this is the last time Romney will try for the Presidency. I predict Romney will give Huntsman his nod in 2016.
I’m of the opinion most conservative people (except Utahns) will stay home when election day arrives. Which means Obama will likely win. As a gay man I am happy for 4 more years of this administration.
Though, as a postscript, Mr. Jon Huntsman would have been as open-minded about gay issues as Obama. (In my opinion.) It was during Gov. Huntsman’s tenure in Utah that the gay community felt some degree of advocacy and not the same shrill we got from the abject conservative Utah Legislature.
Mark F.
January 17th, 2012
“While he is far from perfect, the continuation of President Obama’s administration for four more years is probably more likely to result in increased equality for gay and lesbian Americans than any of the Republican alternatives, if for no other reason than that the President will not defend DOMA in court and each Republican option is likely to do so (yes, including Ron Paul). So, on one hand, the weakest Republican – the one most likely to lose – is the best choice. Under that thinking, we should hope for Rick Santorum to be the nominee.”
Tim,
“Obama is far from perfect” is an understatement. He’s far more dangerous than Ron Paul—dangerous to the political elites and establishment. I’m sure you appreciate that some of us will not be choosing our candidate purely on his gay rights record, where I admit Obama has been fairly good.
I will absolutely refuse to vote for Romney or Obama, and would vote for Paul as the GOP nominee or as an Independent. If Paul is not running in November , I’ll vote for Gary Johnson or the eventual Libertarian nominee.
For the record, the “ultra-conservative” ACLU has given both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson better overall records on Civil Liberties than Obama, and this rating does not even include Obama’s abominable support for the racist war on drugs and marijuana users. Funny how nothing Obama says or does is ever considered “lunacy,” including supporting holding people in indefinite detention without trial, pissing away a trillion dollars of tax money a year on war and the military, and imprisonment of people for victimless crimes.
Mark F.
January 17th, 2012
I meant to say that Ron Paul is only dangerous to the political establishment, while Obama is very dangerous to our liberty and pocketbooks.
Blair Martin
January 17th, 2012
So, if it is Romney… who is his running mate? Would he go with Huntsman or is two Mormons too much for America? Would he want a “southern conservative”? (No, I am not thinking Perry, that man’s ego would not countenance being “also”) What about Christie as a different idea (or is that too “Northern” GOP)? Or he couldn’t do a McCain could he and go for something totally loony and ask Pawlenty or, god forbid, Santorum? (As for Paul and Gingrich – see my comment on Perry.) It’s been fascinating watching all this from afar. Makes me appreciate what we have down here and glad that I don’t have to put up with what progressive people in America have to put up with on a daily basis. Thanks for keeping the rest of the world informed!
tristram
January 17th, 2012
@Blair Martin – good chance it will be Romney/Rubio. Possibly Christie or Pawlenty. No chance it’s Huntsman – maybe he gets a cabinet position or ambassadorship if Romney wins. But Hunstman is permanently done as a candidate unless someone pulls a stunning upset and knocks Romney off the GOP ticket. If Romney’s the candidate and he loses, the party lurches to the right for it’s 2016 candidate – not to Huntsman. If Romney wins, he’s in for 8 years and Huntsman is forgotten by 2020.
occono
January 17th, 2012
@Timothy Kincaid:
I suppose I mixed him up with someone in Congress, sorry. No intention here to debate Bush.
I’m honestly pretty confident Obama is going to be reelected by this point, so I’m just hoping whatever happens until then is more embarrassment for everyone then anybody using their spotlight to acheive anything, I’m not fearing any candidate over another. I suppose I shouldn’t be so cocky.
SharonB
January 17th, 2012
Two words: “Supreme Court. ”
Anyone other than Obama sets us back decades!
occono
January 17th, 2012
Oh, I fear anyone but Gary Johnson (Or Fred Karger, if he’s still running) getting into office, if Obama doesn’t win. It’s just that I’m pretty confident he will. I’m a pessimistic person but I’m not worried about it.
Leave A Comment