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 7th, 2012
This report from NTV Uganda about the re-introduction (“tabling”) of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill indicates that the bill was “slightly revised” to replace the death penalty with life imprisonment. I’m very skeptical of that. The Bill’s supporters have been making numerous false claims along those lines for more than two years now, and each time the mainstream news media have naively repeated them. Until I see an official copy of the bill, I would tend to discount that claim. But of course, there’s a second problem: It’s not just about the death penalty. Life imprisonment, in a Ugandan prison after having been tarred with the official verdict of “homosexual” is a death sentence. But even if that were removed, there would still be the problem of the other seventeen or so clauses of the proposed legislation.
February 7th, 2012
Today NOM once again asked its supporters for money by lying to them.
You know, they do this so often I should just create a template for this kind of response.
Anyway, they’re panicking about Prop 8 being declared unconstitutional. As paid professionals they ought to realize the 9th Circuit ruling could only apply to states that:
That’s a tiny number of states. But the paid professionals at NOM want to sound a more urgent note in their fundraising appeal, which contains three DONATE NOW buttons:
A Supreme Court victory would preserve the marriage laws of 44 states, denying same-sex marriage radicals in their campaign to force gay marriage on the entire nation in one fell swoop.
But if we lose at the Supreme Court, marriage will be jeopardized not just in California, but in all 50 states.
No. As much as it pains me to say it, a victory (for us, not NOM) at the Supreme Court couldn’t possibly “force gay marriage on the entire nation in one fell swoop.” It would have no impact on most states.
There’s an old quote: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” Maybe NOM president Brian Brown just isn’t capable of understanding the 9th Circuit decision.
Or maybe he understands it very well — exactly as well as he understands the concept of cash flow.
In any case, feel free to go over there and point out the dishonesty. It was kind of fun swamping their comments last time — let’s start the party again.
February 7th, 2012
One of the more remarkable features of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling on Prop 8 is the very carefully crafted narrowness of the decision. It didn’t find a broad right to marry, and it didn’t find marriage bans unconstitutional. It didn’t even address what level of legal scrutiny applies to LGBT people as a class.
What it did find unconstitutional was very specific: that because California already had an almost-everything-but-marriage Domestic Partnership law to fall back on, the only thing Prop 8 did was disenfranchise same sex couples from the word “marriage” itself, and all of the social benefits and meanings that word holds.
This situation applies only to California, and has no bearing whatsoever in any other court case anywhere else. Judges working other cases are very unlikely to find anything in this ruling which applies to their cases. And when you think about it, that statement can apply to Supreme Court judges as well. Unless they’re just itching for controversy, it would be very easy for them to point out that there are no burning questions of national importance which require their attention. This decision appears tailor-made to allow the Supreme Court to duck this case altogether.
February 7th, 2012
Caveat: I am not a lawyer.
Prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional. But the Court’s decision is narrow and limited. Here’s a key quote from page 47 of the decision:
We therefore need not and do not consider whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, or whether states that fail to afford the right to marry to gays and lesbians must do so. Further, we express no view on those questions.
In other words, that Court has ruled that while this particular ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, it declines to rule that all bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. How can that be?
The 9th Circuit decision rests on two key factors:
The Court used these facts in their decision:
Proposition 8 singles out same-sex couples for unequal treatment by taking away from them alone the right to marry, and this action amounts to a distinct constitutional violation because the Equal Protection Clause protects minority groups from being targeted for the deprivation of an existing right without a legitimate reason. Romer, 517 U.S. at 634-35.
In other words the 9th Circuit relied on a Supreme Court precedent, Romer v. Evans, which dealt with a law that took away an existing right. Thus, the 9th Court’s decision cannot be applied to states unless they are eliminating an existing right of same-sex couples to marry.
In addition, the 9th Circuit used California’s willingness to adopt a comprehensive domestic partnership law as evidence that there is no “legitimate reason” for taking away the right to marry. As the decision’s introduction said:
Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for “laws of this sort.”
But why can the Court say that this is Prop 8’s only effect? Because California’s domestic partnership law is so broad, grants such a full array of rights, and is still in effect. Prop 8, therefore, has no practical purpose and merely:
…enacts nothing more or less than a judgment about the worth and dignity of gays and lesbisan as a class.
Just as a “desire to harm…cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest” Morena, 413 U.S. at 534, neither can a more basic disapproval of a class of people.
An existing comprehensive domestic partnership law, and the removal of an existing right: These two key factors don’t apply to most states, and thus the reasoning behind the Court’s decision (and, by extension, the decision itself) doesn’t either.
February 7th, 2012
A three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld (PDF:741KB/133 pages) Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that found that California’s Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. The ruling was split 2-1. Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority:
Prior to November 4, 2008, the California Constition guaranteed the right to marry to opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples alike. On that day, the People of California adopted Proposition 8, wihc amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. We consider whether that amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does.
Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they beleive to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reasomn for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no suc hreason that Proposition 8 could have been anacted. Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite sex-couples, regardless of their marital status, all paries agree that Proposition 8 had only one effect. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right — the right to obtain and use the designation of ‘marriage’ to describe their relationship. Nothing more, nothing less. Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California’s interests in childrearing or responsible procreation, or it had no effect on the rights of same-sex coples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples. Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents’ rights to control their children’s education. It could not have been enacted to safeguard these liberties.
It appears to be the second-class “separate-but-equal” status of California’s domstic partnerships, coupled with the fact that same-sex couples once enjoyed a right that was taken away which together formed the basis of the Appeals Court’s ruling:
All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of ‘marriage,’ which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships. Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and familes as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for “laws of this sort” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620,633
The Court clarified that their ruling is “unique and strictly limited” to California’s Prop 8. It has no bearing on marriage bans enacted in other states within the Ninth Circuit Court’s jurisdictional area. It should also be noted that the ruling does not answer the question of whether bans on same-sex marraiges are unconstituional. Instead, it says that under these circumstances in which the right was first granted and then withdrawn, and the manner in which it was done, that is what they find unconstitutional
On two other issues before the court, the rulings went as expected. The Appeals Court ruled that Prop 8 supporters do have standing to defend Prop 8 in court when the state of California choses not to do so, and the Court ruled that Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker was not obligated to recuse himself.
The rulings on the questons of standing and recusal were unanimous. However Judge N.R. Smith dissented on the queston of whether Prop 8 was unconstitutional.
The current stay on Judge Walker’s original ruling remains in effect for at least another week. Prop 8 proponents are almost certain to file a motion to extend the stay, and that motion is likely to be granted pending further appeals.
February 7th, 2012
The court’s website has crashed so details will be posted when we learn them
February 7th, 2012
Metro Weekly’s Chris Geidner has the statement:
In a statement provided to Metro Weekly, State Department spokesperson Hilary Fuller Renner wrote, “Our message is unchanged: The Department of State opposes the anti-homosexuality bill, which we view as manifestly inconsistent with Uganda’s international human rights obligations. We call on the Ugandan government to reinforce its respect for the human rights of all individuals, including LGBT individuals.”
The State Department says they are raising concerns with “senior Ugandan officials” and note that Ugandan diplomats agreed to “take immediate concrete steps to stop discrimination and assaults against LGBT persons” during that country’s recent Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations Human Rights Council.
February 7th, 2012
While the Ugandan Parliament is renewing its efforts to legislate LGBT people out of existence, we learn that Members of Parliament have received a car allowance of 103 million Uganda Shillings (US$44,556) in a deal which, Daily Monitor reports, was supposed to be kept hush-hush because of the hard economic times. One MP threatened to prevent Parliament from re-opening today if he was not promptly paid. Parliament re-opened today. Take from that what you will.
There are 386 Members of Parliament, times $44,556. That’s US$17,198,616 for a fleet of new Hummers and SUVs in a country where the per capita income is US$523.
February 7th, 2012
Uganda Parliament’s Order Paper for February 7. (Click to enlarge.)
It is now early evening in Kampala, and in an apparent sign of the Parliament’s lack of transparency, today’s Order Paper is still not posted on the Parliament’s web site. However, a copy has been making the rounds on the Internet, showing that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009, is scheduled for its first reading today. Warren Throckmorton has info on the bill’s path going forward:
According to a person in the plenary session of Parliament, Speaker Kadaga said the bills renewed from the 8th Parliament will be read for the first time today but reports on the bills from the 8th Parliament will be used as a basis for moving toward a 2nd reading and debate. If true, this means that the time from first reading to second reading, debate and possible passage will be much shorter than would be true if a new bill was introduced.
Based on reports from Parliament in October, 2011, it was anticipated that the anti-gay measure would be considered by the new Parliament without repeating the first reading. During the October 2011 session, the Parliament voted to return unfinished business from the 8th Parliament to the current session. At that time, Kawesa said that Speaker of the House Rebecca Kadaga’s Business committee could recommend that the anti-gay bill go back to committee or it could recommend that the former committee report become the basis for debate in the Parliament. Based on the Kawesa’s statement today, the bill is starting over in committee.
The bill’s original text, combined with the recommendations of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, would look something like this:
I am attempting to find a copy of the bill as it currently exists. According to procedure, if a bill is being introduced in Parliament for its first reading, then it is supposed to be published in the Uganda Gazette.
February 7th, 2012
Today marks the twelfth annual National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, which is a national HIV testing and awareness initiative focusing on the African-American community. The theme this year is “Changing the course of HIB/AIDS, one Black life at a time.”
Tonight at sundown marks the start of Tu B’Shevat, a minor Jewish Holiday on the 15th of Scvat, which is also called “The New Year of the Trees” — a sort of a Jewish Arbor Day, if you will. According to the Talmud, it is one of four new years in the Jewish Calendar, marking the date for calculating when the agricultural cycle begins. In particular, the date is used to establish the age of fruit trees, regardless of when they were planted. This is important because of the prohibition (Leviticus 19:23*24) on eating the fruit of trees produced during the first three years after they are planted. The fourth-year fruit crops were then brought to Jerusalem as a tithe.
TODAY’S AGENDA:
Appeals Court To Issue Prop 8 Ruling: San Francisco, CA. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has announced that they will issue their ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 this morning at 10:00 a.m. PST. Whatever the ruling may be, whoever doesn’t like it then has the option of asking for an en banc review by eleven-members of the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court. The judges of the Circuit can also call for an en banc review if neither of the parties ask for it. That would involve several more weeks (or months) of hearings before a final decision is reached. From there, presumably, it goes to the Supreme Court, although it could also go before a “super en banc” review of the entire Ninth Court before moving on to the Supreme Court. Throughout the entire process, the stay on Judge Walker’s ruling is almost certain to remain in place.
Of course, all of this assumes that the Appeals Court rules that Prop 8 supporters have standing and that Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker did not have to recuse himself because he is gay. At any rate, there are three rallies that I know of already announced in California:
Uganda’s Parliament Resumes: Kampala, Uganda. It’s time to keep an eye on things in Uganda as the nation’s Parliament begins another session. There have been reports that Parliament is expected to revive the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and bring it to the floor of the house for debate, perhaps as early as today. So far, Parliament’s web site has no new postings, with the most recent Order Paper posted for November 10, 2011. We will however try to monitor things as best we can and keep you up to date on anything we hear.
Protest against AIDS Medical Rationing: Steubenville, OH. The administration of Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) has ordered changes to how the Ohio Department of Health administers the state’s AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADA), which the AIDS Healthcare Foundation warn will result in “arbitrarily cutting off care to people with AIDS. Already, a judge granted three Ohioans with AIDS a preliminary injunction from enforcing proposed changes to state ADAP regulations, which AHF says are “some of the most severe medical and financial-eligibility changes to a government medical assistance program nationwide.” AFER will protest Gov. Kasich’s “State of the State” address at the Wells Academy in Steubenville beginning at 1:00 p.m. EST.
If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. Don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).
And feel free to consider this your open thread for the day. What’s happening in your world?
A Commentary
February 6th, 2012
For many Americans the question of marriage equality circles around what they see as ideal or moral or approved by their Christian faith. It is a question of “what does God want them to do?” And being convinced that homosexuality is a sin, they need go no further to justify their discrimination.
But that approach misses the general theme of Jesus and the early Christian writers. The gospels and epistles don’t discuss what the Roman law should be. The early church didn’t establish agenda to oppress the worship of Diana or to seek dominion over the mountains of entertainment and government. Even their condemnation of unacceptable behavior didn’t extend beyond refusing to fellowship with the offender.
Although one would be hard pressed to see it in the culture or the dogma, Christianity was never supposed to be focused on the flaws of others, real or imagined, or to shape society in a godly manner. Rather it was designed as a personal faith directed inward and evidenced by how it changes the individual, not what he could demand of his neighbor.
The real question that Christians are scripturally directed to ask, the one that would be familiar to the founders of the faith, is “what does God want me to do?” And it is this question that Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen (D-Camano Island) asked herself.
“I have very strong Christian beliefs, and personally I have always said when I accepted the Lord, I became more tolerant of others. I stopped judging people and try to live by the Golden Rule. This is part of my decision. I do not believe it is my role to judge others, regardless of my personal beliefs. It’s not always easy to do that. For me personally, I have always believed in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. That is what I believe, to this day.
“But this issue isn’t about just what I believe. It’s about respecting others, including people who may believe differently than I. It’s about whether everyone has the same opportunities for love and companionship and family and security that I have enjoyed.
I am certain that Sen. Haugen will be soundly condemned by those who will claim that she “went against her faith and her religion.” But her considerations go to the heart of what Christianity was intended to be and, sadly, so seldom is.
February 6th, 2012
According to this news report from Uganda’s NTV, the Parliament’s Business Committee met today and agreed to move the revived Anti-Homosexuality Bill forward to the full house, possibly as early as tomorrow when the Ninth Parliament begins its third sitting following its Christmas break. There are reports that several lawmakers in Parliament are aggressively pushing for the bill’s passage as part of broader anger over the American and British announcements making nations’ protections of LGBT rights a component of foreign policy.
It is unclear exactly which form the revived bill will have. As originally written the bill has these eighteen clauses:
Shortly before the Eight Parliament ended, the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee recommended several changes to the bill. Despite numerous false reports to the contrary, the removal of the death penalty was not one of the changes. According to Human Rights Watch, the committee recommended removing Clause 4 which would criminalize “attempted homosexuality,” along with Clause 7 (“aiding and abetting homosexuality”) and Clause 8 (“conspiracy to commit homosexuality”). The committee found that clause 14, which would require anyone knowing an LGBT person to report that person to police, would “create problems,” although it is unclear whether the committee recommended its removal. The committee also recommended removal of the extraterritorial Clauses 16 through 18, but added a new crime: “conduct[ing] a marriage ceremony between persons of the same sex,” punishable by three years in prison. That clause was not in the original draft.
The Eighth Parliament ended before the committee’s recommendations could be considered for adoption. Without that action, it appears that the bill is likely still in its original form.
February 6th, 2012
We have heard that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will release its ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 tomorrow at 10:30. 10:00 a.m.
Update from Jim B: Metro Weekly’s Chris Geidner has a good rundown of what to expect here. There are three questions before the court: Whether Prop 8 supporters have standing, whether Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself, and whether Walker ruled correctly that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Since the Circuit Court’s notice speaks only of the third question, it appears that they have rendered their decision in the first two (supporters have standing, Judge Walker didn’t have to recuse themselves) and are ready to answer the question we’re all really concerned about.
February 6th, 2012
A South African affiliate of Richard Cohen’s International Healing Foundation is the latest ex-gay ministry to attempt a “pro-gay” cover to hide its real anti-gay agenda. Last week, International Healing Foundation (SA) sent the following announcement out to its email list:
New Living Way Ministry is a Non Profit Company and an interdenominational Christian organization that serves and reaches out in love to the gay community and their loved ones. Our vision is to have a care centre from where we will serve those suffering with HIV and AIDS, and where a residential program will cater for people with unwanted same-sex attraction. Temporary accommodation is envisioned for men and woman who are homeless and destitute due to a variety of circumstances, and those involved in prostitution are also close to our hearts to be reached out to. A chapel on the premises will enable us to meet some of the spiritual needs of those we are serving. We believe in serving a person as a whole – spirit, soul and body and will provide the necessary means to do so.
Being also an educational and counselling organization, we endeavour to empower men, women, and children to heal from past and present wounds, releasing them to live a powerful life, and to fulfil their destiny. We also aim at educating the religious and secular communities about same-sex attraction and early intervention. We work to promote healthy individuals and relationships, healing communities, families, and churches.
We value the right of individuals to live life as they desire, and love and accept them just as they are. We will accompany everyone on their journey to wholeness and affirm their right of self-determination, self-acceptance, and self-discovery, while respecting their faith and values and how it might impact their choices.
Not being ignorant of the fact that some terms like “homosexual,” “homosexual community,” “homosexual lifestyle” or “he is a homosexual,” etc. might be offensive to some readers, I want to highlight that it is not our intention to offend anybody, should such terms be found on this website. Because our articles are obtained from many different sources, it’s not always possible to avoid these terms. However, please know that it is not used with malicious intent.
As followers of Christ, it is appropriate for us at New Living way Ministry to repent and ask the gay community for forgiveness for the way individual Christians and Christian organizations have often treated you. We publicly apologize to those of you within the Gay community for the hate you have felt and experienced from the Christian community. That has been our sin against you, and we ask for your forgiveness. We want you to know that you matter to us and you matter to God. God loves you, He cares about you, and He has a plan for your life.
Nice words, although the third paragraph is puzzling. It’s obviously written by someone who has no idea how to actually talk to the gay community. The nice words however fall apart with just a couple of easy clicks on New Living Way’s newly announced web site. The site’s sidebar is loaded with anti-gay propaganda, including NARTH co-founder Charles Socarides’s myopic “Removal of Homosexuality from the DSM III,” an unsigned “Homosexuality and Psychiatry: Homosexuality is Very Abnormal Behaviour!“, the typical anti-gay treatment of “The Kirk & Madsen Manifesto – After the Ball“, and the list of “Other Resources” which firmly shows where New Living Way Ministry is headed.
Last October, Richard Cohen tried a similar stunt here in the U.S. where he tried a similarly cynical “apology” with an announcement of a supposedly new face for his International Healing Foundation. As with New Living Way Ministry, Cohen couldn’t be bothered to do much to update his website to reflect his supposedly newfound “gay-supportive” stance. Just a few clicks around his web site — now at comingoutloved.com — shows that he is still peddling his unique brand of ex-gay messages, including his 2007 book Gay Children, Straight Parents which includes a twelve-step cure-the-gay program — complete with his controversial hugging therapy — to supposedly turn gay children straight.
February 6th, 2012
It’s Waitangi Day in New Zealand, a public holiday commemorating the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. This treaty, regarded as the founding document for New Zealand, made the islands a part of the British Empire and granted the MÄori the rights of British subjects and land rights. Unfortunately, the white settlers largely ignored the treaty and in 1877 Chief Justice James Pendergast declared it to be a “legal nullity.” It remained so until 1975, when an act of New Zealand’s Parliament restored the treaty’s legal standing.
TODAY’S AGENDA:
Uganda Parliament May Discuss Anti-Homosexuality Bill: Kampala, Uganda. According to a report published last week on UGPulse, an online news portal, the Business Committee of the Ugandan Parliament is expected to discuss a number of bills which were revived last fall by the Ninth Parliament after they had come to an end with the closure of the Eighth Parliament. Among those bills being revived is the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which, among its many, many provisions, adds the death penalty for gay people under certain circumstances, and even makes knowing someone who is gay without reporting them to the police a criminal offense. There have been a number of false reports that the death penalty provisions had been removed from the bill. In fact, no changes have been made to the bill itself because the previous Parliament expired before proposed changes could be voted on. But even if those proposed changes had been accepted by Parliament, the death penalty would have remained firmly in place.
TODAY IN HISTORY:
Reagan Orders AIDS Report: 1986. In a message sent to Congress two days after the State of the Union Address, President Ronald Reagan made his second public mention of AIDS:
We will continue, as a high priority, the fight against Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). An unprecedented research effort is underway to deal with this major epidemic public health threat. The number of AIDS cases is expected to increase. While there are hopes for drugs and vaccines against AIDS, none is immediately at hand. Consequently, efforts should focus on prevention, to inform and to lower risks of further transmission of the AIDS virus. To this end, I am asking the Surgeon General to prepare a report to the American people on AIDS.
Reagan’s first mention of AIDS was on September 17, 1985 during a news conference. That last sentence in the report to Congress came as a surprise to Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. As he wrote in Koop: The Memoirs of America’s Family Doctor
TODAY’S BIRTHDAY:
Ramón Novarro: 1899. The Mexican leading man was hailed as the next male sex symbol after Rudolph Valentino died. His first major success was in the 1923 silent film Scaramouche, but his greatest fame came with 1925’s Ben-Hur. His transition to talkies was mildly successful, but not enough for MGM to renew his contract in 1935. Besides, MGM feared trouble: Novarro had already rejected Louis B. Mayer’s demand that he enter into a “lavender marriage.” From 1935, Novarro worked only sporadically in films and television, but fortunately he made some wise investments in real estate early in his career. He was murdered in 1968 by two brothers who he solicited for sex, but who beat him mercilessly in an attempt to get him to reveal where he kept his money. They left with $20, leaving Novarro to choke to death on his own blood.
If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. Don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).
And feel free to consider this your open thread for the day. What’s happening in your world?
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: