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 lobbyPosts Tagged As: Marriage
December 30th, 2008
The Transplanted Lawyer at Not a Potted Plant blogsite provides another perspective about the decision to allow a lesbian couple to go forward with their lawsuit against the Ocean Grove Meeting Association for its refusal to rent the couple the boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union. In my commentary, I focused on the finding of the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights that one lesbian couple’s suit could advance. He finds more relevance in the fact that another lesbian couple was denied.
That two couples suing the Association with different results brings a contrast, one that should provide comfort to those worried about the infringment on religious rights and one that further illustrates the dishonesty in the way in which anti-gays have spun the story.
In Bernstein v. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a lesbian couple wanted to perform a civil union ceremony at a beachside facility owned and operated by a [Methodist] faith organization (it appears to not be a church per se, but it affiliates and identifies with [Methodist] Christianity). The New Jersey agency investigating the complaint found probable cause to permit the charge of discrimination proceed. But, in Moore v. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, another lesbian couple wanted to perform their civil union ceremony at the exact same facility. In that case, no probable cause was found. Both case results were announced on the same day — yesterday.
Same facts, same defendant, same facility, decided on the same day, but different results.
The reason for different results is because the circumstances had changed. When Bernstein requested usage, the Pavilion had been used for a wide variety of purposes – religious and non-religious – including weddings of people of all faiths or no faith at all. All that was required was to pay a fee. Thus it was a “public accomodation”. And the sole reason for rejection of Bernstein’s usage of this public accomodation was that their union was of persons of the same sex.
But when Moore requested usage, the Association had changed their policy and tightened the purpose of the Pavilion. They no longer allowed weddings in the space at all and limited those who were allowed use of the space based on religious affiliation. Thus, the space was no longer a public accomodation but private property with restricted use. Therefore, religious exemptions again applied.
He further noted that this process, presenting one’s discrimination case before a board before a lawsuit, is further protection for religious bodies.
The Transplanted Lawyer found three lessons:
the first lesson is that someone who claims to be the victim of discrimination cannot immediately walk into court and file a successful lawsuit. They must present their charge to a state or federal agency for investigation first, and that agency has to investigate and decide if there’s any merit.
there is the second lesson about the law of discrimination. You are subject to the requirements of non-discrimination only if you are engaged in something called a “public accommodation.” So if you don’t want same-sex wedding ceremonies in your church, don’t rent your church out to people who are not members of your church’s congregation.
That’s the third lesson — [when invoking freedom of expression,] commercial activity does not enjoy the same level of Constitutional protection as expressive activity.
I found the arguments well thought out and easy to comprehend. And I think that the Tranplanted Lawyer very well expressed the moral of this story:
When the church stops being a church and starts being a banquet hall, then yes, it is vulnerable to a discrimination lawsuit because it’s not acting like a church anymore. The message to churches that are opposed to same sex marriages is “stay true to your faith and the law will be on your side.”
December 29th, 2008
The recent campaign against civil marriage equality for gay people was rife with misinformation, spin, falsehoods, and downright lies. And one story which was repeated to great effect was a legal dispute over the use of a privately-owned public pavilion in New Jersey.
Seldom were the claims accurate.
Take, for example, Charlene: a single-mother of two who warned on her website of the dangers of gay marriage that she had learned at church. Amidst a heap of campaign propaganda and homophobic bogus statistics was this rather hysterical retelling:
Our Pastors would be arrested for preaching against homosexuality according to the BIBLE. God’s word would be restricted! Recently, a Methodist church in New Jersey refused to marry a lesbian couple and they were sued and LOST! Now they lost their tax exemption and the government actually TAXES their tithes! That is God’s Money!!
And it was not just frantic repetition of misunderstood sermons by those who rely on their church for their information; the anti-gay media also joined in the chorus.
The Christian Examiner ran an article – ironically titled Proposition 8: Separating the Fiction from Fact – in which they delared:
Religious liberty
CLAIM: Current California law exempts churches and other religious organizations from having to perform marriages for same-sex couples or conduct other services against their religious beliefs.FACT 1: New Jersey’s Ocean Grove Camp, lost its tax-exempt status after refusing to allow a same-sex couple to marry on its grounds.
The problem with these astonishing facts? They are not factual.
The LA Times explained it this way:
Another “Yes on 8” canard is that the continuation of same-sex marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings — of any religion — could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.
The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it’s not public. The ruling does not affect churches’ religious tax exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn’t about a wedding ceremony.
The facts of the story are these:
“When people hear the words ‘open space,’ we want them to think not just of open air and land, but that it is open to all people,” said [Lisa Jackson, state commissioner of environmental protection]. “And when the public subsidizes it with tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not going to be parsed out, whether it be by activity or any particular beliefs.”
As we can see, the situation in no way mirrors the “facts” as presented by anti-gay activists and those who choose to believe them. No church lost its exempt status, no tithes were taxed, and it wasn’t related to a same-sex marriage in New Jersey (the right to which remains denied to New Jersey residents).
But we can expect even more distortion and truthiness in the days to come. In a move likely to inspire more untruthful rants in the anti-gay media, today the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights ruled further in favor of the lesbian couple (AP)
The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights said its investigation found that the refusal of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association to rent the oceanfront spot to the couple for their same-sex union in March 2007 violated the public accommodation provisions of the state’s Law Against Discrimination.
The legal resolutions on this case are far from settled.
Meanwhile, the parties in the dispute are awaiting a ruling from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on whether the issue should be decided in the division on civil rights or in federal courts. A lower federal court has ruled that the state could consider the case.
This case highlights some of the conflict between religous and civil separations.
Churches can and do often operate outside the realm of the faith and doctrine. A church may own performance halls, bookstores, restaurants, or a great many other establishments, some of which have little to no religious function. And the further away they get from their central purpose, the more gray and hazy become the distinctions that allow them to claim religious exemption from civil rights laws.
A Catholic bookstore, owned and operated by a parish for use by parishoners, is probably exempt from hiring those who do not share Catholic faith. But it becomes much less clear that a Catholic-affiliated hospital who accepts Medicare and insurance payments can refuse to hire a Jewish doctor or provide care to a black Muslim.
As anti-discrimination laws run up against anti-gay theology, churches will have to decide whether they wish to ‘uphold their doctrines’ or keep their sideline businesses. This will become particularly sticky when those sidelines seem to be part of their mission and when those businesses are facing competition from secular sources. And public financing only complicates the matter.
Take, for example, the feeding of the poor.
As an act of Christian charity, many churches or other religious organizations make an effort to provide food to the less fortunate. Not always, but quite often, this charitable act comes with the price of listening to a sermon or having someone pray with/over/about the hungry. And while most of these efforts are voluntary, some are large enough and sufficiently well funded so as to employ staff.
This is not a problem when its a local church helping out the neighbors. But churches have, in many instances, ceased thinking of their efforts as a duty or an outreach of their faith and have instead began to view their efforts as a service provider for the needy. And, as such, they see the government and public funds as a logical source for paying for their efforts.
What would have been considered bizarre but a century ago – “faith based” initiatives funded by taxpayers but managed according to religious doctrines – now seems quite acceptable and even laudable. And religious organizations are clamoring for their place at the public trough, while simultaneously demanding exemptions from government strings or any duty to the taxpayers.
The Ocean Grove Pavilion is but a very visible instance of a religious body seeking the benefits of taxpayer largess while demanding the privileges of religious exemption. I expect many more such conflicts will arise.
UPDATE – 1/26/10
The Auditorium Pavilion is a separate structure from the Boardwalk Pavilion, the location requested by the couple for their civil union ceremony.
December 26th, 2008
This year was one of both pleasant and challenging experiences.
On Christmas Eve, I found myself at the home of a lovely woman. I was having a wonderful time when this woman’s son’s girlfriend announced that she had voted for Proposition 8. This was said loudly and proudly to the four gay people in the room.
I found myself unsure what to do. Frankly, I was shocked. I tried to pull myself out of the group and the girl came over to explain her position. She thought, “If they let two men marry, they might as well let three or four”.
Now this was coming from a girl who was waiting for the father of her daughter to finish Christmas Eve with his two other girlfriends, one of whom he lived with and the other of whom is pregnant. I found it more than a little perplexing that she felt entitled to an opinion about the legal rights of gay relationships.
And any efforts to make her realize that this was not abstract or theoretical but that she had voted to deny rights to people right there in the room only yielded her polygamy response. I finally realized that there was not going to be a rational meeting of minds and settled for the agreement that discrimination is not pleasant to the recipient, regardless of the reasons – though no empathy was present in that concession.
We went on with the evening – a meeting of very different cultures – and I found that I did enjoy the night. I even found that I enjoyed this particular girl.
I wonder if my response was correct.
I was a guest in someone’s home and at no point did anyone treat me with overt bigotry. Yet, someone sat and looked me in the face and told me that she had voted to make me inferior. Proudly. And no argument would sway the certainty of her position.
On the other hand, Christmas Day was delightful and without any conflict. It was a gathering of gay men (and a straight woman) for a delicious dinner, conversation, and watching (or, really, talking over) movies.
We also found that Oxygen On Demand had a karaoke channel which had Christmas songs. And I think the high point of the day was belting out Christmas Carols and seeing black and white, Christian and Jewish and Muslim and Native, singles and couples, all joining together in trying to reach the high notes on O Holy Night (Celene Dion version).
I hope that all of you enjoyed the holiday as much as I did.
December 23rd, 2008
When the Rick Warren controversy arose, I looked for evidence that Joseph Lowery, the Methodist minister giving the benediction, actually does support gay marriage. I couldn’t find any quotes saying so.
Because he doesn’t. Here he is on MSNBC’s 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
December 21st, 2008
On Saturday, groups throughout the State of California and across the Country met again to continue the protest over Proposition 8.
Hundreds of people from San Luis Obispo and Palm Springs, to Santa Cruz and Eureka and 39 places throughout the State, carried candles in the cold to remind their neighbors that real people were hurt by this amendment and that they aren’t going away. Around the world some 400 such demonstrations were held.
Sometimes setbacks are events, singular instances which occur and which may have some short term impact on the world, some immediate response, but then they drift away. But sometimes an event is the catalyst for a movement, a special moment that resonates with a community and brings about a shift in the world and the way it operates.
It may well be that Proposition 8 is just such a situation.
December 20th, 2008
It is the duty of the state Attorney General, the very definition of his job, to represent the political actions of the state before the courts. Therefore it is very rare for an Attorney General to argue against the actions taken by the legislature or the voters of the state.
Yet that is exactly what Jerry Brown, Attorney General of the State of California, is doing. Brown has submitted a legal brief stating that the amendment to the State Constitution passed in November is itself unconstitutional (Sacramento Bee). This is particularly fascinating because Brown had earlier indicated that he would defend the proposition before the courts.
In a dramatic reversal, Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right. Earlier, Brown had said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters.
But Brown said he reached a different conclusion “upon further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution.”
“It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative,” he said in an interview Friday night. “Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote.”
This decision also may reveal political calculation. Brown wants to be re-elected Governor in 2010 (he served from 1975 to 1983) and may have taken that desire into consideration. If that played into his decision, it may suggest that Brown believes that the opposition to Prop 8 may hurt him irrevocably in the primary while not helping him in the general election.
Or perhaps he just couldn’t live with himself arguing that the freedoms and rights for all in the State of California have an asterisk when it comes to gays.
December 20th, 2008
Over 18,000 same-sex couples were married in the five months between when marriage equality was determined to be the law of the State of California and November 4, when California voters narrowly passed Proposition 8.
And, in a move that should be a surprise to no one, those who foisted this inequality on a segment of the population are now demanding that the California Supreme Court invalidate the 18,000 marriages.
During the campaign, hardly a word was said to the voters about this most likely of events. Those who favored Proposition 8 prefered that the voters not consider whether forcing thousands of married Californians into unwanted divorce was disgusting and vile. And the No on 8 Campaign took another tack. They simply declared that these marriages would not be retroactively disallowed and dropped the subject.
At the risk of piling on, this is but another example of the rather short-sighted nature of the No on 8 Campaign. I cannot help but believe that an appeal by married couples in every media region of the state simply asking their neighbors not to force them into divorce might have been more effective than some of the television advertising that was selected in its place.
And as for the supporters of Proposition 8, this clearly illustrates that they were shamelessly lying when they said that this effort was only about “definition” of an “institution” and had nothing to do with gay people. Well, they “protected” their definition and the first thing they did was go after gay married couples.
Lest there be any confusion or uncertainly about the motivations of those who planned and executed this political effort, this brings all to light. By seeking the retroactive invalidation of previously enacted marriages between gay people, they reveal that their motivation is – and always has been – based in a desire to disadvantage, condemn, and punish those persons who are gay. It is without question that form of bigotry known as homophobia.
December 16th, 2008
Rick Warren — you remember him. He has all of those “many gay friends” — said this about why he supported California’s Prop 8:
…There were all kinds of threats that if that [Prop 8] did not pass, then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn’t think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships. And that would be hate speech. To me, we should have freedom of speech. And you should be able to have freedom of speech to make your position, and I should be able to have freedom of speech to make my position. And can we do this in a civil way?
This is unadulterated nonsense. First, a civil marriage law does nothing to impinge on what a pastor can preach. Divorce is very common, but you can waive all the divorce decrees and new marriage licences in front of a Catholic priest’s face and he’s not going to marry anyone unless the Vatican has granted an annulment. And he’ll be happy to explain it to the couple in his office, at the pulpit, on the Internet, or anywhere else. It’s not hate speech.
And what if it were considered hate speech? No problem there either because in the United States, hate speech is not against the law. And it can never be against the law as long as the First Amendment is in effect. We already have laws against discrimination based on race and religion, but even with those laws, Rick Warren can be as anti-Semitic and racist as he wants to be. He’s neither of those things, but if he wanted to be, he could. And the law would protect him.
I suspect Rev. Warren knows that. But he’d rather stoke the paranoia of his fellow evangelicals than actually discuss the issue “in a civil way.”
December 16th, 2008
— and he’s even eaten dinner in their homes! — but Rick Warren views their marriages as being equivalent to incest, child rape and polygamy:
Rick Warren: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
Steven Waldman: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?
Rick Warren: Oh I do. …
… Most people, you know… I have many gay friends, I’ve eaten dinner in gay homes, no church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church. Kay and I have given millions of dollars out of “A Purpose-Driven Life” helping people who got AIDS through gay relationships. So they can’t accuse me of homophobia. I just don’t beleive in the re-definition of marriage.
Rev. Warren used his pretext of “many gay friends” and the work that Saddleback Church has done for “people who got AID through gay relationships” to say, “they can’t accuse me of homophobia.”
But it seems to me that if a friend of mine said that my relationship was no different than having sex with my brother or sister or a young child, that person would no longer be my friend. And I’d most likely call him a homophobe.
I wonder what Rick Warren’s “many gay friends” think?
December 15th, 2008
Hungary’s Constitutional Court says it has annulled a law giving rights to domestic partners because it would diminish the importance of marriage.
Their reasoning was peculiar and worth a moment of thought. The Court stated that it would accept domestic partnerships for gay couples but not for heterosexuals. By offering all the same rights to DPs, it “downgraded” the importance of marriage.
Interestingly, this Court recognized what the legislatures of New Hampshire and New Jersey are pretending to find confusing: that marriage is not equal to a relationship by some other name. Sadly, the Hungarian Court seems to be trying to ensure that same-sex couples be allowed only the lesser status.
December 14th, 2008
RIOT GEAR?
And you know how sometimes you read a story and it becomes clear that the writer has no idea what they’re talking about? That was pretty evident in this case.
Lopez is not known for his balanced reporting. I don’t regularly read his column because it seldom includes much more than his own personal views illustrated by an anecdotal story. And this time he was no more prepared, knowledgeable, or objective than usual.
As the saying goes, Lopez is entitled to his own opinion, but he’s not entitled to his own facts. Here are a few examples of how he got it wrong:
A boycott was organized on the Internet, with activists trashing El Coyote on restaurant review sites. Then came throngs of protesters, some of them shouting “shame on you” at customers. The police arrived in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob.
Steve doesn’t tell you that the “angry mob” consisted mostly of regular customers and that those throngs met mostly on one night organized for just that purpose. Nor were they in any way “quelled”. Lopez selected untruthful imagery to advance his argument.
And if you want to see an example of the police “in riot gear” just look at the picture that the Times used on Steve’s article. The man on the right in the short sleve black shirt without a helmet and holding a flashlight is a policeman. I wouldn’t want to be him in a riot.
But it wouldn’t stir up sympathy for Margie if he said, “Four police officers helped keep the protest on the sidewalk. The crowd was cooperative and at no time was there any confrontation with the police.”
But I didn’t like what I was hearing about the vilification of Margie Christoffersen and others in California being targeted for the crime of voting their conscience.
Never – EVER – has Margie been “targeted for the crime of voting her conscience”. That’s just factually untrue. Margie was targeted because she presented a supportive front to her gay customers while she simultaneously funded efforts to take away a fundamental right. This is not a matter of semantics, it’s a matter of facts.
So even if Margie returns to work at El Coyote, her husband said, “she will never, ever be back here on a Thursday night.”
Thursdays, as tradition had it, the place was mobbed with gay customers.
I had lunch at El Coyote on Thursday, and most of the tables were empty.
Here’s where Steve displays his ignorance.
El Coyote was not a restaurant with one “gay night”. On any given night of the week a significant segment of the customers were gay.
And gay customers are not upset that Margie was there on Thursdays. They are upset that she betrayed them. Clearly neither Lopez nor Wayne Christoffersen yet understand why El Coyote’s gay customers left.
Steve Lopez can eat there any time he likes. But as for me, if Margie comes back at all – Thursdays or any days – I won’t.
December 12th, 2008
Maggie Gallagher, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, is one of the leaders in the effort to deny gay citizens equal access to marriage laws. Her statements in the past have shown that Maggie finds efforts to sway public opinion to be more important than telling the truth. In an National Review Online article this week she continues that trend.
Gallagher seeks to demonize the gay community and uses the example of Margie Christoffersen and the response by El Coyote patrons as an example of the “McCarthyite” spirit of supporters of marriage equality. And facts certainly weren’t going to stand in her way.
Take her initial claim:
Marjorie is just one of 89 people who work for El Coyote.
Is she? Really?
There are absolutely zero regular customers, restaurant critics, or local color writers who would have described Margie in this manner – prior to the Prop 8 situation. Marjorie is just one of 89 people who work for El Coyote in the same way that the Pope is just one of a billion Catholics.
Yet to make her case about the evil of the pro-marriage crowd, Maggie said it anyway. Because that lie supports the point she really wants:
This is a totally new tactic by the way. Boycotts against businesses who donate to a cause or mistreat their customers have long been an accepted part of the American democratic practice. But targeting an entire business because one person associated with it made (in their personal capacity) a donation to a cause is brand new. It’s essentially McCarthyite in spirit. Gay-marriage activists hope to make you unemployable if you publicly disagree with them.
But there is no truth in Maggie’s assertion that individual-related boycotts are somehow “new” or outside the “accepted part of the American democratic practice”.
Yes, some successful boycotts, such as that against the Mongomery Bus system, were due to institutional policies. But there certain have been many boycotts over history because of the actions of one person, often outside of their capacity as an “employee”. For example here are two that have been conducted by the community:
And gays are not alone in individual-based boycotts. There have been wallet-voting efforts made against a whole host of other companies ranging from Carl’s Jr. to Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream because various subsets of the population did not like the political views of individuals associated with the company.
Conservatives even went so far as to talk about boycotting Starbucks because of a gay individual was quoted on a cup. And it is not uncommon for viewers of various stripes to refuse to see movies which feature actors with whom they disagree politically; I’m willing to bet that even Maggie Gallagher watches her expenditures in just that manner.
Maggie Gallagher has absolutely no basis for claiming that targeting El Coyote and Marjorie Christoffersen is something new. She just thinks that saying so will stir ill will towards gay people and others who support marriage equality. She wants to accuse us of trying to make those who disagree with us unemployable. She wants to demonize us and continue feeding Proposition 8’s campaign of fear.
Those who read Maggie casually may not see immediate evidences of her contempt and disdain for those to whom she wants dictate. Maggie loves to wrap her calls for discrimination in cloaks labeled generous, kind, and ordinary. But at the basis of every self-righteous and indignant statement lies a willingness to say anything – no matter how far divorced from the truth – to advance her moral crusade. And that she writes skillfully does not make her articles any more benign or less dishonest.
She would never say it; she’s far too clever. But her writing makes clear: Maggie Gallagher wants her readers to hate you. And she’s willing to lie to acheive that goal.
December 10th, 2008
[Jim has also written about this change in the marriage landscape]
We told you of an agreement between Senate Majority Leader hopeful Malcolm Smith and three renegade Democratic Senators which would buy their support by assuring them that gay marriage would not be allowed to be presented for a vote in the New York State Senate. Now it seems that Mr. Smith has had a little conversation with his integrity and that his integrity won.
Newsday is reporting that the deal is off:
“We’re prepared to wait if we have to to come into the majority,” Smith said. He was flanked by senators Neil Breslin of Albany and Liz Krueger of Manhattan when he made the announcement.
Smith said the three renegades were motivated by “personal interests.” He also said he wouldn’t subject civil rights issues to negotiation, referring to a proposal backed by many Democrats to legalize gay marriage.
“That issue should never be a part of a negotiation,” Smith said, and should be subject to the legislative process.
The article suggests that the role of “integrity” was played by other members of the Democratic Caucus who had to remind Smith about what he believed. Nonetheless, this is a significant and brave step for Smith and for the Democrats. And I commend them for finding their courage and taking the risk.
The three rebels may decide that if they can’t get their way, they’ll turn power back over to the Republicans. But I think a more likely scenario is that they know that such a vote would be political suicide and that in the end they will support Smith. And, if so, there will probably be a vote on marriage equality in the relatively near future.
So now it is up to Empire Pride to lobby the other Democratic Senators and to work with Log Cabin to try and pull enough Republican Senators to get a “yes” majority. Those readers living in New York should begin to consider what steps they can take to help.
(hat tip Good As You)
December 10th, 2008
Remember that apparent deal we told you about between New York State Sen. Malcom Smith and the so-called “Gang of Three”? That deal centered on the Democrats taking control of the Senate for the first time in forty years in exchange pledging to Sens. Rubén DÃaz Sr., Pedro Espada, and Carl Kruger in writing not to put same-sex marriage legislation up for a vote.
It now looks like that deal has fallen apart:
Sen. Malcolm Smith said today that he will cease negotiations on the reorganization of the Senate with the so-called “Gang of Three”. “We are suspending negotiations, effective immediately, because to do so otherwise would reduce our moral standing and the long-term Senate Democratic commitment to reform and change,” Smith said. “It became very clear to me, over time, that those negotiations started being more about self interest.”
…”Frankly, we would rather wait two more years to take charge of the Senate than to simply serve the interests of a few,” Smith said. He also said limiting civil rights of New Yorkers should not be part of the negotiations, but should be part of the legislative process.
December 10th, 2008
Seamus Hasson, new recipient of our LaBarbera Award for his comparison of Prop 8 protesters to El Qaeda, made some amazing claims on KPFK yesterday:
…there have been at least ten churches painted with swastikas, threats to close down or else. There’s been six churches with small-bore rifle fire through their windows. By my count, there have been at least six instances of burning Books of Mormon on the church steps. These aren’t isolated occurrences here and there; this is an uprising of some sort.
I checked up on Hasson’s claims by reviewing newspaper reports of vandalism following the passage of Proposition 8. While I may have missed some reports (if so, please advise), my numbers are substantially different from those of Hasson.
Instances of swastika vandalism:
Other use of swastika:
I do know of at least one instance of spray painting on a church. In the days following the vote, a Mormon Church in Utah was tagged with “Nobody is born a bigot”. This was likely related to Proposition 8, but no swastikas were used.
So as for “churches painted with swastikas” by protesters over Proposition 8: Hasson’s count: ten; my count: zero.
Burning Books of Mormon:
So as for “instances of burning Books of Mormon on the church steps” by protesters over Proposition 8: Hasson’s count: six; my count: one.
I found no instances of churches being threatened to “close down or else”. None. And by “small-bore rifle fire”, Hasson means a bb gun (as in “You’ll shoot your eye out, kid“).
Which leaves me with the following conclusion: Either
I’ll let you decide.
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: