Box Turtle Bulletin

More Details Come Out on Larry King’s Killer

A year ago this week, 14 year old Brandon McInerney calmly walked up and shot two bullets into the back of 15 year old Larry King’s head. The students who knew both children said that King was killed because he was gay.

Almost immediately, McInerney’s lawyer started an image campaign designed to present King as the aggressor and McInerney as the victim. The pinacle of his efforts came in July of last year when Newsweek’s gossip writer Ramin Setoodeh ran a hit piece on King, claiming that he “flaunted his sexuality” and engaged in “inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behavior” and insinuating that King was a sexual predator who pushed McInerney beyond his breaking point.

Many in the gay community, being kind of heart and sympathetic to those who are hurting, joined the voices of those who called for leniency for McInerney.

And unless you’re heartless, one can feel badly for a kid who was raised economically disadvantaged in a family without structure and perhaps subjected to teasing. It is easy to think that this is just an otherwise good kid that snapped and in a brief moment acted impulsively. Maybe compassion would be a better response than incarceration in a cold penal system.

But in October, the LA Times revealed some information that suggested that perhaps Brandon McInerney wasn’t the all American good kid that his defense team would have us believe. We learned that he had a fascination with Adolf Hitler and like to doodle swaztikas. And the prosecution’s insistance on trying the child as an adult – with hate crimes enchancements – seemed less callous.

Until now the district attorney has not told the prosecution’s side of the story. But now the LA Times has reviewed court documents which tell of a very different Brandon McInerney and a very different Larry King.

Lawrence “Larry” King wasn’t sexually harassing fellow eighth-grade student Brandon McInerney in the weeks leading up to King’s shooting death, prosecutors contend in court documents.

McInerney was the aggressor, teasing the effeminate King for weeks and vowing to “get a gun and shoot” him, according to a prosecution brief.

The additional charges of the prosecution include:

• McInerney looked for other to join in a gang beating of King in the days before the shooting. Unable to find others interested he decided to kill King.
• McInerney was familiar with the gun with which he killed King, having used it for target practice.
• It wasn’t until King had suffered months of being called “faggot” by McInerney and others that he began to retort by making sexual taunts to McInerney.
• Other students heard McInerney threaten to shoot King in the days before he did so.
• In addition to the skinhead and neo-Nazi materials, McInerney also had a training video called “Shooting in Realistic Environments”.

It is difficult to know the appropriate response when a very young kid commits a premeditated act of murder, especially when the motivation appears to be bias based. But as more of this story comes out, it seems less like a mystery of children behaving impulsively and more of a cautionary tale about cauldrons of hate and the tragedies they brew.

This is, for all, a tragic story and a time for introspection. I truly wish all of those who are called to serve justice on this case much wisdom, compassion, and the ability to look to what is best for society.

Saddleback’s New Definition, Courtesy Of Dan Savage

Gay sex advice columnist and author Dan Savage isn’t known for holding back against people he views as enemies of the LGBT community. Angered by anti-gay comments made by former Senator Rick Santorum, Savage named a rather disgusting and previously un-named phenomenon relating to anal-sex after him. Performing a Google search on “Santorum” turns up Savage’s definition as the top item.

And now we get to Savage’s recent anger with Rick Warren of Saddleback Church. What is a “Saddleback” exactly? Savage wasn’t sure it had any definition so he took it upon himself to create one. After polling his readers Savage has announced his new definition of Saddleback / Saddlebacking:

From the new website Saddlebacking.com

Savage finds this new definition apropos because of Warren’s ideological promotion of abstinence-only programs which not only don’t work, but result in teens substituting anal-sex and oral-sex believing they aren’t “real” sex.

Research: Anti-Gay Harassment in Childhood Leads To Poor Adult Health

Mark S. Friedman, Michael P. Marshall, Ron Stall, JeeWon Cheong, Eric R Wright. “Gay-related development, early abuse and adult health outcomes among gay males.” AIDS and Behavior 12, no. 6 (November 2008): 891-902. Abstract available at DOI 10.1007/s10461-007-9319-3.

The Urban Men’s Health Survey (UMHS) has revealed a lot of useful information in the decade since it was conducted. Much of it “dismaying,” in the words of Ron Stall, who worked on the survey at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and is now at the University of Pittsburgh. Stall was one of four researchers from the University of Pittsburgh (joined by a fifth researcher from Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis) who analyzed a subset of that data and concluded that “experience of homophobic attacks against young gay/bisexual male youth helps to explain heightened rates of serious health problems among adult gay men.”

The UMHS was a telephone interview of a probability sample of men who have sex with men (MSMs) living in four cities: San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. The survey was conducted between November 1996 and February 1998, with 2,881 UMHS participants being asked a wide-ranging battery of questions resulting in 855 variables. The results of that survey were fed into a database, which scores of researchers have been mining ever since for dozens of studies covering many different topics. Dr, Mark Friedman, who has previously investigated the link between anti-gay hostility and suicide among young gay males, led a team which poured over responses to key questions in that database to see if a link could be established between anti-gay hostility against young gay men and adverse health outcomes as adults.

Among the many questions in that survey, participants were asked about their experiences, if any, with parental physical abuse, gay-related harassment during childhood and adolescence, and forced sex. They were also asked about four gay-related identity milestones: the age at which they became aware of their same-sex attractions, age of first same-sex sexual activity, age of deciding that they were gay, and age of first disclosure that they were gay.

Participants were also asked about current depression, HIV serostatus, sexual risk behavior during childhood, partner abuse during adulthood, anti-gay victimization during adulthood, and suicide attempts during childhood.

Dr. Mark Friedman and associates used the responses from these questions from 1,383 men aged 18 through 40, and divided them into three categories (early bloomers, middle bloomers and late bloomers) according to how participants answered questions based on the four gay-related identity milestones. Then, by looking at the answers to the other questions, they were able to demonstrate three principle findings:

1) Gay males who developed early with respect to their sexual orientation were much more likely to experience anti-gay harassment and sexual abuse during adolescence than middle bloomers and late bloomers. This might be something of a “duh” conclusion since it stands to reason that those who are more visibly gay draw more attention than those who aren’t, and those who are visibly gay earlier have more time in which to experience anti-gay harassment and sexual abuse. Nevertheless, it’s important to establish this finding statistically, because it leads to the next finding.

2) Those early bloomers were also more likely to anti-gay victimization, depression, and become HIV-positive as an adult. Taken alone, this finding might play into the hands of anti-gay activists who contend that gay youth should remain closeted and continue to deny their true experiences for as long as possible. Well, not so fast, because…

3) While early bloomers were more likely to experience adverse health outcomes as adults, it wasn’t just because they were early bloomers. Friedman and associates found that harassment and violence were very common experiences among all young gay and bisexual males. Regardless of “bloomage,” 74% reported experiencing anti-gay harassment and 24% experienced parental physical abuse before the age of 17. And these experiences were capable of statistically predicting specific negative health outcomes as adults:

• Early gay-related harassment was found to be positively associated with gay-related victimization in adulthood;
• early parental abuse was found to be positively associated with partner abuse, gay-related victimization, depression, attempted suicide and becoming HIV-positive;
• and early forced sex was positively associated with adult partner abuse, depression, engagement in high-risk sex, and becoming HIV-positive.

The men in this survey became adults, on average, in the mid 1980’s. We don’t know whether adolescents today experience statistically the same levels of abuse and harassment as adolescents did then. But the authors conclude that regardless of the extent of anti-gay harassment today, that:

“…a compelling case can still be made that the three sets of findings above, as a whole, support the hypothesis that the experience of homophobic attacks against gay youth contribute to health disparities among gay men. … [T]his suggests that their experience of abuse is related to homophobia and that these experiences in part determine the adult health problems that gay men often experience.

“To summarize, some of the health disparities of gay and bisexual men may have their genesis in these individuals’ childhood and adolescent years given that these disparities are already in place by early adulthood. The findings described above support the hypotheses that the disparities appear to be due, in part, to the timing of [gay-related development] and the violence these individuals experience related to being gay during their formative years.”

This week is National No Name Calling Week, sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). According to GLSEN’s non-representative survey of 6,209 middle and high school students, 86% of LGBT students experienced harassment at school in the past year, 61% felt unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation, and 33% skipped a day of school in the past month because of they felt unsafe. This survey isn’t statistically representative nationwide, but that’s beside the point. They found an awful lot of harassed and frightened kids out there.

Of course, Focus On the Family is against No Name Calling Week, complaining that it has a hidden agenda. And they’re right; it does. The “hidden agenda” consists of safer youth and healthier adults, which Focus continues to oppose at all costs. After all, they’ve invested a lot of energy in maintaining the image of gay men as depressed, suicidal and unhealthy. Now we know that their own policy solutions will only serve to perpetuate that image.

Gee Sigourney, Thanks for the, um…. Support?

Sigourney Weaver, star of Prayers for Bobby, expressed how challenging she found the role.

“I think all I did was think about how much I love my daughter and if she had something that was weighing on her, that she felt was bigger than her and that she wouldn’t be able to come to me and have me listen,” Weaver said, getting teary. “I’m not saying it’s not frightening for the parents. I think it would be very frightening. I think all parents do is try to keep their kids from leading lives that are dangerous or unsafe. And this is a tough life.”

A tough life… um, ya mean like that dangerous and unsafe “homosexual lifestyle” that anti-gay activists tell us about?

I really hope that AP misquoted you, Sigourney. If not, you need to get out and meet some actual living breathing happy gay people. The kind that aren’t living dangerous, unsafe, or even “tough” lives.

I appreciate you for starring in this story but… oh, well, I’ll just leave it at that.

Prayers for Bobby

A study just found a sharp distinction between the behavior of gay teens with accepting parents and those who were rejected by their parents. One story of the consequences that can come from religion-based rejection is being told in Prayers for Bobby.

On August 27, 1983, Bobby Griffith took his own life. This was the end of his four year struggle to reconcile his orientation with the pressures from his family to pray his gay away.

But Bobby left behind extensive diaries. And a distraught mother.

Unlike some parents who, when confronted with the destructive nature of their rejection, seek to absolve themselves and blame their children, Mary Griffith was shocked into self-evaluation. And the result of her journey of discovery was life-changing. Mary recognized that she had been instrumental in her son’s distruction and decided to become an activist for the care and support of gay teens and for changing the attitudes of parents.

In 1995 came the book, Prayers for Bobby: A Mother’s Coming to Terms with the Suicide of Her Gay Son.

Now on January 24th, Lifetime Channel will be tell Mary’s story (starring Sigourney Weaver). The network has been heavily promoting this movie and let’s hope that many many families are watching.

Study Identifies Link Between Rejecting Parents and Negative Health Among LGB Youth

Caitlin Ryan, David Huebner, Rafael M. Diaz, Jorge Sanchez. “Family rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in White and Latino Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual young adults.” Pediatrics 123, No. 1 (January 2009): 346-352. (DOI: 10.1542/peds.2007-3524)

In a new paper published this month, Dr. Caitlin Ryan and her colleagues at San Francisco State University were able to demonstrate a predictive link between specific, negative family reactions to their child’s sexual orientation and serious health problems for these adolescents in young adulthood. According to this study, such adverse health problems include depression, illegal drug use, risk for HIV infection, and suicide attempts. This study appeared in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and is being hailed as a landmark departure from previous studies, which tended to look at a wider range of sources of social rejection — schools, peers, etc. This study looked specifically at parental acceptance or rejection and its impact on LGB youth health.

The study was based on questionnaires administered to a sample of 224 white and latino LGB young adults, aged 21 to 25, and open about their sexual orientation to at least one parent or guardian. (Twenty-one additional participants who identified as transgender were also recruited, but their numbers were too small for statistical analysis, and thus were excluded from this particular study.) Participants were recruited through various venues, including bars, clubs, LGBT service agencies and community groups, all within 100 miles of San Francisco.

On average, participants became aware of their same-sex attractions at the age of 10.76 years. They came out to themselves at age 14.16 on average, came out to others at age 15.32 on average, and came out to family at age 15.82 on average. Men were on average aware of their same-sex attractions about two years earlier than women, and they came out to themselves about one year earlier than women.

Study participants were asked a series of questions resulting in 51 close-ended items that assessed the presence and frequency of each rejecting parental or guardian reaction to the participant’s sexual identity when they were teenagers. The questionnaire used, the FAP Family Rejection Scale, has a high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .98).

Levels of depression were assessed using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Substance use and abuse were quantified in 3 ways: heavy alcohol drinking in the past 6 months, use of illicit drugs in the past 6 months, and substance use–related problems in the last 5 years. Sexual behavior was assessed in the last 6 months by asking about number, gender, and type of sexual partners, type of sexual activity, and whether condoms were used when activity involved anal or vaginal penetration.

Compared to peers who reported no or low levels of family rejection, LGB young adults who reported higher levels of family rejection during adolescence were:

• 8.4 times more likely to report having attempted suicide,
• 5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression,
• 3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs,
• 3.4 times more likely to engage in unprotected sexual intercourse.

To give you an idea of how dramatic an effect that higher levels of family rejection can have on an individual, here’s something else to ponder. Compared to peers who reported no or low levels of family rejection, LGB young adults who reported only moderate levels of family rejection during adolescence were:

• 2.3 times more likely to report having attempted suicide,
• 2.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression,
• 1.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs,
• about as likely (1.04 times) to engage in unprotected sexual intercourse.

Latino men reported the highest number of negative family reactions to their sexual orientation in adolescence.

While these findings are very important, it’s important to keep in mind some of the study’s limitations. The biggest one that jumped out at me — and one the research authors didn’t address — was whether there were any confounding factors leading to these outcomes. For example, in this particular sample, what were the subjects’ experiences with peer rejection, bullying or violence? If subjects who experienced a high degree of rejection by their parents also happened to experience a greater degree of bullying, for example, then outcomes attributed to rejecting parents could have been affected by bullying as well. Since the researchers weren’t able to control for those outside factors, we don’t really know what, if any, external influences may have contributed to these outcomes.

And also, this study has all the usual weaknesses of virtually every other social science study. The authors caution:

There are several limitations to the study. This is a retrospective study that measures young adults’ reported experiences that occurred several years earlier, which may introduce some potential for, recall bias. To minimize this concern, we created measures that asked whether a specific family event related to their LGB identity actually occurred (eg, verbal abuse), rather than asking generally about “how rejecting” parents were. Although we went to great lengths to recruit a diverse sample drawing from multiple venues, our sample is technically one of convenience, and thus shares the limitations inherent in all convenience samples. Thus, these data might not represent all subpopulations of LGB young adults, as well as individuals who are neither white nor Latino. The study focused on LGB non-Latino white and Latino young adults to permit more in-depth assessment of cultural issues and experiences related to sexual orientation and gender expression, so it did not include all other groups and drew from 1 urban geographic area. Subsequent research should include greater ethnic diversity to assess potential differences in family reactions. Lastly, given the cross-sectional nature of this study, we caution against making cause–effect interpretations from these findings.

Nevertheless, this study highlights some important implications for identifying youth at risk for family violence and for being ejected from their homes. We know that LGB youth are overrepresented in foster care, juvenile detention, and among homeless youth. And we also know that conflict over an adolescent’s sexual and gender identity is one of the primary reasons for being kicked out of the home. And for whatever reason, this study seems to suggest that Latino gay and bisexual men are at a particularly higher risk of being rejected by their parents.

This study opens a long-neglected area of research. Further research which replicates and improves on this study is badly needed. But one thing for certain, those groups — specifically, certain ex-gay groups come to mind — which encourage parents to engage in rejecting behaviors with their children bear a tremendous responsibility. The cost to the well-being of LGB youths can be staggering.

The Clear Facts about Proposition 8 and Schools

Writing for Jurist (a publication of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law), Douglas NeJaime, the Sears Law Teaching Fellow at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, explains in clear and easily understood language exactly why the claims by Yes on 8 about schools having to teach about gay marriage are false.

First, school curriculum is an intensely local decision. Local school boards, elected by local residents, create, revise, and implement curriculum. While public schools must teach core subjects and ensure that students attain a certain level of competence, they enjoy a tremendous amount of discretion. Nowhere is that discretion more expansive than in the domain of health and sex education. In fact, schools in California may decide to provide no such instruction whatsoever. If schools do offer sex education, the California Education Code requires that schools teach “respect for marriage and committed relationships.” But even this statutory provision is silent as to what that instruction should (let alone must) include. Instead, local school districts may include what they like, based on parental feedback, teacher input, and the decisions of politically accountable local officials. Some school districts have for years included material on lesbians and gay men, while many others have omitted such material. That variation will not change (and has not changed) in light of the ability of same-sex couples to marry in California. Schools will continue to exercise their broad discretion and will not operate under any new mandates. Furthermore, parents in California enjoy the right to exempt their children from sex education. This right to opt out will continue to exist, meaning that children won’t receive sex education (gay-inclusive or not) to which their parents object.

He also explains why the claims based on Parker v. Hurley (the King and King ad) are untrue.

At the onset of this campaign I was willing to believe that the Yes on 8 Campaign was sincere and that their ads reflected their beliefs. However, as more and more evidence builds up it has become increasingly obvious that they have abandoned all efforts at honesty and now are flat-out lying.

Education is not the focus of the ads because the supporters are unclear about the law or because they truly believe that schools will undermine parental and community control. As Marcos Breton revealed in an article about Yes on 8’s strategist:

In August, Schubert was excited at the subversive idea of using gay people in his ads – gay people who he claims oppose same-sex marriage. But he decided that was too risky.

Instead, Schubert found his inspiration at a Southern California focus group meeting in early September when an African American man – and Barack Obama supporter – reacted angrily to the idea of gay marriage being taught to kids in public school.

Ever since, Schubert has hammered at that idea in slick commercials with ominous music. “The things that people in politics don’t always appreciate is the power of human emotion,” he said.

Yes on 8 Campaign Desperate, Disgusting, Abusive of Children and Families

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.

Anti-Gay Students Keep Control of Student Government at Sacramento Area Junior College

ABC News 10 is reporting

Nine members of American River College’s student association survived a recall effort this week staged in protest of their votes to support a ballot measure seeking to ban gay marriage in California.

You will recall that these students representatives are part of a coalition of Russian evangelicals and Mormons that are using the college’s student government to serve their religious goals. Following an endorsement of Proposition 8, students concerned about their agenda collected enough signatures for a recall. Nine percent of students voted.

For a fascinating narrative of the anti-gay efforts of Russian evangelicals in the Sacramento area, one that features at least one of those students under recall, read Kel Munger’s article Things to do in Sacramento with a megaphone in the Sacramento News and Review.

These are not your usual collection of College Republicans or Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

A partial list of the protests over the last half-dozen years is impressive. The Dividers have protested at Wal-Mart (for saying “Happy Holidays!” instead of “Merry Christmas!”); at theaters that screened Brokeback Mountain, the “gay cowboy” movie; and at other churches, with signs that read, “This is a fake church” (for sins such as offering free gasoline to new members or being too nice to gay people). Luke’s father has dressed up in a devil costume, complete with pitchfork, to make sure people know where they’re headed for not doing things the Divider way.

But this small band of Dividers have focused with laserlike intensity on protesting at gay events, where that “Sodomy is Sin” banner functions as both a calling card and a demand for gays to return to the closet.

And why does this matter?

What conclusions have I come to out of all this? It seems pretty clear that a small group of committed activists—the usual suspects—can stir up a ruckus and attract attention. But it’s also clear that they can alter the climate in a pretty serious way. At ARC, both students who identify as Christian and students who are members of the gay community have told me that they feel targeted. Young men and women there told me in tears that they no longer felt safe at school. A transgender student told me she’d transferred to another community college because she didn’t feel safe on ARC’s campus.

More on ARC Student Recall

We told you about the efforts to recall the coalition of Russian immigrants and Mormons in student government at American River College who endorsed Proposition 8. Kel Munger at the Sacramento News and Review has been tracking the story.

He reports student protests and electioneering, a huge turnout, and blatant homophobia printed in Russian. Check out the site for the latest on this fascinating story.

CA State Board of Education: Prop 8 Ads are “Misleading”

Sick of hearing lies about how Proposition 8 would protect children in schools, and knowing that the ads were deceiving the public, California’s top educators finally had to speak out.

California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell and his predecessor Delaine Eastin spoke out against the campaign today, along with California State Board of Education president Ted Mitchell, saying the proposition is not tied to public schools.

Nor were they mild in their reaction.

Mitchell said he is “disgusted” by the “Yes on 8” campaign, “in particular this misleading set of advertisements about the impact of Prop. 8 on education. This is political campaigning at its worst,” he said.

O’Connell, in a prepared statement, called the ads “alarming” and “irresponsible.”

“Our public schools are not required to teach about marriage,” he said. “And, in fact, curriculum involving health issues is chosen by local school governing boards.”

Yes on 8’s response? Denial and more lies.

White said the claim that California law allows parents to opt their children out of lessons involving same-sex marriage is a lie.

“The bottom line is that parents don’t have an absolute right to remove their children from a lesson they don’t agree with,” White said.

It doesn’t matter how many legal scholars and education specialists and conservative newspapers debunk their statements, the Yes on 8 Campaign is going to make them anyway. And the sad fact is that those who are inclined to search for a reason to justify their desire to discriminate against gay people will choose to believe that the political spokesman knows more about the education code than the Superintendent of Public Instruction or the State Board of Education.

But those in the campaign must know that what they are claiming isn’t true. They have to be aware that they are relying on lies and fears and a colletion of what-ifs and worst-cases and against-all-evidence claims. Their decision to carry on with this campaign of lies is intentional.

Which makes me wonder.

Does the Mormon Church heirarchy care?

Their endorsement, organization, and pronouncements have led to their members contributing three-fourths of the financing for the airing of these lies. The strength of this campaign is due to their efforts and it would be naive to believe that they have no influence – if not complete control – in the message of the ads.

So I ask: do they believe that they have a moral obligation to speak only the truth? Or does the Mormon Church encourage, support, and endorse blatant dishonesty?

Caught: Teacher Indoctrinating Students About Gay Marriage

It’s true that teachers are trying to indoctrinate children with their own views about same-sex marriage without consulting with parents or even giving them the option to not have their kids subjected to the teacher’s political beliefs.

The Californian reports

A Salinas High School teacher who distributed “Yes on Proposition 8” literature to her students last week has been asked to refrain from doing so by administrators.

School children were being exposed to issues about multiple-partner sex and other sexual practices and arrangements without even a parent being informed of content in the material provided.

The literature that was passed out to students says it is important to protect marriage as an institution between a man and a woman.

The one-page statement also says it is critical to vote yes on Proposition 8, saying its failure would eventually force the state to approve “polygamy, polymory, incest, group and other ‘creative’ arrangements for marriage.”

Oh the tragedy. The shock and horror. I should prepare an advertisement claiming that Yes on 8 is teaching school children about “King and Queen and Queen and Niece“.

ARC Student Recall Election Update

On October 1 we reported that the student body government of American River College in Sacramento had endorsed Proposition 8. This triggered a recall effort from frustrated students.

We had noted that five of the supporters were part of the vehemently homophobic Slavic community in Sacramento. The Sacramento Bee provides addition information.

Three of the other student leaders up for recall are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In June, church leaders urged Mormon followers to “do what they can” to support Proposition 8.

Student Association Vice President Blaze Jeppesen, who authored the measure, declined to talk to The Bee about what role, if any, his LDS faith played in his decision to bring the hot-button issue to campus.

Association President Jacob Johnson, who also is a Mormon, said since he was conducting the meetings, he remained impartial. He said he didn’t try to influence the council and didn’t vote on the issue.

But Johnson said his faith is important to him and he supports Proposition 8.

His sister Heather Johnson supported the campus resolution and is on the recall list.

School Bus Driver Charged In Anti-Gay Assault

A school bus driver in Bourbonnais, Illinois, has been charged with leading a homophobic attack on a ten year old boy.

Kankakkee Sheriff’s Police Department charged Russell A. Schmalz, 46, with mob action, endangering the life of a child, and battery in connection with an incident in which he taunted the student passenger and encouraged other students to chase and beat the child:

The incident occurred last Friday,” [Chief Deputy Ken] McCabe said, alleging that Schmalz was taunting the boy by calling him “gay.”

“When the boy got off the bus the driver encouraged several other students to go after him and tackle him. Our investigation shows that occurred,” McCabe said.

Investigators are also investigating allegations that Schmalz himself got off the bus and grabbed the boy. Bourbonnais School District officials said the driver has been terminated.

A Poorly Conceived Show of Support

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.