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 13th, 2008
The Sacramento Bee has an article today about the sacrifices that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have made so that they can take away the right to marry from same-sex couples.
Rick and Pam Patterson gave $50,000.
He drives a 10-year-old Honda Civic to his job at Intel. She is a stay-at home mom who makes most of the family meals and bakes her own bread. The couple, who have five sons between the ages of 3 and 12, live in a comfortable but modest three-bedroom home in Folsom.
David and Susan Nielson gave $35,000.
The couple will forgo a vacation for the next two years and make other sacrifices to pay for their donation, he said.
Yes, they are faithful members of their church. And while the couples deny that they were pressured to contribute, both couples did so after the June 29 letter came out from the First Presidency and the church leadership requesting that Mormons “do what you can”.
However, this sacrifice seems not to have extended to the leaders actually contributing from their own personal funds. A search of the contribution database listing all contributors of $100 or more yields:
Perhaps “our best efforts” means something different to the leaders than it does to the followers.
October 13th, 2008
This past week a parent of a first grader in San Francisco thought it would be a good and supportive act to have the children in the first grade class surprise the teacher by showing up for her wedding to her same-sex partner. The school’s interim director thought this was a good idea and a “teaching moment” and so they organized a field trip. In total, 18 children from the charter school participated and two families chose to have their children remain at school with another first grade class.
I do not think that first graders are too young to know about marriage. Nor do I think that same-sex marriage is any more shocking, confusing, or inherently controversial than a marriage between persons of the opposite sex. And I don’t think that an outing to the marriage of a teacher is an inappropriate excursion for school children.
But I do think that one must be aware of the ramifications of ones decisions and choose wisely.
It is three weeks before California voters will decide whether to take away the right from same-sex couples to marry. And those who support the anti-marriage amendment have decided that fears about children are their strongest argument.
Surely even the most obtuse of parents and administrators had to have been aware that their actions were tailor-made for use by anti-gay activists. I find it hard to understand what they were thinking.
I know that San Francisco is insular and a conservative is hard to find. All of their friends and acquaintances support marriage equality and no doubt they thought this was a brave show of support. But did they not see the potential for misrepresentation or were they truly naïve enough to believe that supporters of Proposition 8 would behave admirably?
This should not be an issue. The parents were the ones who decided to which marriages their children would be exposed. This is not an example of “gay marriage being taught to first graders” over the objections of parents.
And I truly do appreciate the attitude behind their choice.
But anti-gays have already begun to use this in their effort to deny me equality. And I find it frustrating and annoying that the actions of some presumably-heterosexual people in San Francisco may well provide the basis for some Californians to become afraid of treating me equally.
Think, people. Think.
October 12th, 2008
An op-ed by University of Arizona President Emeritus Peter Likins appeared in Saturday’s Tucson Citizen urging everyone to vote against Prop 102:
We are at a critical juncture in time, nationally and in Arizona, obliged to confront crucial problems relating to such fundamental issues as the economy, education and health care.
These problems will not be solved until we learn to work together throughout society, especially in our governing bodies. Until our elected officials learn to search out common ground and build from a shared foundation, we will continue to founder on the rocks of conflicting ideologies such as those that divide and destroy the effectiveness of the Arizona Legislature.
Proposition 102 commits to the state constitution the definition of marriage that already exists in Arizona law as a union between one man and one woman. Passing this proposition will do nothing to change the law or to protect the sanctity of marriage.
(After nearly 53 years of a beautiful marriage, my wife and I are beyond the reach of state law.)
A similar proposition was rejected in 2006, but we are back again in angry conflict over an issue that seemed settled then.
You can read the rest of the op-ed here.
October 12th, 2008
The Miami Herald has issued an editorial encouraging a No vote on anti-gay Amendment 2. In addition to banning gay marriage in Florida, it would reverse local domestic partnership provisions that are beneficial to both gay and straight unmarried couples. Florida has a large population of senior citizens, some of whom cannot marry lest they lose essential retirement benefits but who seek pragmatic protections for their personal relationships.
This amendment is mean-spirited and misguided.
It targets gay and lesbian couples, but it would cause grief and suffering to other couples, whether they’re gay or not. That’s because of ambiguous language that says any legal union that is the ”substantial equivalent” of marriage would not be recognized.
This would jeopardize the benefits and health insurance that many companies provide to unmarried, heterosexual couples.
[Hat tip: Stefano]
October 12th, 2008
Coming out in opposition to Proposition 8, the Ventura Star says
The Star urges a “no” vote on Proposition 8, which would embed discrimination in the California Constitution.
Chief Justice Ronald M. George, writing the majority opinion, got it right in the May ruling: “An individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”
October 12th, 2008
Arizona Together has begun showing these ads around the state to drum up opposition to Prop 102, the so-called “marriage amendment.” It costs about $375 to air one ad on one television station. So by my calculation, this means that:
Okay, so you get the picture. And even if you can’t afford a triple-digit contribution, every little bit helps. Even a tenth of a television spot will make a difference when bundled with nine others.
Arizona became the first in the nation to defeat one of these so-called “marriage amendments.” We can do it again, but only with your help. It’s important, because if we lose in Arizona, then they will have gotten the message that they can take other victories away from us simply by coming back again and again.
Please don’t let that happen. Give generously to Arizona Together today.
October 11th, 2008
Well, we knew it had to happen and finally it has.
Although there are a string of newspapers opposing Proposition 8 and although that list ranges from big city behemoths to rural community news sources, from liberal to conservative, English and Spanish, we knew that some day, somewhere, an editorial board would favor the anti-marriage proposition.
They came close with the Modesto Bee. Although the editors in Modesto discussed the proposition in terms of “defining marriage” rather than taking away the rights of citizens, they ultimately decided to leave it up to the voter and made no recommendation.
But now supporters of Proposition 8 have cause to rejoice. They finally have a newspaper endorsement, the Paradise Post.
The Paradise Post is the local newspaper for Paradise, a mountain town in Butte County, a conservative area that supported Proposition 22 by 69%. Paradise has a population of perhaps 30,000 and the Post has a circulation of about 8,000. It’s not much surprise that the supporters of the anti-marriage should have found an ally in this local paper.
The Post editorial goes on a bit about how they are not homophobic (“Nothing could be further from the truth”) but the bulk of their editorial is about “radical redefinition”, warnings about polygamy, and fear about the evil intent of “gay activists”. Their closing argument is a masterpiece in unintended irony:
Tolerance of homosexual couples is one thing. And we are certainly all for tolerance. But condoning, embracing, giving society’s official stamp of approval (which is precisely what legal gay marriage does) is quite another. Please vote YES on Proposition 8.
October 11th, 2008
Following the lead of La Opinión, bilingual newspaper La Prensa has recommended a “No” vote on Proposition 8. La Prensa is a weekly newspaper out of San Diego with circulation of 40,000 and estimated readership of 180,000 weekly. Printing in English and Spanish, it targets a demographic, latino voters, that the anti-gay supporters of Proposition 8 are hoping will support their cause.
This proposition is nothing more than one group trying to impose their moral standards on another. Fortunately, the world is made up of many different people and you simple can’t contain all people in a single box. Instead we should celebrate our differences and work together to make our world a better place for all to live in happiness and in love.
We believe that if two people are in love and they want to get married, we as a State should not legislate against the happiness of these people. We Urge a No Vote on Prop. 8
Newspapers opposing Proposition 8
(hat tip Andres)
October 10th, 2008
Who are the Supreme Court Justices of the State of Connecticut and how did they vote? Here’s a little bit of information.
Voting for Marriage Equality:
The majority opinion was written by Justice Richard N. Palmer. He was appointed associate justice in 1993 by Governor Lowell Weicker of the “Connecticut Party” (Weicker left the Republican Party to run independently). Palmer is a Democrat.
Justice Flemming L. Norcott was appointed associate justice in 1992, also by Weicker. Norcott is a Democrat.
Justice Joette Katz was also appointed associate justice in 1992 by Weicker. She is also a Democrat
Lubbie Harper is an appellate court justice who sat on the panel for the case. He stepped in when Chief Justice Chase Rogers recused herself due to a possible conflict of interest. Haper was nominated to the appellate court by Governor Jodi Rell, a Republican, but is a Democrat.
Voting in opposition:
Justice David Borden was the active chief justice at the time of the hearing. He was appointed in 1990 and is the only justice to have been appointed by a Democrat, Governor William O’Neil. He was replace in 2007 by Chief Justice Chase Rogers, an independent. Bordon is a Democrat. He argued that gay people are not adequately disadvantaged politically to be considered a suspect class.
Justice Christine S. Vertefeuille was appointed associate justice in 2000 by John Rowland, a Republican. Vertefeuille is a Democrat.
Justice Peter T. Zarella was also appointed in 2001 by Rowland. Zarzella is the sole Republican voting on the issue. His separate dissent stated that marriage laws are for the regulation of procreation.
Interestingly, every justice deciding in favor of marriage equality was either appointed by a Republican Governor or by an independant Governor who had served for decades in the House and Senate as a Republican, even seeking the party’s nomination for President.
This is a situation that closely follow that of the California Judiciary where three of the four affirmative votes were from Republicans appointed by Republican Governors and in Massachusetts where three of four affirmative votes for marriage came from justices that were Republican Governor appointments.
Which makes me wonder. Do those in the Republican Party who rant and scream about “activist judges” know that they are critizing their own Governors?
October 10th, 2008
Portugal’s Parliament voted by a large majority today to defeat a proposal to allow same-sex marriage in that country. The governing Socialist Party and the main opposition Social Democratic party joined to defeat the measure. The center-left Socialist Party released a statement calling for a debate on the issue:
A change of this depth and complexity should be made only after a considered discussion and after broad support has built up for it in Portuguese society, inside and outside political parties, so that a clear and unequivocal political undertaking can be given,” the Socialist Party said in a statement.
A recent poll in the mostly Roman Catholic country showed that 53% opposed same-sex marriage, and 42% supported it. The margin of error was 2.7%.
October 10th, 2008
The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled 4-3 that same sex couples are entitled to marriage (PDF: 591 KB/84 pages).
PALMER, J. The issue presented by this case is whether the state statutory prohibition against same sex marriage violates the constitution of Connecticut. The plaintiffs, eight same sex couples, commenced this action, claiming that the state statutory prohibition against same sex marriage violates their rights to substantive due process and equal protection under the state constitution. The trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant state and local officials upon determining that, because this state’s statutes afford same sex couples the right to enter into a civil union, which affords them the same legal rights as marriage, the plaintiffs had not established a constitutionally cognizable harm. We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians,1 and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm. We also conclude that (1) our state scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, (2) for the same reasons that classifications predicated on gender are considered quasi-suspect for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the United States constitution, sexual orientation constitutes a quasi-suspect classification for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, and, therefore, our statutes discriminating against gay persons are subject to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and (3) the state has failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage. In light of our determination that the state’s disparate treatment of same sex couples is constitutionally deficient under an intermediate level of scrutiny, we do not reach the plaintiffs’ claims implicating a stricter standard of review, namely, that sexual orientation is a suspect classification, and that the state’s bar against same sex marriage infringes on a fundamental right in violation of due process and discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of equal protection. In accordance with our conclusion that the statutory scheme impermissibly discriminates against gay persons on account of their sexual orientation, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case with direction to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
On page 66 of the majority opinion:
Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice. To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others. The guarantee of equal protection under the law, and our obligation to uphold that command, forbids us from doing so. In accordance with these state constitutional requirements, same sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and application for injunctive relief.
In this opinion NORCOTT, KATZ and HARPER, Js., concurred.”
UPDATE:Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell (R) has issued a statement:
I disagree with today’s State Supreme Court ruling but as governor, I will uphold it. I continue to believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
I also believe that the historic civil union law that I proudly signed in 2005 is equitable and just. We were the first state to enact such a law through legislative action and not a court mandate.
The Supreme Court has spoken. I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision – either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution – will not meet with success. I will therefore abide by the ruling.
UPDATE: Because this is a ruling that touches on state law and the state constitution, there is no recourse for appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Connecticut Constitution does not have an initiative process for placing a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot. The Constitution however does mandate a question to be placed on the ballot every twenty years asking voters if they wish to call a constitutional convention. That question is now on the ballot this year. Opponents say they hope to use that ballot question to force a constitutional convention to change the constitution to allow for an citizen’s initiative process.
It is unclear right now what steps need to be made either in the courts, the legislature, or the governor’s office to allow same-sex marriages to become available.
October 9th, 2008
The John and Ken Show is a Los Angeles radio talkshow on KFI 640 AM. Wikipedia says
The program is the most listened to local talk radio program in the United States: in the peak hour of their daily broadcasts, they draw an audience of one million listeners.
Perhaps best described as populist conservatives, the duo taps into the things that annoy and frustrate the common guy and are quick to attack perceived hypocrisy in politicians of either party or those who hide behind, as they call them, “spokes-holes”. Politically, they are very law-and-order, oppose tax increases, and lead the charge against illegal immigration. But they have little patience for religion-driven social conservatives who get their undies in a bunch over their gay neighbors.
The show has now posted THE JOHN AND KEN VOTER GUIDE! on their website.
Proposition 8. Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry: NO
October 9th, 2008
The new ad from No on 8 confronts the blatant lies that the supporters of the proposition have been stating. Check out the new ad and while you are there make a contribution so that we can get our message out.
October 9th, 2008
The LA Times reports
Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina, Los Angeles Board of Education President Monica Garcia and state Assembly candidate John Perez opened the Cesar Chavez Avenue storefront office for the “No on 8” campaign, which will communicate with Latino voters across the state.
Perez, the cousin of LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, is gay.
October 9th, 2008
The nation’s largest Spanish language newspaper, La Opinión, is recommending a “NO” vote on Proposition 8.
The true threats to marriage are lack of communication, infidelity, domestic abuse, and economic pressures.
The driving force behind the measure comes from Evangelical, Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, Orthodox Jewish, and Adventist congregations, with money, sermons, prayers, fasting, and very respectable and respected opinions.
But that does not mean it is acceptable to impose these beliefs on all of society, and much less, change the State Constitution.
We recommend voting NO on Proposition 8.
Or, as most of their audience will read it:
Estamos con el NO a la Proposición 8.
See list of newspapers opposing the amendment here.
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: