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 lobbyJanuary 17th, 2015
A tweet from HRC’s Chad Griffin:
On same day #SCOTUS granted marriage cases, @HRC Mississippi flagged this hateful graffiti in downtown Jackson. pic.twitter.com/tPMs99DY14
— Chad Griffin (@ChadHGriffin) January 16, 2015
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:
Josh
January 17th, 2015
Yes it’s awful, but I get the strong impression it was written by a literally crazy person with a low mental age. It’s just six words long, yet they misspelled marriage, shortened “to” to 2, and they evidently have poor emotional control. Crazy people say all sorts of things that aren’t news.
Ben in Oakland
January 17th, 2015
Josh–
He thought he was texting on his flip phone, and the auto-spell was turned off.
common error.
Don H.
January 17th, 2015
Never underestimate the damage that a large group of stupid people can do. Or a well armed stupid individual.
Eric Payne
January 18th, 2015
Or a SOUTHERN, well-armed stupid individual.
enough already
January 19th, 2015
Regardless of whether we ‘win’ at the Supreme Court in June (we won’t) or not, the legislative and physical violence against gay men and trans people is going to increase in many parts of the country.
We’re going to have to start doing the most abhorrent thing of all for gay men and young women: Voting.
L. C. Burgundy
January 19th, 2015
There’s also the non-zero possibility that this is faked. Wouldn’t be the first time. Non-specific, poorly educated graffiti just doesn’t warrant much on the outrage meter.
Eric Payne
January 19th, 2015
Enough already,
Did you see Rachel Maddow’s piece on SCOTUS and “inevitability”?
Like you, I’d bet on SCOTUS a affirming the 6th District; I think Kennedy is comfortable with the Feds recognizing any marriages performed legally, regardless of the state of residence of the couple , while allowing for individual states to assert their right to establish marriage law.
That would create a mess, but Kennedy could believe such a decision to be Solomonesque.
enough already
January 20th, 2015
Eric, I did and I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to see June 2015 come and our human and civil rights as well as health care for millions go, followed by a rash of legislative and voter initiatives to take away equal marriage rights.
All of those initiatives or legislative actions will pass because gay men and our allies are among the groups of people who vote least often. Those who vote consistently, and always against us will be sure to vote.
I fear all those queers saying Citzens United and HobbyLobby were totally unrelated are going to get a very nasty dose of reality. Chief Justice Roberts moderates his tone, yet his views on us are easily of a match with Justice Alito’s.
Justice Kennedy has never, not once, even in the slightest, hinted that he thinks we have a right to marriage. The opposite, actually.
The one and only thing which might help us queers(health care for millions of Americans is toast, nothing can be done there) would be for big, powerful businesses to tell Justices Roberts and Kennedy how important for their bottom line our rights are.
Mark F.
January 20th, 2015
With same sex marriage enjoying 55% support nationwide, I don’t know why people are so glum, even if we lose at SCOTUS. No, I do not expect voters to repeal SSM anyplace.
Eric Payne
January 20th, 2015
Mark F,
How about those of us who live in states like Georgia? Ten years ago, right after it was enacted, the state Supreme Court upheld Georgia’s DOMA as Constitutional… and this DOMA is especially nasty. it forbids marriage, civil unions, and anything “resembling a benefit of marriage” between two persons of the same gender.
SCOTUS could affirm the 6th Circuit.
If it does, what happens in those states that had equality forced on them? Those other rulings just go away. Those marriages may just vanish. And if not, it’ll be 2002 all over again with Republican state lawmakers tripping all over themselves to get new DOMAs passed — marriage equality would be their new abortion… and look how long they’ve been cutting away at the protections of Roe v. Wade.
Nathaniel
January 21st, 2015
When I realized that SCOTUS had taken on two kinds of cases, I saw their out. They are looking at between-state recognition and within-state licensing. SCOTUS could easily affirm a right for states to determine what marriages they will offer while denying states the right to refuse to recognize otherwise-legal marriages. That answers both questions: It affirms state’s rights, while maintaining the legal status of Same-Sex marriages throughout the country (including those that were entered into in the limbo period). While not ideal, it would be better than the worst-case scenario. I have to disagree with Mark F; given the opportunity, many states would re-enact their anti-marriage laws/amendments. Many, like my home state, would consider the strike down of the law illegitimate, and never bother with going through the legislative process again. That would, of course, raise further judicial actions – a chaos SCOTUS should really be afraid of.
Eric, I agree GA’s amendment is “nasty,” but I stop short of calling it “especially,” since a lot of states (especially southern states) seemed to say something similar. I will credit you with your abortion comparison. I have seen many “conservatives” claim SSM is like abortion, and when it is “forced” on the whole country, people will begin to see the error of their ways (which is also misleading of them, but what else is new). You are the first SSM proponent I have seen to embrace the comparison. I had not considered the flip side of it – with conservatives then trying to whittle away at the freedoms granted by SCOTUS until there is nothing meaningful left. Of course, that is not a hard prediction to make; states are already trying to deny themselves the ability to enforce any pro-SSM rulings.
Priya Lynn
January 21st, 2015
Marriage equality won’t be the Republicans new aboortion. There’s no way substantial numbers of people are going to get anywhere near as worked up about gay couples marrying which does not harm them as they do about foetuses being killed.
Nathaniel
January 21st, 2015
You’re right, PL. But enough people are getting worked up over it for legislative actions to begin on expanding “religious freedom” and even on denying funding for the enforcement of marriage equality (see TX and SC). Some politicians will even be able to ride a wave of “denying the rights of voters” to victory. Don’t forget that the latest political turn has reinforced the Republican belief in a mandate to keep denying people healthcare, abortions, and marriages. It will take a few election cycles to get marriages to drop off that list for good. But, in the long run, you are correct, that politics around SSM will look nothing like the abortion issue does today.
enough already
January 21st, 2015
It’s not necessary for the Republicans to have valid arguments against SSM.
It’s enough that the only people who vote in overwhelming numbers are the hate-driven Christians.
Until gay men and young women realize that without human and civil rights there are no ‘own-interest’ issues to vote on, we’re subject to the hatred of a very small group of people.
Eric Payne
January 21st, 2015
Oriya,
You don’t think, once nationwide SSM becomes a reality, GOP (and even a Dem, here and there) aren’t going to blame every social ill on SSN?
If Kennedy or Sotomayor affirm the 6th Circuit, this will be our Dred Scott v. Sanford. But while that would close DOMA regulations question of constitutional in the states, it would spark new cases based on the contents of those state DOMAs.
As Nathaniel pointed out — marital law in regards to licensing is a state right.
But contract law is a federal issue, clearly defined in the US Constitution via the “Full Faith and Credit” clause (Article IV, Section 1). Since a marriage license is a contract between the couple as individuals, and the couple as a collective to the issuing state, can one state expressly deny a valid contract of a second state?
So far, the answer has been, “No. It cannot.” And that would bring new, legitimate, cases to SCOTUS.
The first wave would be from couples, married legally in one jurisdiction, now living in a jurisdiction which doesn’t officially recognize their marriage. SCOTUS would almost have to order out-of-state recognition of the couples’ contracts. That would begin the second wave of cases — gay people in those states claiming out-of-state recognition, but forbidding in-state couples marriages, violates the 14th and 15th Amenments.
So, our Brown v. Board of eduication is coming, there’s no doubt about that.
Mark F.
January 21st, 2015
The fact that SCOTUS didn’t stay any of the pro-same sex marriage rulings leads me to believe it is very unlikely that they side with the 6th Circuit. Are they going to allow a lot of same sex couples to marry and then take that right away? I doubt it. If the anti-same sex marriage justices had 5 votes, they would have issued a stay.
enough already
January 21st, 2015
Mark F.
I hope you’re right and I’m wrong, but I do think you’re confusing the Robert’s court’s sense of proper procedure with justice.
There are four conservative Christians on this court. They don’t consider gays as deserving of civil rights.
There is one ultra-federalist on this court, Justice Kennedy.
I just don’t see how people get to 5-4 in our favor, much less the 6-3 so many go on and on about.
As for creating chaos for thousands of gay families, conservative Christians don’t consider our families ‘family’, so to them it’s not relevant how much they hurt us.
Nathaniel
January 21st, 2015
Mark, it is possible for the court to split differently on the two different issues before it, allowing it to legitimize the slew of marriages while upholding “state’s rights.” I suspect that full equality will come with these rulings, but Eric and EA have some interesting points that are hard to completely dismiss. Given the two questions the Justices are asking be addressed, their arguments seem increasingly likely.
Priya Lynn
January 21st, 2015
Eric said “Oriya,
You don’t think, once nationwide SSM becomes a reality, GOP (and even a Dem, here and there) aren’t going to blame every social ill on SSN?”.
I’m sure there will be a few that do that but even many (if not most) Republicans are backing off and softening their anti-SSM rhetoric as they know the majority of the public supports it and being too strenuously anti-gay is more likely to be a vote loser than a vote getter going forward. There just won’t be a very large percentage of the population with them that feels vehemently opposed to SSM that would give them the support they need to get anywhere with that opposition once (if) SSM becomes the law of the land.
Priya Lynn
January 21st, 2015
Enough said “I just don’t see how people get to 5-4 in our favor, much less the 6-3 so many go on and on about.”.
I’m not well acquainted with the politics and judicial background of all the justices but I know the vast majority of pundits think they’re going to rule in favour of same sex marriage. Knowledge of that makes me think there’s a slight chance they actually will. I’d say the aproximate odds of them voting in favour of marriage equality are 53% and against 47%
Eric Payne
January 21st, 2015
Priya,
Sorry about that. The auto-spell feature of my iPad insists on changing your name.
Priya Lynn
January 21st, 2015
Hmmm, wonder what “Oriya” is supposed to mean if its a real word?
Nathaniel
January 21st, 2015
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriya
Priya Lynn
January 21st, 2015
Who’d a thunk it.
enough already
January 22nd, 2015
Priya Lynn,
I tend to regard pundits (especially ‘gay’ pundits) in the same light as I do practitioners of the social ‘sciences’.
Clueless fools chasing after black cats in windowless cellars with blown out candles in houses which the cats have long-since abandoned.
Queers as a group in the US confuse the spirit of The Declaration of Independence with goals of the American voters.
Until we accept that the majority of those voting actually set the Supreme Courts’ policy regarding us, we are in danger. Not as much as gay men face in Iran, but far more than those queer who think it’s in ones self-interest to vote Republican think it is.
Chief Justice Roberts’ position on us is very much the same as Justice Scalia’s, only more pleasantly put.
For those of us who read German, it’s very much the same as reading a text on the same topic from Himmler and one from Göring.
I think the most we can expect, under the most positive conditions imaginable (one of the Christians makes Justice Alito angry again with regard to children) is a 5-4 requiring all states to accept a SSM which is valid in the place it was made.
Priya Lynn
January 22nd, 2015
Enough I know some pundits are buffoons but many talking about the court are quite knowledgeable and their collective opinion makes me think there’s a slightly more than even chance the court will vote for marriage equality. But I’d agree with you that I think anything better than a 5-4 decision in favour is extremely unlikely.
enough already
January 22nd, 2015
Priya Lynn,
I do believe we have a – slim – chance of the court deciding that all states have to recognize all marriages recognized in any one American state.
More than that, nope.
To do so would be to open the door to our being treated as fully human.
The conservative Christians on the court will never accept that. Ever.
We need a solid majority of yellow-dogs in the House, Senate and a true Democrat, not a blue-dawg in the White House long enough to turn the Supreme Court into at least a seven to two liberal court before we’ll finally see this matter settled.
That, of course, would require young women and gay men to vote their own self-interest (I assume having equal civil and human rights is a self-interest, in contrast to the prevailing opinion here). It’s not going to happen anytime soon.
Leave A Comment