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 lobbySeptember 14th, 2012
What a beautiful glorious NOMtastic day.
The New York primary yesterday was unusual. In an unusual turn of events, the community’s focus was on the Republican side of the ticket where there were four candidates whom we were anxiously hoping to win.
It started back on June 24, 2011 when four Republican New York State Senators joined the Democratic Senators (all except Sen. Diaz) in supporting a change in the marriage law to allow couples of the same sex to marry. The “Republican Four”, as they became known, immediately became the chief targets of those who oppose equality.
By focusing on these four senators, the anti-gays took advantage of two political assumptions: to be a Republican, one must oppose equality; and Republican voters will reject any legislator that votes for equality.
These premises are essential for anti-gays to uphold in order to keep equality a partisan issue and to maintain discrimination in those parts of the country in which Republicans hold majorities. Should marriage equality become a matter of personal conscience and not a principle of the Party, it would invite thoughtful reflection and a careful review of the arguments. And opposition to equality cannot withstand thought and analysis; it relies on accepted and unquestioned partisanship and culture war positions.
Equally necessary is the threat of reprisal. The fear of angry citizens tossing out “the traitors” could keep potentially sympathetic Republican legislators in line. And as nearly every pro-gay vote has required at least some Republican support to pass – a situation that is likely to continue in the immediate future – scaring potentially supportive Republicans could immobilize our progress.
So threat was made: the National Organization for Marriage would take down these four Republican senators and thus intimidate any future Republicans across the nation that might consider supporting equality. Yesterday was the day of reckoning.
One senator, Jim Alesi, chose not to run after he made an incredibly stupid decision. He was in a housing development looking at houses. He found one house locked so he went in a basement door and climbed a ladder serving as a makeshift staircase and slipped and fell, injuring his leg. As it turns out, the house had been already sold. And while the owners (a retired couple) chose not to prosecute for trespass, he sued them for his injuries. Idiot. He immediately withdrew the lawsuit and apologized, but by then his political career was ambulatory dead.
Which left three senators under attack, Steve Saland (Poughkeepsie), Roy McDonald (Saratoga Springs), and Mark Grisanti (Buffalo).
But the anti-gays in chief, the National Organization for Marriage, had five targets in total:
The primary election candidates and the results are:
Democratic Senate District 10
James Sanders (NOM endorsed)
Shirley Huntley
James Sanders beat Shirley Huntley with a 53-40 margin. But it’s rather unlikely that marriage had anything to do with this decision. A couple of weeks ago Huntley was arrested and indited with the felony charge of conspiracy in relation to a scheme to transfer state funds to her personal charity. And as she had been a vocal opponent to equality who only changed her vote under pressure (and rather unconvincingly), she’ll not be missed by the community.
NOM can call that a win if they like. I think it’s a bit embarrassing to do so, but that’s NOM.
Democratic Senate District 33
Manual Tavarez (NOM endorsed)
Gustavo Rivera
Rivera soundly defeated Tavarez.
Republican Senate District 41
Steven Saland
Niel DiCarlo (NOM endorsed)
As of the final tally of the votes cast at polling stations, Saland was ahead of DiCarlo by 42 votes. This will come down to a count of the absentee ballots.
Republican Senate District 43
Kathleen Marchione (NOM endorsed)
Roy McDonald
The National Organization for Marriage (but not yours) is trumpeting victory in this election:
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today celebrated the defeat of two incumbent state Senators who voted to redefine marriage in New York. NOM played a pivotal role in helping to defeat the incumbents, Roy McDonald and Shirley Huntley.
…
McDonald was defeated in the Republican primary by pro-marriage candidate Kathy Marchione. NOM was a major supporter of Marchione, sending two district-wide mailers and launching thousands of telephone calls.
However, that appears to have all the truthfulness of anything else NOM claims. As of the final tally of the votes cast at polling stations, Marchione ahead of McDonald by 130 votes with hundreds of absentee ballots outstanding.
Republican Senate District 60
Mark Grisanti
Kevin Stocker (NOM endorsed)
NOM’s highest level of animus and anger were directed at Grisanti. Six months prior to the vote, he had stated his opposition to equality based on the teachings of his Catholic Church. But Grisanti is an unusual politician; he spent months listening to his constituents and supporters of marriage and trying to work out a thoughtful logical opposition to marriage. And once he found that thought and logic did not support his presumptions, he shocked anti-gays by changing his position and explaining the process he went through to get there.
Grisanti has been the target of a smear attack, with one opponent going so far as to send gay porn to voters. Making matters more difficult, Grisanti got caught up in a bar brawl this year. So the fact that Grisanti trounced Stocker is especially sweet.
We will have to see just how sweet the victory is. If McDonald and Saland end up victors, then NOM’s endorsement will continue it’s role as the kiss of death. We will either celebrate or lament when the final votes are counted. But in any case, today’s picture is one in which our community and a brave legislator have proven false the claim that for a Republican to vote for equality is a career ender.
NOM is, amusingly, also gleefully claiming victory in New Hampshire:
In New Hampshire, where incumbents almost never lose, two Republicans who betrayed marriage went down to defeat.
Ahem… considering that 119 Republicans “betrayed marriage” by voting to kill the anti-gay bill, I don’t think I’d blare that ‘victory’ too loudly, NOM.
And finally, there is one other race in which NOM did not nominate but which is worth noting.
Republican Senate District 15
Juan Reyes
Eric Ulrich
In the final days of the race, Reyes sent out a flier attacking Ulrich for “hobnobbing” with gay people. He and his wife go to dinner with a fellow councilman and his husband. And Ulrich hired a gay chief of staff as well as another staffer and (in bold) Ulrich voted for gay marriage (in a city counsel vote of support).
Ulrich won handily.
All in all, a beautiful glorious NOMtastic day.
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:
MattNYC
September 14th, 2012
Sen. McDonald represents my partner’s parents. I hope he pulls it out or that the Democratic Party can pick up the seat. I am not that familiar with the area demographics, but it’s hard to understand how that seat has stayed Republican for so long. There are a ton of State employees who live there and one would think they’d be inclined to vote Democratic. We see quite a few rainbow and HRC stickers whenever we visit, too. Maybe the redistricting will play a role in this changing to “blue” (and presumably pro-equality).
Timothy Kincaid
September 14th, 2012
For those who may not recall, here was Sen. Roy McDonald’s quote when they asked him about his vote:
You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn’t black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing.
You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, fuck it, I don’t care what you think. I’m trying to do the right thing.
I’m tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I’m trying to do the right thing, and that’s where I’m going with this.
Secret Advocate
September 14th, 2012
Unfortunately, based on this article, I have to say that the NOM’s threat that they will fund primary challenges to any Republican lawmaker who doesn’t salute smartly and follow them remains very real.
Primaries in state legislature elections are usually cozy and sleepy affairs, outside of the attention of most people in their busy lives, in which one spike of energy — i.e., a bloc of energized voters — can change everything.
We all know of the benefits of incumbency. The fact is that two well-funded Republican incumbents stood up for equality, and then faced elections in which the coin was flipped and it landed on its side.
Even if Saland or McDonald retain their seats (their matters will go to recounts and perhaps also to court), just the fact that they had to go through this white-knuckle experience could be enough to give decent Republicans pause.
They still will have to ask themselves the question that they have had to ask before: Is this issue so important that I am willing to give up my political career over it?
I know that that’s blunt, but that’s how I see it.
I remember Roy McDonald’s answer to that question. Other Republicans will have to decide on their own answer.
Mark Grisanti also may not be out of danger yet. In an Invasion of the Body Snatchers situation, the NOM is vowing that it will work to defeat him in the general election, even if that means turning the seat over to a Democrat.
I remember that, when marriage equality first came to a vote in the New York Senate in 2009, the head of the Conservative Party of New York State threatened to run a Conservative candidate in the general election against any Republican state senator who voted for the bill. The threat was that the Republican/Conservative vote would be split and that a Democrat would eke out a winning plurality.
Gene in L.A.
September 14th, 2012
Secret Advocate, the more NOM puts money behind losing candidates, the more money they lose, and the better I like it.
TampaZeke
September 14th, 2012
By pushing a pro-marriage Democrat against a pro-marriage Republican NOM is showing their true colors and proving that they don’t really care about “defending” marriage as they claim.
Secret Advocate
September 14th, 2012
By pushing a pro-marriage Democrat against a pro-marriage Republican NOM is showing their true colors and proving that they don’t really care about “defending†marriage as they claim.
It’s all part of the NOM’s strategy of threatening Republican officeholders that they will end their political careers if they vote for marriage equality. In other words, for the NOM, “it’s personal.”
Grisanti may well lose the general election in his Democratic-leaning district. There will be a Conservative Party candidate on the ballot as well.
Speaking of which — I read that, regardless of what happens with his primary election, Roy McDonald will definitely be on the ballot in the general election. He has the nomination of the small Independence Party. If he and Marchione split the Republican vote, that seat could flip to the Democrats.
Secret Advocate, the more NOM puts money behind losing candidates, the more money they lose, and the better I like it.
And the NOM will just call up John Templeton, Jr., and the like, and get a six-figure check.
Sorry, I get cynical at times.
Seriously, your comment leads to an interesting point. I think that there will, at some point, come a time when the NOM’s fat cat donors will say that the party’s over and will cut them off. Politics is like investment. If you think that you’ll get return, you’ll invest. If you think that you’re just wasting money, you won’t.
The NOM had also threatened to fund primary challenges to the Republican state senators in Washington State who voted for marriage equality, but that apparently has not materialized.
And there will come a point in time when Brian Brown & Co. will close down the NOM, take what’s left of the millions that they’ve raised, and turn their attention to the next disfavored group or ease into cushy jobs at conservative think tanks.
That point is not here yet, but it will come. Another way to look at the results from New York is that, nowadays, a Republican can vote for marriage equality and not get wiped out in the primary. That is most assuredly progress.
I agree that the NOM’s boast of victory in New Hampshire is ridiculous. However, they are also crowing about the primary results in Rhode Island, which are discussed in this analysis in the Providence Phoenix, an alternative weekly:
http://providence.thephoenix.com/news/144084-after-this-weeks-elections-is-same-sex-marriage-/
Secret Advocate
September 15th, 2012
I found the following comment on another website, by a person identified as “David.” It warrants quotation here:
Here’s the deal: even assuming every voter for Di Carlo and Marchione was voting on the marriage issue, this shows that even in an extremely low turnout primary election on a Thursday, with only GOP voters voting, and with those voters skewing older and conservative, just barely 50% voted NOM’s way. That is not the “people of New York speaking.” If the most conservative cohort of Republicans could only yield 50%, the overall electorate of NY clearly supports marriage equality.
http://capitaltonightny.ynn.com/2012/09/nom-takes-credit/
Ryan
September 15th, 2012
Secret Adovcate’s quote from “David” is right. The problem is, that news is extremely cold comfort to McDonald and Saland right now. They may very well lose, as primary voters are key in these situations and are always far more conservative (or liberal in a Dem primary) than the average voter.. Timothy is choosing to characterize this as some huge embarrassing loss for NOM. It’s clearly not. The may very well wind up replacing two pro-gay Republicans with two anti-gay ones. Certainly, the fact that it was even close will give future Republicans pause when it comes to voting for gay rights. NOM won this round.
Ben in Oakland
September 15th, 2012
Though I hope Timothy is right, the biggest problem with drawing conclusions about votes is that so few people actually vote. The vote is not representative.
Secret Advocate
September 15th, 2012
I’m sure that a lot of people — including people who are engaged in current events and follow politics — don’t even know who their state legislators are. Yes, these primary elections are intimate affairs.
This is indeed a situation in which favorable conclusions can be drawn by both sides. Republicans who vote for marriage equality will not necessarily get wiped out in the conservative gauntlets of their primaries, and that bodes well for public opinion in general. Yet we need Republican support in state legislatures, and Republican legislators will be loath to help out because of a reasonable concern that they won’t survive their primaries.
Steve Saland himself just said the following about his vote for marriage equality: “The bottom line is I have no regrets, and I make no apologies, and we’ll move forward.”
http://statepolitics.lohudblogs.com/2012/09/14/saland-on-marriage-vote-i-have-no-regrets-and-i-make-no-apologies/
Mr. Saland has served in the New York state legislature since 1980. He was elected to the Assembly that year. In 1990, he was elected to the Senate. He has had a pretty safe seat. In 2008 and 2010 (senators serve two-year terms), he received upwards of 60% of the vote in his general elections. In 2010, he ran unopposed in the Republican primary. For this year’s election, he amassed a campaign war chest of $788,000.
And he is now fighting for his political life, in a statistical tie with Neil DiCarlo, a political novice who was running on a shoestring budget and who vociferously put gay marriage front and center as one of the key issues in the campaign.
While other reasons can be stated for the losses or the retirement of other candidates that the NOM targeted, Mr. Saland’s situation, without a doubt, can be ascribed to the marriage issue.
Further, as I said earlier, even if Mr. Saland wins his primary, he is not out of the woods. New York politics has small “third parties” that can affect elections. (Remember New York’s 23rd Congressional District election in 2009.) There will probably be a Conservative Party candidate running in the general election. That was the threat by Conservative Party head Michael Long — to end the careers of wayward Republicans by splitting the Republican/Conservative vote. If a Democrat wins the seat, so be it; your political career is over.
I read that, regardless of what happens in the McDonald/Marchione primary, both of them will be on the general election ballot — McDonald as the Independence Party nominee and Marchione as the Conservative Party nominee.
So, yes, the NOM can exaggerate things. (They called James Sanders, the Democrat who defeated Shirley Huntley in her primary, a “pro-marriage” candidate. I saw nothing on Mr. Sanders’s campaign website either way on the issue. He did not list the NOM as one of the multiple organizations that endorsed him. A Google search also could not find his opinion on the issue.)
But the fact remains is that they had a point to make to Republican legislators, and I think that they made it. It was not a knockout, as the New Hampshire situation shows. (If the NOM had any dignity left, they should just pack their bags and leave New Hampshire as quietly as possible.) But Ryan is right in his post here; this absolutely was not “some huge embarrassing loss for NOM.”
Stefan
September 15th, 2012
Recent reports are saying that Saland is likely to retain his seat.
Leave A Comment