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: State Marriage Amendments
October 16th, 2008
You may recall that the Yes on 8 campaign has the endorsement of a sole newspaper, the Paradise Post. And you may know that Paradise is a small neighbor of Chico.
Well, the Chico Enterprise-Record has released their voter recommendations and it seems that the attitude in Butte County is not universally in favor of discrimination.
Proposition 8 would overturn the right of same-sex couples to marry, getting around the pesky little constitutional requirement of equal treatment for all by amending the constitution.
We still fail to understand why this is the government’s business, and the proponents’ arguments just don’t catch much traction with us. How can preventing some people from marrying protect marriage? Wouldn’t banning divorce be better?
The arguments against same-sex marriages seem close to arguments against mixed-race marriages you’d hear back in the ’60s. Hopefully we’ll get beyond all that some day. Vote no on Proposition 8.
October 15th, 2008
A poll of Asian Americans reveals that they do not favor amending the constitution to enshrine discrimination against gays. (SJ Mercury-News)
The poll found that 57 percent of Asian-Americans likely to vote in the Nov. 4 election oppose Proposition 8, which would reverse last spring’s California Supreme Court ruling that gave gays and lesbians the right to marry. Only 32 percent planned to vote for the measure. Eleven percent were undecided.
The poll (pdf) found the proposed amendment to be out of favor with all subsets of this population.
Across all national origin groups in the survey, more opposed than favored the changing the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. An outright majority opposed the measure among Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans, and Vietnamese, and a near majority of Japanese Americans (46%) and Asian Indians (47%) did so as well.
October 15th, 2008
Steve Bing, a producer of such movies as Beowulf and Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World, has pledged $500,000 to the campaign to fight against Proposition 8.
Bing is what one might call “notoriously heterosexual”. Let’s hope his giving sets an example for those in the entertainment industry who are gay or who have benefited greatly from gay support.
October 15th, 2008
Dear Madonna,
You are coming to Los Angeles next month as part of your Sticky and Sweet Tour. Several of my friends are going and they’ve asked me to get a ticket as well.
In fact, among some of my friends, being one of your fans is almost an expectation. More than one were teen-age members of your fan club (they’re in their 30’s now) and while only one actively collects memorabilia anymore, the idea of missing a concert of yours is unthinkable.
I’m sure you’ve figured by now that these friends are gay men. After all, Madonna, gay men make up a huge majority of your loyal fans, those who buy every album and keep your name and music relevant.
And I do enjoy your music. I own several CD’s and caught your last concert in Las Vegas. It was a great show and I hear the new one is as well.
But I will not be going.
You see, Madonna, when you make a career out of appealing to a gay audience, when you cultivate your Gay Icon status, and when you make hundreds of millions of dollars in the process, you owe something back. You owe the loyalty to the gay community that they have given you.
And you are not fulfilling that obligation. You have given NOTHING to the fight in California, Arizona, and Florida to protect the rights of the gay citizens of those states. I guess you think that you have better things to do with your money.
So if you are looking for me to drop down a couple hundred bucks to watch you lip-sync, it isn’t going to happen. I too have better things to do with my money. For one thing, I’ll need to pick up the new Fall Out Boy album.
Sincerely,
Timothy Kincaid
p.s. Feel free to pass this message on to Barbara Streisand, Bette Midler, and Cher, all of whom have also given nothing to the cause.
October 15th, 2008
We have a few additional newspapers who’ve added their editorial voice in opposition to Proposition 8
The Los Angeles Daily News is LA’s smaller and slightly more conservative paper and bases its readership in The Valley and other suburban areas.
The supporters of the ban, which include several faith-based organizations and churches, see this as a movement toward societal acceptance of a group that they don’t think ought to exist. Under the U.S. Constitution, they have a right to think that. But it doesn’t allow them to deny equal rights to anyone.
It’s time to put this issue to rest.
The court ruled that the state constitution does not tolerate a distinction between unions of opposite-sex couples and those of same-sex couples. And we don’t believe that voters should, as a matter of equity, fairness and decency, go out of their way to rewrite the constitution to create such a distinction.
To approve Proposition 8 is to codify discrimination. Californians cannot let that happen.
Newspapers Opposing Proposition 8
Newspaper Endorsing Proposition 8
October 14th, 2008
“George Pepperdine” — I don’t know if that’s his real name or if it’s a pseudonym in honor of Pepperdine University’s founder — left a statement from Pepperdine University in our comments section. This statement by Pepperdine University president Andrew K. Benton addresses the recent controversy over the “Yes on 8” television ads which prominently displays Pepperdine’s name.
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: University Faculty
FROM: Andrew K. Benton
RE: University Neutrality and Academic Freedom
DATE: October 14, 2008
I want to provide an update on an issue that weighs heavily on many of our minds: encouraging academic freedom while refraining from political endorsement by Pepperdine University. As most are aware, Yes on 8 ads airing on television and radio feature one of our professors. The Pepperdine name is prominently displayed in the current round of ads and many vocal supporters and opponents of Prop 8 see the opinions expressed as not only the professor’s, but Pepperdine’s as well.
Many of our professors write op-eds, books and give speeches; and they are appropriately identified with Pepperdine University. My first reaction to this series of television ads was that Pepperdine was too prominent. Many on the faculty disagreed, some agreed strongly. At the faculty conference I learned that a disclaimer would satisfy the professor and others who were involved. We offered language that was simple and clear, and while we knew the firestorm would continue in some quarters, we felt a straightforward disclaimer would allow the professor his right to speak and our right to remain outside any role of endorsement in the political fray. The next day, I learned that the professor and those promoting Proposition 8 preferred to withdraw Pepperdine’s name completely. We agreed. It was a change from a position announced just the day before, but it seemed a stronger measure and appropriate.
Just prior to running a second ad, the campaign announced to us that in their opinion it would be more effective if Pepperdine’s name was back in. They added a disclaimer, albeit so small and bare, that most do not see it. It was not the language which we had suggested. They did not ask us; they told us what they were going to do, and they did it.
Without any involvement in the campaign, Pepperdine has been lionized and vilified. We have been given credit where it is not due and blamed beyond anyone’s wildest imaginings. I, and perhaps many of you, continue to receive words of praise and condemnation from people who are either thanking us, or sharply criticizing us. Whether the writers are for or against Prop 8, I take no comfort from either position as it puts us where we don’t belong — in partisan politics.
This is a very challenging situation. We believe that the right to freedom of expression must be balanced with the fact that universities cannot endorse political candidates and propositions. We can host debates, we can educate, but we can’t endorse.
We regret when anyone supposes that we are inappropriately involved in a political issue when we are not. We will take whatever measures we deem appropriate to correct the misunderstanding. I will be writing to alumni and donors to explain the delicate nature of the balance we strike. We must not chill the right to free expression, but we must also avoid the appearance (intended or not) of political partisanship.
You can be of service to our institution by helping us clear up this confusion with those who may ask. I appreciate your understanding, your assistance and your patience.
October 13th, 2008
PolitickerCA is reporting that LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is increasing his effort to oppose anti-marriage initiative Proposition 8.
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa jumped fully into the Prop. 8 fray Monday, sending out a statewide message via the Courage Campaign, a grass- and netroots activist organization, urging people to defeat the measure.
The popular Democratic mayor, who is thought to be actively considering a run for governor in 2010, also announced he was personally donating $25,000 to the effort directed at getting voters to reject the initiative that would permanently codify marriage in the California Constitution as being strictly between a man and a woman.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor for representing me and my fellow Angelinos in our efforts to retain our equality.
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 13th, 2008
I got a phone call last night from a reporter from Phoenix’s ABC15, telling me that a spokesperson for the ‘Yes” side for Prop 102 says that more than a hundred of their campaign signs were vandalized. Obviously, everyone here at No on Prop 102 condemns such vandalism. While we are happy to engage in a vigorous debate on the issues, vandalism has no place in rational debate.
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
Of the fifty largest newspapers in the nation, six are in California. And with the Sacramento Bee’s position on Proposition 8, they are unanimous in their opposition to the anti-marriage proposition. The Bee says:
Just as an individual’s sexual orientation is not a legitimate basis on which to deny housing or a job, it is not a legitimate basis on which to deny individuals the right to marry. Californians should reject the call to amend the state constitution to exclude some people from marriage. That would be a black mark on the constitution, just as past exclusionary acts remain a stain on California’s history.
Vote “no”
The six largest newspapers in California (and the US) are: The Los Angeles Times (4), the San Francisco Chronical (21), the San Diego Union-Tribune (26), the Orange County Register (36), the Sacramento Bee (37), and the San Jose Mercury News (49). See Newspapers Opposing Prop 8.
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: