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
October 27th, 2008
The Santa Clara County Council of Churches is so committed to the Christian principle of justice and compassion that they ran a full page ad in the San Jose Mercury News giving their brothers, sisters, neighbors, and parishioners the following message:
As people of faith,
We believe that all people are made in the image of God.
We believe in loving, faithful and committed relationships.
We affirm everyone’s right to the freedom to marry.
We urge you to..
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8.
Don’t eliminate marriage for anyone.
The ad was signed by 23 member churches. There is also an accompanying videowith statements from ministers from Unitarian Universalist, Disciples of Christ, MCC, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist and Jewish congregations. The Council is also running phone banks for No on 8 out of local churches.
Too often anti-gay activists coopt the name Christian or Religion in the same way they seek to control the word Marriage. It is encouraging to see people of faith willing to stand up for principles that are inclusive and based on love, compassion, and a deep desire to treat their neighbor as they want to be treated and declare to the world that neither faith nor Christianity is any barrier to equality and decency.
October 27th, 2008
If California’s Proposition 8 fails, it’ll be Armageddon, and all that — according to Charles Colson and Tony Perkins:
“This vote on whether we stop the gay-marriage juggernaut in California is Armageddon,” said Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries and an eminent evangelical voice, speaking to pastors in a video promoting Proposition 8. “We lose this, we are going to lose in a lot of other ways, including freedom of religion.”
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian lobby based in Washington, said in an interview, “It’s more important than the presidential election.”
“We’ve picked bad presidents before, and we’ve survived as a nation,” said Mr. Perkins, who has made two trips to California in the last six weeks. “But we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage.”
Why the doom and gloom? Prop 8 proponents are now raising the scare tactic that Prop 8’s passage will mean that churches that refuse to marry same-sex couples will be sued, or ministers will be jailed if they preach against homosexuality.
This, of course, is not possible in the United States because of the First amendment. Christian Identity churches are free to preach White Supremacy and anti-semitism, and fundamentalist protestant extremists are free to call the Pope the Anti-Christ. Nobody gets thrown in jail for any of that. And the Catholic Church has been free to refuse to marry anyone who has been divorced, no matter how many divorce papers or civil marriage licenses a couple can waive in front of the priest.
October 27th, 2008
Earlier in the week I’d posted about mailing a two sentence note to my Mormon neighbor at my childhood home. I have an update for y’all — Yesterday I got word from my mother that her yard sign has come down (we hope it was voluntary and not simply a result of vandalism).
October 26th, 2008
The following is a guest post by Associate Professor José Gabilondo, faculty adviser to the Stonewall Legal Alliance at Florida International University’s College of Law, which recently hosted a debate on Florida’s Amendment 2 with Marge and Shirley Phelps, of Westboro Baptist Church.
Hi there. I’m the faculty adviser to the Stonewall Legal Alliance and the person who debated Marge and Shirley Phelps today, whom I had never met before. As it turned out, today was no circus and, instead, obeyed the ordinary rules and expectations of university exchange. Although I plan to write a more extended essay about the debate and the underlying issues and am, in fact, presenting on it at Wake Forest Law School next week, the commentary on this blog is so thoughtful that I did want to share some preliminary thoughts.
First of all, the Stonewall group really did reach out to several local and national proponents of Amendment 2, so let me reject in the most strenuous way the idea that their inviting Westboro was a crutch for what Stonewall or I feared would be a weak argument against Amendment 2. The students had no money to pay the expenses of any speaker, so their choices were limited. It was very important to them that the event include some kind of juxtaposition of views, in addition to the panel scheduled for the afternoon. The Stonewall students worked very hard on this event and it pained me (and them) to see them criticized and, at times, even ridiculed in this way. I was willing to participate in the debate because it relates to my research on the role of law in how heterosexuals come to see themselves (heterosexual subject formation) and a current article on how new Right operatives have made what are really reactionary views come to seem “conservative” by co-opting liberal ideas like “balance” and “diversity” for their ends. And Nate Phelps is right about his family. I have never followed the Phelps but what I saw today reflected experience and savvy with debate formats and traditional legal arguments, although of the more theocratic variety.
Second, and more disturbingly, what the debate brouhaha showed me was how poorly many people understand the function of a public university, the culture of intellectual exchange, and the rules of the game, as far as U.S. speech culture is concerned. Except on those rare occasions when a public university is addressing a question about its own corporate identity, the speech that goes on at a public research university is that of the many people and institutions that make up the rich mosaic which is a public university. To suggest some kind of vetting or oversight by administration officials of student activities, as some have, is the kind of prior restraint that Anglo-American legal culture long ago decided was repugnant to what we think of as freedom.
Moreover, the function of the academic enterprise is truth-seeking, not balance, although I realize that I am violating post-modernity’s Nicene Creed against the possibility of truth. The organizer of a speech event – students or otherwise – have the freedom to pursue their vision of its content and participants. To argue that the presence of “mainstream” institutions (whatever those are) is a proxy for the kind of intellectual rigor needed for truth-seeking is a big mistake: what this argument is really saying is “Please confine the scope of your inquiry to the existing consensus, as I have more faith in that than in having to think for myself about new material.” One of the most important decisions that a GLBTQ person must make is whether to see himself through his own eyes or through the perspective of straight society which, in case you hadn’t noticed already, IS the mainstream . A little original thinking on this score is not such a bad thing.
Finally, we are experiencing an important moment of openness and realignment in how we think about the gay-straight question. As I see it, it is an age of schism and cleavage in the heterosexual community, in the sense that faith communities are splitting on this issue (for Heaven’s sake! they should – what could be more important to a faith community than bearing witness to truth?) and that legal developments like the Defense of Marriage movements are calling the question, allowing people to take clear, public positions, so that we can see where people stand and act accordingly. (It’s about time.) A key thing that is happening is that heterosexuals are becoming increasingly aware of their individual and collective role in majoritarian abuses against sexual minorities. Some heterosexuals embrace the new consciousness; some object vigorously, trying in vain to put the toothpaste back in the tube; but most are still undecided and would benefit from a clear exposition of what is at stake when a supermajority works at erasing the existence of a minority. If you care about helping people to make choices that serve their core values (be they the values of old time religion and majoritarian overreaching or those of the secular human potential movement), you can help most by revealing the truth of what is at stake in these so called “marriage protection” amendments. In my opinion, today’s debate did that in spades, making a contribution not just on this issue but to speech generally as a way of finding and affirming your values.
Just for the record – the last two weeks have probably been the most stressful 2 weeks of my professional life due to intense hostility and scrutiny over this event, but now that it’s over, I feel relieved, proud of the courage and integrity of our Stonewall Legal Alliance and its leadership, grateful that I had the opportunity to bear witness to my truth on the question, and more convinced than ever about the value of open exchange on questions of faith and public policy.
(After I submitted this last night, Jim Burroway kindly gave me this forum, so I want to use it point you to material on my blog that some of you will like. Start with the “Straight Question” essay on heterosexuality. The first part especially was designed to be accessible and healing. If you’re a visual type, go to the concept map. Cheers.)
October 26th, 2008
The Yes on 8 Campaign must be feeling desperate as a result of a recent poll showing that the initiative is behind. Their behavior has become erratic, verging on criminal, and truly reprehensible.
On the 23rd we reported that the highest level of leadership in the campaign had engaged in efforts that might well fall under the legal definition of blackmail or extortion. On Friday, Ken Mettler, the head of the Bakersfield area Yes on 8 Campaign was videotaped punching and kicking an opponent to the initiative. And now the campaign has engaged in activity that should give any parent pause.
In their newest television ad, the Yes on 8 Campaign focuses on the field trip that some San Francisco children took to celebrate their teacher’s wedding. It goes without saying that they distort the story; dishonesty is the hallmark of the Yes on 8 efforts. And although this lack of integrity is worthy of indignation, what truly reveals the immorality of their efforts is that they chose to exploit images of the children that attended.
It is one thing to criticize the decisions of the parents and the school’s administation. It is quite another to plaster the face of children across the television screens of all California households and present them for ridicule.
The parents are furious.
They are sickened to find that their own children are being used as a prop to advance a cause which they do not support. And they have requested that Yes on 8 take down the ad that uses the video of their children. (ABC7)
“I’m horrified that her image is being used this way and I want it taken down,” said Jennifer Press referring to the new ad. Her 6-year old daughter Lucy was part of a field trip to City Hall two weeks ago to see her teacher married to her same sex partner. Now pictures from that field trip have made their way into a Yes on Prop 8 ad.
Laura [Hodder], whose son Ben is also in the ad, told reporters Sunday, “You can’t use children’s images in political statements like this. No one asked us to use our children. No one talked to us about this. And I feel like my children are being manipulated.”
From their press release
“We are absolutely outraged that you have chosen, without permission, to shamelessly hijack the images of our innocent children to promote a cause that we in no way, shape or form support. It is even more maddening that you have willfully and calculatingly edited the images of our children, with menacing music in the background, in a way that is completely contrary to their nature and harmful to them.”
Ah, but these “good moral people” who believe that “parents and not liberal schools should be the protectors, guardians and ultimate teaches of their own children” seem to have no respect for parents when they don’t support their anti-gay agenda. They have told these parents that they have no intention of stopping the exploitation of their kids.
“The images of the children wouldn’t be in the public domain if they hadn’t called the press and publicized it. It’s been on national TV.”
Now, I don’t know what legal recourse these parents have. Whether they have any ability to stop Yes on 8 from making the face of their son or daughter into the mascot of the Yes on 8 Campaign is something for better legal minds than mine.
But I do know evil when I see it.
And choosing to subject a very young child to ridicule and notoriety against the expressed wishes of their parents is unquestionably evil. I did not think that the Yes on 8 Campaign could stoop lower than their extortion efforts, but this new act of theirs is beyond contemptious.
I hope and pray that Californian parents are disgusted by this abuse and through it come to recognize the Yes on 8 Campaign for its true nature: selfish, evil, arrogant, and mean.
October 26th, 2008
The count of Florida newspapers opposing Amendment 2 has now reached twenty, including all of Florida’s top papers.
Update: Add to that the Pensacola News Journal.
October 26th, 2008
According to a recent Salt Lake Tribune article, the church’s marriage campaigns are taking a heavy toll on local congregations.
The Mormon Church’s campaign to pass so-called “marriage amendments” in California and Arizona is the most vigorous political campaign they have ever waged. LDS leaders have tapped into every resource: their member’s income data from tithing rolls, phone trees, e-mail lists, and other appeals. With continued urging from among the highest prophets of the church, many LDS members consider their calls a directive from God and a test of their faith.
Those who disagree with the church’s stance on these propositions say that they are made to feel unwelcome in their wards. Some have avoided church services during the election campaign, and some have resigned, while others face excommunication. Others still are actively opposing their church’s activities because they believe the church’s active campaign mocks their church’s theology.
Even some of those who favor the ballot measures are put off by their church’s zeal:
“I do expect the church to face a high cost – both externally and internally – for its prominent part in the campaign,” said LDS sociologist and Proposition 8 supporter Armand Mauss of Irvine, Calif. He believes church leaders feel a “prophetic imperative” to speak out against gay marriage.
“The internal cost will consist of ruptured relationships between and among LDS members of opposing positions, sometimes by friends of long standing and equally strong records of church activity,” Mauss said. “In some cases, it will result in disaffection and disaffiliation from the church because of the ways in which their dissent has been handled by local leaders.”
October 26th, 2008
GOP Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin told Focus On the Family’s James Dobson that she believes that John McCain will implement the full Republican Platform on taking office. That platform includes total bans on stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage — position which are far more conservative than those taken by McCain himself during the campaign.
Dobson began the interview on his radio program Wednesday by calling the GOP platform the “strongest pro-life, pro-family document to come out of a political party.” Palin responded that she believes that a President McCain will implement the full platform:
“I do, from the bottom of my heart. I am such a strong believer that McCain believes in those strong planks and we do have good conversations about some of the details too, about the different planks and what they represent.”
McCain has previously stated his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment on federalist grounds, but he has endorsed state constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage.
October 24th, 2008
Dr. Albert Mohler and I seldom agree about issues surrounding the intersection of sexuality and religion. But he is undoubtedly one of the more thoughtful opponents of gay equality.
In his first installment on the importance of the issue of gay marriage, Dr. Mohler stepped outside the culture war tactic of falsifying anecdotes and demonizing gay people and instead identified the central theme of the conflict between gay people and those whose religion condemns gay people: human dignity and the future of our civilization.
I found his second commentary to be less insightful. In this effort he sought to use argumentum ad populum to support his theological position. He divided the world between those persons – and then those nations – that are supportive of gay people and those that are not, claiming that his majority status supported his theological thinking. Sadly, he did not notice that this put him in the company of Muslim theocracies, dictators and despots, and third world nations. Nor did he not notice that – in contrast – he had to a greater or lesser extent placed gay people in the company of all of Christendom.
But in his third discussion on gay marriage, Mohler returns to an intellectual and perceptive analysis of what legal gay marriage may mean to the community in which we live.
Now, Mohler simply cannot resist repeating the myths, misstatements, and fabrications that are churned out by the anti-gay industry. Some he debunks (in a polite way), some he “clarifies” so as to make them less false, and some he accepts at face value.
For example, Mohler does note that California schools do not necessarily teach sex education; but he still repeats the talking points about marriage licenses containing “Partner A” and “Partner B”. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he simply has not been informed that “Bride” and “Groom” are returning to the forms in less than a month, regardless of the results of the election.
But setting aside the anti-gay mantra of imagined grievances that flood his third installment, Mohler makes a point which is, to me, about the only argument against marriage equality that merits attention.
Language is, as we now know, integral to a culture. In fact, anthropologists such as the influential Clifford Geertz refer to human culture as a “cultural-lingustic system.” The language and the culture are inseparable. Each influences the other, and together they produce an entire system of meaning.
Mohler, in essence, concedes that the difference made by legal marriage is one of vocabulary and explains why this issue of nomenclature is worth anti-gays contributing tens of millions of dollars.
Given the state’s huge population and cultural influence, all eyes are now on California. But so should be our ears. Do we hear a shift in the language coming? If so, the language will change far more than vocabulary and word usage.
Civilizations are built on careful and necessary distinctions. As an institution, marriage has been defined throughout history as a heterosexual union. Marriage is so central to our civilization that its related words have become equally essential. Words like “husband” and “wife” have been necessary to understanding our stories, our laws, our families, our social arrangements, and our aspirations. Transform marriage into a homosexual institution, and the vocabulary no longer works.
Mohler is saying the same thing that those who favor equality are saying: words have meanings. And the word marriage carries a cultural association far more important than just hospital visitation and inheritance rights.
And in this Mohler has identified the one real change that truly impacts opposite-sex couples: ownership of language. No longer does “husband” denote heterosexuality. To say that someone is a family man or a newlywed or happily married no longer can serve as code for “he’s employable” or “he’s one of us”.
I agree with Dr. Mohler that words define our stories, our laws, our families, our social arrangements, and especially our aspirations. But his underlying premise is one that I find abhorrent.
Distilled to its elements, Mohler’s argument is this:
Marriage is a differentiating term. And limiting the use of that term to heterosexuals will justly place limits on the stories, laws, families, and especially the aspirations of gay people. And that is a good thing. If gay couples are restricted from calling their relationships “marriage” they can be set apart and condemned. They should not aspire to be treated like me.
Now, of course, he does not put it in those terms. He’s neither a fool nor intentionally insulting. But behind his insistence on owning the words “marriage” and “husband” and “wife” is a proprietary instinct not based on his own reflections but rather on gay exclusions.
He wants not only to retain the word “husband”, which he undoubtedly would, but to retain it to the exclusion of those who are not married to a woman. He sees this label as something that sets him apart and if same-sex couples can use it then he’s lost a tool to identify and exclude them.
However, within Mohler’s warnings, I take encouragement.
For I look around me and see that culture has already accepted the notion of same-sex couples. Television, movies, music, and literature all make the assumption that gay people form couples under the same terms and conditions as heterosexuals. And, as Mohler noted, the relationship between culture and language is inseparable.
As more Americans come to see gay couples as identical to their relationships, language will adjust. Marriage will be accepted terminology which will, undoubtedly, result in continued adaptation of stories, laws, families, and aspirations.
As, indeed, in many ways it already has. Young kids coming out today dream of marriage and a fairytale life not unlike that of their classmates. They aspire to honesty, self worth, and advancement based on their merits, unhindered by discrimination or bigotry. And heterosexual kids today have expectations of their gay friends and siblings that mirror those placed on themselves.
Our stories, our families, and our aspirations have already been changed. In time, law and language will have no choice but to follow.
October 24th, 2008
On their website, Apple Computers is listing the following news:
No on Prop 8
October 24, 2008Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.
Thank you, Apple!!!
October 24th, 2008
Los Angeles County’s Sheriff Lee Baca, a Republican, has announced his opposition to Proposition 8:
The gay men and lesbian women of the law enforcement community are some of the most responsible and virtuous people I know. To deny them their ability to further responsible lives outside of the job is inconsistent with the core values of public service.
Republicans Against 8 is reporting
Other prominent California Republican elected officials opposed to Prop. 8 include Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, San Diego City Councilmember Jim Madaffer, Redondo Beach Mayor Mike Gin, Laguna Beach Mayor Pro Tempore Cheryl Kinsman, Los Angeles City Councilman Dennis Zine, Laguna Beach Councilman Kelly Boyd, Laguna Beach Councilwoman Elizabeth Pearson, Cathedral City Councilman Chuck Vazquez, former Assemblyman Jim Cunneen and Los Angeles Businessman Steve Soboroff.
People from all walks of life and all political persuations are coming together to oppose this effort to write discrimination into our Constitution.
October 24th, 2008
Tom Campbell is a distinguished professor with a high profile in Republican politics. He worked in the Reagan White House and was a clerk to US Supreme Court Justice Byron R. White. He served five terms in Congress, a term in the California State Senate, and was the Republican nominee for US Senate in 2000. He was Stanford’s youngest tenured professor, has served as the director of the California Department of Finance, and currently is the dean of the Haas School of Business at UC, Berkeley.
Writing in Reason Online, Campbell explains why Republicans should vote No on Proposition 8.
To those who became Republican for the conservative values of independence from governmental interference and the notion that all citizens should be equal and judged by one’s efforts and abilities, these may be compelling arguments.
Campaign leaders seek to shake down small businesses.
October 23rd, 2008
CBS8 and the Associated Press are reporting that the Yes on 8 campaign has sent out threatening letters to several small businesses in an attempt to shake them down for contributions.
San Diego realtor Jim Abbot received one of those letters featuring a Yes on 8 letterhead demanding that he contribute $10,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign, which is equal to the amount that he had given to the No on 8 campaign. That letter read, in part:
Equality California is advertising on its website that it has received a contribution of at least $10,000 from you. … Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error and restore Traditional Marriage. … Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to protectmarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published.
Here is the entire Yes on 8 threat letter (PDF: 4KB/4 pages).
The letter was signed by four members of Yes on 8’s executive committee: campaign chairman Ron Prentice; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, ProtectMarriage.com’s lawyer. A donation form was included with the letter.
Jim Abbot, who married his same-sex partner at the end of August, refused to buckle:
We’re not caving, no. No, we’re going to support our employees. We’re going to support the freedom to marry. We think that’s a fundamental right to do what we can to make sure its not taken away.
When Yes on 8 was first asked about the letter, a spokeswoman denied that their campaign would use such tactics. The campaign later admitted to sending about thirty-five letters to California businesses. The spokeswoman defended the action, citing the boycott of the San Diego Manchester Grand Hyatt after Doug Manchester donated $125,000 thousand to the Yes campaign. At least one very large group canceled their reservations as a result.
All large donations to either campaign are a matter of public record. There is no evidence however, that anyone from the No on 8 campaign demanded money from Manchester or the Grand Hyatt in exchange for silence. That boycott was organized by Californians Against Hate, which is not affiliated with the No on 8 campaign.
Update: Yes on 8 complained that at least one very large group canceled their reservations at the Machester Grand Hyatt because of publicity over donations to the Yes campaign. I wonder if that group they’re referring to was GLAAD?
October 23rd, 2008
Editorial boards in every major newspaper in the State of California have encouraged readers to vote no on Proposition 8. They have sat and listened to presentations from both sides, weighed their arguments, checked their facts, and without fail came to the same conclusion: Proposition 8 should not pass.
The Editor of the Desert Dispatch in the small town of Barstow has taken a different approach. Most know Barstow, if they know it at all, as a small city on the road between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. But Scott Shackford knows it as his home. And he knows his readers as his neighbors, an independent, but often powerless, bunch who respect individuality.
Today I’m shedding the more impersonal “authoritative” voice of one of my typical editorials: Proposition 8 means something more personal to me. It directly affects my rights. As such, I want to make a more direct appeal to try to convince Barstow residents to vote against Proposition 8.
Scott finds common cause with the frustration that Barstow residents have – no local representation, a state districting plan that leaves them powerless to the whims of a city 200 miles away. And he acknowledges their fear of government interfering in their religious rights and recognizes the seriousness of their concerns.
But then Scott takes a very brave and very touching step, an approach that may be pointless in an urban center. He admits his vulnerability and asks for support.
You have the power to control an important part of my future. You can control my independence. Is that something you’re truly comfortable with?
I ask you to vote in favor of our tradition of independence. Vote no on Proposition 8.
October 23rd, 2008
Per the Salt Lake Tribune
On Sunday, leaders in several Mormon wards in Provo and Springville read a letter from Elder Donald J. Butler, an LDS Seventy over Utah South Area, saying that all those who were “called” to help with the initiative were “released” immediately.
LDS spokesman Kim Farah said the Coalition to Protect Marriage’s request for help prompted the initial plea for volunteers in California and later in Utah, but “the church has since determined that such phone calls are best handled by those who are registered California voters.”
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: