Box Turtle Bulletin

Boehner to Announce DOMA Defense by Week’s End

So much for focusing on the budget:

Asked if the House would appoint a special counsel to defend the law itself in the White House’s stead, Boehner said, “It’s an option being considered” and added that he would likely have a decision on how to proceed “by the end of the week.”

“I’d be very surprised if the House didn’t decide that they were going to defend the law,” Boehner said. Surprisingly, he suggested that the move was likely beneficial to Democrats in the next election.

House Speaker John Boehner also spoke to David Brody of Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network over the weekend:

David Brody; “Rick Santorum says that the Speaker of the House should appoint a counsel representing the House of Representatives to take up the case and argue DOMA in federal court. Is that a good idea?”

Speaker John Boehner: “It’s an option being considered.”

David Brody: “And on these options the bottom line is that something is going to happen from the House and something will get done?”

Speaker John Boehner: “I’d be very surprised if the House didn’t decide that they were going to defend law.”

David Brody: “How frustrated are you with this President? Do you believe it’s an overreach to the point where it gets back to the Czar issue to a degree?”

Speaker John Boehner: “It strikes me as something that’s just as raw politics as anything I’ve seen knowing that a lot of people who believe in DOMA are probably not likely to vote for him and pandering to the other side on this issue.”

Texas school supervisor would rather kick off Christian athletes than allow gay students to meet

The Equal Access Act is pretty clear: if you allow student groups to meet on campus you can’t exclude groups because of the content of their position. Originally intended to force school districts to allow Bible Study clubs the same access as the Chess Club, this law has been the legal foundation behind Gay-Straight Alliances being allowed on campus.

But some school districts – and some supervisors – are so anti-gay that they would rather have no clubs than allow gay people to meet and provide emotional support for each other. One such district is Flour Bluff Independent School District, near Corpus Christi, TX, where Supervisor Julie Carbajal is determined that gay kids will continue to feel excluded from school life. So committed is Carbajal to her anti-gay agenda that she is willing to kick other groups off campus.

Superintendent Julie Carbajal said she has asked the Fellowship of Christian Athletes to meet off campus while the district studies the legality of allowing the club while disallowing a club supporting homosexual students. She said there is no chance the district will approve the proposed Gay-Straight Alliance, but she will make sure all other school clubs are following the district’s policy.

Now the school had already decided back in 2005 – in a move to preemptively exclude gay-inclusive organizations – that it would allow no non-curricular clubs on campus. But that was not enforced when it came to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. So now they have to go.

Carbajal would rather have a school with no student support, no organization, no community, no spirit, rather than have one that didn’t tell gay kids that they are worthless. She thinks that this is the moral position, one “fair and equitable to all students.”

What a tool.

Mohler concedes inevitability of social acceptance of same-sex couples

Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is now admitting that their arguments are not going to win over society, or even all of those who sit in pews listening to their anti-gay sermonizing (Christian Post):

“I think it’s clear that something like same-sex marriage is going to become normalized, legalized and recognized in the culture. It’s time for Christians to start thinking about how we’re going to deal with that,” he said Friday on the Focus on the Family radio program.
…
The Southern Baptist made it clear that he was not saying that they are giving up. Marriage is still an institution Christians need to save, particularly in their own community. But Christians also need to start learning how to deal with the shifting culture and even face the fact that they may lose a few from their flock.

“I think we’re going to be surprised and heartbroken over how many people are going to capitulate to the spirit of the age,” he noted. “We’re going to find now that there may not be as many of us as we thought.”

He’s right.

Administration continues to defend DADT in court, but with concessions

Although President Obama has announced that discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans should be held to a stricter scrutiny than rational basis, the Obama Administration continues to defend Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in its appeal to the court challenge by Log Cabin Republicans. But the President’s position has impacted how the Department of Justice is arguing their case. (LCR Press Release)

“The government’s brief is stunning for what it does not say. As expected, it argues that Log Cabin Republicans lacked standing to bring the case and that Judge Phillips lacked authority to issue a world-wide injunction. Judge Phillips’s 85-page decision from October 2010 covered these points in great detail, and we are confident that the government’s arguments on these points will be rejected. The government’s only other argument is that the recent repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was constitutional but that was not an issue tried before Judge Phillips and was never part of the government’s case before. The government’s brief does not address the due process or first amendment issues on which Judge Phillips based her decision nor the standard of review applicable to our challenge to the constitutionality of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. By not arguing merits of the constitutionality of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the government’s brief, by its silence on these issues, is effectively conceding that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was and is unconstitutional. While it may be implicit, it is the first time in the six-plus-year history of the case that the government has not argued that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is constitutional. This is a major change in the government’s position.”

Lest future Congresses or Presidents seek to reinstate discrimination in the Military, it is important to our community that LCR’s victory be confirmed.

How to recognize bias in a news story

One of the advantages of blogging is that you get to present your own opinion. I need not pretend that I am disinterested in the outcome of the Perry case or that I see “both sides” to anti-gay legislation. Yes, we try hard here at BTB to avoid spin, bogus arguments, and talking points, but we do come from a perspective that we neither hide nor find in need of apology.

But news writers don’t have it so easy. They are called on to present facts dispassionately and in a manner that allows the reader to draw his own conclusions. This doesn’t mean that they should let ridiculousness go unchallenged or present bizarre statements as though they are credible, but they should not omit relevant facts or let their coverage serve as advocacy.

But sometimes they just can’t help themselves.

Now, I don’t know for certain that Elizabeth Varin, writing for the Imperial Valley Press, actually has a bias in favor of Proposition 8 and its defense. Perhaps it’s coincidental that her ongoing coverage of this subject tends to quote extensively from anti-gay sources. And perhaps in this instance she was simply careless or omitted what she considered to be an irrelevant detail.

But here is how she concluded her article on the Imperial County Clerk’s efforts to be added as a defendant to the case after the fact:

“This case is not only important for influencing nationwide law regarding marriage, but it is also important for the people of California to have their vote respected,” said Jennifer Monk, associate general counsel for the law firm.

Ah, yes, “the law firm.” That would be, we assume, the law firm representing Storey. The nameless law firm representing Storey.

Contrast that with a paragraph that includes the information that Varin decided to omit.

“This case is not only important for influencing nationwide law regarding marriage, but it is also important for the people of California to have their vote respected,” said Jennifer Monk, associate general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, the law firm representing Storey.

Now that reads a bit differently, doesn’t it? Including the identity of Storey’s lawyers reveals a whole motivation that otherwise was undisclosed in Varin’s article. Suddenly the purpose of the lawsuit seems less about Storey’s duties and more about religious advocacy.

It does make one wonder why this detail didn’t make it into Varin’s coverage.

Where to find an ex-gay

Ya know, ex-gays are a pretty elusive bunch. Oh they make statements to newspapers and comments on websites, but how many of us have ever actually met anyone in person who once was gay and now is “walking away from homosexuality,” as they say.

Well I have a solution. If you ever want to meet an ex-gay, I can guarantee how.

No, it’s not by hanging out at Mr. P’s or even by cruising craigslist for drug-fueled sex orgies.

No, if you ever want to meet an ex-gay, head to the nearest legislative body that is considering some effort to treat gay people decently. You’ll be sure to meet an ex-gay who has traveled there to argue that because they have chosen to “walk away from homosexuality,” therefore gay folks should be denied all rights. Yeah, it’s not exactly logical, but what do you expect from folks who continue to believe, year after year, decade after decade, that God is gunna make ’em heterosexual. Some day. Yeah.

At the Maryland marriage hearings: (San Antonio Express-News)

A panel of formerly gay leaders, representing groups which convert people from homosexuality to heterosexuality, called the bill the work of a “sexual minority” imposing its will on the population.

Anthony Falzarano, national director of the Parents and Friends Ministries, said he spent nine years as a gay man before becoming heterosexual with God’s help.

Falzarano said gay activists have been “undermining the moral standards of the United States.”

Well, Falzarano should know. He was, after all, a whore in the 70’s with clientele that supposedly included Roy Cohn.

[I do think that it’s only fair at this point to mention that I have noticed that Exodus International and its leaders have not been a visible presence recently in the political anti-gay movement. They had pledged to make a change away from political advocacy, and I think that they are due credit for living up to that pledge.]

Southern Baptist concession: churches can also belong to groups which include gay-supportive churches

We finally have an answer at to the extent to which Southern Baptists can coexist with gay folk. And yes, it does include several degrees of separation.

Southern Baptist Convention churches cannot “affirm, approve, endorse, promote, support or bless homosexual behavior”.

A Southern Baptist church cannot have a single gay member.

A Southern Baptist church cannot refuse to take a position on homosexuality. They must actively exclude gay people from the life of the church or they will be kicked out.

A Southern Baptist organization cannot include a single church that fails to actively oppose homosexuality and exclude gay-supportive members. Failure to expel that church will get them evicted from an SBC school campus even if every other member church is ragingly homophobic.

But there is finally, finally, a limit to their anti-gay positioning. You can be a Southern Baptist church that belongs to an organization that is not ragingly homophobic, provided that you are sufficiently anti-gay. (Christian Post)

The Alliance of Baptists affirms gay marriage and permits members of any sexuality.

But the Executive Committee members decided against banning all churches that are members of the Alliance from also being members of the SBC, according to the Associated Baptist Press. Instead, it decided that each church’s qualification should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Of course, that wildly liberal position might not make it past a vote of the convention. It sounds an awful lot like compromise with sin, you see.

There’s still no word as to whether Southern Baptists are allowed to speak to their gay postman, accept change back from their gay grocery clerk, or avoid kicking the dog of their gay neighbors. But I am pretty sure that their gay kids are not to be welcomed at Thanksgiving.

Mormon Reorientation group fraudulently misquotes Collins

How very infuriating it must be to have anti-gay activists misquote you and claim that you agree with notions that you find abhorrent. But such has become the plight of Francis Collins, onetime director of the Human Genome Project.

In April 2007, A. Dean Byrd, a devout Mormon who was at that time the incoming president of NARTH, wrote an article titled “Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired,” Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project.“ It claimed:

Estimates of heritability are based upon careful analyses of studies conducted with identical twins. Such studies are important and lead to the conclusion that heredity is important in many of these traits. It is important however, to note that even in such studies with identical twins, that heritability is not to be confused as inevitability.

As Dr. Collins would agree, environment can influence gene expression, and free will determines the response to whatever predispositions might be present.

But Dr. Collins did not agree. Nor was he pleased by the political advocacy of those who misquoted a statement from an appendix to his book and wrote to Ex-Gay Watch to say so:

It troubles me greatly to learn that anything I have written would cause anguish for you or others who are seeking answers to the basis of homosexuality. The words quoted by NARTH all come from the Appendix to my book “The Language of God” (pp. 260-263), but have been juxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion that I intended. I would urge anyone who is concerned about the meaning to refer back to the original text.

The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.

Your note indicated that your real interest is in the truth. And this is about all that we really know. No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about a gene on the X chromosome from the 1990s have not held up), but it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years.

You would think that having been publicly refuted would be reason enough not to continue to distort the work of others. And, indeed, for people of integrity, it would be so.

But Dean Byrd and his associates have little integrity and no interest in honest portrayals of science. So here they are back again.

In today’s Salt Lake Tribune, members of the Foundation for Attraction Research (an organization founded by Byrd), are trotting out their distortions of Collins’ work to claim that his conclusions were that “homosexuality, like other traits, emerges from some combination of nature and nurture,” and to imply that Collins endorses their reorientation theories.

But they didn’t stop at defaming the character and scholarship of Collins, they also implied that Dr. Robert Spitzer endorsed their views.

Spitzer offers the following: “Like most psychiatrists, I thought that homosexual behavior could only be resisted, and that no one could change their [sic] sexual orientation. I now believe that to be false. Some people can and do change.”

It should also be observed that the type, degree, and potential for change vary with each individual, and many debates about change could be avoided by a more nuanced discussion about it.

Setting aside for the moment the methodology and the documented fraud involved with the effort to fool Dr. Spitzer, it is telling that Byrd’s associates chose to delete what Spitzer actually had to say about the “type, degree, and potential for change.” (NY Times)

But after enduring an avalanche of criticism from peers who said he had given too much credence to the accounts of his subjects, many of whom were leaders of ex-gay ministries, Dr. Spitzer now says many advocates of sexual reorientation have misrepresented his views.

“Although I suspect change occurs, I suspect it’s very rare,” he said. “Is it 1 percent, 2 percent? I don’t think it’s 10 percent.”

But you wouldn’t know that from this Mormon opinion piece.

Because Dennis V. Dahle, John P. Livingstone and M. Gawain Wells set out not to present scientific discovery or empirical evidence of their position, but rather to deceive the public. The observations of Collins and the opinions of Spitzer – had they been portrayed honestly – would have refuted the claims of the Foundation for Attraction Research. So instead Dahle, Livingsone, and Wells followed in the footsteps of Byrd and hijacked the reputations of honorable men to attach them to their dishonorable goals.

Ironically, the premise of their opinion statement was that “true religion and true science, when they are found, are never at odds.” And what an unfair disservice they have done to fellow Mormons.

For if true religion and true science go hand in hand, then it is only a logical conclusion that the religion of con-men Dahle, Livingsone, and Wells surely must be as fraudulent as their “science”.

Obama’s DOMA Strategy “Deep and Cynical”?

Jason Kuznicki at the Cato Institute wrote, “Jim Burroway hints that Obama’s strategy here is both deep and cynical.” If there is a hint of that in what I wrote, then that hint was the furthest thing from my mind. Given the particular circumstances that arose in the two cases that brought about this announcement (specifically that there is no legal precedent in this particular circuit of Federal Court as to which level of scrutiny is appropriate for DOMA challenges), I think the administration’s determination is highly principled and well-supported, or, in Kuznicki’s word, “deep” (although he may have meant that differently than I do).

It does not, however, mean that there are no potential political repercussions emanating from the announcement, and my pointing them out was not based on a suspicion of a “cynical” motive. Surely, Holder did dangle a political carrot in front of Boehner (and, more broadly, in front of social conservatives who would surely urge Boehner to grab it) by pointing out that Congress can decide to defend DOMA. And there’s no doubt that most Democrats would strategically, if quietly, welcome just that very move, which would then be taken as evidence that the GOP isn’t serious about focusing exclusively on the deficit. — which would be the very definition of cynicism. But that latter part isn’t evidence of cynicism behind the Administration’s legal decision itself. It’s simply an observation that there are rippling repercussions from the decision; some of them are political and some of the political reactions will also be cynical — as if anyone would be surprised by that. I don’t mind Kuznicki’s putting the cart before the horse; he sees things differently from me. I would just rather he hadn’t tried to put my words in the horse’s mouth.

Catholics really don’t want to be thought of as bigots

More and more I find myself running across angsty protests against describing actions that exclude gay people from civil inclusion as “discriminatory.” Often these come from Catholic Bishops who have become accustomed to thinking of their church as the defender of the downtrodden and panic when downtrodden gay folk start pointing fingers.

Take, for example, this Catholic News Agency response to the President’s recent DOMA decision:

Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., the top legal counsel for the U.S. bishops, called the administration’s decision a “grave affront” to Americans who reject unjust discrimination but also affirm “the unique and inestimable value of marriage as between one man and one woman.”

“Support for actual marriage is not bigotry, but instead an eminently reasonable, common judgment affirming the foundational institution of civil society,” Picarello said.

Any government suggestion that this belief is discriminatory is a “serious threat” to religious liberty, he added.

Note Picarello’s greatest concern: that the official Catholic teaching is seen as discriminatory, that the church’s anti-gay political activism be viewed as based in bigotry. And anti-gay activism’s number one marriage theorist, Robert George, explains why.

“He treats that belief as if it were a mere prejudice, as though it is motivated by a desire to cause harm to people,” George told CNA Feb. 24. “Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. It is a legitimate moral belief that has informed our law throughout history.”

The statement suggests to George the possibility that the Justice Department will “abuse its authority to suppress the religious liberty of people who dissent.”

“It raises the concern that the Justice Department will treat believing Christians, Jews, Muslims and others as though they are the equivalent of racists,” he warned.

And if there is anything that the Catholic Church wishes to avoid, it’s facing society equating their dogma with racism or other animus-based bias. That doesn’t bode well for evangelism or donations.

White House Appoints Gay Man As Social Secretary

Shocking, I know. Will our triumphs never cease?

Mike Huckabee on Obama’s DOMA Decision

Obviously, he’s not happy with it. He also hints that if he became president, he would re-impose “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Colorado LGBT Lobby Day and civil unions update

In their continuing legislative campaign for civil unions, One Colorado held an “LGBT lobby day” where 120 Coloradans from all over the state met with their legislators.  Most impressive was the contingent from Grand Junction who had to depart at 3am to arrive in time for the morning event.

As he says in the video, Rep Mark Ferrandino now believes if the bill reaches the floor of the House that it will pass (despite a Republican majority of one vote).  The real threat to the bill is being sent to a kill-committee by Speaker Of The House Frank McNulty and thus never being voted on.

Here’s footage I shot from the day’s events:

(turn your speakers up, the Capitol is a busy and echoey building so there’s some background noise)

Will Obama’s DOMA Decision Backfire?

That’s what Daily Beast’s Eve Conant and Daniel Stone seem to think after talking with ant-gay activists who see an opening in the Administration’s new stand on defending the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” in the courts.

By failing to defend marriage, the administration may open the door for those passionately opposed to gay marriage to have what they feel they’ve been lacking: a stronger legal voice. In Massachusetts, which is also in the midst of a legal challenge to DOMA, traditional marriage activists, after the initial shock, are finding themselves equally emboldened. Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute says, “It’s a horrible situation when the president and the attorney general refuse to carry out their constitutional duties. We are now asking Congress to do its job.” But he says the law, in his view, “says that under unusual circumstances people who are friends of the court can participate in oral arguments.” Previously barred from doing so in the state’s key DOMA challenge, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, he says, his legal team is working on documents to take part in oral arguments “with real resources and with people who have a passion for success” in battling gay marriage. Mineau says the government’s defense of DOMA thus far “has amounted to something along the lines of ‘we’re personally against DOMA but we’re here today to defend it.'” That watered-down approach, he says, left traditional marriage supporters feeling hopeless.

If the Justice Department’s stand that DOMA should fall under heightened scrutiny holds sway in the courts, then groups like Massachusetts Family Institute with their impassioned position against same-sex marriage would actually prove the Administration’s case under one important aspect of heightened scrutiny: a history of discrimination. We already saw how well this played out so far in California, where widespread evidence of discrimination and expressions of anti-gay bigotry became important pivots on which Federal Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision rested.

On the other hand, Conant and Stone argue that the GOP-led House could try to take the case completely out of the DOJ’s hands altogether so that they would not even be present in court to argue for heightened scrutiny:

Committee lawyers have been summoned early next week to meet with Boehner and other officials to discuss their options. One leading strategy would be to stage a sort of legislative intervention, in which Congress’ counsel would remove the Justice Department’s authority to defend DOMA.

Administration officials aren’t opposed to that idea. In a letter to Boehner, Attorney General Eric Holder suggested Republican leaders appoint more lawyers to defend the law themselves, without Justice attorneys.

I see two potential problems here: If Congress were to intervene and remove DOJ’s authority to defend DOMA, wouldn’t the Democratic-controlled Senate have to go along with it? And secondly, as I read Attorney General Eric Holder’s letter, I don’t get the sense that he agrees that DOJ should be removed altogether from defending DOMA or that Republicans leaders should defend the law themselves “without Justice attorneys,” as if Justice would be willing to voluntarily step aside. “We will remain parties to the case and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation,” he clearly added, after acknowledging that Congress can play a role in defending the statute.

Imperial County tries again to be party to Perry

On January 4, 2011, the panel of Ninth Circuit judges hearing Perry v. Schwarzenegger determined that the County of Imperial, Board of Supervisors and Deputy Clerk Vargas do not have standing to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. This was unsurprising as the judges were almost mocking of Vargas and her insignificance in the case, asking “Where is Dolores Provencio?”

Provencio, the Imperial County Clerk had declined to join the case. Vargas, an administrative clerk, had no authority to act in any manner on the administration of same-sex marriage licenses other than as directed by Provencio and/or the State Recorder.

In November 2010, Provencio did not run for reelection, and a new County Clerk was elected. Chuck Storey was sworn into office on January 3 of this year, the day before the court denied standing, and Storey now seeks to interject himself into the case as an appellant.

This appears, to me, to be nothing other than a publicity ploy.

Storey, the individual, would have no standing. He made no attempt to be party to the case during trial and has no particularized interests in the outcome.

Storey, the County Clerk, is bound by the limitations of the actions of the office of the Clerk. He cannot, at this time, retroactively reverse Provencio’s decision not to be a party to the case.

Storey’s motion to intervene has no greater relevance than had the County Clerk of Lassen County suddenly decided to jump on board. Although Storey’s motion claims that he “has a protectable interest and has timely sought to intervene in this matter,” few would consider his interjection at this point in the case to be timely.

New parties cannot be introduced willy-nilly. After the issue of standing has been argued before the panel and the court has made its decision, it cannot be expected to forever reopen the matter based on any future parties that may some day wish to be involved. I expect the court to laugh Mr. Storey right back to his clerk’s office.

But, no doubt, it does make good political theater for a two-bit local politician.