Box Turtle Bulletin

Gay couples sue Hawaii for rights

In 1993, the Supreme Court of Hawaii found that it was discriminatory to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This set off a wave of “defense of marriage acts” which limited marriage to opposite sex couples in 60% of the states.

However, Hawaii was the first to amend its constitution in 1998, and their approach was different from those which would follow. It did not ban same-sex marriage or any benefits. Rather, it simply said

The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.

And the state legislature promptly did so. But as a token effort to pretend that it was not discriminating, it created something called reciprocal beneficial registration.

This unique system would allow any two adults, be they a couple, a parent and child, bowling buddies, or anyone else, to mail a form to the Department of Health and thereby become a beneficiary of the other. Benefits are very limited and include rights, workers compensation, the right to sue for wrongful death, health insurance and pension benefits for state employees, hospital visitation, and healthcare decisionmaking.

These are not in any way equivalent to marriage. And, indeed, they seem to have been crafted specifically to deny state recognition to couples. While there are a few pass-through benefits, there are no mutual obligations of support or protection.

So this week six same-sex couples sued the state for equivalent rights. (AP)

Six gay couples in Hawaii are filing a lawsuit Thursday asking for the same rights as married couples, three weeks after Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed a same-sex civil unions measure.

The lawsuit doesn’t seek the titles of “marriage” or “civil unions” for gay partners. Instead, it requests that the court system extend them the benefits and responsibilities of marriage based on the Hawaii Constitution’s prohibition against sex discrimination.

Should Neil Abercrombie win the Democratic Primary for Hawaii Governor, he is expected to win the general election. Then the legislature will probably pass civil unions in 2011 and Abercrombie will sign such a bill. At that time the lawsuit would be dropped.

However, if Abercrombie does not win the primary, the case will probably continue to the state supreme court. His opponent Mufi Hannemann has said that he would veto such a bill, as would the Repulican nominees.

Two of the five Supreme Court Justices were part of the court when Baehr v. Lewin, the case that determined Hawaii to be in violation of its constition, was decided; both sided with equality. One justice was appointed by a Democrat, and two were appointed by Governor Lingle – who just vetoed civil unions – though only one of them is a Republican.

Catholic Church opposes freedom of assembly in Jerusalem

The annual gay pride march in Jerusalem took place this year with few problems. (AP)

Thousands of Israelis marched calmly Thursday in Jerusalem’s longest gay pride parade despite opposition from anti-gay demonstrators.

Carrying rainbow banners, several thousand demonstrators walked along the 1.5 mile (2.5 kilometer) route. A few dozen black-suited ultra-Orthodox Jewish protesters at the beginning and end of the route held signs denouncing homosexuals, with slogans like “Gay Play in Hell, Not Jerusalem.” Many ultra-Orthodox Jews consider homosexuality an abomination.

But, unlike previous years, the ultra-Orthodox did not physically attack the marchers and no one hurt.

However, the Catholic Church has now given its opinion. Perhaps to no one’s surprise, the Church is in opposition to the freedom of assembly in the Holy City. (SL Tribune)

The Catholic Church’s highest official in the Holy Land has sharply criticized Israeli authorities for permitting a gay pride march through the streets of Jerusalem.

In a statement Friday after the city’s eighth annual Gay Pride Parade, which attracted 3,000 marchers, Latin Patriarch Fouad Twal said the parade, “its organizers and the authorities who allow it, care neither for the feelings of families nor the holiness of this city.” The patriarch said gays can “have their parade wherever they want,” as long as it is not in Jerusalem.

Ya know, it’s funny. When anti-gays oppose our rights, they love to say that they aren’t opposed to us as people or our rights in general, but it’s only these rights here that they oppose.

If we are wanting marriage in California, they aren’t opposed to civil unions, just marriage.

When we want civil unions in Hawaii, they aren’t opposed to all all recognition, just civil unions that are too close to marriage.

When we want limited domestic partnerships in Colorado that offer a few protections, they don’t oppose hospital visitation, just giving state sanction to homosexual relations.

When we ask a hospital to allow gay people to decide who will make medical decision, they don’t oppose us living how we want, they just want to protect the rights of the family to decide what is best.

When sodomy laws were overturned allowing us to live as we want without threat, they didn’t want us thrown in jail much, they just wanted to enact social disapproval of homosexual acts.

And on it goes.

So when Patriarch Twal says we can have our parades wherever we want, just not in Jerusalem, I’m frankly skeptical. Tell us Partriarch Twal, exactly where on the globe is it that the Catholic Church supports gay people marching?

NOM takes Saturday off

The National Organization for Marriage has explained the tiny crowds showing up for their Tour of Mostly-Empty City Plazas as being because their supporters have real jobs. Well, it’s Saturday and many people are off work for the weekend.

So it does make it a bit peculiar that NOM decided not to hold a rally today.

NOM in Rochester: “we’ll be treated as bigots”

The National Organization for Marriage’s Summer for Marriage Tour rolled into a church parking lot set in a big green pasture (perhaps it needed fertilizer) in Rochester, MN. And the attendance was small (Tour Tracker):

18 NOM attendees
9 NOM staffers/volunteers
2 priests
7 protesters

As absolutely nothing new or even remotely interesting resulted from NOM’s increasingly boring tour, I want to touch on something that Brian Brown said there that he and Maggie Gallagher have been saying a lot lately:

“If we do not stand up for marriage we will be treated under the law as bigots.”

Objecting to being called a bigot has featured large in their talking points as of late. But they aren’t really worried about what anyone calls them; it’s a larger issue than that.

Brian and Maggie fear that the world is changing. They fear that it may soon become normal to treat gay people with acceptance, respect and equality. They fear what anti-gay extremists refer to as the “normalization of homosexuality.”

And they have reason to fear.

Consider, if you will, the man or woman who in 1963 firmly believed that it was right to segregate by race. At the time, their views were not outside the range of normal; they were not considered to be peculiar or automatically assumed to be grounded in hatred. When George Wallace stood in the schoolroom door, he was a reflection of his time and culture and held a view that was supported by the majority of his constituents. He was certain that God was on his side.

But time has not been kind to the image of George Wallace and his supporters. At this point we look back and marvel at the fear and animus that was so embedded into a culture that kind and decent people accepted these attitudes and presumptions as normal and good and ordered by God. “It was bald-faced bigotry,” we say, and have little patience or forgiveness for that part of our history.

And Brian and Maggie fear that this is likely to be their fate.

And so it is with determination that they fight forward, hoping to turn back a culture that has already passed the tipping point. Like George Wallace, they declare that the public is behind them and toss the gauntlet declaring heterosexual privilege now, heterosexual privilege tomorrow, heterosexual privilege forever.

And with increasing shrillness they desperately look for a way to come out on the winning side of history. They hope that by claiming the rhetoric of civil rights they can achieve the success of that movement. In desperation they turn to the prayers of priests begging for divine intervention.

But I think that they know by now that there is no turning back. Marriage’s George Wallace moment was in 2004 when George W. Bush made same-sex marriage a campaign issue. That was the peak of opposition and its been on a steady decline since. Equality is coming and the signs are everywhere.

More and more the Democratic leaders are speaking in terms of equality, and more and more Republicans are unwilling to be seen as equality’s enemy. When Laura Bush said that she “disagreed” with the FMA, it disheartened them. When Cindy McCain endorsed marriage equality the end seemed so much closer. Furiously they lashed out at Tom Campbell for daring to endorse marriage.

Loudly they gloat about the California vote, knowing that polls reveal that it soon will be reversed. They bluff and demand the right to vote in Washington, DC, even while knowing that there’s a good chance they would lose that vote. As they look out at the few dozen people who park their lawnchair at their rallies, they cannot help but know what we already know.

Equality is coming. Time is on our side.

The future world will likely look back and wonder how the majority of Americans let a handful of religious zealots dictate discrimination. They’ll marvel at the fear and animus that is so embedded into our culture that kind and decent people accept these attitudes and presumptions as normal and good and ordered by God. “It was bald-faced bigotry,” they will say, and will have little patience or forgiveness for this part of our history.

And so Brian and Maggie fight on. Because they know that “we’ll be treated as bigots.”

Argentinans begin to marry

Marriage equality has begun in Argentina (Star-Telegram)

After a 27-year courtship, two men on Friday became the first gay couple to wed under Argentina’s historic same-sex marriage law – the first of its kind for a Latin American nation.

Jose Luis Navarro, 54, and Miguel Angel Calefato, 65, tied the knot in provincial Santiago del Estero in an early morning ceremony where a civil registry official used a pen to cross out “man and woman” on the marriage license and wrote in “contracting parties.”

Their honeymoon is being provided by the Mexico City tourism agency. (Mexico City is the only other locality in Latin America to provide marriage equality.)

Is Dan Choi paid for activism?

LezGetReal’s Melanie Nathan is reporting some interesting observations about Lt. Dan Choi’s activism. Although she had been a fan and supporter, her curiosity was peaked by Choi’s seeming delay in reporting his discharge.

After reading the piece, it seemed rather odd to me that a month had gone by and Dan had not made his discharge public. I too thought, for the man who has become the face of DADT repeal, letting people know about an event like his discharge under DADT should have been a pretty important event to Dan as well. As an activist why did he not immediately inform the LGBT community, all who have invested in his journey and had eyes on his every move.

So while not my beat, I began to look for my own answers. I first asked Dr. Brooks what was up with all of this?

She told me she thought, in her opinion, Choi had probably turned “pro” and the reason for not saying anything about the discharge might stem from the fact the uniform was a pretty good prop and to wear the uniform after you are discharged, is a federal crime. She also told me she has been trying to get him to clear up some questions she had about financial issues for better then a month.

Melanie’s investigation led her to the discovery that Dan Choi has an agent and is being paid speakers fees for his appearances.

One of many sources who asked to remain anonymous, has informed Lez Get Real “I know for a fact that what you are saying about Lt. Choi is true and factual. He spoke at Texas A & M. Lt. Choi was one of my biggest inspirations because I too am a US Veteran, and I am gay too. I have since also questioned his motives tremendously, and lost a lot of respect for him as a person, and as a soldier and activist.

He required Texas A & M to pay him $7500 and then tacked on an additional $2300 for travel expenses. He also required that they fly him first class. His agent is also a miserable human being. Since this was done through a school I’m sure there are records of it.

This appeared consistent with a story of students at Texas Tech who were unable to bring Choi to their campus because they did not have a budget for the speakers fees. And follow up work confirmed the stories.

I already checked with a source involved in the deal with Choi, he confirmed that Dan was paid. He told me that his TX AE has a budget for speakers and expects to pay. They dealt only with the Agent. I was told that The Tech Kids never had a budget.

Nathan is concerned that this may be motivating some of Choi’s activism.

The nature of his behavior is what impacts and ups his price on the speaker circuit, whether motivated by such or not; some of the antics may not be good for DADT repeal. My assertion is that if one does not have pure motives while being an activist, hampered by publicity stunts that serve to raise one’s price, and get one from coach to first class, points to a serious conflict of interests, unless the boundaries are very clear and then not crossed. In this instance Dan’s silence has created doubt as to whether there are any boundaries at all.

Personally, I find nothing wrong with professional speakers being paid speaker fees. While most activists do so on their own dollar – often at great personal expense – professional speakers need to buy food and housing as much as the rest of us. Life is great when you get paid for doing what you love and for making the world a better place.

And if Dan Choi wants to engage in public actions which are designed to increase his marketability, I have no objection. If his goal is to raise his public profile so as to maximize his financial future, that is only smart. Plenty of celebrities have additional motivations attached to their good works.

But, if Nathan’s report is true, it does provide some explanation for Choi’s recent actions. And it does flavor my perspective on his character and my willingness to support his activism decisions without question.

Layoffs Rumored at Focus On the Family

The Colorado Springs-based organization has been faring poorly over the past several years. Today the Colorado Springs Gazette reports that Focus On the Family is likely to incur yet another round of downsizing in order to fit its operations within declining revenues. Rumors have it that another 100 people may lose their jobs.

Focus currently employs about 850 people, which is significantly down from its peak of about 1,500 in 2000.

Why the Cornyn meeting matters

No one does homophobia like a Texas Republican. This year’s party platform is so ragingly anti-gay that it looks like it could have been drafted by any of the colorful people who make a living off of scaring folks about The Homosexual Agenda.

So, then, why is Texas Senator John Cornyn speaking at a fundraiser for the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay group? And, more importantly, what does this say about the current and future state of gay politics within the Republican Party?

For many conservative Republicans, Log Cabin is seen as an enemy to the Party. They are not “real” Republicans but rather (in the words of American Family Association’s Robert Knight) a Trojan Horse:

“It’s important to understand that the Log Cabin Republicans aren’t really a Republican group; they’re a group of homosexual activists who are inside the Republican Party, trying to neutralize the party on the issue of homosexual activism,” he explains. “It’s sort of a voluntary disarmament that they’re advising the Republicans to undertake.”

And for some Republicans, an organization of gay Republicans is no more valid than a club of Republican murders or Republican pedophiles. They would no more acknowledge Log Cabin’s existence than they would of the Republican Socialists Club – it’s an impossible contradiction in terms.

Conservative Republicans – or more accurately, purist Republicans – have long pretended that LCR didn’t exist. And when they did mention the group, it was as an illustration of Who We Are Not Like or in mockery. The term RINO (“Republican In Name Only”) is often applied as a slur against fiscally conservative people who didn’t follow the party’s social agenda.

And this is why it is important that Log Cabin receive official recognition from ranking officials within the Party and by Party structure. As the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Cornyn’s presence provides authentication, it says “you are real Republicans.” It says that Robert Knight is wrong, the disagreements between Cornyn and Log Cabin are defining.

And that is a very important acknowledgment. And it adds to a process that is changing the dynamic. Instead of being outsiders, vile scum whose opinions do not even matter (who cares what a rapist has to say?), gay Republicans are becoming family with whom they do not agree. Instead of being dismissed out of hand, your voice can be heard even if it does not immediately persuade change.

And, even more importantly, it sends a message to moderate members of the party that being friendly with gay activists is not political suicide. It says that you can consider pro-gay perspectives and still be considered “a good Republican”. (And I think that we have been seeing this for a while without giving it proper attention).

What will this do on a personal level? Will this shift Cornyn’s opinions or votes? Probably not. But it may change his future language.

Will this result in a change in policy? Probably not. But it may make it less easy for the American Family Association to make wild claims about “what gays are like”. And it may make it more acceptable for rogues to “just disagree” with the party position and support our community on some issues.

Our community says over and over and over that coming out is the most important thing to bring about social advancement. Nothing changes minds more than exposure to a real living gay person whom you like.

And that is also true in politics. Nothing – absolutely nothing – will change Republican Party positions on gay issues more quickly or more effectively than being exposed to gay people. And that is why this is such a tremendously important step.

JONAH’s Name Change Reveals Their True Mission

Mike Airhart noticed that the Jewish ex-gay group, JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality), has changed its name somewhat. The new name, which was designed to fit the JONAH acronym, is now Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing.

This grammatically-challenged name change reveals quite a lot. Remember, they used to offer “alternatives to homosexuality.” You know, where an alternative to homosexuality is… well, whatever it is, it’s definitely not homosexuality.

So now they offer alternatives to healing. Alternatives which, you know, are definitely not healing.

It’s good to see that they chose a name to reflect that fact. Arthur Goldberg, who heads the organization, was revealed last February as being a convicted Wall Street swindler. And more recently, a JONAH affiliated “life coach” was accused by two former clients of sexual impropriety by, essentially, guiding his clients through a strip tease as part of their so-called “therapy.”

So yeah. Alternatives to healing indeed.

A Question for Maggie Gallagher

Four days have passed since the infamous “kill the gays” sign appeared at NOM’s Indianapolis rally. And four days of silence on the sign from NOM. Instead, they’ve been complaining that NOM are the victims — that’s right, victims! — of the mean old gays.

The sign quotes Leviticus. Rob Tisinai points out that NOM President Maggie Gallagher has defended others who has cited the Levitical death penalty for gay men. So now is the time for a direct question to Maggie Gallagher. Leviticus 20:13 says:

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Maggie, do you or do you not agree with this statement?

[Graphic by Rob Tisinai]

Does This Mean We Need To Rename BTB?

Texas Sen. John Cornyn (R) says he wants to find common ground with Log Cabin Republicans and will “drop by” the group’s political action committee reception before a September fundraiser in Washington, D.C.:

“Some things we won’t agree on,” Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said. “But I think it’s always better to talk and then try find those things we can agree on rather than just assume there’s no common ground whatsoever.”

Cornyn said same-sex marriage is “absolutely” one of those things he and LCR members don’t agree on, but he’s happy to talk to them.

“I don’t want people to misunderstand and think that I don’t respect the dignity of every human being regardless of sexual orientation,” Cornyn said.

In that vein, he thought attending the fundraising event was something he should do, he said.

John Wright at The Dallas Voice reminds us that we shouldn’t expect too much from the exchange:

We’re sure some will try to argue this is a sign of progress, but we mustn’t forget Cornyn’s strong support for a federal marriage amendment, his vote against hate crimes last year, his stated opposition to DADT repeal, and his all-but-certain vote against ENDA if it ever reaches the Senate floor. Cornyn has received a zero on every Human Rights Campaign Congressional Scorecard since he took office.

Wright sees this latest development as “nothing more than pandering for votes and money from gay Republicans across the country.” I would tend to agree, since there seems to be no hint of concession on any of the issues that directly concern LGBT people. Cornyn is chair of the GOP’s Senate campaign committee.

It was during the 2004 debate over the Federal Marriage Amendment that Cornyn’s famous “Box Turtle” quote entered the lexicon. A prepared draft of the speech he was to give to the Heritage Foundation on his support for the proposed amendment contained the line:

It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right… 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.

When he actually gave the speech, he skipped the line. But the Washington Post, working on the prepared draft released by Cornyn’s office, published the statement as provided. In the ensuing outcry over the comparison between gays and box turtles, Cornyn protested that he didn’t actually say the lines that his office had been released to news media. The Post later published a clarification.

United Methodists to revisit Judicial Council gay-exclusion ruling

See Update below

In 2005, Ed Johnson, pastor of South Hill United Methodist Church in Virginia, refused church membership to a gay man that would not promise to live celibately. This exclusion based on solely sexual orientation was unacceptable to Bishop Charlene Kammerer, who put pastor Johnson on unpaid leave until such time as he recanted and accepted the man as member.

Anti-gay activists within the United Methodist (and without) saw this as defying a holy man’s stand for God and righteousness and sued before the Church’s Judicial Council. On October 30th of that year, the Judicial Council, controlled by conservatives, ruled that Edward Johnson had rightfully used his pastoral discretion in refusing to accept an openly gay man as a member of his church and reinstated Johnson as the head of South Hill UMC.

This proved to be a pyrrhic victory. Rather than quietly accept the decision, the Council of Bishops was infuriated. First it challenged the authority of Bishops to administer the flock in their region, and secondly (and more importantly) it sent out a message that the UMC was exclusionary and that it did not welcome worshipers unless they fit a certain criteria.

Within a week the Council of Bishops unanimously voted to issue a letter saying that, contrary to the Council’s decision, homosexuality was not a barrier to membership in the United Methodist Church. This letter had the support of both liberals and conservatives including some African Bishops (the part of the international church that is most conservative).

Shortly thereafter Johnson was relocated to another church and his replacement quickly invited the gay man to become a member of South Hill UMC.

In 2008, there was much hope that the United Methodist Church would adopt theological revisions that would be more welcoming to gay Methodists. Some UMC divisions, like those in California, are fierce advocates for gay Christians and sought a more inclusive gospel. However, conservatives Americans reneged on brokered deals by committees and banded together with African and Asian UMC representatives and blocked most progress.

However, one thing that was changed was the makeup of the Judicial Council. Prior to the 2008 convention it had a 6 to 3 conservative majority, but it left that meeting with a 7 to 2 liberal control. This newly comprised Judicial Council has decided to revisit the 2005 decision. (AP)

The highest court in the United Methodist Church will review its 2005 ruling that allowed a clergyman to bar a noncelibate gay man from joining a congregation.

The Judicial Council will take up the issue when it convenes Wednesday, Oct. 27, through, Saturday, Oct. 30, in New Orleans, according to United Methodist News Service.

UPDATE: Neill Caldwell, editor of the Advocate, a UMC publication, has provided some correction and clarification:

Rev. Ed Johnson first declined for the gay man to officially take membership in the congregation at South Boston, even though the man was already an active participant in the life of the church. Because of that refusal Johnson had charges filed against him by his immediate supervisor, called a District Superintendent, and the charges were then reviewed by his clergy peers at what’s called the Executive Clergy Session. Johnson’s clergy brothers and sisters overwhelmingly approved his being placed on involuntary leave of absence, which means that he was replaced as pastor of the South Boston church he’d been serving and suspended without pay. Bishop Kammerer then upheld the decision of the Executive Clergy Session when she was asked to review it at the Virginia Annual Conference by a question from the floor. No matter the subject, all such bishop’s “Decisions of Law” are automatically reviewed by the Judicial Council, which acts much like the denomination’s “supreme court,” so there was no “appeal” to the Judicial Council by anti-gay forces.

The Judicial Council, in a decision that was immediately and has continued to be very controversial, overruled the bishop and the action of the Executive Clergy session, and said that Johnson must be reinstated to his previous appointment. He was, but was soon appointed to another church in a different part of the state. The case has come before the Judicial Council at several times since in various ways, and each time the Council has reclined to revisit the case.

These latest appeals come from three other annual conferences (Minnesota, Arkansas and Northern Illinois) with a different tactic: At the 2008 session of the General Conference, the United Methodist Church’s official (and only) legislative body which meets every 4 years, the phrase in our Constitution was changed from “… a person may become a member …” to “… a person shall become a member…” to remove (hopefully) any ambiguity. The Judicial Council has a rule that a ruling may be revisited of the language in our Book of Discipline has changed that the council’s decision specifically dealt with. So these three conferences are appealing through that specific rule.

It’s a complex case that is not easily outlined!

There is also a “political” component: The Judicial Council is a panel with a 5-4 clergy/laity or laity/clergy split which is elected by the delegates of the General Conference. When the Judicial Council made its original decision, it had a 5-4 conservative majority. Then in 2008, four of the most conservative members were not re-elected, but were replaced by persons who would be considered much more progressive. This almost certainly was pushback due to the Ed Johnson decision by members of the general church.

Thank you, Neill. As you said, it is complex and I appreciate your willingness to share your knowledge of the case with us.

Episcopal Church drawing up official same-sex blessing rite

From the New York Times

Armed with a new $400,000 grant and the support of the Episcopal Church, a Berkeley seminary is convening priests from across the country to craft the liturgical rite for same-sex couples to receive religious blessings.

The new rite, which will take years to complete, will most likely consist of a series of original prayers, Bible readings and two essays: one on the theological meaning of same-sex blessings, and one advising priests who administer the new rite. If approved, the new blessing would be just the third addition to Episcopal liturgy since 1979.

The Times is being careful not to say “marriage” and it still remains to be seen just how close this new rite will be to that of the Episcopal marriage rite. This task is a multi-year endeavor and with the rapidity in which the concept marriage equality is sweeping the world, it may be very close indeed.

Limbaugh confirms support for civil unions

Rush Limbaugh made a comment on his radio show that seems to confirm earlier reports that he supports civil unions. Of course he did it in the nastiest way possible. (On Top Magazine)

Before playing a clip from ABC’s The View, where former Fox News anchor E.D. Hill (refereed to as the “infobabe” by Limbaugh) is heard saying that John is “all about the money,” Limbaugh says that he and John share similar views on gay marriage.

“Elton John is not married to David Furnish, and Elton John is not a supporter of gay marriage,” Limbaugh tells his audience. “Elton John is on the same page as I am, as is Obama on gay marriage. He’s for civil unions, but he’s not for marriage.”

“Of course it had to be mentioned in the story that Elton John played my wedding reception … even though I am ‘vehemently anti-gay marriage and Elton John is married,'” he said, then added, “He’s not.”

Limbaugh is no fool. He knows exactly what his audience wants to hear.

So it would seem that Rush Limbaugh believes that his very conservative audience has moved beyond the position of “no recognition at all” and now favors recognition of same-sex couples, provided that they are lesser in status.

Guess who is NOT showing up at NOM’s rallies

Today in St. Cloud, Minnesota, the National Organization for Marriage’s President Brian Brown told his ralliers, “This is a civil rights question. It’s about our civil rights.”

Brown speaks this line at every single tour stop on NOM’s Tour of Mostly-Empty City Plazas. Usually he invokes Dr. Martin Luther King.

In Annapolis, Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor at Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Maryland, told the crowd that “The major civil right, for those of us who went through the civil rights movement, is the right to vote . . . .”

Here he is:

And here is his audience:

Yesterday in St. Paul, Bishop Robert Battle, Senior Pastor of the Berean Church of God in Christ (a predominantly African-American church), told his listeners that “The African American church is firm on the biblical truth that marriage is one man and one woman.”

Here’s Bishop Battle:

And here’s another view of his audience:

Today Battle was scheduled to come to St. Cloud to be the black speaker. I’m not sure if he made it – the speakers’ chairs seem to be mostly empty and NOM’s blog makes no mention – but if so, he spoke to this crowd about the commitment of African Americans to the cause:

Now perhaps it’s just me, but it just seems that on average, NOM’s ralliers have had a distinct pale hue. Even in places with significant African–American populations.