Box Turtle Bulletin

Jamaican Prime Minister: “No Acceptance of Same-Sex Unions”

Timothy Kincaid

October 14th, 2009

Jamaica’s parliament is considering a major proposed amendment to the constitution relating to rights and Bruce Golding, the Prime Minister, wants everyone to know that they aren’t even considering rights for gay citizens. (AP)

“I make no apology in saying decisively and emphatically that the government of Jamaica remains irrevocably opposed to the recognition, legitimization or acceptance of same-sex marriages or same-sex unions,” Golding said on Tuesday.
…
“There is the possibility that sometime in the future parliament could pass a law that says same-sex unions are legal but it won’t be done in this parliament. Not as long as I sit here.”

Although his words were limited to the legality of same-sex unions, Golding has made it abundantly clear that he sees no need to rein in the culture of anti-gay violence, hatred and murder that permeates all aspects of Jamaican life.

Let this serve as a reminder that whether or not you are gay, you should not consider Jamaica as a safe place to vacation. Those who celebrate the murder of gay men and women will not hesitate to find some reason to celebrate the mistreatment of you too.

But I Thought that Prop 8 Was Supposed to Stop That

Timothy Kincaid

October 13th, 2009

Randy Thomasson, the wacky spokeman for SaveCalifornia.com has dire predictions:

Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com tells OneNewsNow that in light of the governor’s signature on SB 572, schools in The Golden State are now a source for homosexual indoctrination.

“Now children are going to be taught to admire the homosexual activist, his entire homosexual/bisexual agenda — even a cross-dressing agenda,” he asserts.

My, oh my. But isn’t that what Prop 8 was supposed to stop?

Remember, it wasn’t about civil rights for same-sex couples, or equality under the law. No, it was about children being told in school that they could grow up to marry either a prince or a princess.

Well, gosh. Now that the Golden State is a source for indoctrination of the entire homosexual/bisexual and cross-dressing agenda, then I guess there’s no reason not to reverse the ban on marriage equality.

Maine’s “Gay Activist” isn’t Gay

Timothy Kincaid

October 9th, 2009

In their latest ad, Safe Schools, Stand For Marriage Maine responds to a pro-marriage equality ad which explains that same-sex marriage will have no negative impact on Maine schools. Rather than address the facts, they play the pro-marriage ad in the background and say, “this Maine teacher is a gay activist already pushing this type of agenda”.

Fear her. She’s gay and is pushing that homosexual agenda. Scary.

The problem is that Sherri Gould, the teacher in the pro-equality ad is not a “gay activist”. She isn’t even gay. An email from the No on 1 campaign clarifies:

“Sherri Gould is the straight mom of three grown children who share her strong belief in full equality,” said [Ron] Dodson, whose older daughter was a founding member of the Nokomis GSA and whose younger daughter joined the GSA this year. “Sherri was the first teacher advisor of the Gay/Straight Alliance at Nokomis High School because she was concerned about the levels of anti-gay language and harassment.”

Gould is the sort of person that anti-gays just can’t understand. She is a straight woman who believes in treating gay people just as though they were equal to her. How bizarre.

In the anti-gay worldview, if you don’t think gay people are lesser creatures, well then you must be one yourself.

Poll: Referendum 71 “Close”

Timothy Kincaid

October 7th, 2009

From King5.com

Another KING 5 News / SurveyUSA poll of 548 likely voters finds 45 percent plan to vote for approval of Referendum 71. Forty-two percent are voting to reject it and 13 percent remain undecided.

We have less than a month, folks. Contribute or volunteer.

Montana Supremes Find for Lesbian Parent

Timothy Kincaid

October 7th, 2009

Back in 1995 Barbara Maniaci met Michelle Kulstad and they fell in love. In 1996 Kulstad moved from Seattle to Montana to be with Maniaci and they exchanged rings on March 18, 1996.

As time went on, the ladies decided to bring children into their lives so in 2001 the adopted a little boy. Three years later a little girl came into the family. They participated equally in the parenting of these children.

Now as Montana, their home state, does not allow for same-sex couple adoptions, they decided that Maniaci was the better adoption applicant. This proved to be an unfortunate choice.

in 2006, after a decade together, the couple split up and Maniaci tried to exclude Kulstad from her share of their acquisitions and from access to her children.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Montana found, by a 6 – 1 decision, that Kulstad could not be denied her parental rights. The decision is not all that surprising. But far more interesting are the statements and positions of some people involved.

Dr. Trayce Hansen

First let’s look at one small item in the court’s order. When describing the facts of the proceedings, one thing lept out at me:

The court-appointed expert, Dr. Miller, presented testimony regarding her educational background and her parenting plan evaluation.Kulstad presented testimony by Dr. Silverman and Suzanne Dixon, M.D. (Dr. Dixon). Trayce Hansen, Ph.D. (Dr. Hansen), testified for Maniaci.

Silverman was a court appointee. Miller was a specialist in clinical psychology specializing in the protection of children. Who, though, is Hansen.

Dr. Hansen admitted on cross-examination that parenting evaluations represented a new area for her and that she never actually had prepared one. Dr. Hansen never had been qualified as an expert witness by any court. Dr. Hansen never had been retained by any party as an expert witness. Dr. Hansen’s psychology practice involved geriatric patients. Dr. Hansen conceded that she currently did not work with children and had fewer than four years of professional experience after earning her Ph.D. She had worked as a research assistant and had published one article in the journal Personality Assessment in a forensic-type situation.

Why, then, was Hansen presented as a witness credible enough to attack Dr. Miller and the state’s entire evaluation process? Well, a clue can be found in the words of Attorney Matt McReynolds with the Pacific Justice Institute (Lifesite)

“It’s fairly shocking how the Court wouldn’t allow this person who had left the lesbian lifestyle to be freed from it – her and her children.

“It’s very disturbing that someone who wants to get out of this lifestyle can still be trapped in it for years to come …

Barbara Maniaci – who has since married a man – is apparently ex-gay. So we are not really talking about a child custody dispute; rather, we are talking about another battle in the Great Anti-Gay Culture War in which children are pawns of anti-gay and ex-gay activists.

Maniaci’s was not represented by the highest profile divorce attorneys in Montana; her counsel was the anti-gay activist legal group Alliance Defense Fund. And they selected Hansen as their expert witness. Because while Trayce Hansen may know little to nothing about child psychology, when it comes to anti-gay activism she is no novice.

In June of last year, Dr. Hansen issued a press release breathlessly declaring, “Children raised by openly homosexual parents are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves.” This was a follow up to her ” 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children.”

What Hansen forgets to reveal in her arguments is that as a research assistant working with geriatric patients, she has no more qualification to make such claims than do I. But, like many anti-gay activists, she’s not above using her title deceptively to achieve her dishonest goals.

The court was not impressed.

The court noted that, contrary to Dr. Hansen’s testimony, the APA concludes that no evidence suggests that same-sex couples are unfit to be parents, or that psychosocial development among children of same-sex couples would be compromised in any respect.

Perhaps that can serve as a warning to anti-gay activists: arguments based solely in animus that are contradicted by evidence do not serve you well in court. Just because you choose to believe your own bogus claims and dubious “studies” does not help you when facing judges that are not blinded by a desire to believe the worst about gay people.

Justice James C. Nelson

Judge Nelson concurred with the findings of the court. But he had a few more things to add to his conclusions.

Sadly, however, this case represents yet another instance in which fellow Montanans, who happen to be lesbian or gay, are forced to battle for their fundamental rights to love who they want, to form intimate associations, to form family relationships, and to have and raise children—all elemental, natural rights that are accorded, presumptively and without thought or hesitation, to heterosexuals.
…
I stand by my concurring opinion. Unfortunately, though, nothing has changed. I am convinced that until our courts, as a matter of law, accept homosexuals as equal participants with heterosexuals in our society, each person with exactly the same civil and natural rights,
lesbian and gay citizens will continue to suffer homophobic discrimination. Regrettably, this sort of discrimination is both socially acceptable and politically popular.

Naming it for the evil it is, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is an expression of bigotry. And, whether rationalized on the basis of majoritarian morality, partisan ideology, or religious tenets, homophobic discrimination is still bigotry. It cannot be justified; it cannot be legalized; it cannot be constitutionalized.

Amen, Judge.

Justice Jim Rice

Justice Rice has decided that this is all a dispute between the “natural parent” and some “third party” seeking to destroy “the constitutional rights of a natural parent to parent his or her child”.

Because there is something more “natural parenty” about the one partner who was allowed to adopt than there is about the other partner who the state would not allow to co-adopt. Being the one allowed to sign is all that matters to Rice, not whether both parents provided a parental role and their intention was consistently from the beginning to raise the children jointly.

From its emphasis on the facts of this case, it is apparent that the Court has found Kulstad’s case to be factually compelling, as did the District Court, and, thus, has ruled in her favor. But the Court has not acknowledged the significance of the most fundamental facts of this case: Maniaci is a parent, and Kulstad is not.
…
A legacy of this decision is the legion of parents who will be forced to litigate in order to protect the rights that the Constitution once guaranteed to them. A single parent must now consider whether a new romantic relationship will jeopardize the right to parent her or his children by way of a future third party parenting claim. Other like situations abound.
…
There will be further consequences as well. This case may well be reported as a legal victory for the rights of same-sex couples. Because both sides have stated that the parties’ gender is not a determinative issue in this case, neither the Court nor this dissent has discussed it. Regardless, the implications of the decision go far beyond the gender of the particular parties at issue here. There are parameters in neither the statute nor this decision that limit the kind or number of parties and relationships that will be now subject to parenting claims. Before this decision, protection of parental constitutional rights, which required termination of a parent’s rights before granting a parental interest to a third party, necessarily, by biology and the adoption laws, limited the number of parents a child could have. However, those inherent limits have now been removed by the Court. Consequently,
what if three or four adult partners develop a “parent-child relationship” with a child? Multiple-party clusters raising children, or polyamorous “families,” are the next wave in societal relationship experimentation.

Ah, yes. If we let the gays be parents then it’s a slippery slope to polygamy. Will someone please think of the children.

Somehow I don’t think Justice Rice will be invited to Thanksgiving Dinner at Justice Nelson’s home.

Growing Up Gay Attending Coastline Bible Church, Day II of IV

"The Harm Of Trying To Fit Into Someone Else's Mold"

Daniel Gonzales

October 7th, 2009

Here is today’s installment of my series looking at my childhood church’s harmful teachings which ultimately lead me to seek out ex-gay therapy.

Churches like Coastline Bible Church like to present a single model for what makes up an acceptable family — this is generally at the expense of single parent households, other family members raising kids, blended families, unmarried partners, people who remain single or don’t procreate, and of course LGBT folk like me.

Today’s video looks at how the church sends the message to non-conformers like me that I am inferior unless I bend my life to fit their model. As you’ll see bending one’s life to such extreme degrees can result in things breaking.

There’s a term for this attitude, Heterosexism: the presumption that straight two-parent households are superior to all other family life arrangements. And in case you haven’t already heard about it, Soulforce, Box Turtle Bulletin, Truth Wins Out and a few other groups are having an entire conference about the underlying heterosexism of exgay programs next in Florida called the Anti-Heterosexism Conference.  Of course I’ll be there.

Part I, “What My Church Taught Me About My Sexuality”
Part II, “The Harm Of Trying To Fit Into Someone Else’s Mold”
Part III, “Distrusting Science When It Doesn’t Agree With Your Faith”
Part IV, “Gender Conformity And Giving In To Peer Pressure”

Thank You, Microsoft

Timothy Kincaid

October 6th, 2009

Seattle Times

Microsoft Corp. has donated $100,000 to Washington Families Standing Together, the campaign seeking through Referendum 71 to retain the latest expansion of the state’s domestic partnership law, up for a public vote on Nov. 3. The domestic partnership law extends marriage-like state benefits to gay and some senior couples.

Ken Hutcherson must be having a conniption.

D.C. Marriage Bill Introduced

Timothy Kincaid

October 6th, 2009

As expected, David Catania introduced a bill to the city council of the District of Columbia to legalize same-sex marriage. (NYT)

City Council members introduced legislation Tuesday to allow same-sex marriage here. If it passes, as expected, Washington would be the first city below the Mason-Dixon line to allow such unions. The city’s bill is expected to become law by December.

General consensus is that there will be no concerted attempt in Congress to block the home rule decision by the District and that, after some denouncements which will be mostly ignored but good for politicking back home, the law will go into effect.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah, said he did not believe his fellow opponents of same-sex marriage would be able to block the city’s measure legalizing it.

“Given the other issues Congress is focused on, such as health care, it hasn’t got much attention,” said Representative Chaffetz, the ranking member of the House subcommittee that oversees the District. “You couple that with the Democrats’ stranglehold on House rules, and the minority is left out of the legislative process.”

Some are warning that future changes in Congressional make up could result in Republican efforts to ban marriage equality in the District. And that could be true. However, I believe that if the policy were firmly in place for a number of years, such efforts would appear distasteful, especially to those Republicans who still believe that “smaller local government” is an ideology instead of a campaign slogan.

Incidentally, Bishop Harry Jackson is trumpeting a theme that we discussed earlier this week.

Bishop Jackson, who helped file the petition for a referendum, said: “The faith community has been concerned for months, that it’s been cast as bigots, racists, and worse. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

I think that perhaps anti-gay activists may be starting to hear the voices of their own conscience.

Maggie’s Anti-Biblical Marriage

Timothy Kincaid

October 2nd, 2009

Maggie Gallagher, as the head of the National Organization for Marriage, is quite fond of extolling the virtues of “traditional marriage.” And, for those uncertain as to what “traditional” means, her protege Carrie Prejean, lets us know that it is marriage which is “biblically correct.”

Well, when I was growing up in a “biblically correct” family, one of the scriptures often quoted to Christian kids of dating age was 2 Corinthians 6:14

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols?

And lest any kids have any uncertainty about the application of that scripture or the meaning of “unequally yoked”, they were told in no uncertain terms that they were to only date other Christian kids. Marrying a non-Christian would be tragic.

It’s un-Biblical!
It’s un-traditional!
It’s Maggie’s marriage!

It turns out that for the last 17 years, Maggie has been married to Raman Srivastav, who just happens to be Hindu. Oh, my.

Well I guess we now know why Maggie un-traditionally uses her maiden name and why her husband is kept invisible.

Now I have no problem with Maggie being married to a person of any faith or no faith at all. But, then again, I don’t demand that marriage laws in this country be based on the Christian Bible.

(hat tip Bilerico)

Marriage Bill Introduced in Illinois Senate

Timothy Kincaid

October 2nd, 2009

For several years now Greg Harris has been introducing a bill to legalize marriage in the Illinois House of Representatives. But for the first time, a Senator has introduced his bill into the other house. (Bay Windows)

A marriage equality bill called the “Equal Marriage Act” was introduced into the Illinois Senate by State Senator Heather Steans Oct. 1.

You may recall that in June the House did not act on a Civil Unions bill before them, killing it for that session. Now, whether or not this bill advances in the legislature, it has advanced the argument that same-sex couples are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

Prop 8 Campaign Attitudes to be Revealed

Timothy Kincaid

October 2nd, 2009

One of the arguments of the Olson/Boies legal team that is suing to overturn California’s Proposition 8, is that the motivation and intent behind the anti-gay marriage amendment was one of animus directed towards gay people as a group. This might prove to be an effective strategy; in Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court of the United States threw out Colorado’s anti-gay Amendment 2 partly because it established a class of people in order to enact discrimination upon them.

To advance this argument, they subpoenaed the correspondence of the Yes on 8 campaign. Naturally, the campaign resisted, but Judge Vaughn Walker agreed with the Olson/Boies argument. (SJ Merc)

Denying a request to shield the information, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker said the Protect Marriage campaign had failed to show that providing private e-mails, memos and reports would inhibit the political activities of gay marriage opponents or subject them to unbridled harassment.

“The First Amendment qualified privilege proponents seek to invoke, unlike the attorney-client privilege, for example, is not an absolute bar against disclosure,” Walker wrote in an 18-page order. “Rather, the First Amendment qualified privilege requires a balancing of the plaintiffs’ need for the information sought against proponents’ constitutional interests in claiming the privilege.”

The judge agreed with lawyers for two unmarried same-sex couples who have sued to strike down the ban, known as Proposition 8, that confidential communications between the campaign’s leaders and professional consultants could reveal a rationale for denying gays the right to wed that is relevant to the case.

The most relevant information will be in relation to what messages the campaign decided not to present to voters as this will put those they did use in perspective.

But I’m sure that the virulent homophobia and blind hate expressed in the communications will also go far to illuminate the attitudes of the campaign against marriage. Unless, of course, the Yes on 8 Campaign always spoke in loving terms about gay people and couples (hey, is that a pig I saw fly past my window?).

Texas Judge Challenges Marriage Ban

Timothy Kincaid

October 2nd, 2009

From the Dallas News:

Dallas state District Judge Tena Callahan ruled that two men married out of state could divorce in Texas. She also stated that the Texas marriage ban violates the US Constitution.

Although the case is far from settled, and the state’s constitutional ban on gay marriage is a long way from being thrown out, Dallas state District Judge Tena Callahan’s ruling says the state prohibition of same-sex marriage violates the federal constitutional right to equal protection.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott had intervened in the two men’s divorce case, arguing that because a gay marriage isn’t recognized in Texas, a Texas court can’t dissolve one through divorce.

Callahan, a Democrat, denied the attorney general’s intervention and said her court “has jurisdiction to hear a suit for divorce filed by persons legally married in another jurisdiction.”

The political establishment in Texas will whip itself into a froth making sure that Callahan is reversed and gay people can return to being second class citizens, just as the Texas voters like it.

The Direct Approach

Timothy Kincaid

October 1st, 2009

Sometimes it seems that in the campaign battles over marriage equality, the people most ignored and downplayed are those most affected. Everyone talks about equality and decency and church and children but none of us on any side can seem to say, “hey, this is about these guys!”.

But a new campaign in Greensburo, North Carolina, is taking a direct approach. They are showing the faces of the folks who everyone else is not talking about.

Good for you, Triad Equality Alliance.

Of course, not everyone is happy about it. Check out the video at Fox 8.

Marriage Bill to be Presented in D.C. Next Tuesday

Timothy Kincaid

October 1st, 2009

A/P

A Washington, D.C., councilman says he’ll introduce a bill next week to allow same-sex couples to wed.

D.C. Councilman David Catania says he plans to introduce the bill Tuesday.

Same-sex marriages performed in states that allow them are already recognized in the District, but the proposed law would let couples marry there regardless of gender.

The bill is expected to pass easily with near-unanimous support. Then it will be up to Congress to decide whether the District of Columbia should be allowed to determine marriage laws for its own residents.

If the “recognize marriage” bill passed earlier this year is an indicator, Congress may find that other things are much more deserving of its attention than marriage in the District.

Maggie’s Money to be Investigated

Timothy Kincaid

October 1st, 2009

Fred Karger stands as an example of what you can do if you have determination, a moral cause, and the confidence to act on it.

It is Fred who has been leading the boycott against Doug Manchester’s Grand Hyatt in San Diego. Manchester undoubtedly regrets funding the signature collection process for Proposition 8 and he serves as a warning to those who may wish to contribute heavily against efforts to overturn the marriage ban.

Fred also was a significant player in the effort to identify the contributers to Proposition 8, a project that revealed the extent to which the Mormon Church organized, funded, staffed, and controlled the anti-gay marriage campaign. You can be sure that religious institution considers Karger as one of their least favorite people.

And now Fred is taking on Maggie Gallagher and her National Organization for Marriage.

Earlier this year Fred accused NOM of being a front group for the Mormon Church. He provided secret documents illustrating how the church set up other front groups in the past and drew comparisons to NOM. While NOM has denied such a connection, they have illegally refused to provide their tax filings and have retaliated by deposing Fred and demanding every document relating to his efforts.

But Fred is undaunted. He is challenging the way in which anti-gay activists are funding their efforts to block marriage equality in Maine. And, in a hearing today, it is working (Portland Press Herald)

The state ethics commission voted 3-2 today to order an investigation of the fundraising efforts by the National Organization of Marriage, a Washington, D.C.,-based organization that has given money to fight same-sex marriage in Maine.

Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate filed a complaint with the commission saying the group should be required to disclose the names of donors. In response, Brian Brown, executive director of NOM, said they have not raised money specifically for Maine and therefore are not required to report individual donors.

Fred provided solicitations from NOM that seem to clearly illustrate that Brown is lying.

Congratulations Nevadans

Timothy Kincaid

October 1st, 2009

Today the law goes into effect allowing same-sex couples to register with the State of Nevada as Domestic Partners and receive all the same state rights, obligations, and responsibilities as married couples.

Maine Poll Goes Our Way

Timothy Kincaid

September 29th, 2009

A poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner taken from September 23-27 of 808 registered voters included the following question:

Q.6 Now let me ask something else. One of the questions on the ballot this November will read as follows: “Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?” – If the election were held today, would you vote YES or NO on this question? Total

Yes strongly……………………………………………………………….37
Yes not strongly…………………………………………………………..4
No not strongly……………………………………………………………7
No strongly………………………………………………………………..43
(Don’t know/refused)…………………………………………………….9

Total yes…………………………………………………………………..41
Total no……………………………………………………………………50

Although the structure of the question is confusing, “No” is the answer which we wish to see.

El Salvador’s Gay Marriage Ban Fails

Timothy Kincaid

September 25th, 2009

El Salvador’s governing leftwing Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) voted as a block against amendments to the constitution that would ban same-sex marriage and civil unions and adoption of children by same-sex couples. Thus supporters were not able to get the required two thirds to write discrimination into their governing document. (IPS)

During the weeks running up to the vote on Thursday, Catholic and evangelical churches in El Salvador joined forces with rightwing parties to try to push through the constitutional reforms.

Hundreds of Catholics and evangelicals carrying placards with messages like “Marriage is Sacred, Let’s Defend It” marched through the streets of San Salvador on Saturday, Sept. 19 in support of the rightwing opposition bloc in parliament and to press the FMLN to ratify changes to three articles of the constitution.

The church groups held a permanent “prayer chain” and organised more street demonstrations early this week, in the hope that the reforms would be approved in the legislative vote on Thursday, Sept. 24.

Supporters of the reforms said they were defending public morality and the foundations of the family.

Another New “No on 1″ Ad

Timothy Kincaid

September 25th, 2009

The No on 1 Campaign has another new ad out and rather than being in response to the anti-gay campaign, this one takes the issue on directly.

“People have a right to live how they want to live”

Bill Clinton Shifts on Marriage Equality

Timothy Kincaid

September 25th, 2009

Former President Bill Clinton has taped a discussion with Anderson Cooper which will run tonight in which he explains his shift on same-sex marriage.

While the endorsement certainly could have been more stirring, let’s welcome this influential voice into the marriage equality camp.