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 9th, 2008
In one of the most famous American defenses of religious freedom, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “[I]t does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
We must say the same thing about same-sex marriage.
Growing up at the tip of the great Central Valley in Northern California, our local news source was The Redding Record-Searchlight. Much of my awareness of the world outside our community was from their pages.
Redding is a small city on the border of an agricultural valley and the Cascade foothills. With an economy tied to farming, lumber and tourism and a high level of retirees, the culture is a mix of liberals and conservatives with both groups leaning towards a ‘live and let live’ mentality. Highly religious, this is an area where residents are unlikely to favor same-sex marriages, but also often likely to ‘not notice’ that their neighbors are a long term same-sex couple.
There are no gay community services that I’m aware of but the population tends to support about two gay bars at any given time.
There is also a lack of organized anti-gay efforts. Perhaps the best known situation was in 1999 when two white supremacist brothers torched an abortion clinic and synagogues in Sacramento (two hours away) and shot to death a gay couple, neighbors of my father.
The Record Searchlight has now joined the growing list of newspapers, urban and rural, Northern and Southern, conservative and liberal, English and Spanish who agree that Proposition 8 is unnecessary, cruel and intrusive. They just don’t buy that scare tactics and outlandish claims of anti-gay activists.
October 9th, 2008
The Los Angeles Times is reporting that Californians Against Hate have come to terms with Bolthouse Farms and have agreed to call off their boycott of the juice maker.
The “Don’t Buy Bolthouse” campaign ended because the company’s chief executive “has provided us with a compelling perspective which clearly demonstrates the separation between Bolthouse Farms and . . . its founder, William Bolthouse,” Californians Against Hate said Wednesday in a written statement.
That perspective, the statement continued, “provides us with confidence that Bolthouse Farms is committed to working productively with the [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] community.”
The boycott had been originated because the company’s founder – who, though he sold the company still leases his land to them – had significantly financed the signature gathering for Proposition 8.
October 9th, 2008
Newspapers Endorsing Proposition 8
Newspapers Neutral on Proposition 8
Newspapers Opposing Proposition 8
and second editorial criticizing Yes on 8’s advertising
and second editorial criticizing Yes on 8’s advertising
and second editorial criticizing Yes on 8’s advertising
October 8th, 2008
In their first television ad, supporters of anti-marriage amendement Proposition 8 trumpeted their spokesman as “Professor Richard Petersen, Pepperdine University School of Law”. This did not sit well with the school which then demanded that their name be removed from the commercial.
Yes on 8 got around to removing the reference to Pepperdine on the ads running on television programs though they left the school’s name on the ad on their site.
Now they have a new ad; one released well after Pepperdine requested that they not insinuate the school’s support. And guess what – it too quotes “Professor Richard Petersen, Pepperdine University School of Law”.
But what do you expect?
Answering the call of his Prophet is far more important to Peterson than honoring the request of his employer. And the Yes on 8 campaign has long since decided that winning is more important than having integrity.
October 8th, 2008
The Salt Lake Tribune reports on increased organized efforts to get students at Brigham Young to influence the vote in California.
But during a special satellite broadcast from Salt Lake City tonight to LDS chapels in Utah County as well as in California, LDS authorities are expected to ask Brigham Young University students and other Californians living in Utah to participate in phone trees in support of Proposition 8, which would define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman.
A supporter of the initiative made a statement that reveals not only that this amendment is an attempt by the Mormon Church to influence elections but also that it seeks to do so deceptively.
“This is going to set a precedent,” said Kuder, who is in favor of the initiative. “The church has not been involved with politics in this way for a very long time. The church doesn’t want to make a statement in favor of Prop 8 but it wants members to be in favor.”
October 8th, 2008
In a debate held in Southern Arizona yesterday, two candidates for Congress sparred over one candidate’s role in placing Proposition 102, Arizona’s so-called “marriage amendment,” on the ballot.
First-term Democratic incumbent Rep. Gabrielle Giffords blasted her challenger, State Sen. Tim Bee (R-Tucson), over his role in the contentious final night of the legislative session when he cast the sixteenth, deciding vote to put the proposition on the ballot. According to the Arizona Daily Star:
Giffords’ sharpest attack on Bee, the outgoing president of the state Senate, was blaming him for a blowup on the last night of the 2008 legislative session, when several pieces of legislation died in the wake of a combative debate about sending a measure to define marriage to the November ballot.
“The individuals that I know that work at the state Legislature reported that the end of the session was the worst end that anyone could remember in the history of the state Legislature,” Giffords said. “Crying. Tears. Bills that were left undone.
“When we talk about leadership as the Senate president there’s an opportunity to really lead,” she said, declaring her opposition to what is now Proposition 102. Specifically, Giffords pointed out a solar-energy bill and guest-worker proposal failed to get a final vote.
Arizona has the most sunshine of any state in the union, yet Bee and his cronies shoved aide a badly needed solar-energy bill. Arizona has one in four schools that don’t meet federal standards, and we have more than a million Arizonans without access to affordable health care. Oh yeah, there’s also a widening state budget deficit of $3 Billion, and that will only get worse with a state economy that has been shedding jobs over the past several months.
But what does Bee think is more important? A proposition that Arizona voters already said no to two years ago.
Please help us tell them to trust the people and to work on issues that are really important. Please give generously today.
October 7th, 2008
Mormons for Proposition 8 have analyzed the donations to Yes on 8 over $1,000 and found that the largest contributing group is members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
In other words, at least 57% of individual donations greater that $1,000 are from members of one denomination.
Yes on 8 has also selected as the face of the campaign one Richard Petersen, a Mormon law professor teaching at Pepperdine University.
(hat tip to Utah Reader and johnson)
October 7th, 2008
Internal polling prepared for the No on 8 campaign shows that this proposition is neck and neck, perhaps even ahead. The anti-gay advertising is flooding the airwaves and their lies are working.
“We have the messages, our advertising is compelling, but polling tells us that it is not being seen or heard as much as the Yes side, and that needs to change,” Lake says in the memo.
Geoff Kors concluded: “The proponents will continue to mislead the public, and we can’t let their lies stick. And if we can’t get the resources into this campaign – both in dollars and volunteer hours – we will lose. Right now the fundraising gap is $6million. That’s the challenge, but I believe once the community understands how tight this race is, they will dig deep and give to our efforts. I’m comfortable that our best fundraising weeks are those ahead of us. We need everyone to pitch in right now.”
I believe that the Box Turtle Bulletin reader is not complacent. I believe that you are neither selfish nor lazy. I believe that you care enough to pull out your wallet, volunteer your time (if Californian), and make a difference.
October 7th, 2008
After same-sex marriage became legal in June, California revised the form to read “Party A” and “Party B” instead of “Bride” and “Groom”.
Anti-gay activists immediately leaped on the change as evidence of harm to heterosexuals. Which is nonsense.
But it appears that some folks missed being called a bride or groom on the form and so the state will revise the form to allow each party to tick a box for bride or groom if they so choose.
October 6th, 2008
A new SurveyUSA poll has a troubling finding:
According to the poll, likely California voters overall now favor passage of Proposition 8 by a five-point margin, 47 percent to 42 percent. Ironically, a CBS 5 poll eleven days prior found a five-point margin in favor of the measure’s opponents.
The only demographic group to significantly change their views during this period were younger voters — considered the hardest to poll and the most unpredictable voters — who now support the measure after previously opposing it.
I’m not sure what to make of this poll. I don’t put much trust in SurveyUSA. And the idea that younger voters would support a marriage ban seems to run contrary to every report, poll, survey or casual observation for the past several years.
But I do know that No on 8 is concerned and needs every dollar it can get along with every single spare minute that you may be able to contribute.
October 6th, 2008
Orange County is perceived as the most conservative of California’s counties. It is the home to the large churches and “family values” organizations and hasn’t voted for a Democrat for President since 1936.
In 2000, the voters in Orange County supported Proposition 22, a change to the civil code that banned gay marriage (since overturned by the state Supreme Court), by 69%, significantly more than the state’s average. And the region’s newspaper, the Orange County Register, had this to say:
The ultimate question in Prop. 22 is whether the definition of what constitutes a marriage should remain as it always has been, or whether the door can be opened to same-sex marriages – and by extension to any other sort of arrangements that people might devise.
Their advice was not to risk such a thing and instead to vote “Yes” on Proposition 22.
But time has passed and attitudes have evolved. And California’s conservative paper has changed its position. The OC Register opposes Proposition 8.
As our understanding of equal protection has evolved and expanded and as an increasing number of same-sex couples have expressed a desire to make lifelong commitments to one another – incidentally, promoting societal stability and reducing promiscuity – it has become clear that equal protection should be extended to same-sex couples.
In an ideal world, the state would have little or no role in defining or regulating so intimate a relationship as marriage. However, the state has inserted itself into all too many aspects of our private lives. Given that it has done so, it is only fair that it afford equal protection to all who choose to make loving lifelong commitments to one another. We recommend a “no” vote on Prop. 8.
Also opposing Proposition 8:
(hat tip to reader Tara)
According to the logic employed by proponents of Proposition 8
October 6th, 2008
Schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners.
Or so say the supporters of Proposition 8 on their official website, Protectmarriage.com. It’s right there in the education code, they tell you.
This is one of Yes on 8’s three central themes (along with individuals being sued and churches losing tax preferences for not celebrating homosexuality) and is included in all their outreach. It is referenced in their television ad and repeated in letters to the editor. Consider this press release quoting Dr. Jim Garlow, senior pastor of Skyline Church in La Mesa
Our California Education Code (#51890) will permit children as young as kindergartners to be indoctrinated about homosexuality.
Or this bold claim repeated twice on their youth oriented website iProtectMarriage
If Prop. 8 loses, children as young as kindergarteners must be taught same-sex marriage.
They even sought to include this in their ballot initiative argument in the state’s voter pamphlet until a judge threw it out as being untruthful.
In health education classes, state law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage … If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, teachers will be required to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.
But amidst all the fear and terror about kindergarten children, there’s one thing they carefully do not provide: the education code which they claim forces “indoctrination into homosexuality” and moral claims to kindergardeners about same-sex marriage. That code section (51890 and the accompanying 50891) is simply never provided for review by those who want to see for theirselves.
But Box Turtle Bulletin isn’t afraid of the education code. We took a look and, by golly, there IS a provision for teaching about marriage:
…kindergarten…Pupils will receive instruction …in matters of… marriage…
Well right there it says it. See?
Unless, of course, you read the rest of the words. We’ve included the entire code section below the break. And as it turns out, there are a few other things here which “kindergarteners must be taught”.
- Mental and emotional health and development.
- Drug use and misuse, including the misuse of tobacco and alcohol.
- Diseases and disorders, including sickle cell anemia and related genetic diseases and disorders.
- Environmental health and safety.
Who knew that the curriculum in the California kindergarten classroom included the use of Paxil or how to shoot up heroin? Who knew that genetic disease and toxic waste shared the floor with “A is for apple” and “the sky is blue”?
Well it doesn’t and they don’t. These (and marriage) are not mandates for the education of “children as young as kindergarteners”. They are part of “all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive” and reflect a goal of providing health information over a child’s entire school experience.
Do those in the Yes on 8 campaign really believe that Kindergardeners will be taugh the mechanics of gay sex or that same-sex marriages have equivalent moral weight with heterosexual marriages? I very much doubt it.
But it’s such a convenient scare tactic that they can’t resist making the claim.
There will be, at an age-appropriate time, a discussion about “Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood”. And that discussion will, no doubt, include the fact that same-sex couples can legally marry.
But the decision as to when and how this will be taught is not to be feared. The “planning, implementation, and evaluation of comprehensive health education” must include active participation by parents and, in California, any parent can remove their child from such discussions.
Don’t you wish that the supporters of Proposition 8 were more honest? Wouldn’t it be nice if those who are so concerned about my morality cared more about their own?
(code section after the break)
Read the rest of this entry »
October 5th, 2008
No matter how you feel about the issue, it is easy to understand the court’s logic. Religious groups, or individuals for that matter, can treat marriage as holy or a sacrament, and each can follow its own beliefs in deciding who is eligible for marriage rites or ceremonies. But when the state gives out legal privileges or penalties, it must give them to everyone, just as the Constitution says.
The Long Beach Press-Telegram joins the long and growing list of newspapers that encourage a “No” vote on Proposition 8:
October 5th, 2008
It’s amazing. Last June, 49 state legislators in Phoenix decided that making same-sex marriage even more illegaler in this state was more important than solving the budget deficit or problems with education, immigration, health care or energy policy (Arizona has more sunshine than any other state in the union — helloooo!). They even thought it was so important that they were willing to break their own rules in the process.
But now, ask any of those same legislators if they support Prop 102 and just watch how they duck and weave on what ought to be a simple yes or no question — you know, the yes or no question that they actually put on the ballot.
The Arizona Daily Star sent a questionnaire to state legislative candidates, and of the responses they got back, twelve candidates said they opposed Prop 102 and only three said they supported it. Ten more couldn’t give it a straight answer. See if you can figure out where these candidates stand:
“My wife and I have been married for 17 years,” wrote Republican Frank Antenori, a candidate for the House in District 30. “I believe that marriage is an important institution that strengthens society and I support it.” What’s “it”? Marriage or the amendment?
In the primary, Antenori was a bit more direct, answering “yes” but adding: “If you want to get married, fine; that’s between you, your spouse and your God, not the government.” So, isn’t that a “no”?
Republican Jonathan Paton, running for the Senate in the same district, was even more indirect: “I supported the effort to let my constituents vote for it.” OK. But that wasn’t the question.
Democrat Olivia Cajero Bedford, running for re-election in District 27, did not give a direct answer, instead saying she would support the move if it “had clearly stated that (marriage) cannot be one man, one woman and three girlfriends.”
And Democrat Barbara McGuire, an incumbent in District 23, said, “My personal opinion is that definition of marriage would apply to a man and woman, however, in the case of amending the constitution, it is up to the voters.”
Rep. Paton not only voted to place Prop 102 on the ballot, he was also a co-sponsor of the bill.
Rep. Cajero Bedford (one of two house representatives for my district) voted against putting Prop 102 on the ballot — which makes her indirect answer against prop 102 somewhat puzzling.
Rep. McGuire didn’t cast a vote when the measure came up in the House, and because placing an amendment proposal on the ballot requires a majority of all house members and not just of those present, her non-vote had the same effect as a “no” vote. It just didn’t go on the record.
And of course, we already saw State Sen. Tim Bee, one of the amendment’s early co-sponsors, wish the question would just disappear barely two weeks after he voted for it.
October 3rd, 2008
Over a year ago an Iowa judge declared the law that allows marriage to heterosexual couples and denies it to homosexual couples to be unconstitutional. He quickly followed this by placing a stay on the decision until it could be heard by the Supreme Court.
As we told you at the time, one couple – Tim McQuillan and Sean Fritz – got married.
Now the court has given a date to hear arguments on the case (KGAN)
The court on Friday announced it will hear oral arguments in the case on Dec. 9. Both sides will be given 30 minutes to present their arguments.
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: