Box Turtle Bulletin

Schadenfreude Alert, Part 3: NOM’s Meltdown Continues

We already saw Brian Brown’s head explode over the Prop 8 ruling. Several hours later, and he still hasn’t recovered. He was supposed to be in a live-chat with his many supporters and contributors, but he was a no-show. Jeremy Hooper has the chat log. As one participant called it after waiting twenty minutes, “NOM FAIL – You are the weakest link GOODBYE.”

“To Bigotry No Sanction, To Persecution No Assistance”

Matt Duss found this gem. It’s a letter from George Washington to the Jewish community of Newport, Rhode Island. Jews, at that time, were denied full equality under the law in Rhode Island. The Father of our nation wrote:

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

G. Washington

The full text of Washington’s letter is here. Today, we move a step closer to Washington’s vision.

Prop 8 Supporters React

First, we go to Andy Pugno, general counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which represented the losing side in today’s decision:

“Today’s ruling is clearly a disappointment. The judge’s invalidation of the votes of over seven million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process. But this is not the end of our fight to uphold the will of the people for traditional marriage, as we now begin an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“It is disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down Prop 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop 8.

“But the reality is that Prop 8 was simply about restoring and strengthening the traditional definition of marriage as the unique relationship of a man and a woman, for the benefit of children, families and society.

“At trial we built a solid record to show that marriage has served as the foundation of the family and society as a whole, has universal functions and features attributable only to unions between a man and woman, has been defined in both law and language as a union between a man and a woman, and acts as the predominate relationship in which to create and support children.

“We are confident that the trial court record we built will help us ultimately prevail on appeal and reverse today’s ruling.

Newt Gingrich, who believes in the sanctity of marriage between on man and three consecutive women, warns that this should be another knock against confirming Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court:

“Judge Walker’s ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they’ve affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy. Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.”

Wendy Wright, Concerned Women for America stomps her foot and demands that the decision be overturned immediately:

Judge Walker’s decision goes far beyond homosexual ‘marriage’ to strike at the heart of our representative democracy. Judge Walker has declared, in effect, that his opinion is supreme and ‘We the People’ are no longer free to govern ourselves. The ruling should be appealed and overturned immediately.

“Marriage is not a political toy. It is too important to treat as a means for already powerful people to gain preferred status or acceptance. Marriage between one man and one woman undergirds a stable society and cannot be replaced by any other living arrangement.

Robert George of the American Principles Project, sees this as ensuring “additional decades fo social dissension and polarization”:

Another flagrant and inexcusable exercise of ‘raw judicial power’ threatens to enflame and prolong the culture war ignited by the courts in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade,” said Dr. Robert P. George, Founder of the American Principles Project. “In striking down California’s conjugal marriage law, Judge Walker has arrogated to himself a decision of profound social importance—the definition and meaning of marriage itself—that is left by the Constitution to the people and their elected representatives.”

“As a decision lacking any warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, it abuses and dishonors the very charter in whose name Judge Walker declares to be acting. This usurpation of democratic authority must not be permitted to stand.”

…”The claim that this case is about equal protection or discrimination is simply false,” George said. “It is about the nature of marriage as an institution that serves the interests of children—and society as a whole—by uniting men and women in a relationship whose meaning is shaped by its wonderful and, indeed, unique aptness for the begetting and rearing of children.

…”Judge Walker has abandoned his role as an impartial umpire and jumped into the competition between those who believe in marriage as the union of husband and wife and those who seek to advance still further the ideology of the sexual revolution. Were his decision to stand, it would ensure additional decades of social dissension and polarization. Pro-marriage Americans are not going to yield to sexual revolutionary ideology or to judges who abandon their impartiality to advance it. We will work as hard as we can for as long as it takes to defend the institution of marriage and to restore the principle of democratic self-government,” concluded Dr. George.

Focus On the Family’s Judicial Analyst Bruce Hasknecht (he apparently didn’t get layed off last week) warns that this could have repurcussions for the other 49 states in the union:

“Judge Walker’s ruling raises a shocking notion that a single federal judge can nullify the votes of more than 7 million California voters, binding Supreme Court precedent, and several millennia-worth of evidence that children need both a mom and a dad.

“During these legal proceedings, the millions of California residents who supported Prop 8 have been wrongfully accused of being bigots and haters. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, they are concerned citizens, moms and dads who simply wanted to restore to California the long-standing understanding that marriage is between one woman and one man – a common-sense position that was taken away by the actions of another out-of-control state court in May 2008.

“Fortunately for them, who make up the majority of Californians, this disturbing decision is not the last word.

…”We do want Americans to understand the seriousness of this decision, however. If this judge’s decision is not overturned, it will most likely force all 50 states to recognize same-sex marriage. This would be a profound and fundamental change to the social and legal fabric of this country.

Tony Perkins at the Family Research COuncil anticipates that the decisionwill be upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (“the most liberal appeals court in America”), and will only make the anti-gay rhetoric “more volatile”:

“This lawsuit, should it be upheld on appeal and in the Supreme Court, would become the ‘Roe v. Wade’ of same-sex ‘marriage,’ overturning the marriage laws of 45 states. As with abortion, the Supreme Court’s involvement would only make the issue more volatile. It’s time for the far Left to stop insisting that judges redefine our most fundamental social institution and using liberal courts to obtain a political goal they cannot obtain at the ballot box.

“Marriage is recognized as a public institution, rather than a purely private one, because of its role in bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeping them together to raise the children produced by their union. The fact that homosexuals prefer not to enter into marriages as historically defined does not give them a right to change the definition of what a ‘marriage’ is.

“Marriage as the union between one man and one woman has been the universally-recognized understanding of marriage not only since America’s founding but for millennia. To hold that the Founders created a constitutional right that none of them could even have conceived of is, quite simply, wrong.

“FRC has always fought to protect marriage in America and will continue to do so by working with our allies to appeal this dangerous decision. Even if this decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals-the most liberal appeals court in America-Family Research Council is confident that we can help win this case before the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Randy Thomasson, of Save California thinks the oath of office should be updated to force judges to only issue conservative rulings:

“Natural marriage, voter rights, the Constitution, and our republic called the United States of America have all been dealt a terrible blow. Judge Walker has ignored the written words of the Constitution, which he swore to support and defend and be impartially faithful to, and has instead imposed his own homosexual agenda upon the voters, the parents, and the children of California. This is a blatantly unconstitutional ruling because marriage isn’t in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution guarantees that state policies be by the people, not by the judges, and also supports states’ rights, thus making marriage a state jurisdiction. It is high time for the oath of office to be updated to require judicial nominees to swear to judge only according to the written words of the Constitution and the original, documented intent of its framers. As a Californian and an American, I am angry that this biased homosexual judge, in step with other judicial activists, has trampled the written Constitution, grossly misused his authority, and imposed his own agenda, which the Constitution does not allow and which both the people of California and California state authorities should by no means respect.”

Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association goes further, and calls for Judge Walker’s impeachement:

“This is a tyrannical, abusive and utterly unconstitutional display of judicial arrogance. Judge Walker has turned ‘We the People’ into ‘I the Judge.’

“It’s inexcusable for him to deprive the citizens of California of their right to govern themselves, and cavalierly trash the will of over seven million voters. This case never should even have entered his courtroom. The federal constitution nowhere establishes marriage policy, which means under the 10th Amendment that issue is reserved for the states.

“It’s also extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity. The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society. That’s why the people and elected officials accountable to the people should be setting marriage policy, not a black-robed tyrant whose own lifestyle choices make it impossible to believe he could be impartial.

“His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute. He’d have to recuse himself on conflict of interest grounds, and Judge Walker should have done that.

“The Constitution says judges hold office ‘during good Behavior.’ Well, this ruling is bad behavior – in fact, it’s very, very bad behavior – and we call on all members of the House of Representatives who respect the Constitution to launch impeachment proceedings against this judge.”

Richard Land demands the revival of the Federal Marriagae Amendment

“This is a grievously serious crisis in how the American people will choose to be governed. The people of our most populous state—a state broadly indicative of the nation at large demographically—voted to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, thus excluding same-sex and polygamous relationships from being defined as marriage.

“Now, an unelected federal judge has chosen to override the will of the people of California and to redefine an institution the federal government did not create and that predates the founding of America. Indeed, ‘marriage’ goes back to the Garden of Eden, where God defined His institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

“This case will clearly make its way to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court of the United States, where unfortunately, the outcome is far from certain. There are clearly four votes who will disagree with this judge—Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. The supreme question is: Will there be a fifth? Having surveyed Justice Kennedy’s record on this issue, I have no confidence that he will uphold the will of the people of California.

“If and when the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court, then the American people will have to decide whether they will insist on continuing to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, or whether they’re going to live under the serfdom of government by the judges, of the judges and for the judges. Our forefathers have given us a method to express our ultimate will. It’s called an amendment to the Constitution. If the Supreme Court fails to uphold the will of the people of California—if we are going to have our form of government altered by judicial fiat—then the only alternative left to us is to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

“Many senators who voted against the federal marriage amendment the last time it came up said publicly if a federal court interfered with a state’s right to determine this issue, they would then be willing to vote for a federal marriage amendment. Ladies and gentlemen, prepare to vote.

Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition is losing his creativity. In fact, his statement is rather boring. I won’t bother posting it. But TVC state lobbyist Benjamin Lopez thinks this will motivate the Tea Party Movement even more:

“If folks think that the Tea Party movement is a force to be reckoned with now, wait until the silent majority of pro-family voters flex their political muscle once again. Judges beware, you will go the way of Rose Bird, stripped of their robes and kicked off the bench,” Lopez added.

Oops! Lopez’s statement appears to have been deleted, which just leaves Sheldon’s uncreative outrage.

Ted Olson on Prop 8 Decision

Schadenfreude Alert, Part 2: NOM Is Apoplectic

 Brian Brown’s and Maggie Gallagher’s heads explode:

“Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM. “With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman. This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman.”

“Never in the history of America has a federal judge ruled that there is a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. The reason for this is simple – there isn’t!” added Brown.

“The ‘trial’ in San Francisco in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is a unique, and disturbing, episode in American jurisprudence. Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution. We call on the Supreme Court and Congress to protect the people’s right to vote for marriage,” stated Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of NOM.

Prop 8 Reactions

Attorney Ted Olson, who brought the suit to overturn Prop 8:

“We came to court to seek for Kris, Sandy, Paul and Jeff the same right to marry that all other Americans enjoy, and to ensure that they receive equal protection under the law as guaranteed to every American by the Constitution. Through its decision today, the court has acted in the best traditions of a legal system established to uphold the Constitution and the principles of equality upon which this nation was founded. On no less than 14 occasions, the Supreme Court has held that marriage is a fundamental right. This decision recognizes that Proposition 8 denied the plaintiffs, and tens-of-thousands of other Californians, that fundamental constitutional right and treated them unequally.”

 Co-counsel David Boies:

“The Supreme Court has long held that marriage is a fundamental right. Equal protection under the law is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and this ruling affirms that universal right of every American. Depriving the fundamental right to marry causes grievous harm to millions of Americans and their children.”

The White House:

“The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.”

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger :

“Judge Walker had the great responsibility of deciding whether Proposition 8 violates the Constitution of the United States. He heard in-depth arguments from both sides on fundamental questions of due process, equal protection and freedom from discrimination. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and I am glad that all viewpoints were respected throughout the proceedings. We should also recognize that there will continue to be different points of view in the wake of this decision.

“For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.

“Today’s decision is by no means California’s first milestone, nor our last, on America’s road to equality and freedom for all people.”

In case you missed it, Timothy Kincaid’s analysis of the decision is here.

LDS Statement on Prop 8

The LDS Church regrets that the proposition for which they payed so dearly has been overturned:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regrets today’s decision.  California voters have twice been given the opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage in their state and both times have determined that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We agree.  Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of society.  

“We recognize that this decision represents only the opening of a vigorous debate in the courts over the rights of the people to define and protect this most fundamental institution—marriage.
 
“There is no doubt that today’s ruling will add to the marriage debate in this country, and we urge people on all sides of this issue to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different opinion.”

Schadenfreude Alert: Liberty Counsel Blames ADF For Prop 8 Decision

This is hilarious. Matt Staver’s Liberty Counsel, which is closely aligned with Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, issued a press release blaming the Prop 8 decision on the Alliance Defense Fund:

Although Liberty Counsel has defended the marriage laws in California since the battle began in 2004, the Alliance Defense Fund, representing the Prop 8 initiative, opposed Liberty Counsel’s attempt to intervene on behalf of Campaign for California Families. The California Attorney General did not oppose Liberty Counsel’s intervention, but ADF did. Liberty Counsel sought to provide additional defense to Prop 8 because of concern that the case was not being adequately defended. After ADF actively opposed Liberty Counsel, ADF presented only two witnesses at trial, following the 15 witnesses presented by those who challenged the amendment. Even Judge Walker commented that he was concerned by the lack of evidence presented by ADF on behalf of Prop 8. Liberty Counsel will file an amicus brief at the court of appeals in defense of Prop 8.

The California Supreme Court previously stated, “The right of initiative is precious to the people and is one which the courts are zealous to preserve to the fullest tenable measure of spirit as well as letter.” Moreover, the U.S. Constitution cannot be stretched to include a right to same-sex marriage.

Except for this case, since Liberty Counsel was excluded by ADF, Liberty Counsel has represented the Campaign for California Families to defend the state’s marriage laws since 2004 and has argued at the trial, appellate and state Supreme Court levels.

They’re really furious at ADF. You can tell because they don’t get around to blaming judicial activism until the final paragraph:

Mary McAlister, Senior Litigation Counsel for Liberty Counsel, commented: “This is a classic case of judicial activism. The Constitution is unrecognizable in this opinion. This is simply the whim of one judge. It does not reflect the Constitution, the rule of law, or the will of the people. I am confident this decision will be overturned.”

Judy Shepard On Prop 8 Decision

I’m working on a round-up of reactions to today’s wonderful news that a Federal Court judge has found California’s Prop 8 unconstitutional. There are literally hundreds of statements flowing in, but this one was the most poignant. It’s from Judy Shepard, the mother of 1998 Wyoming anti-gay hate crime victim Matthew Shepard:

“These plaintiffs are law-abiding, family-oriented, tax-paying citizens whose privacy was invaded, and whose dignity was affronted, by a misguided and unconstitutional law,” Shepard continued.
 
“Their victory at trial shows that our courts still play a vital role in safeguarding the rights of minorities from majorities who misunderstand them. But more importantly, it proves the power of personal stories. Equal marriage rights are ultimately about people’s families, and during the trial, their personal need for legal recognition of their relationships came through loud and clear,” she added.
 
“After Matt came out to me, he once asked me if I thought gay couples would ever be allowed to get married,” Shepard recalled. “I told him I didn’t think it would happen in my lifetime, but it probably would in his. It’s so sad, and ironic, that it turned out the other way. But this case warms my heart, to think that his dream is still coming true.”

Judy serves on the advisory board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the group which filed the legal challenge to the ban in May on behalf of citizens denied marriages Prop 8.

Proposition 8 found unconstitutional

The word has just come in on Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Judge Walker Vaughn has found that Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage in California, is in violation of the US Constitution.

I’ll provide more information once I review the ruling, but meanwhile, go to Rex Wockner’s site to find where to celebrate. There are rallies planned throughout California and in several other states.

Ted Olson and David Boies will be holding a livestream press conference here.

UPDATE: It appears (to me) that there will be no hold placed on the ruling by Judge Vaughn.

UPDATE TWO: Items of interest:

Testimony:

From the judge’s summary of their deposition, the supporters of Prop 8 didn’t call their witnesses because their testimony would only bolster our side.

The court now determines that Blankenhorn’s testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight.
…
Blankenhorn offered opinions on the definition of marriage, the ideal family structure and potential consequences of state recognition of marriage for same-sex couples. None of Blankenhorn’s opinions is reliable.

Findings of Fact:

Marriage between a man and a woman was traditionally organized based on presumptions of a division of labor along gender lines. Men were seen as suited for certain types of work and women for others. Women were seen as suited to raise children and men were seen as suited to provide for the family.
…
California has eliminated marital obligations based on the gender of the spouse. Regardless of their sex or gender, marital partners share the same obligations to one another and to their dependants. As a result of Proposition 8, California nevertheless requires that a marriage consist of one man and one woman.

Eliminating gender and race restrictions in marriage has not deprived the institution of marriage of its vitality.

a biggie:

Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents’ assertions that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of evidence.

another biggie:

Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.

and he gets it:

Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.

The finding that conservative Christians will latch onto in demonizing Vaughn:

Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.

and the core of the case:

The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriages may become gay or lesbian. The reason children need to be protected from same-sex marriage was never articulated in official campaign advertisements. Nevertheless, the advertisements insinuated that learning about same-sex marriage could make a child gay or lesbian and that parents should dread having a gay or lesbian child.

Remember “I heard that a prince could marry a prince and I can marry a princess”?

UPDATE THREE: The conclusions, and they are BIG

Because plaintiffs seek to exercise their fundamental right to marry, their claim is subject to strict scrutiny.

But Proposition lacks even a legitimate – much less compelling – reason and cannot even withstand rational basis review. In other words, orientation deserves the same level of protection as race, but Proposition 8 would not hold up under any level of inspection.

Thus Proposition 8 fails under the Due Process constitutional provisions.

Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, as excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legislative state interest.

Thus Proposition 8 also fails under the Equal Protection constitutional provisions.

CONCLUSION:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligations to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

UPDATE FOUR:

Judge Vaughn has stayed his decision until August 6 at which time he will consider arguments to determine whether he should put a stay on the case until it reaches appeal before the 9th Circuit appeals court.

UPDATE FIVE:

You can read the full decision here.

Criticism of Choi continues

As I’ve said before, Dan Choi has no obligation to engage in activism. Nor should there be any expectation that he do so for free. The man needs to make a living.

But if his activism decisions appear in any way to be based solely on financial considerations, that is going to anger some who feel disappointed or slighted. One such person is Nonnie Ouch, the president of the Gay-Straight Alliance at Texas Tech University.

Nonnie had been a fan. (Dallas Voice)

I was sitting on the ground when you began speaking. Then I heard you say, “But of all those things that are worth fighting for, love is worth it. Love is worth it!” I got goosebumps and immediately rose to see you speak, despite my exhaustion. As you were finishing, I had tears in my eyes. What you said impacted me more than any other speaker that day. I had then decided that I was in undeniable agreement with you — that love was worth it. Love was worth what were to be sleepless nights, three-hour conference calls, upsetting those who didn’t want change, inspiring those who did, and growing into myself all at the same time. Because of you, I decided that love was worth traveling to places to participate in demonstrations and protests when I couldn’t afford it, holding people in the movement accountable for their actions, educating those who were ignorant, and loving those who hate. After all, no amount of money can equate to love, right?

But she is now disappointed.

About a month ago, after nine months of dealing with your agent, I received an e-mail directly from you. In short, you basically said that the only way I could get you to speak is if I raised enough money to bring you to Tech. No deals, no compromises, end of story.

Dan Choi is completely entitled to choose his own appearances and to base those decisions on anything he likes. But I think that he was perhaps unwise in the way in which he is conducting his business.

Appearing to prioritize payment over activism – whether true or just perception – has hurt his ability to appear self-less, an asset that is can add to the effectiveness of his advocacy. Going forward, let’s hope he is able to avoid leaving that impression and finds a way instead to convey his inability to attend events in a manner that does not disillusion local grassroots activists or anger those who may feel slighted.

Convicted Wall Street Felon To Speak At Peter LaBarbera’s “Truth Academy”

Peter LaBarbera’s so-called “Truth Academy,” which kicks off tomorrow, has an interesting lineup of characters. Among the invited speakers is Arthur Goldberg, of JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing — and what is an alternative to healing exactly? An alternative to something is something other than that something and not including that something, isn’t it? Okay, I digress).

In 1989 Goldberg was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Government. The conspiracy, in which he engineered a phony bond and investment scheme, netted him nearly $11 million in illegal fees. U.S. Attorney William O’Connor told the court at his sentencing that Goldberg’s crime was “a fraud of spectacular scope.”

More recently, one of JONAH’s  so-called “life coaches” was accused by two former clients of inappropriate sexual misconduct. Alan Downing, described as a lead therapist for JONAH and who is himself a so-called “former homosexual” who admits he is still attracted to men, essentially instructed his clients through a sort of strip tease as part of their so-called “therapy.” Alternatives to healing indeed.

Speaking of frauds of spectacular scope, another speaker at LaBarbera’s little confab is Cliff Kincaid, of “Accuracy in Media.” Kincaid has vigorously defended Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill which would impose the death penalty on LGBT people under certain circumstances, and would criminalize any one else knowing or providing services to gay people.

Other speakers include Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries; Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California; Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University Law School; Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel; Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute; and Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Gays and Ex-Gays.

Timothy Kincaid has a great rundown of the other speakers here.

Advocates Protest NJ Library Censorship with Public Reading

In a follow-up to last week’s story about the Burlington County (New Jersey) Library System pulling the rare, out-of-print LGBT coming-out anthology Revolutionary Voices from its shelves while circumventing the normal review process, local LGBT advocates are responding vigorously to the action. The Register-News reports that local advocates are staging a public reading of Revolutionary Voices and are calling on both the public library and the Rancocas Valley Regional High School library (which removed the book earlier this year) to restore the book to its rightful place.

When asked by a local branch librarian why the book was being removed, library system director Gail Sweet called the book “child pornography.” She now claims that the emails (PDF: 11 pages/296 KB) in which she said that was meant to be “facetious.” If true, this means that she didn’t take questions about the book’s removal seriously. But that’s only if it were true. All too often, any material that presents LGBT people in a neutral-to-positive light are tagged as “pornographic” by people with anti-gay animus. LGBT advocates vigorously challenge that label:

Melanie Yan, a North Hanover resident who graduated from Northern Burlington County Regional High School in June, is an actor with “Revolutionary Readings,” a group dedicated to reading passages from the book aloud. She said she knows a number of people who fall under the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) umbrella and so takes the removal personally.

“I have to really, really feel strongly about not only the issue of censorship but homosexual rights and being able to express yourself through writing,” she said.

“I think it’s absolutely ridiculous they banned it for ‘pornographic reasons’ when every single piece that’s read (in the show) is just so beautiful and so moving,” she added. “Nothing about them can even be called pornographic for any reason.”

Brandon Monokian is the group’s founder and director. A graduate of RVRHS, he said he saw similar material in his time there and was upset the high school, and then the county, decided to remove this one book from their shelves. He said he thought it was targeted because it features LGBT content.

The group has established a web site, and the next readings are scheduled for Aug. 19 in Montclair and Aug. 22 in Lumberton. The ACLU is still evaluating the case and hasn’t decided whether to act. Meanwhile, Sweet contends that while they “always willing to reconsider things,” she called the library’s attempt to withdraw the books without public notice “a nonevent that has become one.”

Maybe Sweet will consider including the book in its annual display for Banned Books Week.

Prop 8 Rallies Planned

As Timothy mentioned yesterday afternoon, we received word that a decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger is expected this afternoon between 1:00 and 3:00 pm (PDT). Already, Prop 8 supporters have already filed a request for stay of judgment pending appeal, in case Judge Walker strikes down Prop 8. If granted, this would prevent any marriages taking until the Court of Appeals hears the case.

Meanwhile, a large number of rallies are planned in California and across the U.S., forty so far and counting. Rex Wockner is keeping up to date with the latest additions.

NOM’s Marinelli loses it over attendee counts

Louis Marinelli, the bus driver for the National Organization for Marriage’s Tour of Mostly-Empty City Plazas (and Church Parking Lots) is breaking under the stress, falling apart, going bonko. And though it’s shameful to admit, I find it fascinating to watch.

Well, that and the fact that the rest of their tour is so mind-numbingly boring that he’s the only thing interesting to watch, kind of like a demented clown at a particularly bad circus.

So, anyway, I’ve been giving Marinelli a little grief over at his website about the count he reports for attendees. For some reason he thinks it’s not quite as embarrassing if he doubles or triples the tiny turnout – like 40 is bad but “over 100” is something to be proud of.

And it’s so obvious. Not only does the Trial Tracker crew do hand counts and take pictures, but even NOM will post pictures that make it clear that at stop after stop they are only talking to a handful of people in a big open space. Clearly they were hoping that fired up marriage supporters would be greeting them at each city showing that American wants to defend marriage from the homos. It’s sad.

Yet Louis tries – desperately – to put a spin on it. Stop after stop he’s put on a brave face and tried to make it look like NOM’s little tour is a glorious success. But this time he’s finally lost it.

At Des Moine there were a whopping 86 people who showed up. All in all, that’s not bad for this tour which has seen “crowds” as small as 19. But it wasn’t good enough for Louis Marinelli. Oh no, he announced:

As you can see, our 150+ supporters gathered in the shade to escape the hot glaring sunshine.

Our stalkers over at the NOM Tour Tracker love to downplay the turnout we have at our rallies. The last thing they want is for the public to see a strong turnout of Americans who support marriage between a man and a woman only.

That is why they have been constantly claiming that our turnouts have been very low. Now this picture shows about fifty people but it is taken from within the crowd. A conservative estimate would be 150 yet the stalkers from Califrornia claim we had less than 90. They do this so that they can (and they have) claim that the counter-protesters who show up to interfere with the rally “outnumber” our supporters.

Oh, but there was just on teensy little problem. You see, NOM itself had posted a front facing elevated angle picture of their crowd in a way that caught all of them. No stragglers, no “just outside the frame”, no “lots more to the left”, no “but half the crowd is behind the ones you see”; nope, every single soul listening to their speakers drone on in Des Moines was caught in glorious color. And NOM, bless their hearts, posted this picture with digital clarity that lets you blow it up big. Real big. Big enough to count every last one of the 86 people at the rally.

Now a better person than me would have been gracious. A more polite, loving observer might have suggested that perhaps it was early, maybe some were laying down behind the others, maybe there were folks way the heck back on the other side of the plaza listening. But sadly, I’m just not that noble.

So I kinda teased Louis just a bit. I maybe, just for a moment (or two) suggested that everyone reading his blogsite count for themselves and hinted a itty bitty bit that Louis was maybe stretching things just ever so slightly. Okay, maybe it wasn’t teasing a little bit; maybe it was full on taunting.

My bad.

But who knew that it would cause Louis to come completely unhinged? Who knew that this would be the result:

Our rally today in Sioux City attracted about 80 people. Our opponents claim that only 56 showed up but that of course, is because they need to make it sound like there were more people at their same-sex ‘marriage’ rally they held than who showed up to support authentic marriage between a man and a woman.

They can take a picture from forty feet away and count the heads they see. Sure from that point of view and in a two-dimensional photo, there very well may be only 56 heads visible. But said photo lacks important aspects such as depth which is why their head count of 56 is about 25 heads short.

There’s no way one photo from one vantage point is going to show each person standing in a group! It’s a very simple concept yet our opponents have made this mistake time and time again – but the point is that it actually isn’t a mistake.

They are doing this on purpose because if NOM appears to have high turnouts or at the very least turnouts that are greater than their counter protests, then they lose.

This is why time and time again we see their estimates of our turnouts to be lower than media reports and more importantly, lower than their counter-protest turnout. The first thing they posted today was about turnout focusing on 56 NOM supporters and a convienently slightly higher 64 same-sex marriage supporters.

Oh, Louis honey, we don’t care if there were 56 or 80 or 110. It’s all still so very very laughably pathetic. After months of planning and effort and with hundreds of churches in town to draw from, you’re getting next to no one. And your wild exaggerations are only making you sound sad and desperate.

But those five furious paragraphs weren’t enough. No, Louis had to prove his point (not really something I really recommend for someone with Louis’ grasp on reality). He posted a picture of part of today’s rally (about 28 people total) and a picture of two women picking up materials at NOM’s table and issued a challenge.

Challenge: Find these two women signing up to join the NOM team in the picture of the rally above.

Because if we couldn’t find these two in his cropped picture well, that proved something. Or other. But it gets worse.

You already know where this is going, don’t you?

Yeah.

Me: The blond woman in green is next to the guy in the baseball cap to the right.

Yeah, somehow I think this trip just hasn’t been as fun as Louis thought it would be. And I do feel kinda dirty for being so unkind.