Box Turtle Bulletin

Perry v. Schwarzenegger ruling tomorrow

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California has announced that Chief Justice Walker Vaughn’s decision on Perry v. Schwarzenegger – the federal case seeking to overturn Proposition 8 – will be available tomorrow. We will post the decision once we have it.

UPDATE: The decision is expected to become available between 1 and 3pm PDT.

UPDATE TWO: The supporters of Proposition 8 have already filed a request for stay of judgment pending appeal. In other words, if the court rules that Proposition 8 is a violation of the US Constitution, the supporters want for there to be no new same-sex marriages until they can appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and a decision is made by that court.

On Atlanta radio today

I’ve been invited to join Betty Couvertier’s Alternative Perspectives radio show on WRFG 93.8fm in Atlanta today. I’ll be joining the show around 7:30 EST and discussing a BTB commentary:

Conservative Christians “with a heart for the homosexual” still don’t get it

NOM in Sioux City, nothing new

The National Organization for Marriage rolled into Sioux City, Iowa, for the latest stop on their Tour of Mostly-Empty City Plazas (and Church Parking Lots) to repeat the same stuff they’ve been saying all along.

And about 54 people showed up at the Morningside Assembly of God church parking lot to hear it. Six equality supporters quietly held signs. Earlier, across town 64 marriage supporters met to pledge their continued efforts to keeping marriage legal in Iowa, a follow up to a multi-denominational rally at a church on Sunday. But about 156,500 people in Sioux City had better things to do this week than weigh in on marriage.

The newspaper will likely report on NOM’s rally and the counter-rally. But they won’t really have much to say – maybe a few paragraphs or so. And the NOM ralliers will head home to watch some quality afternoon television, having fulfilled their duty. The marriage supporters will exchange emails and make promises to be more active in the fight; maybe even a follow-up event will be discussed.

Later today, the NOM bus driver will claim that more than 150 people were there, as though that is a number that is any less embarrassing than the real number of attendees. And, not having had any “rude interlopers” to complain about, Brian Brown will within the next day or two issue another email again talking about how “intolerant” some counter-protesters were a few weeks ago in Providence and how gay marriage supporter “want to silence” him (send money).

And thus yet another day has passed in the life of NOM’s miserably boring Tour of Mostly-Empty City Plazas.

(I’m not posting pictures; they look exactly like the pictures in all the other mostly-empty parking lots – a handful of expressionless people, slightly hunched, gazing in the general direction of a podium.)

Same-Sex Marriage and Loving v. Virginia

Ta-Nehisi Coates provides some cultural context to Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court ruling striking down state anti-miscegenation laws. (He offers a surprising rationale for why some Blacks thought the law should be kept intact.) And while noting that some (and he emphasises some) African-Americans oppose linking gay rights to civil rights, he finds the link compelling and then some:

[T]he comparison with interracial marriage actually understates the evil of reserving marriage rights for certain classes of people. Banning interracial marriage meant that most black people could not marry outside of their race. This was morally indefensible, but very different than a total exclusion of gays from the institution of marriage. Throughout much of America, gays are effectively banned from marrying, not simply certain types of people, but any another compatible partner period. …

A more compelling analogy would be a law barring blacks, not from marrying other whites, but effectively from marrying anyone at all. In fact we have just such an analogy. In the antebellum South, the marriages of the vast majority of African-Americans, much like gays today, held no legal standing. Slavery is obviously, itself, a problem–but abolitionists often, and accurately, noted that among its most heinous features was its utter disrespect for the families of the enslaved. Likewise, systemic homophobia is, itself, a problem–but among its most heinous features is its utter disrespect for the families formed by gays and lesbians.

Another Criteria for Marriage

Late last night, Timothy Kincaid posted a great list of NOM’s criteria for marriage. Concerned Women for America’s Janice Crouse last week added another: If you’re Methodist, your spouse cannot be Jewish.

Glamtrack: FRC Warns Against “Gays On A Train!”

The Family Research Council is really, really wierded out  that Amtrack is behaving like a typical travel company by targeting advertising to gays. You know, to people who like to travel. Goodness, we wouldn’t want Amtrack to, you know, go all consumer-focused on us, now would we? FRC doesn’t think so, anyway. They’d rather Amtrack remain a socialist money-losing behemoth. Their action alert went out two weeks ago. Rachel Maddow and Kent Jones responded:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

NOM’s criteria for marriage

I posted this as a comment on the blogsite of NOM’s Louis Marinelli, but it amused me enough to repost it here:

The National Organization for Marriage will happily recognize my marriage if I:

marry someone 20 years older
marry someone 20 years younger
marry someone on death row
marry someone I’ve never met
marry someone of a different race
marry someone of a different faith
marry someone who clearly loves my things more than me
marry someone who has been divorced 8 times
marry someone who wants children
marry someone who doesn’t want children
marry someone who doesn’t much like sex
marry someone who can’t have sex
marry someone for companionship
marry someone for their connections
marry someone for their wealth
marry someone because my family wants me to
marry someone in a arranged marriage
marry someone with an Elvis impersonator presiding
marry someone for eternity in the Mormon temple
marry someone only until death do us part
marry absolutely anyone in absolutely any way with absolutely any purpose and absolutely any agenda

EXCEPT that they can’t have a penis. Because that’s what REALLY matters in marriage: who has a penis.

Prop 8 Report: The “Danger To Children” Theme Proved Decisive

The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Mentoring Project has just released a massive report (PDF: 13MB/511 pages, or via HTML here) which analyzes more than 10,000 pages of unreleased data from the California Prop 8 campaign. The report’s author and project founder, Dave Fleischer, concludes that many common conceptions of why the No on 8 campaign lost the November 2008 ballot measure are factually wrong. In particular, Fleischer finds that the most critical element in the Yes on 8’s victory, aside from its massive fundraising, was the No on 8 campaign’s delay in countering the false “danger to children” message ran by supporters of Prop 8.

Here are what Fleischer called the “top 10 facts and findings of the report:

1. Our base shrank: Fleischer contends that that Yes on 8 was about to peel away voters who had supported same-sex marriage just six weeks before election day. He estimates that from September 22, at least 5% of voters moved towards the anti-gay side. The largest shifts occurred among parents, white Democrats, Latinas, and voters in the greater Bay area.

2. The Yes on 8 side’s “danger to children” message was very effective, and we keep ignoring that at our peril. This matches precisely my one enduring criticism of the No on 1 campaign in Maine: They didn’t learn the lesson of California. During that 2009 campaign in Maine, I looked at the messaging from both sides and found the “no” side’s response to be weak to nonexistent, particularly where it fails to address the other side’s dishonest “danger to children message.” I got a lot of flack for that from Matt Forman, but this report vindicates my concerns. Which leads directly to the next finding:

3. Parents ran away: Fleischer notes that “Almost three-quarters of the net movement toward the ban was among parents with kids under 18 living at home” — almost 500,00 of them. He went on:

The lesson of the Yes on 8 campaign: when parents hear that their kids are in danger, even if it’s a lie some of them believe it — particularly when the lie largely goes unanswered.

This runs counter to the conventional wisdom that African-American voters cost us the election. If we had been able to hold onto more of those parts of other demographics where we lost ground during the campaign — including demographics which should have been in our pocket (white Democrats and Bay Area voters), it would have made a huge difference in the outcome.

4. Smart but too late: The most costly mistake, according to Fleischer, was the delay on the No on 8 side in answering the “danger to children.” When they finally got around to issuing an ad to confront the Yes on 8 message, the response ad was one of “two most effective moves made by No on 8” (the other being the massive fundraising surge).

5. Record breaking fundraising. No on 8 was particularly effective with online fundraising.

6. Record-breaking Field. No on 8 mobilized some 51,000 volunteers. Unfortunately the impact of the massive grassroots effort was squandered because the campaign “focused on building a list of identified supporters who were most already very likely to vote.” It seems to me a greater effort should have been expended in identifying supporters who might not vote, and identifying the movable middle that could be persuaded through one-on-one contact.

7. One-Sided Message Discipline. The Yes on 8’s messaging was consisted, clear, direct, and repetitive. The No on 8’s messaging wandered, partly because – – –

8. No on 8 Changed Horses in Midstream: A month before election day, No o n8 installed new leaders, and the new ads were very different from those approved by prior leaders. However, I think it should be noted that the response ad which finally ran in response to the “danger to children” theme in late October was brought out by the new regime. So it seems to me the problem of inconsistent messaging wasn’t necessarily the fault of the new regime, but was perhaps more a reflection of the older regime’s reluctance to take the harder-hitting message head-on.

9. Avoiding the “G” word. Yup. Gay. Look, Prop 8 was all about gay marriage. Everybody new it. Those who supported Prop 8 knew it, those who opposed it knew it, and those who were in the middle knew it. It’s not like it was some big secret that Not on 8 had to keep hidden. Everyone was already talking about it. Fleischer wrote:

Polling supported the same approach: clear arguments about LGBT people and use of the word “gay” tested less well than abstract arguments and vagueness. But the polling advice is very likely an artifact of the polling itself as well as a reflection of actual voter preferences, and is fundamentally irrelevant: voters were going to learn that Prop 8 concerned gay people whether or not No on 8 told them. Although the No on 8 executive committee resisted the pressure and insisted on the use of the word “gay” when it was operating as a decision-making body, tension between the two impulses compromised message discipline. Results included message tentativeness, gay-avoidance in the later No on 8 ads, and a “de-gayed” campaign in general. Ultimately, the only two No on 8 TV ads that had a measurable impact on voters were the only two that used the word “gay.”

10: Not so close. This is perhaps the most worrisome aspect of the outcome. Prop 8 passed by 600,000 votes. But Fleischer believes that another 400,000 thought that voting “no” was a vote against same-sex marriage, not a vote for it. “To reverse the result,” he writes, “we start out 1,000,000 votes behind. This runs counter to the belief that the election was so close that we can easily reverse the result.

Our opponents have a winning message. It’s a false message, but it wins elections every single time. Anita Bryant used the “danger to children” theme thirty-five years ago, and we are still losing battles to it today. That sad fact is, that it resonates, and we ignore it at our peril Fleschman writes:

The need to learn from history is particularly acute because the central message of the anti-LGBT side isn’t new. Our opposition keeps recycling the spurious idea that kids are in danger. For example, the anti-gay Yes on 1 campaign in Maine in 2009 used exactly the same message as the Yes on 8 campaign in 2008. Both echoed anti-gay campaigns going back at least to 1977. Yet the pro-LGBT side often fails to anticipate that the time-tested anti-gay message is coming or underestimates its effect. The No on 8 campaign was inadequately prepared when the same ugly arguments surfaced in the final thirty days before the election. The more of us on the pro-LGBT side who learn and recall history, the more likely we will be prepared the next time. Preparation will increase our chances of success.

Similarly, some of the mistakes in No on 8 recall mistakes made by pro-LGBT campaigns across the country. … Foremost among them is hoping that avoidance of the kids issue will minimize its impact. It doesn’t.

This is an incredible document, one that should be required reading for all future campaign managers wherever same-sex marriage (or any other LGBT issue) comes up on the ballot.

Focus Anounces 13% Layoff

Confirming rumors which circulated last week, Focus On the Family has announced that they are laying off 110 workers, bringing the work force down to 750. That is down significantly from 2002, when Focus had 1,400 employees. The employees affected by the latest round were notified Friday. Those affected include  more than fifteen managers, including two senior executives. No word on who among the senior staff got the axe.

Why many ex-gays go to ex-gay ministries

It can be hard to understand the reasons why someone would go into the ex-gay movement. Those who are less familiar with the phenomenon tend to think that it is a matter of guilt or shame that drives gullible people to try and change their orientation. Others think that it is oppressive parents and family, a culture that is homophobic or a church that puts pressure on an impressionable youth.

And, yes those are reasons. There are otherwise happy people who are so subjected to pressure or guilt that they believe that they must go through ex-gay ministry or they will lose their families and friends and burn in Hell forever.

But it isn’t just that simple. There are others who go looking for help from an ex-gay ministry in desperation because their life is in chaos and they don’t know what else to do. Their own personal circumstances are so out of control that they need help.

It is only natural to look for a cause for our unhappiness. It’s my job or my girlfriend or my financial situation and if only it would change then I could really be happy. For some gay people they look at their chaos and think “if only I weren’t gay!”

This week I heard from one such person. I won’t use his name – though he’s given me permission – because I see his story as an illustration of so many ex-gay stories that seem to have this theme.

My friend has been in and out of ex-gay ministry for quite a few years, never finding either within the ex-gay community or within the gay community exactly what he needed. Here are his past few years in his own words.

I am sure by now you heard that about two years ago I went back into the ex-gay lifestyle and closed myself off from the “gay world” I had pretty much gotten ride of all my gay friends and turned my back on people that loved me. In the last year I have come out again. For the final time and took some time off to do some reflecting as to what God wants to see me doing.

Here is a synopsis of what happened.

… for many years I was a sex addict till this day I am a recovering sex addict. By the grace of God I am sober. The sex addiction kept me in chains and I wasn’t able to experience true freedom until I dealt with that subject. I thought that being gay I had to sleep with as many men as possible, but that wasn’t the case. I thought it was what all gay men wanted and that’s not how I wanted to live. So I kept going back and forth from being ex-gay to gay. I would get tired of being gay because of the addiction and I would then run to the church. When I couldn’t stand trying to be straight I would give up get depressed and end up in the hospital for suicidal thoughts and depression.

I entered rehab this past year and it was the best thing for me. I was able to really face the addiction and can happily say that I have been sober for over 90 days. When I refer to being sober for me it is not having anonymous sex. Sex sobriety is such a fine line and everyone must define their own bottom line behavior. Mine is no sex out of a committed loving relationship.

I’m writing this because I am hoping that someone can benefit from my story. That someone can be saved from the heartache and pain that I went through. I am currently writing a book as well. It is my autobiography hopefully to be completed by the end of the year. I am hoping you can share this with your readers to give hope to others that being gay is ok. That being Christian is ok too. Its how we live our lives that makes a difference.

My friend is finding help. For perhaps the first time he’s looking at his life and seeing the problem and not the symptoms. And for that I am very happy.

But I can see why it has taken him so long.

One of the memes of ex-gay ministry is that the ‘homosexual lifestyle’ is destructive, demeaning, and damaging. My friend’s story of sexual addiction did not seem peculiar or out of the norm, it was just what it’s like ‘in the gay life.’ At his ex-gay ministry, he was bound to hear confirmation of this idea.

But we should not assume that his ministry was lying to him or trying to deceive him; local groups do believe what they say. These scary stories about the homosexual lifestyle full of misery and despair are not created for the consumption of gullible youth – these scary stories are the real lives of real people who really experienced life that way.

And it makes sense. If you are living a life full of contentment and meaning and you have someone to love and who cares for you, you aren’t as likely to go looking for a way to become heterosexual. If you aren’t miserable, then you aren’t looking for something on which to blame your misery. So naturally, “life of desperation” is the norm as experienced for many ex-gays.

But we as a community play our part in the confusion. Far too often we act as though getting the next hot guy is what it means to be gay (women do this less) and confirm these ideas.

Yes, I know that there are plenty of couples, but they are home barbecuing and walking the dog. And there are bowling leagues and ski clubs and church groups and social networks. But if it’s Saturday night and you’re single and may do what many gay and straight singles do, go out looking for love. Or, you go online where there is no pretense of even socializing; no one is on Manhunt looking to meet up for coffee and talk about the news of the day.

And yes I know that heterosexuals do it too. Go to any bar in any town where young people congregate and you’ll see plenty of indiscriminate straight sexual behavior. Or watch a reality TV show. We have no monopoly on “having to sleep with as many people as possible” in order to feel good about one’s self.

I don’t know the solution. But I hope we as a community of individuals can mature to where we provide more messages of substance and meaning – find a way to more frequently remind ourselves and the more vulnerable members of our community (including those still in ex-gay ministries) that sex really isn’t what defines us.

Being gay is not where you put your penis, it’s where you put your heart.

Chilean parliamentarian to propose marriage equality law

From Reuters:

The head of Chile’s Socialist party, Fulvio Rossi, told reporters on Sunday that he planned to sponsor a bill to legalize gay marriage in the country, as occurred last month in neighboring Argentina.

The bill does not have the support of the President and the Church will put up a fight. However, this step may put pressure on the legislature to pass a civil unions bill.

Orthodox Rabbis issue a statement on homosexuality

A collection of Orthodox Rabbis have issued a statement on homosexuality (JTA):

Dozens of Orthodox rabbis have signed a statement of principles calling for the acceptance of homosexuals in the Orthodox community.

This statement is careful to lay out up front that homosexual acts are not acceptable. But it also recognizes that gay Orthodox Jews exist and that many of them are in relationships and calls for their inclusion anyway.

Here are the points that I find most interesting:

• Mistreatment of gay people is “a violation of Torah prohibitions that embody the deepest values of Judaism.”
• Those with a homosexual orientation have the religious right to reject ex-gay therapy which they reasonably see as useless or dangerous.
• Synagogues can set their own standards for membership with regard to gay individuals or gay couples who are in violation of halakha, but those standards have to also be applied fairly and objectively to others who violate halakha.
• Families should not cut off their gay children.
• Synagogues and schools should accept and embrace the children of gay couples.
• And most importantly: “Jews who have an exclusively homosexual orientation should, under most circumstances, not be encouraged to marry someone of the other gender, as this can lead to great tragedy, unrequited love, shame, dishonesty and ruined lives.”

Of course this does not go nearly as far as I would like. The statement makes clear that Orthodox Judaism is opposed to marriage for gay people or for encouraging homosexual Jews to find a partner. But it does recognize reality and encourages Orthodox Judaism to treat gay people decently. And once you start seeing gays as real people, change often soon follows thereafter.

(This is not to suggest that I expect all of Orthodox Judaism to embrace full religious equality for gay couples any time soon. I drive through Hancock Park daily and I still see men wearing a shtreimel(a giant fur hat that sort of resembles a cheese wheel) and heavy black suit in the heat of the summer. If your faith, culture, and tradition won’t let you wear clothing that is fitting with your climate, it surely is not going to accommodate your sexuality.)

This statement is reflective mostly of the views of Modern Orthodox Judaism, but about 150 Rabbis have signed on so far.

The full statement is after the break.

Read the rest of this entry »

NOM in Des Moines

The National Organization for Marriage rolled into Des Moines, Iowa, today determined to turn back time. Last year the state Supreme Court unanimously found that denying gay people the right to marry the person they love is contradictory to the protections found in the state constitution. And since April 2009, over 2000 same-sex couples have married in the state.

As of today, the sky hasn’t fallen. But NOM is there anyway to complain that the residents didn’t get to vote on the judicial decision or get to change their constitution by iterating which people are not entitled to equal treatment under the law.

It’s a toasty 87 degrees in Des Moines today and this is a muggy summer. So when it became evident that there were not going to be large crowds showing up, NOM moved it’s little meeting off of the top of the Capitol steps and onto the edge of the entirely-empty plaza so that their ralliers could do so sitting in lawnchairs in the shade of trees.

And, considering the age of their audience, that was probably a good idea. It’s hard to see detail of the folks in the back, but as best I can tell, there were maybe 3 or 4 NOM supporters in Des Moines under the age of 60. And while I have respect for my elders, this is a visual reminder that NOM’s quest is doomed, time is not on their side.

Considering how outraged NOM thinks that Iowans should be over gay marriage, NOM’s turnout continued to be sad. Trial Tracker counted 86 supporters and 43 counter-protesters standing silently on the side with colorful and positive signs. A pro-gay rally is planned at another location in an hour or so.

So this tour stop is yet another snoozer. I’m starting to think that the only tangible outcome from the NOM Tour of Mostly-Empty City Plazas is the opportunity for gay and gay-supportive locals to get a taste of activism and strengthen their sense of community.

UPDATE: NOM has posted a picture which shows their total rally. My count is the same as Trial Tracker’s, 86 listeners.

They also posted a pic of the back of the very few young people present. One in wearing a shirt touting his involvement in Glen Beck’s 912 project.

UPDATE TWO: One Iowa had a counter protest two miles down the road and an hour later where 298 people showed up to support marriage equality. (Tour Tracker)

UPDATE THREE: It looks like NOM has a new slogan (or one I’ve not noticed before). I guess they recognize that there is value in our arguments, ideas, and imagery so they are doing their best to co-opt them.

When we joined with Coretta Scott King and Mildred Loving to speak of our struggle for equality in terms of civil rights, that was a powerful message. Seeing our success, Brian Brown has decided to begin (absurdly) claiming that his effort to deny equality to gay people is the “new civil rights struggle.”

And now seeing that the term “marriage equality” is one that resonates with undecided Americans who strongly value the concept of “equal”, NOM is using the following visual campaign:

To which I say, “Great! Please keep using those signs. Please keep talking about civil rights.”

What NOM does not recognize is that these words and associations only work for our community because they resonate and agree with our message. When we speak of civil rights, we are talking about rights being denied to a class of people. When we talk about equality, we mean treatment that is the same.

So go right ahead, Brian. Remind the public that there is still a struggle in this country for civil equality and freedom. Please bring the words “marriage” and “equal” onto the same page. When I glanced at the image, I thought it was supporting marriage equality, and I’m sure I’m not alone.

The more you talk about civil rights struggles, Brian, and the more you visually tie the ideas of marriage and equality, the stronger your opposition becomes.

Because we know that words and ideas have meaning and we are not using them hollowly.

The protest NOM does NOT want to see

At each stop on their Tour of Mostly-Empty City Plazas, the National Organization for Marriage pays far more time and attention to those protesting them than they do to their own supporters. If the protest is unruly, they make a huge stink about how they are being their denied their right to free speech (not subjected to criticism) and being shouted down by those who have talk about tolerance but have no tolerance (for NOM’s intolerance).

HCR even speculated that their sole purpose for the tour was to find someone out there who would threaten them and justify their efforts to keep their donors and supporters anonymous.

But while NOM unquestionably delighted in the Providence rally at which a few equality activists stormed the podium and gave them good video and were even pleased by their ability to edit the tape of the Madison rally so as to make it appear that protesters were deliberately screaming at and booing a priest while he was praying, I don’t think they much will enjoy the counter-protest planned by Stand-Up Florida for their Orlando stop.

Once at the protest, guest speakers will speak words of wisdom from their hearts. We have a great host of speakers attending this counter protest and the Angels from the Angel Action Network will also appear to block the N.O.M. protesters from our counter protest. We will be working in conjuction with a group, Come Out Orlando.

We also will be offering candles for a vigil and for those who would like to kneel down and pray with us in a silent prayer for N.O.M.

We will finish the counter protest, with our backs facing N.O.M., singing “Amazing Grace.”

I just don’t think that NOM has much use for video of their opponents singing Amazing Grace. And they certainly don’t want news cameras contrasting their supporters in their lawnchairs with ernest gay and gay-supporting people in silent prayer. It makes it hard to claim that you are the good guy.

I can’t wait to see the pictures.

Congrats Joe McElderry, welcome out

Britian’s 2009 X-Factor winner, Joe McElderry chose to publicly reveal his sexual orientation this week. And so far the response has been positive. (Daily Mail)

‘I have had nothing but support from you and many of you have been very open in saying that you will continue to support me whatever my sexuality.

‘It is important to me to let you know first, so that you know the stories in the papers are true. I made the choice to speak openly about this.

‘Everything is going well and I’m really happy to be able to move forward from here

Here’s wishing Joe much success.