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 30th, 2011
A little over a week ago our community gained a significant step forward in our quest for marriage equality, and few noted it. The briefs filed in the challenge to DOMA in Massachusetts caught attention, but there is also a DOMA challenge in California. (Chronicle)
In a victory for gay rights advocates, a federal judge has ruled that state employees in California can sue for discrimination over the federal government’s exclusion of their same-sex spouses from a long-term health care program.
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland denied an Obama administration request to dismiss the suit Tuesday and signaled that she is likely to overturn provisions of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to same-sex couples.
Wilken has rejected, in advance, the notions usually put forward by anti-gay activists.
She also rejected arguments that the law’s sponsors put forth in 1996, that the legislation was necessary to promote procreation and preserve heterosexual marriage.
“Marriage has never been contingent on having children,” Wilken said, and denying federal benefits to same-sex couples “does not encourage heterosexual marriage.”
Wilken has not indicated whether she will allow her suit to cover domestic partners as well as spouses. If she does not, then this could have a significant impact on the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case. It would create a very significant difference between domestic partnerships and marriages (the possibility of federal recognition) and could torpedo the opposition.
January 30th, 2011
From the Star-Tribune
Legislation that would have made Wyoming the third state to recognize civil unions narrowly failed in the House Judiciary Committee on Friday.
The 5-4 vote to defeat House Bill 150 came after hours of impassioned testimony from supporters who said civil unions would give same-sex couples basic rights and opponents who claimed civil unions were a thinly disguised stepping stone to gay marriage.
Some who voted against the bill left open the possibility of support for a differently worded bill.
But state Reps. Bob Nicholas, R-Cheyenne, and Frank Peasley, R-Douglas, who cast the deciding votes against the bill, opposed the proposal not on ideological grounds, but rather because they worried the wording of the bill — which almost exactly mirrored the rights and responsibilities Wyoming law lists for marriage -– could lead to legal pitfalls in the future.
In the meanwhile, I would support a petition to have Wyoming change it’s motto from “Equal Rights” and it’s nickname from “the Equality State”.
And with Wyoming’s bill to ban recognition of out-of-state relationships, I would just love to see California, New Jersey, and others pass a truth in advertising law that requires all tourism advertising in the state to warn residents that their legal rights and contracts will not be honored.
January 30th, 2011
House lawmakers will take up a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Rhode Island.
The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hear testimony on the bill Wednesday.
January 30th, 2011
General James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, did not want Congress to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. He would have preferred to continue his operations without the distraction of implementing the change or really even considering whether a change was appropriate. He recognized that there would be pockets of resistance to allowing open service of gay Marines and that his job would be made tougher by the repeal.
But Amos did not get his preference; Congress repealed the anti-gay Military policy.
Many may have been tempted to be recalcitrant and obstructionist or, at most, to grudgingly implement the change with tight lips and minimum effort. General Amos has taken another approach.
In the following video, Amos calls on Marines to look out for and respect each other and to value diversity. He makes the implementation of the change a matter of pride, a matter of the values of Marines, a matter of stepping up to do what they are called to do. Because they are Marines.
This is not only a very smart approach, it is a very classy approach. Well done, General Amos.
January 29th, 2011
From the Baltimore Sun
The legislative debate over same-sex marriage will get going in the Maryland Senate on Feb. 8.
That’s the date Senate Judicial Proceedings Chairman Brian Frosh has set for a hearing on the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, a bill that would allow Maryland to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. The hearing is set for 1 p.m., and will wrap in all other bills “relating to same-sex marriage and civil unions,” according to the schedule.
January 29th, 2011
From the Chicago Sun-Times
John Fliszar had a heart attack in 2006 and was rushed to Illinois Masonic Medical Center.
“When I was in the emergency room with him, he asked me to promise him, if he died, to make sure his ashes were interred in the Naval Academy,” said Mark Ketterson. “He loved that place. He very much wanted to be there.”
January 29th, 2011
Many people – and I used to be one of them – believe that domestic partnerships are an adequate response to the needs of same-sex couples and that our battle over the word “marriage” is a distraction, an unnecessary obstacle that alienates potential supporters and does not take the feeling of others into consideration. I have grown beyond that position, and now see that our goal of marriage is an essential one, for a number of reasons.
First, I understand that at this point in our progress, the selection of domestic partnerships or civil unions rather than marriage is specifically designed to make a statement that same-sex unions are inferior. As the language in one of Hawaii’s proposed civil unions bills puts it:
The legislature also acknowledges the traditional and special role of marriage in our society and seeks to protect it by establishing a new and separate status for these other loving and committed relationships. In order to both respect traditional marriage and provide equity to other couples, it is the intent of the legislature to recognize civil unions in Hawaii.
Secondly, I have serious doubts about the ability of a secondary, lesser-status institution to consistently provide equal access, services, or application of law. Separate but equal has seldom proven in history to be nearly as equal as it was separate.
Third, I believe that same-sex couples are entitled to the social and societal connotations that come with the word, customs, and traditions of marriage and that this are in the best interest of society. I believe that calling our unions something else can reduce important social expectations both on the part of those in the couple and the demands that the community place on married couples.
From many first hand reports, it seems that marriage changes people in ways that civil unions or domestic partnerships have not yet fully accomplished. “I’m married now,” seems to have a great deal of internal meaning.
But perhaps the most obvious reasons for eliminating the hodge-podge patchwork of nomenclatures created to make sure that same-sex couples aren’t really married, is that they are confusing. No one knows what they mean.
By my counting, same-sex couples are currently recognized by means of marriage, common-law marriage, civil union, civil partnership, domestic partnership with full equality, limited domestic partnership, registered partnership, unregistered partnership, life partnership, PACS, law of same-sex relationship, reciprocal benefits, itemized specific rights, and (most frequently) not at all. It’s no wonder that it is confusing.
And I’m not just talking about your Aunt Matilda who gets the newspaper so she can play WordSearch. The Republic of Ireland has no idea what rights or privileges are granted by what scheme.
This year Ireland, as part of it’s new civil partnerships law, decided to recognize marriages – and similar institutions – from other nations as civil partnerships within its borders. And so, with Statutory Instrument 649, Dermot Ahern, Minister for Justice and Law Reform, announced which other nations and states would have their forms recognized:
Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Mexico City, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Also, from the United States, Ireland will recognize California (marriages only), Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Vermont, and Washington D.C.
What is missing? Domestic Partnerships in California, Washington, Oregon and Nevada which offer every right, privilege, obligation and duty of marriage, but with another name.
Ireland picked up New Jersey’s civil unions, but they simply had no idea what a “domestic partnership” might be. They also missed civil unions from Andora, Uruguay, and Equador along with Luxembourg’s civil partnerships.
But they didn’t miss any countries that recognize marriage. There’s no confusion there.
January 29th, 2011
Of all the schemes in Europe by which various nations recognize same-sex couples, France’s (PACS) is among the weakest. Sophie Hasslauer and Corinne Cestino sued for marriage rights and the supreme court ruled that gay couples are not entitled to equality under France’s constitution. (NY Times)
The constitutional council upheld longstanding legislation on Friday that effectively bans marriage for same-sex couples. The council ruled that civil code references to marriage as a union between a man and woman were not contrary to the Constitution, and said the legislature could change the law if it saw fit. “The principle of equality prohibits neither that the legislature regulate differing situations in differing manners, nor that it depart from equality for reasons of general interest,” the decision said.
Perhaps that makes sense in French.
January 29th, 2011
For decades our community has fought for our right to serve in the US Military on the same terms as anyone else. And finally, we have a timeline, a near future, in which such a scenario seems likely. And for most of us, the end to this offensive and unnecessary ban is more important than the way in which it is ended. Just so long as the long wait is over.
But the manner by which Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – and the pre-existing ban is moderated – comes to a halt has a great deal of impact on other matters of importance to our community. There are both positives and negatives to both the judicial and the legislative solution.
If the courts strike this ban down as discriminatory, then it sets continuing precedent that anti-gay discrimination is in violation to the US Constitution. But this can have the effect of appearing to be “judicial activism” overriding the will of the people’s elected legislature and can be ammunition for the social conservatives’ attack on the US judicial system.
If the legislature provides resolution, this gives a blessing to the solution as being “of the people”, but it also leaves the matter open to future reversals. Additionally, the current projected termination of the anti-gay policy does not prohibit discrimination, it simply ceases the institutionalization of the practice. Of concern is also a threat by some Republicans in the incoming House to find a way to block implementation of the repeal.
Fortunately (and this really rarely happens) we have both legislative and judicial solutions. Congress has voted to reverse DADT and the President is projecting a short implementation. But also, the Federal Court has found that DADT – or, indeed, any arbitrary ban on gay soldiers – violates the US Constitution. And the timing of such is that they are both occurring simultaneously.
In September of last year, Judge Victoria Virginia Phillips found that DADT is unconstitutional. The government appealed, and has been actively fighting that decisions since. Even after Congress acted to reverse DADT during the lame duck session, the government requested that the proceedings be stayed until the ban was lifted and the case become moot.
As I noted above, that would not be in our best interest. And yesterday Judge Phillips the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied those efforts and set a schedule for the case to continue:
The opposed motion to hold these appeals in abeyance is denied. The briefing schedule is reset as follows: the government’s opening brief and excerpts of record are due February 25, 2011; Log Cabin Republicans’ answering brief and supplemental excerpts of record are due March 28, 2011; and the government’s reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief.
The best of all possible worlds would be for the courts to conclusively determine that any ban on open gay service is unconstitutional (for the appeal to be denied or dropped) but for the President’s timeline to be administered. It looks as though this is a possibility.
January 28th, 2011
The Hawaiian Senate passed SB 232, a civil unions bill identical to the one vetoed by Gov. Lingle last year. (KITV)
The state Senate on Friday approved Senate Bill 232, relating to Civil Unions, at its regular daily session.
The bill says unmarried, unrelated couples may have a judge or clergy solemnize their civil union, which will provide the same responsibilities and benefits of marriage under state law.
The bill passed the full Senate 19-6.
The sole Republican in the Hawaiian Senate (Sam Slom) voted against civil unions, as did Democrats Donovan Dela Cruz, Will Espero, Mike Gabbard, Donna Mercado Kim, and Ron Kouchi.
The bill will now go to the House where it is expected to be approved without problem.
January 28th, 2011
If you ever questioned whether holocaust revisionist, anti-gay activist Scott Lively is a truly reprobate man, consider this explanation of David Kato’s murder:
CNN is reporting that money and clothing had been stolen from his house, which would suggest a run-of-the-mill criminal intent. There is also the possibility that he was killed by a “gay” lover, as was the case with another homosexual activist two weeks ago in New York. Carlos Castro was castrated with a corkscrew by his boyfriend and bled to death in his hotel room.
Even after all this time, I’m still shocked when confronted by pure evil.
January 28th, 2011
“Defenders of traditional marriage” like to pretend that their objections to marriage equality are based in procreation or what’s best for children or religious freedom or culture or something, anything, other that bias, animus, or a desire to harm gay people. But sometimes their real motivates leak through the front they present to the world.
Take, for example, this portion of an essay by the National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher:
Anal sex is painful, unsanitary, unsatisfying for women, and creates unique risks for serious physical diseases (if you doubt me, go read the Wikipedia entry on the subject) because the anus is not designed for sexual intercourse, increasing the risk of torn flesh and the intermingling of bodily fluids — blood, semen, fecal matter — that can spread an astonishing variety of diseases. The female partner is far more at risk than the man in these encounters. This should be a feminist issue.
Now, of course, Maggie is directing this rant to women. So it has nothing, no nothing at all, nope not whatsoever, to do with her views about homosexuality. And as some gay men don’t engage in anal sex and few lesbians as well, well then obviously this say nothing, no nothing at all, about Maggie’s perspectives of gay people in general. Right?
Except that Maggie isn’t just condemning heterosexual anal sex. In fact, that isn’t her target at all.
In the minds of anti-gay activists and others to whom Maggie directs her essays, homosexuality is inextricably linked with anal sex (lesbians exist as an after-thought). When a preacher rants, “it’s not natural,” and you know he’s thinking anal sex. Hear a politician declare, “that’s not how the body was created,” and it’s anal sex he’s discussion. See an erudite talking head with crisply parted hair and wire-frame glasses espousing his views on “complimentarity” and guess what he means? Anal sex.
So when Maggie attacks anal sex with imagery of “torn flesh” and blood and fecal matter and “astonishing variety of diseases,” it really isn’t about young women at all. Sure, she’d rather they engage only in vaginal intercourse with their lawfully married husband, but that isn’t her point. Rather, Maggie sees this as “dirty” and “icky” and, let’s be real, a homosexual practice that godly heterosexuals should have nothing to do with.
Maggie is generally pretty good at hiding her personal contempt for gay people. But sometimes, like this time, it seeps around the edges.
January 28th, 2011
A scuffle broke out midway through David Kato’s funeral today when the Anglican priest Thomas Musoke burst out with an anti-gay rant. The funeral drew about 300 people, including 100 LGBT friends and colleagues. No one was hurt in the fighting, but LGBT advocates report that they had recieved threats that that their cars would be stoned as they left the service.
Reuters desribed the scene this way:
The world has gone crazy,” the pastor told the congregation through a microphone. “People are turning away from the scriptures. They should turn back, they should abandon what they are doing. You cannot start admiring a fellow man.”
Gay activists, wearing T-shirts featuring Kato’s face with sleeves coloured with the gay pride flag, then stormed the pulpit and grabbed the microphone.
“It is ungodly,” the pastor shouted, before being blocked from sight.
After the scuffle was calmed, villagers refused to bury Kato’s coffin, so it was left to Kato’s friends, most of them gay, to carry him to his grave and bury him themselves.
Pepe Julian Onziema of Sexual Minorities Uganda was at the funeral, and was very upset at what she saw:
After we had read statements from everybody, including Obama, after all the nice things friends said about David, that this man could stand up and throw dirt at someone who should be resting in peace. It’s just disgusting.
January 28th, 2011
Police are attributing David Kato’s murder to robbery. We’ve seen it often enough elsewhere in Europe and America where local authorities are loathe to investigate hate crimes. The mere fact that items are missing doesn’t mean that a hate crime did not occur. If a homophobe is burning a gay man to death, for example, why not take a watch as a trophy and money to party with later? Yet that’s often enough for police to quickly try to eliminate the stigma of a hate crime in the local community. If police in this country are very resistant to investigate crimes as hate crime even when the evidence for those charges are overwhelming, how can we expect anything different in Uganda?
And as for the man in custody undergoing interrogation, don’t believe for a minute that the kind of interrogation he’s going through is anything like what you see on Law and Order.
A commentary.
January 28th, 2011
David Kato
An editorial posted online for this morning’s edition of Kampala-based Daily Monitor addresses the brutal murder of LGBT advocate David Kato. While noting that police have not officially determined the motive for his killing, Daily Monitor editors say this murder “reminds us of the homophobia that is widespread in our country and society – and the deadly consequences of not dealing with it.” The editorial goes on to touch briefly on several salient points: the deterioration of the overall atmosphere following the introduction of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, the role that “foreign actors” play in the debate, and the “extreme positions of moral self-righteousness.”
But the editorial makes the mistake of presenting both sides as though there were an equivalency between the two. The editors ignore the overwhelming disparity of power and influence between the two sides, with one side wielding the power of state, culture, faith and media; and the other side scrounging for whatever scraps of safety and dignity they can muster. Instead, they pretend that there is some sort of equivalency or parity between the two side. We’ve seen this before, not only in Africa but here in the U.S. and in Europe. This editorial is not particularly remarkable in the way it tries to take a sort of a “pox on both houses” position. These notions of false equivalence intended to reinforce the fiction of two opposing and equally valid arguments do very little to shed much light on the debate.
After having set up that false equivalency, the editorial also draws this unremarkable conclusion.
People like David Kato and others who might be gay are Ugandans and enjoy the same rights and protections of the law as heterosexuals. We cannot send them into exile neither, lock them away, or hang them.
We need to have an honest discussion about how to ensure that their rights are upheld without violating the rights of other Ugandans.
Peaceful and stable societies only emerge when we understand and try to accommodate those who are different from us, or who disagree with us – not by ostracising or killing them.
And yet, this editorial is among the most remarkable editorials I’ve read in years. What makes this editorial remarkable is that it is being printed in Uganda’s largest and most influential independent newspaper, and it expresses the need to ensure the rights of LGBT people are upheld in a nation whose leadership refuses to recognize gay people as humans beings deserving of human rights. That’s remarkable, and a most welcome addition to the debate.
Update: GayUganda also sees this editorial as “a real big deal.”
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: