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 lobbyApril 11th, 2013
The Republican National Committee is meeting in Los Angeles over the next three days beginning today, and one of the first items on the agenda for consideration is a resolution that states:
WHEREAS, the institution of marriage is the solid foundation upon which our society is built and in which children thrive; it is based in the conjugal relationship that only a man and a woman can form; and
WHEREAS, support for marriage has been repeatedly affirmed nationally in the 2012 Republican National Platform, through the enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, signed into law by President Bill Clinton), and passed by the voters of 41 States including California via Proposition 8; and
WHEREAS, no Act of human government can change the reality that marriage is a natural and most desirable union; especially when procreation is a goal; and
WHEREAS, the future of our country is children; it has been proven repeatedly that the most secure and nurturing environment in which to raise healthy well adjusted children is in a home where both mother and father are bound together in a loving marriage; and
WHEREAS, economically, marriage is America’s greatest weapon against child poverty no matter what ethnic background individuals are; and, based on the facts of stunning recent articles, marriage is the best way for society to get out of poverty and raise emotionally healthy children; and
WHEREAS, The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of laws adopted to protect marriage from the unfounded accusation that support for marriage is based only on irrational prejudice against homosexuals; therefore be it
RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee affirms its support for marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and as the optimum environment in which to raise healthy children for the future of American; and be it further
RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee implores the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the sanctity of marriage in its rulings on California’s Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.
The GOP platform last summer was probably the most anti-gay platform in the party’s history. After Barack Obama won re-election in a campaign which included support for marriage equality, there were some suggestions that the Republican Party should soften its anti-gay positions. But after RNC Chairman Reince Priebus issued the official “autopsy” of the 2012 presidential elections which called on the party to become more “inclusive and welcoming,” a coalition of social conservatives responded with a letter to GOP leadership warning that “an abandonment of its principles will necessarily result in the abandonment of our constituents to their support.” The letter writers also protest that their anti-gay stance does not mean the party can’t can’t attract gay voters:
Many homosexuals are active in the GOP because they agree with Republicans on economic issues. The fact that the Party is strongly committed to traditional marriage has not prevented their involvement through GOProud or Log Cabin Republicans. We deeply resent the insinuation that we have treated homosexuals unkindly personally.
And we would like to point out that in the four blue states where voters narrowly voted for same sex marriage in 2012, Mitt Romney, who refused to discuss the issue, lost by an average of five points more than the state initiatives to preserve marriage.
Republicans would do well to persuade young voters why marriage between a man and a woman is so important rather than abandon thousands of years of wisdom to please them.
…Real and respectful communication is needed with our organizations. Alleged gaffes by candidates in 2012 on social issues could have been avoided if Party leadership had consulted us, the experts on how to articulate those positions.
Those so-called “experts” who signed the letter were:
According to Politico, the anti-gay resolution is expected to pass overwhelmingly tomorrow when it goes before the full committee, although it’s not clear whether the resolution’s final form will be the same as the version that has circulated today.
Latest Posts
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:
Mike
April 12th, 2013
I encourage, implore, plead with the Republican Party to consult with everyone on that list.
Eric in Oakland
April 12th, 2013
WHEREAS, The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of laws adopted to protect marriage from the unfounded accusation that support for marriage is based only on irrational prejudice against homosexuals;
Can someone please explain to me what this is supposed to mean? I can’t make any sense of it. Are they trying to say that laws denying marriage to gay couples serve the purpose of disproving anti-gay animus?!
Paul
April 12th, 2013
Yes, please, please consult each and every one of those increasingly irrelevant homophobes who bare their blighted souls every time they open their cake holes. Lather, Reince, Repeat.
Stefan
April 12th, 2013
“And we would like to point out that in the four blue states where voters narrowly voted for same sex marriage in 2012, Mitt Romney, who refused to discuss the issue, lost by an average of five points more than the state initiatives to preserve marriage.”
And I would like to add that said number declined substantially from 2008/2009.
Ryan
April 12th, 2013
This is almost hilarious. They resent the “insinuation” that they have treated homosexuals unkindly personally. I can’t wait for the Good as You or Rob Tisinai to do a mash-up of all the “unkind” remarks the above people have made about gays.
And wait, didn’t they ban GOProud from CPAC, and pressure Romney to drop Richard Grennel? And now they act like they’re buddy-buddy with GoProud and Log Cabin? The gall. I suppose in a way this is a victory for our side. The most they can do now is claim to be against gay marriage. All the other anti-gay positions that have defined the GOP for decades have fallen by the wayside. This is the only issue left that they can be openly opposed to.
Gene in L.A.
April 12th, 2013
I hope (probably against hope) the Log Cabin Republicans will weigh heavily the fact of being listed by Republicans as one of the reasons their Party can justify withholding the equality under the law of gay people as a class. This seems to me incontrovertible proof the LCR are complicit in the repression not only of their own, but of all gay people’s right to marry, and that they believe that right is secondary to their “precious” economic interests.
Nathaniel
April 12th, 2013
Ryan, that’s just the point, isn’t it. Anti-gay groups are happy to let us have civil unions if we are pushing for marriage, but if we didn’t stand a chance at getting equal marriage rights, they would fight our chances at civil unions. Right now, they just want to keep us from getting married, but if somehow they could persuade the populace to do their bidding, they would be trying to legislate us behind bars (or worse). So, now that the GOP is seriously considering trying to be more inclusive, they are forced to pretend they were always friendly with gay GOP members, and that said members are proof that marriage is not as divisive as the leaderships is making it sound (though, they are happy to declare it dangerously divisive when asking SCOTUS to let the ‘will of the people’ stand). Since the advent of the TEA party, I have been envisioning a real shake-up in our current political parties. I expect fiscal conservatives and social conservatives are going to start seeing each others as traitors and cause a major schism. In the end, those willing to ignore social issues for the sake of what they see as fiscal responsibility are going to win out, but whether that party is called the Republican party is anyone’s guess.
Jeff
April 12th, 2013
I say go for it GOP! By 2014, the only voters they will have left are the “Evangelicals” and whack jobs! Well, they are one in the same- but I’m rooting for the GOP all the way! I hope they don’t forget vaginas and trickle down economics!
Lord_Byron
April 12th, 2013
@ Eric
Yeah, that is a horribly written sentence. Having said that they are writing that the laws passed are only to protect marriage and are not based on animus towards LGBT people. Seriously though, whoever wrote that does not have a clear grasp of the English language.
Rob
April 12th, 2013
I find it interesting that reference is made to those strange creatures who claim to be gay while supporting a party that has a consistent record of animus towards gay people. Of those same, sad economic faggots, how many times were donations from their self-loathing organisations (Log Cabin and GOPac) rejected or later returned? I don’t know which I despise more, the GOP or their strange little homosexual pets.
Put another way, if there were any Jews supporting the National Socialists in 1932, how many survived the Holocaust after the National Socialists seized power?
When marriage equality is achieved, watch both Log Cabin and GOPac trying to claim credit.
Robert
April 12th, 2013
Rob-
Calling people faggots is hardly productive and plays right into the heinous language that is used against us. It is NOT appropriate to call anyone faggot as a derogatory. You can hardly call for equality and acceptance when you use the same language agianst other gay people that you decry when used against those you support. Your language is part of the problem.
And no, it is not the same as reclaiming the word, you are using it as the same bludgeon used agianst gays and lesbians by those who oppose us. Pretty shameful.
Dave H
April 12th, 2013
Insanity: doing the same things and expecting a different result.
I’m glad to see them holding fast to their positions, despite the fact that the electorate is clearly moving the other direction.
Mark F.
April 12th, 2013
“I find it interesting that reference is made to those strange creatures who claim to be gay while supporting a party that has a consistent record of animus towards gay people.”
You could have said that about the Democrats in 1996 when Bill Clinton easily won the gay vote after supporting both DOMA and DADT. And at the time, other political parties (including the Libertarians) had better platforms.
Priya Lynn
April 12th, 2013
Mark, if Clinton hadn’t supported DOMA it would have resulted in a stronger and perhaps successful push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage for a generation. DADT was also an improvement over the previous outright ban on gay servicemembers.
Clinton was between a rock and a hard place but minimized the damage with DOMA that would have come from a federal constitutional amendment banning marriage and DADT regardless of what we think of it now was an incremental step forward at the time.
So there is no comparison between gays who voted for Clinton and gays who’ve voted for Republicans, the Clintonian gays made the best choice, the Republican gays made the worst choice.
Robert
April 13th, 2013
Mark-
Please, provide some actual documentation about these so called “better” platforms, maybe a link or something to them that would prove your point? The libertarian party became tea baggers, you do know that right? So, it’s kind of hard to believe the there is any possibility that the platform was “better”. And then, what “other” parties were in existence that were viable in any National election at the time?
Just curious where you come up with this assertion.
Robert
April 13th, 2013
As for DOMA being signed as a way to avoid a Constitutional Amendment? Not as true as some may seem to think. I have a tendency to believe the people who actually worked with Clinton in office on LGBT rights, and their take on it:
“Inside the White House, there was a genuine belief that if the President vetoed the Defense of Marriage Act, his reëlection could be in jeopardy. There was a heated debate about whether this was a realistic assessment, but it became clear that the President’s chief political advisers were not willing to take any chances. Some in the White House pointed out that DOMA, once enacted, would have no immediate practical effect on anyone—there were no state-sanctioned same-sex marriages then for the federal government to ignore. I remember a Presidential adviser saying that he was not about to risk a second term on a veto, however noble, that wouldn’t change a single thing nor make a single person’s life better.”
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/why-clinton-signed-the-defense-of-marriage-act.html
“”The President doesn’t have objections to the two things the bill does. One, it says that no state is forced to recognize another state’s codification of the union. And then the second thing it does is it says that marriage is a union between a single man and a single woman.”
Mr. Clinton has long supported gay rights, solicited financial support from homosexuals and paid a heavy price for his effort to end the ban on homosexuals in the military.
Gay rights advocates have agreed to disagree with him on same-sex marriage. But they said there was a big difference between opposing such unions, which are not now legal in any state, and supporting a pre-emptive Federal law to deny Federal benefits to couples if the practice ever became legal. An attempt to legalize same-sex marriage is pending in the courts in Hawaii.
“This is a capitulation to political religious extremists,” said Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, who said the group would fight hard against passage of the bill.
“The bill is a ploy by the floundering Dole for President campaign to drive a wedge between the gay community and President Clinton, and it’s very disappointing and sad that he has felt the need to take the politically expedient way out.”…”
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/23/us/president-would-sign-legislation-striking-at-homosexual-marriages.html
Clinton signed DOMA because it was politically expediant and he didn’t want to loose re-election. This, “I did it to prevent a Constitutional Amendment” stuff is bogus and a re-write of history in order to provide cover for a coawardly action.
I have a tendency to look back at actual arguments and articles of the time to reflect on what was actually said and done in regards to this fight, the argument that it was done to prevent the Federal Amendment are stricly a revision for the modern era and was a cover for the Hillary Campaign for President. SHE started that explanation when Mellissa Ethridge brought the issue up in the Saddleback Debate.
Others can believe the hype, but it was the action of a coward and his revisons are not going to change that fact. It was done for re-election and re-election alone.
Priya Lynn
April 13th, 2013
Robert said “This, “I did it to prevent a Constitutional Amendment†stuff is bogus and a re-write of history in order to provide cover for a coawardly action.”.
I never said Clinton claimed that was the reason he did it, I just pointed out the obvious, that a constitutional amendment would have been more likely if DOMA hadn’t have been implemented and nothing you’ve said refutes that.
Robert
April 13th, 2013
Some people assert that DADT, was an improvement over the outright gay ban, but that isn’t actually true either, at least not by those there at the time, and those pesky Gay Americans who thought it a sell out and a bigger disaster than the previous ban. DADT resulted in far more LGBT related discharges than the previous ban had:
“The so-called Don’t Ask Don’t Tell compromise was born: gays and lesbians would be allowed to serve so long as they kept their sexual orientation secret. Gay-rights advocates were outraged that Clinton had agreed to a bad compromise, but at this point, in the spring of 1993, it was clear that the President was going to lose this battle. (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, in fact, turned out to be a policy and personnel disaster.)
After what was regarded as a fiasco on gays in the military, the Administration entered a phase of deep reluctance to tackle substantive gay-rights issues on the national stage. Although Clinton made a number of first-ever, high-profile appointments of gay leaders to his team (I was one of the minor ones), any kind of gay-rights policy agenda seemed stalled as a result of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell hangover.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/why-clinton-signed-the-defense-of-marriage-act.html
Not to mention that the only real talk of a Marriage Amendment at the time was coming from the Bob Dole campaign, and we, quite honestly have no idea if it would have ever been successful. Even subsequent elections couldn’t get it passed because of lack of support amongst the states in the total number that would have been needed to ratify it. Much like the ERA, it never had enough support to pass all the requirements to Amend the Constitution. Talk that DOMA saved us from a Constitutional Amendment is wishful thinking at the best, and that excuse was never used at the time period of the actual DOMA debate.
Continuing to say this was an actual reason at the time is wishful thinking and continuing to say it still doesn’t make it true.
Priya Lynn
April 14th, 2013
Yawn.
Robert
April 14th, 2013
I know, the truth is so boring, but not quite as boring as the attempts at re-writing it.
Jaime
April 14th, 2013
@Robert,
Thank you for taking the time to include referenced material to encourage substantive discussion. As a community, we are all to familiar with commentary substantiated with rhetorical errors – appeals to authority, ad hominem,…. Your efforts supporting honest communication is commendible and is appreciated.
Leave A Comment