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 30th, 2012
In Tennessee, there are no protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation. There also are no protections against discrimination based on stupidity, ignorance, and unvarnished bigotry – as State Senator Stacey Campfield (R – Dist. 7) discovered.
Campfield, a 43 year old confirmed bachelor, has a very special interest in homosexuality. For several years he unsuccessfully attempted to pass anti-gay legislation in the House of Representatives. And, as the good people of Knoxville seemed to be in the mood to reward buffoonery and ineptitude, in 2010 he was promoted to the state Senate, where his Fight Teh Ghey campaign found more fertile ground.
In May of last year, Campfield’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill passed the Senate 19-10, ensuring Tennessee’s reputation as a being, ahem, less attune with the realities and sensibilities of the twenty-first century. The bill is currently in the Education subcommittee of the House (as HB 229) along with an accompanying bill requiring all residents to drop out of school after the sixth grade, smoke corn-cob pipes, play the banjo and the marry their cousin. (Okay, maybe that last bill is not actually up for debate.)
In addition to his legislative contributions on the subject, Campfield is quick to offer his intellectual analysis on this and related subjects. On a recent interview with Michelangelo Signorile, Campfield asserted that “average lifespan of a homosexual” is “very short” and that that HIV came about when a homosexual airline pilot had sex with a monkey. Perhaps Campfield was attempting to garner support for the bill by illustrating the extent to which his own education had been blighted due to obsession over Teh Ghey.
But despite the efforts of their legislators to live up to stereotype, Tennessee has a good many decent, educated, and cultured people. And some residents are greatly offended when elected officials proudly display their ignorance and animus and make the state look like a haven for redneck bigots.
Martha Boggs, the owner of the Bistro, decided that as a business owner she had the right to refuse service and so on Sunday when Stacey Campfield showed up for brunch she told him that he was not welcome.
Campfield, no doubt, was delighted. From what I’ve seen over the years, the man dotes on publicity of any kind. But if he decides to try and play the martyr and decry the evil Left, I don’t think it will play well. Boggs seems like just some lady who’d had enough and I don’t think Stacey will do well in comparison.
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:
tim
January 30th, 2012
What if this was a senator supporting marriage equality and he was denied service at a restaurant owned by an evangelical christian couple?
Right? Wrong? How would you react?
Richard Rush
January 30th, 2012
Does that mean he’s not going to bother running for reelection?
TN
January 30th, 2012
Tim, you’re equating what religion someone chooses as if it were on the same level as an unchangeable trait. It’s not the same thing. Nobody is making that hypothetical couple claim Christianity, or believe anything their church teaches. The senator supporting gay marriage would be the senator wanting a level playing field. People like to pretend that their religion is rooted somewhere inside of them, but truthfully, we aren’t born with any specific belief.
Ryan
January 30th, 2012
tim,
He wasn’t banned from the restaurant simply because he’s against gay marriage, as you can tell if you read the post above your comment. But of course, it won’t stop NOM, FRC, etc from lying and claiming otherwise.
TN
January 30th, 2012
And I just want to clarify my earlier comment. Criticizing an idea that someone has is not the same thing as criticizing someone for a trait/characteristic that they have absolutely no say in. Ideas are supposed to be criticized. It’s how we grow as humans and learn new things. It’s how we come up with ideas and revise ideas we already have. Telling someone they’re immoral because they have blue eyes is hardly the same thing.
CPT_Doom
January 30th, 2012
tim, the actual analogy would be a pro-gay politician who claimed evangelicals are bad for society by pointing to the higher divorce and teen pregnancy rates in states with large evangelical populations. Then, yes, the proprietors would be within their rites to refuse service.
In that case, as in this, the politician would not be barred from service because of belonging to a political group or ideology but because the politician, in their public role, was spreading lies that could have a detrimental impact on his constituents (in the real-world case, causing his hetero constituents to believe the myth that AIDS is a “gay disease”). It is not discrimination to judge an individual by their own actions.
Jim Burroway
January 30th, 2012
Well, first of all, crispy chicken livers themselves are an abomination. I always thought there was something wrong with Campfield.
Mark F.
January 31st, 2012
Good for Ms. Boggs. Discrimination is not always bad, folks. Discrimination is freedom.
Marc
January 31st, 2012
So do we start the countdown now as to when the good senator will be caught in a bathhouse doing “research” on the terible homos?
Regan DuCasse
January 31st, 2012
I have a pretty good comeback for people like Campfield who are so paranoid (or obsessed) about gay male sex.
I’d remind him that gay men aren’t all that casually attracted to apparent straight men, especially like him. So he’s QUITE safe.
The most important fact:
And most straight women aren’t attracted to him either.
And considering Campfield’s own marital status, that’s no lie.
That one always shut up the bigots especially about foxholes, showers and locker rooms.
Brady
January 31st, 2012
I get so sick of the right using the “I guess the left isn’t as tolerant as they claim” excuse when something like this happens.
I wonder if they know they are talking about two different things and don’t care, or if they really are too dense to realize it’s not the same thing.
Charles
January 31st, 2012
Heck, they should not tell him he is welcome, invite him in for a discussion and let him show off his stupidity. I’m never shocked for whom voters will elect to represent them in a public office.
Charles
January 31st, 2012
“What if this was a senator supporting marriage equality and he was denied service at a restaurant owned by an evangelical christian couple?” – Tim
Tim has a very good point.
Matt
January 31st, 2012
If, as Campfield believes, straights can discriminate against gays, why then can gays not discriminate against straights? I think he got a taste of his own medicine.
Charles
January 31st, 2012
“If, as Campfield believes, straights can discriminate against gays, why then can gays not discriminate against straights? I think he got a taste of his own medicine.” – Matt
Are we in a tit-for-tat fight or can we be above such a fight? Perhaps someone should have gone up to him and told him tactfully that this was a gay friendly establishment and we will serve you even though we consider your stances on gay issues to be morally wrong.
Matt
January 31st, 2012
Charles,
My questions was rhetorical. Like Ghandi, I believe that the concept of “eye for an eye” benefits only the manufacturers of artificial optics. I pointed out as an example of how he was essentially being hoisted by his own pitard and getting stung by the exact same thing he envisioned befalling another.
Robert Goodman
February 1st, 2012
Am I the only one who notices the irony of a man named “Stacy” arguing against gay rights?
Leave A Comment