Box Turtle Bulletin

Marriage Rights Around the World

The following countries offer some form of recognition to same-sex couples:

Marriage

Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, United States (Massachusetts, California)

Civil Unions

New Zealand, Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul), Argentina (Buenos Aires, Rio Negro), Mexico (Coahuila), Uruguay, United States (Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey)

Registered Partnership or Domestic Partnership

Denmark, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Finland, Luxembourg, , Slovenia, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Italy (City of Padua), Switzerland, Hungary, Australia (Tasmania), United States (Maine, Washington, Oregon)

Other Methods of Limited Recognition

France (PACS), Germany (Life Partnership), Croatia (Law of Same-Sex Relationships), Andorra (Stable Union of a Couple), Mexico (Mexico City – PACS), Colombia (Common-law marriage inheritance rights), Israel (Limited recognition of foreign legal arrangements), United States (Hawaii – Reciprocal Benefits; New York – recognition of out-of-state legal marriages)

Although recognition is in a rapid state of change, this is my best understanding of the current rights provided. Several nations are in the process of adding or revising recognition.

Maggie Gallagher is Untruthful About CA Marriage Ruling

Maggie Gallagher, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and Board Member of the Marriage Law Foundation, likes to present herself as thoughtful and reasoned. She likes to dance along the edge of deception, implying rather than declaring that which is not accurate.

But the decision of the California Supreme Court seems to have thrown her enough that her innate dishonesty has shown through. Gallagher released a statement saying the following:

“California’s supreme court has just ruled that the 62 percent of Californians who voted for marriage as the union of husband and wife are just bigots. But thanks to the 1.1 million Californians who signed petitions to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot this November, activist judges will not have the last word in California, California voters will,” said Maggie Gallagher, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.

The problem is that the court said nothing of the sort.

Many of those Californians who voted in favor of Proposition 22 did not do so out of anti-gay animus. We have long acknowledged that there are reasons other than bigotry for persons to be uncomfortable with marriage equality. All the court said was that such reasons are not a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause.

Further, Gallagher knows full well that the California Supreme Court is not a collection of “activist judges“. The court would be best described as cautiously conservative.

Why then would Gallagher say these untruthful things?

I believe it is because she has invested so much time and energy in opposing equal rights for gay citizens that she would rather try and sway public opinion than tell the truth. It is sad that many of those, including Gallaher, who most loudly claim the authority of morality, have so little personal integrity.

How the Marriage Map Now Stands

Click to enlarge:

When I Was An Ex-Gay I Voted To Ban Gay Marriage

Yes, in 2000 I voted yes on California Ballot Proposition 22 which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. At the time I had recently concluded reparative therapy with Joseph Nicolosi and held beliefs about sexuality largely consistent with Evangelical Christianity. I believed marriage was created by the Christian God and that our society had no choice but to retain God’s definition and voted accordingly.

In reaction to today’s decision the religious-right will no doubt claim this decision is counter to the will of the people. However this assumes nothing has changed in 8 years.

Eight years later I now realize how flawed, hurtful, and destructive my logic was. I wish to apologize for that vote. There are very few things in my ex-gay experience I am truly ashamed of — My vote in 2000 is one of those things. I thank the California State Supreme Court for making right on my error.

I have never been prouder than I am today to be from California.

CA Gay Marriage Provided by Republican Judges

One of the favorite arguments of anti-gays used to discredit judicial decisions in favor of equality is to dismiss the judges as “liberal activists”. This is why you must vote Republican, they declare.

But history shows that judges are often quite good at setting aside partisan positioning when they are entrusted with the task of measuring whether the law applies equally to all citizens. Often judges appointed by Democrats have ruled conservatively and judges appointed by Republicans have been liberal in their interpretation of the application of law.

Already anti-gays are whining and seeing this as motivation for conservative presidential votes

“It’s hard to see how this will end up helping Democrats,” Amar said before the ruling. “It feeds into a kind of perception that this is what liberal activist judges do.”

But just who are those liberal activist judges that voted for marriage equality in California?

Ronald M. George, (since 1991), Chief Justice (elevated in 1996)
Republican, appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson (R)
First judicial appointment by Gov. Ronald Reagan (R)

Joyce L. Kennard, (since 1989), Associate Justice
Republican, appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian (R)

Carlos R. Moreno, (since 2001), Associate Justice
Democrat, appointed by Gov. Gray Davis (D)
First judicial appointment by Gov. George Deukmejian (R)

Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, (since 1994), Associate Justice
Republican, appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson (R)

Say what they will about this court decision, no one can claim that this was the result of liberal activist Democratic appointments.

Governator Supports Gay Marriage

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement on the Supreme Court’s decision. From the San Jose Mercury News.

“I respect the court’s decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling,” Schwarzenegger said within minutes of the ruling. “Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

California Gets Gay Marriage

UPDATED: See language from the ruling here

By a 4 – 3 vote, the Supreme Court of the State of California has legalized marriage equality.

The court ruled the state’s one man-one woman marriage laws violate the civil rights of same-sex couples.

More information will be provided as details come in. I still don’t know if the out of state restriction was overturned or whether the court’s declared the change immediately effective or is requiring the legislature to do so.

And this is not the final word. We are not yet sure whether a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage in the California Constitution received enough signatures to make it on the ballot in November.

But whatever you are doing right now, stop for a moment to celebrate an important change. Now one of ten Americans live in a state in which gay people are accorded full equality under the law.

It’s A Win! California Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Same Sex Marriage!

Marriage equality has arrived in California (PDF: 469KB/172 pages):

…[W]e conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes — the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.

A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

…

Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.

Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court. Further, as the prevailing parties, plaintiffs are entitled to their costs.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the matter is remanded to that court for further action consistent with this opinion.

Update: The court’s decision was a 4-3 split. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has released the following statement:

I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling.  Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.

Deceptive Anti-Gay Petition Circulating for Maine Ballot

The Christian Civic League of Maine has gotten approval from the Secretary of State to begin circulating a petition to put a referendum on the November 2009 ballot. The petition calls for:

• rescinding state laws prohibiting anti-gay discrimination
• banning gay marriage and civil unions
• banning adoption by gays and lesbians
• and banning funding for gay-straight alliances in public schools.

And what is the title of this petition?

“An Act to Protect Marriage and Promote Equality”

The League needs to collect 55,000 signatures by January.

Anti-Christian Bigotry

Today I ran across some anti-Christian bigotry of a particularly nasty sort. As I was recently accused by Peter LaBarbera of being an anti-Christian bigot, this caught my attention.

I’m including a selection here. I hope no one is offended as it is pretty hateful and vile.

yet another connection between the United Church of Christ (UCC) and perversion.

We hear that the UCC is still searching for a partnering church that cater to swingers.

For the sake of accuracy, we also recommend a name-change to UCS: United Church of Sodom.

Enough with this phony “Christ” talk.

We envision a host of liberal Protestant mergers under the UCS banner beginning with proud homosexualist bishop (Vicky) Gene Robinson and his wayward Episcopal Church.

It’s been quite a while since I’ve seen such a venomous attack on Christianity and Christian churches. But, surprisingly it wasn’t atheists or agnostics that were spewing hate. It wasn’t Wiccans or Muslims or “homosexualist Jews“.

Nope, all this anti-Christian bigotry was brayed out by Peter LaBarbera. Ah Pete, it’s no wonder you didn’t accept our challenge to point out Box Turtle Bulletin’s bigotry. You forgot that it was you who wrote it on your own site.

Sally Kern Is a Little Confused

If you are an anti-gay activist, sometimes you have to be careful not to sound like a loon. Sadly, Sally Kern isn’t very skilled at that task.

Never one to pass an opportunity to spout a homophobic rant, Sally just had to respond when she heard that Lambda Legal has assigned May 15 as “Clock in for Equality Day” and is encouraging folks to take a pledge to oppose discrimination.

Well, if it’s gay folks doing it, Sally objects. Even if that makes her seem a bit confused.

The Oklahoman reports

“Over and over again, the homosexuals say we don’t have an agenda. This just shows there is an agenda,” Kern said.

But when the agenda is promoting workplace fairness for gays and lesbians, Sally can’t just come out and say she’s opposed to fairness. So she clarifies.

“There should not be discrimination of anyone. I’m not for discrimination,” Kern said. But the attempt to mobilize people on behalf of gays and lesbians is evidence of an organized effort by what Kern described as “radical homosexual rights groups.”

OK. So Sally isn’t for discrimination, she just doesn’t want anyone to organize against it. And she wants people to “become more active in social policy fights” to fight against an agenda with which she finds a common goal.

Poor Sally, she’s stuck between two instincts. She wants to be hateful to gay people… but she just doesn’t want to sound cruel. So instead she sounds like an idiot.

And this woman votes in the Oklahoma legislature.

See also:
Sally Kern Is a Little Confused
Sally Kern’s Economic Fallout
Sally Kern’s Meeting with PFLAG on Tape
Exodus’ Local Ministry Aligns with Sally Kern
Certified Cameronite: Sally Kern
Kern Speaks to College Republicans
Sally Kern: Out of Context? The Complete Transcript
We Be Jammin’
Muslims and Gays United
OK State Rep. Sally Kern’s Son is “Straight and Not Gay”
Sally Kern Exaggerates Death Threats
A Letter to Sally Kern
LaBarbera Award: Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern

[Hat tip: Stefano Armanino]

Jay Bakker and Soulforce Meet With Joel Osteen

For Jay Bakker, growing up as the son of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker was more than a little chaotic. Until the collapse of their Christian media empire in 1987, his parents were superstars. But at age 13, his father went to prison, the family’s closest friends denounced them, and Jay’s world changed completely.

Perhaps it is this unique experience of having been at the crest of the conservative Christian world only to feel betrayed that has allowed Jay to question the purpose and meaning of his Christian faith. And Jay’s openness has left him with conclusions and direction that are unlike many others in that world.

One area of disagreement is with whom God accepts and welcomes. A careful study of scripture led Jay to conclude that many of those who are not welcome in the pews of most churches are those whom God most seeks to know. And in revisiting scripture and the nature of God, Jay came to believe that homosexuality is not sin.

Jay now is joining Soulforce to take that message on the road in an effort called The American Family Outing. And because of his history and his connections, Jay has access to religious leaders that most gay people cannot dream of.

The first stop was in Houston, TX at the megachurch of Joel Osteen. There Bakker was able to arrange for a meeting with Osteen. From the Houston Chronicle

Bakker said Osteen was most gracious, had chairs reserved for the LGBT community Sunday morning and made time to meet after the 11 a.m. service.

During their chat, the two men agreed to disagree.

“I don’t think homosexuality is a sin, and they do,” Bakker said, “but it was very nice of Joel to introduce me to his family. I met Joel’s wife and mother, and they were just great. … I’m really grateful.”

Don Iloff, Lakewood’s chief of communications, agreed the visits and meetings went well.

“Dodie Osteen, Joel’s mother, wanted to meet Jay,” Iloff said.

“She knew him as a little boy. And everybody liked Tammy Faye and Jim, Jay’s dad. He has his flaws but … ”

Iloff said it was a pleasure to host members of the LGBT community at Lakewood. “They’re very, very sweet people. They’re the nicest people. I didn’t expect anything else, really.”

The communications chief also said members of the LGBT community are welcome at Lakewood, but he and the Osteens don’t have much more to say on the subject of sexuality.

While it would have been phenomenal had Osteen take the opportunity to requestion his theology, his response is nonetheless encouraging and to be welcomed. As more people in the conservative evangelical Christian movement come to know gay people and their allies, the stereotypes can drop away and the animosity diminish. And while we can differ on the interpretation and application of Paul’s conflation of Greek words in an epistle to a church in Rome 2,000 years ago, I hope we can do so without engaging in Culture War.

I am very appreciative of the work that Soulforce does. And I am very appreciative that a straight preacher is willing to see that his mission to spread the Gospel includes using his family name to gain access to some religious leaders who would drive gay men and women away from their faith.

I wish them much continued success in their campaign.

CA Supreme Court To Issue SSM Decision Tomorrow

That’s the word on the street anyway. Their long-awaited decision is expected to be released tomorrow at 10:00 am PDT. There has been some speculation on what that decision might be, but that was a month ago. We’ll find out soon.

Give Us Your Opinions: What Should The APA Symposium Have Looked Like?

Yesterday, I wrote about the deficiencies I saw in the make-up of the canceled APA Symposium, “Homosexuality and Therapy: The Religious Dimension.” Dr. David Scasta, the organizer of the symposium, saw my piece and left a thoughtful comment. I want to raise that comment in this post and ask you to share your thoughts on what a useful symposium might look like.

One important thing to remember is this: The symposium was not structured as a “debate.” I didn’t call it that in my post, but I didn’t clarify what it was exactly. It wasn’t a debate. Each participant had a topic on which they would talk on for a few minutes, and then questions would be entertained from the audience — at least that’s how I understand it.

Here is Dr. Scasta’s comment:

Dear Mr. Burroway,

I have read your observations regarding the symposium which I organized. Let me first complement your organization for its stated goal because it could easily be used as a mantra for the symposium. I have taken the liberty of repeating such verbatim because I think it is so well put:

“In the heat of the debate, several things have been lost. We’ve lost the ability to look at the situation calmly, rationally and with civility. We’ve lost the ability to oppose other viewpoints without demonizing those who hold them. We’ve lost the ability to know who is telling the truth and who is practicing deception or spreading falsehoods. We’ve lost the ability to treat each other with respect and dignity. We’ve lost a lot. Box Turtle Bulletin exists to help address this problem. I hope to shed some light, with honesty and integrity, and without rancor. I hope to earn your trust in what we report, and your respect in how we report it.”

I have been distressed that the media hype has so grossly mischaracterized the symposium. The symposium was portrayed unfortunately as a “debate.” All of the panel members on the symposium agreed that it was not to be a debate and that our goal was to be able to present our views in a collegial way that opened discussion instead of angry debate — exactly what the Box Turtle stands for.

All on the panel have also shown a willingness to make some concessions in their belief system when they are presented with new information and perspectives. Dr. Throckmorton, for instance, has distanced himself from his film, “I Do Exist.” A few copies are still available for historical purposes but he has clearly changed some of his views about the appropriateness or likelihood of change. By the same token, I have called into question some of the “scientific facts”” in the film that I helped to fund and create: “Abomination: Homosexuality and the Ex-Gay Movement.” It is not that I do not support the message of the film (that gay people of faith who go through reparative therapies become free when they shake off the chains of dogma and discover an accepting God). It is just that one of the studies seems to imply more “science” than is justified — a point that was effectively pointed out by Dr. Throckmorton. Dr. Mohler has taken extensive heat among his Southern Baptist constituency for suggesting that homosexuality might not be a choice. His concept that a cure for homosexuality should be sought, in the same way that a cure is being sought for Huntington’s chorea, is a concept which deserves fuller discussion. Perhaps as a physician I can give him a different perspective. Whether or not my arguments are persuasive, I can tell you that I have no doubt that Albert Mohler will give me a full and fair hearing and will respond with both insight and incisive thinking. And, he will put me to my proofs. I also believe that, if he is persuaded otherwise, he is the type of person who has the strength and moral fortitude to stand up for what he believes, even when it contradicts what he is “suppose” to believe.

The goal of the symposium was not to settle questions about reparative or change therapies. I do not know where you got the information that the panel was a “response to the APA’s decision to form a working group to review its stance on ex-gay therapy.” This statement is false — completely false. The Assembly of the APA (the legislative body of which I am a member) has asked that ALL position statements be reviewed and updated every five years. We are going through that process now. I sit on the Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues of the APA which is reviewing all of the statements related gay and lesbian issues. I can assure you with absolute certainty that the APA does not have a working group to reassess its view on ex-gay therapy and there is absolutely no desire in my committee to change the current stance. My symposium would have addressed how religion colors therapy with gays and lesbians as a separate dimension from therapy; it would not have posited any substantive change in APA position papers on the subject. I have the advantage of knowing the positions that the panel speakers would have taken. It is unfortunate that I was compelled to withdraw the symposium because I believe that rational people would realize that the ultimate outcome of the symposium would have been less change therapy, not more, if it had been allowed to proceed.

The issue is not over. There are still legions of lesbian and gay people of faith who say to mental health professionals, “I understand that mental health professionals believe I should accept myself as I am; but, if I do that, I am damned.” It is my goal to find a path out of that conundrum. To do so, we have to begin talking respectfully and rationally with people of faith — including some former enemies. It is time to stop preaching to the choir; but rather to enter into the lions’ den — and tame lions. If your are truly committed to Box Turtle’s goals of talking reasonably to our opponents without demonizing them, we are uncannily on the same page and I ask you for your help and guidance with this project.

David Scasta, M.D., DFAPA

Scasta, D. (2007). “John E. Freyer, M.D., and the Dr. H Anonymous Episode.” Ch. 1, in Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: An Oral History. (J. Marino and J. Drescher, Eds.). Haworth Press; New York

Scasta, D. (1998). “Historical perspectives on homosexuality.” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatry. 2(4):3-17.

Scasta, D. (1998) “Issues in helping people come out.” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatry. 2(4):87-98.

Scasta, D. (1998) “Moving from coming out to intimacy.” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatry. 2(4):99-111.

So readers, here’s the question: If you think a symposium with participation from both sides is a good thing (and I think it is), what do you think should be the makeup of such a symposium? I’ll offer my thoughts later today in the comments to this post.

Discuss! I am especially interested in input from those who support the goals of sexual reorientation therapy as well as those who are opposed. But as a corollary, and to ensure people feel safe in providing their thoughts on the subject, I will ask that everyone be respectful per our Comments Policy.

Anti-Marriage Proposal Fails In Illinois

Illinois opponents to same-sex marriage failed to collect enough signatures to put an advisory referendum on the November ballot. Protect Marriage Illinois (PMI) had said that they would turn in 300,000 signatures to the state’s Board of Elections by the May 5 deadline. Supporters needed 270,000 valid signatures, but they did not file in time for the deadline.

This is the second time PMI failed to collect enough signatures. An earlier effort in 2006 failed also.

The advisory referendum would have asked the state legislature to amend the constitution to bar same-sex marriage.

Update: I neglected to include a link to the source.