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 lobbyFebruary 12th, 2014
What can you say about Jennifer Thieme, Finance Director of NOM’s former affiliate, the Ruth Institute? Well, as my southern friends would slyly declare: Bless her heart. She tries her best to be a good anti-gay activist, with decidedly mixed results. Now she has a post up at Matt “Barb Wire” Barber’s new website, and she ends it by suggesting that folks on her side should engage people with a series of “conversation starters” — leading questions that turn out to be remarkably easy to answer. This strategy has been tried before and it didn’t work out well for them. Let’s see how it turns out this time:
Did you know that man/woman marriage is being removed from legal recognition?
No, because that’s not happening. Every man/woman marriage that was recognized before the passage of marriage equality will be recognized after the passage of marriage equality.
Is removing the gold standard from policy going to increase or decrease the power of the government over the individual over the long term? Will it be good for children?
Opponents of marriage equality tried and failed to show that same-sex parenting is inferior to opposite-sex parenting, so the whole premise of the question is false. Meanwhile it’s obvious that giving people more freedom over their personal lives will decrease the power of the government over the individual. And of course it will help children: the children of same-sex couples who will now have the legal family protections they deserve. It will help other kids too — see my next answer for more.
What sort of a message are we sending to children by removing the gold standard from policy?
It sends the message to gay kids that they are not disgusting, deviant, loathsome creatures incapable of love and doomed to life of loneliness, regardless of what they might hear from anti-gay activists.
Further, the message that you can live a life of love, commitment, and fulfillment, whether you’re straight or gay, will help all kids navigate the fears and uncertainties of adolescence. We’ve learned that gay-straight alliances in schools reduce the risk of suicide for all students, gay and straight, so there’s every reason to believe this message sent by marriage equality will help all kids, gay and straight.
Why is the radical Left in love with marriage now, when they have historically reviled marriage?
Have they? All of them? Anyway, I don’t know — I’m not part of the radical Left. But perhaps because they believe in equality under the law for all citizens? Really, though, you should just ask them — while remembering that the “radical Left” represents only a small fraction of all those who now support marriage equality.
If this was only about civil marriage, why are we seeing religious liberty issues arise?
These “religious liberty” issues arise from non-discrimination law, and some people are using their religion to demand a special right to ignore those laws. I understand that this demand for special rights is not how you want to spin your cause, but that’s what it is.
You really ought to advocate abolishing all discrimination law, because it all restricts the liberty (including the religious liberty) of people to choose whom they will associate and work with. That’s a much harder sell, of course, but if this is a sincere issue of principle then that shouldn’t dissuade you. If this is just about disliking gay people, though, then stick to your present course.
Should we take the radical Left seriously when they tell us where they’re going?
Again, the “radical Left” represents only a small fraction of all those who now support marriage equality, so I’m not sure how this is relevant.
Well, that was easy. And you know what? It just gets easier every year.
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:
Bose in St. Peter MN
February 12th, 2014
Bless her heart, and her “radical” left nightmares, indeed.
LJ
February 12th, 2014
Aww, the poor soul seems confused, or at least unaware that we went off the gold standard back in 1933…
Thom Watson
February 12th, 2014
To the questions about “the gold standard,” I would also add, with some explanation, “it just doesn’t matter.” It bothers me, in fact, that judges allow this line of argument, and that our side spends so much time rebutting these actual arguments against us. I would still do so, of course, with the wealth of social science expertise on our side but I would also say, “even though social science says that same-sex couples can provide the same ‘gold standard’ of parenting children need, even were we to grant, for the sake of argument, that they couldn’t, it shouldn’t matter. We know all sorts of family structures that don’t meet the ‘gold standard,’ but we don’t make them illegal. We don’t prohibit divorce, even though we know divorce lessens the best outcomes for children; we don’t prohibit remarriage, even though we know social science shows that stepfamilies make it more difficult for children to achieve. We even permit couples who can’t have children or who don’t want children to marry. Why do our opponents try to impose a standard of parenting and procreation on only same-sex couples, standards the law does not permit us to impose on any other couples who choose to marry, regardless of whether they are fit or not to become parents?”
Rob Tisinai
February 12th, 2014
Great comment, Thom.
RobNYNY1957
February 12th, 2014
Another point that might have been made every time she mentioned “removal of the gold standard” is that the gold standard, if by that you mean heterosexual marriages, is not being removed. In addition, the actual gold standard was removed because it was a crappy way to run an economy.
Ben In Oakland
February 12th, 2014
Unfortunately, RobNY, printing money you don’t have is also a crappy way to run an economy.
Mark F.
February 12th, 2014
Good answers. Well done, sir!
Nathaniel
March 5th, 2014
The questions are all carefully worded to be leading, if not misleading. Statements like “gold standard” and “radical left” say more about the asker than the answerer. Clearly, a lot of thought was put into writing questions to lead to certain conclusions. It is a shame they still managed to fail. Also, kudos to Thom for reminding us that we should be avoiding that rhetorical pitfall altogether. While there is plausible deniability one each side for the other’s supportive science (its dishonest to claim our side’s research is perfect, even if it is better, more extensive, and truer than theirs), the entire questioning of parenting is moot when one considers how the procreative prerequisite for marriage is only applied to gay couples.
Richard Rush
March 5th, 2014
Following on to Thom’s comment: Is there any legal precedent in the USA for denying marriage to anyone based upon their perceived fitness to be parents? Have there been any Regnerus-style “studies” of people-groups based on ethnicity, race, economic status, educational attainment, or religious affiliation, etc. to ascertain their fitness to be parents (compared to the assumed ideal of White Anglo-Saxon Mainline Protestants) in order to permit or deny them the right to marry? Or, are gay people unique in this regard?
I’d be willing to go along with this approach as long we establish a Federal Bureau of Parental Fitness for Marriage that evaluates every citizen based on the previously mentioned categories. For example, I’m sure we can all agree that poor uneducated fundamentalist Christians are unfit to be parents, and should be denied the right to marry.
Timothy Kincaid
March 5th, 2014
Richard
Going strictly from recollection and not research – I believe that I recall that marriage at various times has been denied to
a) those with certain diseases
b) those with certain mental illnesses
There may be other “unfitness” denials, such as physical disabilities, but I’m not certain.
As to your registry, we may disagree about fundamentalist Christians (I’ve known some to make great parents) but can we please add a ban on all Kardashian marriages?
Richard Rush
March 5th, 2014
Timothy,
You just caused me to recall that when I was very young I seem to remember hearing about a blood test being required for a marriage license, and I’m thinking it was testing for venereal disease. But I don’t remember anything more about it.
You might be surprised to know that two of my most favorite people are fundamentalist Christians. They are two sisters that were dear friends of my deceased mother for about 55 years. The sisters have lived together for their entire lives. I truly do adore them. Although my husband and I have essentially purged Christmas from out lives, those sisters remain as the only people that receive gifts from us (and we expect nor want anything in return). And they are always very inclusive of my husband in all communications, and that counts for a lot.
And, yes, the way I typically talk about religion juxtaposed with my feelings toward those sisters represents a conundrum for me. Could I really be experiencing a “hate the sin but love the sinner” situation? And maybe the sisters are experiencing it in reverse.
grantdale
March 5th, 2014
@Richard — I snooped around on this about a year ago — without delving way back into the dark ages (when fathers exercised legal control over even adult children for this purpose and could deem someone ‘unsuitable’), I cannot recall any broad legal restrictions on marriage based on preconceived notions of parental fitness per se. The preconceived notions were about fitness of the couple to be married in the first place, which included miscegenation and close relatives, not around the anticipation of poor parenting.
(We couldn’t know what sort of parents they’d be because nobody ever had an out-of-wedlock child or attempted to hold onto same before the 1960’s of course … Sheesh, even those deemed unfit parents who have children removed in the most abusive of circumstances still remain legally married, although the couple may well find themselves, erm, living in separate shared accommodation for a period of time…)
As Timothy mentioned, starting in the 1930’s blood tests were introduced for syphilis (various States also added Rh factor, rubella and tuberculosis). They lasted until fairly recently but I understand they’ve all been done away with, or the test can be waived by declaration by those wishing to marry. The requirement of taking blood tests were to inform the couple of potential problems or risks, and were not grounds to completely deny future marriage to the couple as such (but may have caused a delay).
There were also restrictions on those deemed unable to give consent; such people probably would have been under guardianship in any case and marriage still may have been permitted with consent of the guardian or before a magistrate. I can’t think of any laws based on a physical disability except to include a time when people with profound disabilities were also (unfortunately) regarded as so defective as also unable to give informed consent and were likewise under duardianship. Having a leg blown off in the war wasn’t an issue. Even having a violent criminal record wasn’t an issue if t(he)y could find someone willing.
Failure to consummate was grounds to void the marriage/divorce, but and I cannot think of an instance of a priori inability to conceive and be a fit parent being a legal restriction – that ability simply wasn’t put to the test except within a marriage.
Basically even the most feral adult heterosexual couple has in the past and can now legally marry and propagate, not necessarily in that order.
NOM seems unperturbed by that.
grantdale
March 5th, 2014
Paging Dr Freud… perhaps I should have thought of a synonym for “preconceived” in that post.
Timothy Kincaid
March 6th, 2014
Richard,
Yes, that could be ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ in true application.
Leave A Comment