Box Turtle Bulletin

Three Pro-Gay Groups Seek To Elbow Their Way Into Prop 8 Lawsuit

My first reaction on learning that Attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies were filing a lawsuit in federal court to challenge the constitutionality of Prop 8, I was cool to the idea. But now with two other lawsuits from Massachusetts which are also challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, as well as the frustrations many of us are feeling over the distinctly unfierce advocacy taking place in Washington, I’ve changed my mind. I’m glad that Olson and Boies are going forward.

That said, I have to wonder what’s going on with three pro-gay groups who have petitioned the court to be admitted as parties to the case. The three groups — American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights — have asked the judge to allow them represent three gay community groups in the lawsuit seeking to overturn Proposition 8.

These same groups were among the eight who immediately opposed the lawsuit when it was first announced. Last week, they reversed their position and filed amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs, which is, I think, a very positive move. They seem to have warmed to the idea, much as I have.

But now all of the sudden they want to become parties of the lawsuit itself, even though they wanted nothing to do with the move in the beginning. Olson and Boies oppose their petition, saying that involving more groups would delay and unnecessarily complicate the proceedings. I agree. It worries me that one of the more important LGBT cases making its way in the federal courts could wind up having four different captains trying to pilot the ship. That alone should worry us.

But there’s something else that’s troubling. Kristin Perry, Sandra Stier, Paul Katami, and Jeffrey Zarrillo are the four Californians named as plaintiffs in the suit. They have the grievance, they’ve selected their lawyers, and they are ready to go to court to have their rights upheld. That’s what plaintiffs do in lawsuits. And so it seems to me that those four plaintiffs should have a right to have their case argued on their behalf by lawyers of their own choosing. They shouldn’t have to contend with three other outside groups with differing agendas who think they know better on how to try the case — especially when their first stab at knowing better was to publicly denounce the lawsuit to begin with.

Did DADT Kill August Provost?

Seaman August Provost, in a photo posted to his Myspace page.

Questions remain over the murder of Seaman August Provost who was shot wile standing sentry duty sometime overnight Tuesday at Camp Pendleton Marince Corp Base. His body was found at the end of his shift at around 3:30 a.m. Wednesday morning. It had been burned in an apparent attempt to conceal evidence.

Hus aunt, Rose Roy, of Beaumont, Texas, told CNN on Friday that Provost told her that he was being arassed because of his sexual orientation and race:

He was frustrated by it,” she said. She said she had advised him to speak to someone of higher rank, but said she wasn’t sure if he had done so.

“He went to serve and protect, but he didn’t get the protection,” she said. Brown said Thursday that he had no information on claims of harassment.

Asked whether she believed her nephew was killed because of race and sexual orientation, she said, “In my heart, I do.” She added, “it was like an execution-style killing, and nobody does that unless you have that kind of hatred in your heart.”

It’s unclear that Provost reported the harassment to higher-ups. Doing so would have revealed his sexual orientation to his superiors, which may trigger an investigation under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Such an investigation would then have led to Provost’s dismissal from the Navy.

Rep. Bob Filner (D-Chula Vista) has already asked the Department of Defense and the Marine Corps to investigate whether the killing at Camp Pendleton was a hate crime. So far, the Navy, which is leading the investigation, says they have no evidence that Provost’s murder was a hate crime. The Navy has one sailor in custody who “has been linked to the commission of this crime through both physical evidence and his own statement,” according to Navy spokesman Capt. Matt Brown.

A candlelight vigil is planned to honor Provost in front of Camp Pendleton this Friday, July 10 from 7:30 to 9:00 p.m.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Live

A sailor, August Provost of Houston, Texas, was found dead at Camp Pendleton near San Diego at about 3:30 a.m. Tuesday. Sources say he was shot and burned, which lead authorities to believe that it was foul play. A “person of interest” is in custody. Some believe it wasn’t an ordinary murder, but a hate crime:

Ben Gomez, head of the San Diego chapter of American Veterans for Equal Rights, a national advocacy group for gay and lesbian military personnel, said he and other local activists believe Provost’s death was a hate crime. Citing unnamed sources with access to a report on the seaman’s death, Gomez said Provost was killed during an argument with another sailor over the victim’s sexual orientation. On his MySpace page, Provost made references to same-sex dating and identified another Houston man as “the love of my life.”

When Actions Speak Louder Than Words

The Southern Baptist Convention has ousted Broadway Baptist Church of Fort Worth, Texas over the church’s acceptance of gays. Even though that church had sent their own gay-tolerant pastor packing over a controversy surrounding photos of same-sex couples in the church directory, it appears that what remained still wasn’t anti-gay enough to appease the powers that be.

Meanwhile, another Southern Baptist preacher, Rev. Wiley Drake of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, California, has been practicing “imprecatory prayer” for President Barack Obama’s death. Drake and his church remain in good standing.

Newsweek reports that for the fourth year in a row, Southern Baptist Churches baptized fewer people than they did in each prior year. This is taken as a key indicator of church growth — or decline, as the case may be. Two years ago, then-SBC president Frank Page blamed the decline on the perception that Baptists are “mean-spirited, hurtful and angry people.” This year’s theme for the Southern Baptist Convention is “Love Loud: Actions Speak Louder Than Words.” I have no further comment beyond that.

Santa Rosa CA Ex-Gay Pastor Not So Ex-Gay

Pastor Matthew C. Manning heads an outfit in Santa Rosa, California known as Lighthouse World Evangelism, which promises to deliver people from alcohol and drugs, mental struggles, homosexuality and HIV/AIDS. The last two are core to Manning’s own story. He claims to have been “delivered” from homosexuality in 1989, and miraculously healed from full-blown AIDS in 1994. Pat Robertson was impressed enough with that claim to feature Manning on an episode of the 700 Club in 2002. Mike Airhart, then writing for Ex-Gay Watch, tried to get to the bottom of those claims, but Manning refused to provide documentation from his doctors.

That was six years ago. Mike moved on to Truth Wins Out, and David Roberts picked up the thread. He recently re-opened the investigation and tried to find proof — any proof — that Manning had once tested positive for HIV for nine years and was then cured more than a decade ago. Unsurprisingly, Roberts was unable to find any evidence for a Manning’s cure, miraculous or otherwise.

But in looking around, he managed to find something else entirely different. Turns out that Manning has been charged in 1998, 2000, and in 2005 with complaints of soliciting other males for sexual encounters in public parks and other venues. The 2005 episode includes an order to stay away from 24 Hour Fitness locations in Santa Rosa for one year.

There are many more details, including source documentation in PDF form, in David Robert’s outstanding investigative report. He promises to have more information in the next few days.

Marriage Support Advances in Asian Communities

From Reuters

Lost in the 2009 election wreckage for gays was the marriage campaign’s relative success in Asian communities, which have swung toward support of same-sex marriage at a faster rate than the rest of California and have become a model for other groups.

Asian Americans have been building grass-roots support in Chinatown, Little Tokyo, Filipinotown for four years. Gays, lesbians and straight allies have talked about the often-taboo topic of homosexuality, set up booths at festivals, harangued non-English language media to change coverage and lobbied elected officials for support.

How did that work for them?

polls of Asians by the Asian Pacific American Legal Center showed a 36 point margin of victory for the ban in 2000, falling to 6 points in 2008. The decline in support [for banning gay marriage] was clearly faster than in the state overall, the center said.

Perhaps there are lessons to be learned.

Race Differences on Marriage Equality in Los Angeles

A new LA Times poll shows that support for marriage equality differs in Los Angeles by race:

White voters were most emphatic in their support for same-sex marriage, with 68% supporting it and 27% opposing. African American voters were strongly against it, with 54% opposing same-sex marriage and 37% supporting it.

Opposition to gay marriage by African Americans was widely seen as a major factor contributing to the passage of Proposition 8. Latinos in the current poll were split, with 45% supporting same-sex marriage and 46% opposing.

CA Governor Refuses To Defend Prop 8

Last Week, California Attorney General Gerald Brown filed a brief as a defendant in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, et al., the court challenge against Proposition 8 brought by high-profile attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies. In that brief, Brown refused to defend the constitutionality of Prop 8, calling it a violation of the Due Process clause and the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Today, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declined to defend the constitutionality of Prop 8, telling the Federal Court judge that the legality of the measure is for the courts to decide. The governor’s neutral stance means that there is no statewide official willing to defend Prop 8 in federal court.

Lesbian Couple Denied Visitation and Consultation At California Hospital

That’s right. Hospitals denying same-sex couples visitation rights and the ability to make medical decisions for each other can happen even in California.:

[Kristin] Orbin and her partner of 3½ years, Teresa Rowe, 30, who live in Northern California,  were in Fresno for Meet in the Middle 4 Equality, an event protesting the California Supreme Court’s ruling upholding Proposition 8.

After marching 14 miles in Central Valley heat, Orbin (who is epileptic) collapsed and suffered three grand mal seizures.  A doctor at a first aid center had difficulty finding her pulse, so he called 911.

Orbin said the discrimination started as soon as the paramedics arrived.

“By that time, I was going in and out of consciousness.  The paramedics wanted nothing to do with Teresa and she had to practically fight them to be allowed to ride in the ambulance.  I remember one of them was very nice and agreed to let her ride with me in the back.  Once we got to the hospital, they wheeled me into a hallway and left me, refusing to allow Teresa to be with me.”

The problem with the hospital started when the paramedic informed the emergency room nurse on duty that Kristin was a Meet in the Middle marcher. The nurse didn’t like that.

Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center refused to accept Kirstin’s medical cards from Teresa, and they refused Teresa’s offer to have their medical advance directives and power of attorney faxed to them. The even refused to accept Teresa’s warning that Kirstin suffered massive migraines if she were given the benzodiazapine Ativan, which they tried to give Kirsten when she woke up. Kirstin was finally able to join Teresa when a doctor arrived a few hours later.

I had hesitated in posting about this when the story appeared because there was only one news source for it. But now that the American Civil Liberties Union has investigated and found that there is considerable merit to the allegations. In fact, because Kirstin has epilepsy, trips to the hospital is fairly normal. In a statement from the ACLU, Teresa said:

“Unfortunately, because Kristin suffers from epilepsy, trips to the hospital are pretty common for us, which is why we filled out the legal paper work to make sure I would be able to be with her and make emergency decisions about her care. But the hospital wouldn\’t let me see Kristen and ignored my advice about her treatment. They ended up giving her the exact medication I repeatedly asked them not to give her.”

The ACLU and the National Center for Lesbian Rights sent a joint letter (PDF: 624 KB/5 pages) to the hospital today urging that it adopt policy changes with regard to same-sex relationships. It cites California’s Unrih Civil Rights Act, which provides that “no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accomodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services…” The letter requires Fresno Community Hospital to take the following steps before June 22, 2009:

1. Adopt a comprehensive visitaiton policy that:
   • Affirms all patients’ rights to have visitors, explicitly including same-sex partners and their children;
   • Outlines a clear process for determining when visitors will be restricted and how that decision will be communicated; and
   • Includes a grievance procedure in the case of visitation denial that can be acted on quickly in an emergency situation.
2. Ensure that yur hospitals’ non-discrimination policy explicitly describes LGBT individuals as a protected group;
3. Ensure that your patients’ bill of rights explicitly describes the rights of LGBT patients;
4. Provide LGBT healthcare training to the Emergency Department staff at Community Regional Medical Center in Fresno; and
5. Participate inthe 2009 Healthcare Equality Index, an annual survey of healthcare industry policies and practices related to LGBT individuals and families.

CA Attorney General Brief: Prop 8 Violates 14th Amendment

What a contrast between the California Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice. On the same day in which the Obama administration filed a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court defending the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,“ California Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a very different brief in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the Prop 8 challenge brought by Ted Olson and David Boies.

In the brief filed on behalf of the State of California (PDF: 128KB/11 pages), Brown notes that:

The Attorney General of California is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States in addition to the Constitution of the State of California. Cal. Const., art. XX, § 3. The United States Constitution is the “supreme law of the land.” Taking from same-sex couples the right to civil marriage that they had previously possessed under California\’s Constitution cannot be squared with guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, the Attorney General answers the Complaint consistent with his duty to uphold the United States Constitution, as Attorney General Thomas C. Lynch did when he argued that Proposition 14, passed by the California voters in 1964, was incompatible with the Federal Constitution.

The complaint filed by Olson and Boies (PDF: 140KB/11 pages) is broken down into forty-nine paragraphs. The response by the Attorney General addresses each of the numbered paragraphs in the original complaint. The response begins with a stipulation that California’s Domestic Partnerships are not equal to civil marriage and therefore violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution”

In response to paragraph 1 of the Complaint, the Attorney General admits that in November 2008 California adopted Proposition 8; that Proposition 8 amended Article I of the California Constitution by adding section 7.5 which provides that “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California;” and that the effect of Proposition 8 is to deny gay men and lesbians and their same-sex partners access to civil marriage in California and to deny them recognition of their civil marriages performed elsewhere. The Attorney General admits that lesbians and gay men and their same-sex partners may form domestic partnerships in California pursuant to California Family Code sections 297 through 299.6, and that such domestic partnerships are not equal to civil marriage, and that this unequal treatment denies lesbians and gay men rights guarantees by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

…In response to paragraph 7 of the Complaint, the Attorney General admits that Proposition 8 denies same-sex couples the right to civil marriage in California, and that it therefore violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

…In response to paragraph 23 of the Complaint, the Attorney General admits that California\’s domestic partnership law gives same-sex couples many of the substantive legal benefits and privileges that California civil marriage provides; that the domestic partnership law does not permit the marriage of same-sex couples; and that the California Supreme Court has noted at least nine ways in which statutes concerning marriage differ from corresponding statutes concerning domestic partnerships.

Brown describes the reasons that gays and lesbians should be treated as a suspect class deserving of equal protection:

…In response to paragraph 20 of the Complaint, the Attorney General admits that sexual orientation is a characteristic that bears no relation to a person\’s ability to perform or contribute to society and that the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians has been associated with a stigma of inferiority and second-class citizenship, manifested by the group\’s history of legal and social disabilities.

Brown also invokes Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling which struck down laws banning marriage between people of different races:

In response to paragraph 35 of the Complaint, the Attorney General admits that the United States Supreme Court found in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1. 12 (1967), that the “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

The brief then addresses the Due Process claims:

In response to paragraph 38 of the Complaint, the Attorney General admits that, to the extent that Proposition 8 took from Plaintiffs their previously held fundamental right to marry, the measure violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on its face.

…In response to paragraph 39 of the Complaint, the Attorney General admits that, to the extent that Proposition 8 took from Plaintiffs their previously held fundamental right to marry, the measure violates the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on its face; and that by denying civil marriage to gay and lesbian same-sex couples that it affords to heterosexual opposite-sex couples, the California Constitution denies gay and lesbian couples and their families the same dignity, respect, and stature afforded families headed by a married couple.

And the Equal Protection claims:

In response to paragraph 42 of the Complaint, the Attorney General admits that Proposition 8 restricts civil marriage in California to opposite-sex couples; that gays and lesbians are therefore unable to enter into a civil marriage with the person of their choice; that the California Constitution treats similarly-situated persons differently by providing civil marriage to opposite-sex couples, but denying it to same-sex couples; that domestic partnership under California law is available to same-sex couples, but is not the equivalent of civil marriage; that even if domestic partnership were the substantive equivalent to civil marriage, it would still be unequal to deny civil marriage to same-sex couples because, as recognized by the California Supreme Court in In re Marriage Cases, domestic partnership would carry with it a stigma of inequality and second-class citizenship; that under the California Constitution, gay and lesbian same sex couples are unequal to heterosexual opposite sex couples; and that article I, section 7.5 of the California Constitution discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

This is an exceptional brief, absent all of the pernicious anti-gay ramblings of the Obama administration’s brief before the U.S. Supreme Court. After reading the DOJ brief yesterday, this one was a breath of fresh air. Look at these two briefs side-by-side. It will be clear that only one was written by a “fierce advocate” for the Constitutional principles of Due Process and Equal Protection.

The New Miss California Also Does Not Support Same-Sex Marriage

The Miss California Pageant has replaced one young Christian girl… with another, Teri Farrell.

According to the Kansas City Star,

She’s a Christian. Farrell recently finished recording her first demo CD and performed during a Christian cruise to the Bahamas last summer. Last fall she worked with Christian recording artists, Sonic Flood, on a new CD project.

And the Mercury News is telling us that she doesn’t support marriage equality

In a television interview Thursday, [Tami] Farrell said she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman. But she added: “I don’t think I have the right or anybody has the right to tell somebody who they can or can’t love.”

But it seems that Tami, unlike Carrie, doesn’t think her opinion on the matter is the result of some battle between God and Satan or that she’s qualified to weigh in authoritatively.

But what about gay marriage? Farrell feels it is “hilarious that the world is turning to beauty queens for the answers” on gay marriage, but she didn’t have a strong opinion on either side of the debate.

“I don’t think I have the right, or anyone has the right, to tell somebody who they can or cannot love. I think this is a civil rights issue, and I think the right thing to do is to let the voters decide.”

TMZ has video from CNN in which she says that the decision should be state by state and that she isn’t interested in hooking up with anti-gay organizations.

California HIV Emergency: Schwarzenegger, Legislature may slash HIV funding

[The following is a guest post by journalist Rex Wockner, cross-posted at his web site. This very important story is reprinted here with permission and at his request.]

Gay and HIV advocates rallied at the state Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., on June 10 against draconian cuts in HIV funding proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and under consideration by the Legislature. Wockner News photo by Charlie Peer/Outword Magazine

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed, and the California Legislature is considering, draconian cuts to all types of HIV-related funding in the near-bankrupt state.

In the worst-case scenario, which is still not off the table, slashes to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program could result in thousands of Californians who make less than $41,600 per year losing access to the state-provided drugs that suppress HIV and keep them alive.

In the apparent best-case scenario, not all HIV drugs would be available via ADAP and patients would have to pay part of the cost of the ones they could get. That is problematic because some HIV-positive people have developed resistance to some HIV drugs, and need access to the full arsenal of therapies to stay alive.

Further, the current plan apparently completely eliminates state funding for the tests that determine if a patient is responding to treatment — such tests as CD4 counts, viral-load measurement and drug-resistance monitoring.

These tests are essentially mandatory in HIV treatment. Doctors use them so they can change a nonresponsive patient’s drug combination to another combo that works in that patient — before the patient’s immune system breaks down further and the patient develops a life-threatening opportunistic infection.

The current plan apparently also dramatically slashes funding for education, prevention, counseling and testing programs.

Some 35,000 working- and middle-class Californians who don’t make enough money to pay for their own treatment could be adversely or dangerously affected by the possible cuts to ADAP and elimination of monitoring testing.

Gay and HIV advocates have strongly denounced the budget proposals, and a large rally was held at the state Capitol in Sacramento on June 10.

Why You Should Always Go To The Source

I’ve adopted a policy of never believing what I read on most anti-gay web sites, simply because when you go to the source, you find that things are never — never! — as they appear. And I say that mindful of the dangers of speaking in such absolutes. But here is just another of one those examples. This email landed in my inbox:

I’m a faithful DAILY (HOURLY?) gay guy reader of your blogs. I LOVE YOUR WORK!! I am grateful for all you do!

Since I also read WND to “find out what those guys are thinking”…every once in a while I come across something that makes me wince. If the below is true (is it?), it doesn’t look A-OK for our side…do you guys have any back-story on this? I don’t like the fact that parents can’t opt-out. Is this another scare tactic?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99442

Good question, Thomas. Thanks for asking.

The WND article decries a “mandatory homosexual curriculum for children as young as 5.” But what is that “homosexual curriculum” that the Alameda (CA) Unified School District has developed?

Well, it’s all online right here. And as you look through it, you will find that it is simply a set of short discussions with students about fellow students’ families. Some of these families have a mom and a dad, some just a mom, some just a dad, some with two moms, and some with two dads, and some with no moms or dads but aunts, uncles or grandparents.

It’s the mentioning of two moms and two dads that’s stiring up the trouble. But having a child in school with two moms or two dads is just a fact of life. This curriculum is designed to reflect that ordinary fact, and to point out that ostracism, teasing, or bullying because of it are not acceptable.

But to anti-gay opponents, the possibility that we might just be ordinary families who happen to send children to school is very scary. So yes, it is a scare tactic. Anything that unmasks the horrible creatures invented by anti-gay activists and reveals that ordinary people in ordinary families send ordinary children to ordinary schools, well there’s nothing more frightening to them than that. And so they oppose it at all costs.

Our opponents are very good at scaring people. It’s all they have left. And so they label a curriculum designed to minimize bullying and ostracizing behavior as a “homosexual curriculum,” as if teachers were being ordered to teach the mechanics of homo-sex to school kids. But that’s not what this is. Not even close.

But the mechanics of hetero-sex, well that seems to be another matter.

[Thanks to Thomas for asking a very good question.]

Yes He Can!

I asked last Friday:

President Barack Obama will be in Los Angeles on Wednesday, which will be the day immediately following Decision Day. Do you think he can make it through the entire visit without mentioning Prop 8?

The answer is yes, he did.

Tuesday’s Anti-Prop 8 Rally In Los Angeles

When we see YouTube videos of rallies taking place in other cities, we get simple editing, poor sound, and shaky cameras. But no, not in the entertainment capital of the world. This is what Tuesday’s rally against Prop 8 looked like in Los Angeles: