Box Turtle Bulletin

Maggie’s Money to be Investigated

Fred Karger stands as an example of what you can do if you have determination, a moral cause, and the confidence to act on it.

It is Fred who has been leading the boycott against Doug Manchester’s Grand Hyatt in San Diego. Manchester undoubtedly regrets funding the signature collection process for Proposition 8 and he serves as a warning to those who may wish to contribute heavily against efforts to overturn the marriage ban.

Fred also was a significant player in the effort to identify the contributers to Proposition 8, a project that revealed the extent to which the Mormon Church organized, funded, staffed, and controlled the anti-gay marriage campaign. You can be sure that religious institution considers Karger as one of their least favorite people.

And now Fred is taking on Maggie Gallagher and her National Organization for Marriage.

Earlier this year Fred accused NOM of being a front group for the Mormon Church. He provided secret documents illustrating how the church set up other front groups in the past and drew comparisons to NOM. While NOM has denied such a connection, they have illegally refused to provide their tax filings and have retaliated by deposing Fred and demanding every document relating to his efforts.

But Fred is undaunted. He is challenging the way in which anti-gay activists are funding their efforts to block marriage equality in Maine. And, in a hearing today, it is working (Portland Press Herald)

The state ethics commission voted 3-2 today to order an investigation of the fundraising efforts by the National Organization of Marriage, a Washington, D.C.,-based organization that has given money to fight same-sex marriage in Maine.

Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate filed a complaint with the commission saying the group should be required to disclose the names of donors. In response, Brian Brown, executive director of NOM, said they have not raised money specifically for Maine and therefore are not required to report individual donors.

Fred provided solicitations from NOM that seem to clearly illustrate that Brown is lying.

Congratulations Nevadans

Today the law goes into effect allowing same-sex couples to register with the State of Nevada as Domestic Partners and receive all the same state rights, obligations, and responsibilities as married couples.

Maine Poll Goes Our Way

A poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner taken from September 23-27 of 808 registered voters included the following question:

Q.6 Now let me ask something else. One of the questions on the ballot this November will read as follows: “Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?” – If the election were held today, would you vote YES or NO on this question? Total

Yes strongly……………………………………………………………….37
Yes not strongly…………………………………………………………..4
No not strongly……………………………………………………………7
No strongly………………………………………………………………..43
(Don’t know/refused)…………………………………………………….9

Total yes…………………………………………………………………..41
Total no……………………………………………………………………50

Although the structure of the question is confusing, “No” is the answer which we wish to see.

El Salvador’s Gay Marriage Ban Fails

El Salvador’s governing leftwing Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) voted as a block against amendments to the constitution that would ban same-sex marriage and civil unions and adoption of children by same-sex couples. Thus supporters were not able to get the required two thirds to write discrimination into their governing document. (IPS)

During the weeks running up to the vote on Thursday, Catholic and evangelical churches in El Salvador joined forces with rightwing parties to try to push through the constitutional reforms.

Hundreds of Catholics and evangelicals carrying placards with messages like “Marriage is Sacred, Let’s Defend It” marched through the streets of San Salvador on Saturday, Sept. 19 in support of the rightwing opposition bloc in parliament and to press the FMLN to ratify changes to three articles of the constitution.

The church groups held a permanent “prayer chain” and organised more street demonstrations early this week, in the hope that the reforms would be approved in the legislative vote on Thursday, Sept. 24.

Supporters of the reforms said they were defending public morality and the foundations of the family.

Another New “No on 1” Ad

The No on 1 Campaign has another new ad out and rather than being in response to the anti-gay campaign, this one takes the issue on directly.

“People have a right to live how they want to live”

Bill Clinton Shifts on Marriage Equality

Former President Bill Clinton has taped a discussion with Anderson Cooper which will run tonight in which he explains his shift on same-sex marriage.

While the endorsement certainly could have been more stirring, let’s welcome this influential voice into the marriage equality camp.

Tenners File to Overturn Prop 8

The campaign to overturn Proposition 8, California’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, has officially begun. (LA Times)

The group Love Honor Cherish filed ballot language with the state today for a measure to overturn the ban on gay marriage in the state. That is the first step in getting the question on the ballot.

According to the group, if the state approves the language, they will begin the process of collecting the estimated 1 million signatures needed to get on the November 2010 ballot.

And while the twelvers would very much like to wait another two years to strategize, plan, and prepare, if the coalition of groups wanting to take this issue to the polls next year show that they are achieving signature collection goals, you can be certain that they will seek to become a part of the effort and to ensure that it has the best possible chance of success.

I had the opportunity to have a discussion with an organizer involved with training grass-roots leaders at a “boot camp” a week ago and he reports that those in favor of moving forward are somewhat inexperienced in campaign strategy and methodology. They are also highly suspicious of the counsel given by the boys and girls in suits.

Frankly, I don’t know if the tenners have the organization to get a million signatures and to plan a winning campaign. But I am delighted that they are suspicious of the leaders who arrogantly led a campaign that neither sought nor utilized our community’s best resources: gay people themselves. And what the tenners have today that the leaders of the No on 8 Campaign sorely lacked is passion, commitment, and a belief that the results of this election will have an impact on their life personally.

Should the tenners succeed in getting their signatures, I hope that technical support can be utilized from the larger groups but that the strategic decisions are made by those who are fed up with gay politics as usual.

The language of the ballot measure is:

This amendment would amend an existing section of the California Constitution. Existing language proposed to be deleted is printed in strikeout type. Language proposed to be added is printed in underlined type.

Section 1. To protect religious freedom, no court shall interpret this measure to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person authorized to perform marriages by any religious denomination, church, or other non-profit religious institution to perform any marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution.

Section 2. To provide for fairness in the government\’s issuance of marriage licenses, Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

9th Circuit to Hear Appeal of Special Treatment for Referendum 71 Signatories

Last month, U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma decided that public petitions to change legislation in the State of Washington were protected by a veil of secrecy. He declared that the First Amendment protected the anonymity of those who signed Referendum 71, an effort to deny rights to gay couples.

Anti-gay activists had argued that gay people and those who support them might deny their business to those who wanted to harm gay folk and therefore their identities must be kept secret so as to ensure that they could engage in anti-gay activism without any negative consequences.

The State, with an interest in open processes, has appeal to the Ninth Circuit, claiming that open government is in the best interest of the people. (Seattle PI)

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Attorney General Rob McKenna’s request for a fast-track appeal. A hearing is scheduled for Oct. 14 in Pasadena, Calif.

Meet Bishop Sal, the Face of Catholic Anti-Gay Discrimination

The East Bay Express has an article on Salvatore Cordileone, the new Bishop of Oakland. It seems the Catholic Church rewarded him with this position for all his hard work and devoted efforts in taking away civil rights from gay couples.

What almost no one knows is that without Bishop Sal, gay men and lesbians would almost surely still be able to get married today. As an auxiliary bishop in San Diego, Cordileone played an indispensable role in conceiving, funding, organizing, and ultimately winning the campaign to pass Proposition 8. It was Bishop Sal and a small group of Catholic leaders who decided that they had to amend the state constitution. It was Bishop Sal who found the first major donor and flushed the fledgling campaign with cash. It was Bishop Sal who personally brought in the organization that took the lead on the petition drive. And it was Bishop Sal who coordinated the Catholic effort with evangelical churches around the state. Bishop Sal even helped craft the campaign’s rhetorical strategy, sitting in on focus groups to hone the message of Proposition 8.

Iowans Not Calling for Anti-Gay Amendment

The Des Moines Register released their Iowa Poll. And while it suggests that the Supreme Court’s decision to allow same-sex marriage isn’t particularly popular, it really hasn’t riled up the Iowans.

The poll shows that 26 percent of Iowans favor April’s unanimous court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, 43 percent oppose it and 31 percent don’t care much or are not sure.

But even though a plurality opposes the decision, few others seem interested in changing the constitution to disallow marriage.

Iowans are almost evenly divided about whether they would vote for or against a constitutional amendment to end marriage for same-sex couples, according to The Des Moines Register’s new Iowa Poll.

Forty-one percent say they would vote for a ban, and 40 percent say they would vote to continue gay marriage. The rest either would not vote or say they are not sure.

But the anti-gays activists have a cause to rally around. And we can fully expect that they will seek to make marriage a central focus in gubernatorial, representative, and court campaigns. This might not, however, be a wise decision.

Sixty-three percent say candidates’ stands on other issues will be more important in making their decisions in the 2010 elections.
…
Few poll respondents who described themselves as Republicans say the court decision is the single most important issue in the 2010 elections. But more than a third of Republicans say it is among several important issues, while only about a quarter of Democrats put it in that category.

Former state Republican Chairman Mike Mahaffey said the poll shows that, as the party searches for a winning message, the economy trumps marriage among voters.

“I think all of the candidates are going to state that they believe the people ought to be given the right to vote on a constitutional amendment. That’s a reasonable approach,” Mahaffey said. “I also think when it comes down to it, the overriding issues are going to be what can we do to create jobs and put ourselves in a better position fiscally.”

Prejean’s “Bigger Crown” Still a Crowd Pleaser

Carrie Prejean, former Miss California, was at hand to rally the troops at the far-right Values Voter Summit this weekend. She really should be thankful that the Miss California Pageant removed her from her position, because there’s no way that an organization that seeks to appeal to pageant viewers would ever let a reigning representative get anywhere near that collection of extremist partisans.

Ready with a quick tear, Prejean told how she went from a sure thing winner (though the points were not going her way) to being a big loser. Although it appeared to those living outside her head that she was prattling on incoherently about “opposite marriage”, on the inside she was seeing visions from God.

“As I saw my goals and aspirations flash by me, I knew God had a plan for me… God chose me for that moment. He knew I was strong enough to get through all the junk that I have been through.”

My recollection of the events suggests that this “plan” wasn’t all that evident right away. It didn’t exactly materialize until Maggie Gallagher got Carrie in her grip. But perhaps it’s true; Carrie’s thought process has always proven elusive.

And then, victim that she is, Prejean whipped out her catch phrase, one that was sure to appeal to biblical literalists who can’t wait to be royalty in heaven (though they are not really very specific about who gets to be peasants and serfs).

“Even though I didn\’t win the crown that night,” said Prejean, tearing up, “I know the Lord has so much of a bigger crown in heaven for me.”

And who am I to tell her she’s wrong. After all, the Lord did have much bigger boobs for her down at her plastic surgeon’s.

Australia’s Capital to Vote For Civil Unions… Again

Like the United States, Australia’s federal legislators meet to decide laws within a community far more pro-gay than they are. Twice before the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) has voted for local legally-binding ceremonies of civil unions and twice before the federal government has reversed their decision.

So, yet again, they are passing legislation. (Sydney Morning Herald)

The ACT Legislative Assembly is set to pass laws which will allow for legally-binding “civil union” ceremonies for same-sex couples.

The ACT Greens have draft laws on the table which would allow the ceremonies to take place.

On Monday, ACT Labor – which leads the minority government – voted unanimously to support the bill in a caucus meeting. That means the bill will pass the Assembly easily.

Although ACT Labor is supportive of recognition of same-sex couples on par with heterosexuals, the national party is committed to minimal recognition, supporting only specific rights shared by unmarried de facto partners and perhaps a registry – which does not allow for ceremony or provide equality – but are dragging their feet on even that.

It is unlikely that the ACT will be allowed to treat its gay citizens with dignity. But such efforts on the part of the local government serve well to illustrate hypocrisies and lack of commitment and continue pressure on those within Labor who like to envision themselves as champions of the disenfranchised.

This Is What Biblical Marriage Looks Like

Something for the voters of Maine and Washington to consider, and for everyone else who wants to stand up for “Biblical Marriage“:

If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” then the girl’s father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl’s father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

‘Eggs’ Holds off Marriage for Equality

Mehcad Brooks, the rather beautiful actor best known for playing Eggs, Tara’s love interest, in the just-finished season of True Blood, gave an interview with Honey Magazine in which he strongly expressed his support for marriage equality:

Well, do you consider yourself the marrying kind, then? Do you want that?
I haven\’t even gotten that far. But yeah, I want a wife, I want kids. The whole thing. But I\’m also not even concerned with marrying somebody until it\’s legal for everybody to get married. And what I mean by that is the whole Prop 8 thing.

Why is that cause so important to you?
I find it really offensive. I just find it really problematic when you start throwing people\’s rights away. Until we get our gay brothers and sisters back into a realm of consciousness that everyone else is in, it\’s just not right. A woman who\’s getting married — it\’s probably going to be a gay man who made her dress, and a gay man who\’s doing her hair and makeup, but he can\’t get married. How messed up is that?

Very messed up.

It is very important that straight guys and gals come to understand that marriage equality isn’t a gay issue, it’s a principle everyone should take to heart. I enjoyed Brooks as an actor; I now enjoy him as a person for understanding and caring.

DOMA Repeal Step One: Introduction

A collection of political leaders, led by Rep. Nadler, who truly wish to see marriage discrimination removed from federal law, have taken the first step towards marriage equality. (NYT blog)

Representatives Jerrold Nadler, Tammy Baldwin and Jared Polis appeared along with same-sex marriage advocates at a Tuesday morning news conference to announce the introduction of the bill, called the Respect for Marriage Act.
…
The bill already has roughly 90 cosponsors, though at least one name is conspicuously absent from that list: Representative Barney Frank, the openly gay Massachusetts Democrat. Speaker Nancy Pelosi also indicated earlier this year that repealing the law would not be a top priority.

The next step will be trying to encourage those who are reluctant to move forward on equality – or for tying their political careers to things that matter to our community – to consider equality as a principled goal.

This bill is not expected to pass this Congress. But it does let us know who is really committed when they tell us that they support equality for gay couples. There are now 90 congresspersons whom I’m now willing to listen to … and a few notable ones for whom I find that I have other causes that “will take up all of what I can do and maybe more” and perhaps they should seek a “better venue” elsewhere.

p.s. the bill does not yet seem to have caught the attention of the President. But I am absolutely certain that he will support this bill every bit as much as he has used his bully pulpit and influence with Congress to support other promises he made to our community during his campaign.