Box Turtle Bulletin

Where Does San Francisco’s AIDSWalk Money Go?

You’d probably guess San Fransisco, with some maybe to other bay-area communities like Oakland or Daly City. How about Ukraine?

This Sunday, San Francisco will host its annual AIDSWalk in Golden Gate Park. As with AIDSWalks that take place around the country, I would imagine that every one of those 25,000 participants are volunteering for this important charity event to raise money for AIDS charities in the local community. But according to the New York Times, the bulk of the money raised by the San Francisco AIDS Foundation will actually go to Cambodia, China, Ukraine, and five countries in Africa.  In 2008, the San Francisco AIDS Foundation awarded 57% of its grant money to the Pangea Global AIDS Foundation, a separate international charity founded by the San Francisco AIDS Foundation in 2001 and with which it shares office space and employees. (Update: Michael Petrelis notes that Pangea was headed by Dr. Eric Goosby in 2001. He is now the United States Global AIDS Coordinator.) In 2009, 73% of the Foundation’s grants went to Pangea.

Ms. Kimport [Barbara Kimport, the Foundation’s interim Chief Executive] said that in recent years the foundation’s support of Pangaea had come from other sources of money, not AIDS Walk donations. The walk last July raised $3.5 million. Foundation records show only $246,000 in grants to local groups in the 2009 calendar year. During the same period, the records show, Pangaea received $500,000.

Reactions were mixed. One participant in the Foundation’s cycling fundraisers said, “I recognize that the epidemic is universal.” But others feel deceived:

“I have friends who are positive,” [Jamie] McPherson said, believing that the money would go to support them. “Does it bother me?” he said. “Yeah, it does. You’ve got to take care of home first.”

Local AIDS charities report financial strains due to the financial crisis:

Mike Smith, president of San Francisco’s H.I.V./AIDS Providers Network, which represents 40 nonprofit groups, said the recession had strained budgets and fund-raising. “We have the highest density of people living with H.I.V. in the nation,” Mr. Smith said — 35,000 people infected in a city with a population of less than 800,000. “It’s staggering.”

Serbian Gays Ask Church To Condemn Anti-Gay Violence

According to the AP:

Serbian gay group has asked to meet with the head of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Irinej, to seek his help in curbing anti-gay violence. The Gay-Lesbian Info Center says in a statement posted on the group’s website that gay people “are suffering violence on a daily basis” and that many assailants justify attacks with religious beliefs.

The church has not responded to the request. Serbia is predominantly Orthodox, and the church holds considerable influence in the country. Last year’s planned Pride was canceled over threats from extremists.

The bogus “couples study” is back… and this time doing more harm than ever

Remember back in February when the news was all atwitter about how gay couples aren’t monogamous? Oh, gosh, it was a study, you know, in which half of the gay marriages were open!

Well, it’s back. And the reporting on Colleen Hoff’s work is no more accurate this time than it was last time. The San Francisco Chronicle – which calls non-monogamous relations “San Francisco relationships” – breathlessly declares:

In her study of gay couples, 47 percent reported open relationships. Forty-five percent were monogamous, and the remaining 8 percent disagreed about what they were.

We analyzed the claim – thoroughly – and it DID NOT support the claims. In fact, the sample was just about as far from representative of the gay community as you could get. As I said at the time:

In short, those reporting on this study got it wrong. If there is any story here, it would be that a study of San Francisco bay area gay male couples, a sample which was highly skewed to include many participants who are less likely to value monogamy and which defined “couples” to include those who have been dating as little as three months, still found that half of them set monogamy as the agreement for their relationship.

But based on the pattern of the stories and my communication with the authors, I have a new conclusion: When the news repeatedly and consistently reports conclusions that cannot possibly be determined from your data, it’s not because you’re trying to correct them. Hoff has, in all occasions I’ve seen, made broad generalizations about the nature of gay relationships – not just those in her study – that lead me to wonder if her research is little more than an attempt to provide talking points to support her presumptions.

And Hoff’s study – which does, at least, seem to have structure – now leads to press reports about a “study” which has almost no validity whatsoever.

Lanz Lowen and Blake Spears, two men in an open relationship, set out to find others who shared their values. And – surprise of all surprises – they did. They asked their buddies to participate and recruited where they socialized and, by golly, they found 86 non-monogamous, long-term (8+ years), gay male couples and (ok, here’s the shocker) the vast majority of those folks who were non-monogamous reported that they liked being non-monogamous. I suppose their next project will be to prove that those in line at Baskin Robbins like ice-cream.

And why do we know all about this non-study? Because Colleen Hoff was right there supporting them all the way:

“The ground-breaking work Lanz Lowen and Blake Spears are doing is providing important information and modeling about gay couples. The findings from their study will end up supporting gay couples for generations.”

Now I have never run across good statistics on monogamy in gay relationships. And I would not be surprised to find that statistically non-monogamy is higher; maybe it is. But I also would not be surprised by good research that its no higher at all than heterosexuals.

In fact, I have no idea whether some, many, most, or very few gay relationships are open. And neither does Colleen Hoff, Lanz Lowen or Blake Spears. Nor do any of you. It’s all just speculation based on the experiences we each have and those of the people we spend our time with.

I don’t know anything about the frequency of occurance of monogamy and non-monogamy among gay couples. But I do know someone beating an agenda when I see it. And that’s what is going on here.

And it isn’t admirable. It isn’t an honest contribution when conservative loons like Paul Cameron cook the data to get the conclusions they want. And it isn’t an honest contribution when liberals do the same thing.

Hoff, Lowen and Spears want to believe that gay men are non-monogamous. It fits their preconceptions. But they didn’t study that.

Hoff did not conduct a study of gay men to see who is monogamous; she studied how HIV-positive men negotiate communication and agreements. And Lowen and Spears did not conduct a study of gay men to see who is monogamous; they sampled non-monogamous couples to see if they liked it.

But are they reporting it that way? Hell, no! They are too busy trying to preach the joys of non-monogamy to bother to tell the truth.

And even more frustrating is that this selfish declaration of “how many gay couples are” (ignoring lesbians entirely) can do tremendous damage to our hard-fought effort to win rights and determine our own destinies. Freely speaking for all of us – with absolutely NOTHING to back it up – the Chronicle article ends with this:

Having an open partnership is not incompatible with same-sex marriage, said Spears, 59.

At least half those interviewed were married, having taken their vows during one of the two brief times when it was legally sanctioned in the city or the state.

“It’s a redefinition of marriage,” Spears said. “The emotional commitment, the closeness, all of it is there.”

Have you ever heard the claim that the “homosexual agenda” is to redefine marriage? Ever hear how “gay couples aren’t monogamous, anyway?

Anyone want to guess how long it will take for that completely fake “study” to make its way into an anti-gay commercial? Or be presented in court as evidence of why we should not be allowed to have relationships at all? Or be used by some bigoted judge to take some lesbian’s children away from her?

Will Luxembourg be eleven?

Hot on the heels of Argentina, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is taking action that may make them the eleventh nation to join the marriage equality club.

From L’essential (translated by Google from French)

Since Friday, Luxembourg has made a step to enter the closed circle of countries that permit marriage and adoption for same-sex couples. Indeed, the Governing Council adopted the draft law amending articles related to the union of same-sex couples, as well as those governing the rules of adoption.

This appears to the the first step in a several month process.

The government’s decision does not, however, that marriage and adoption by same-sex couples enter into force in the coming weeks. Indeed, this decision is a further step towards a legislative change. “The validation of the bill by the Governing Council will allow him to be brought before Parliament during the next week, said Guy Schuller, head of government communication, contacted by lessentiel.lu. For what is finally adopted, it takes at best six months period, in view of possible opposition parliamentarians and opinion of the Council of State.

(hat tip to reader Jutta Zalud)

Anti-gays in DC lose appeal

From the Christian Science Monitor

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals effectively upheld gay marriage in the nation’s capital by legitimizing the city’s decision to block a popular vote on the issue.

In a 5-4 decision published Thursday, the court agreed that Washington’s Board of Elections and Ethics had the right to deny an initiative measure on the city’s recently passed law legalizing same-sex marriage.

Opponents of the law, led by area pastors, were confident that the majority of Washingtonians would have voted against gay marriage if given the chance.

The past week hasn’t been good for anti-marriage activists.

“Lesbian mice” created

In order for a mouse to mate you need some FucM. Fucose mutarotase (abbreviated FucM) is an enzyme that impacts sexual activity in mice. When a gene responsible for FucM is omitted, the developing brains of mice are exposed to extra oestrogen and the female pups exhibit sex-atypical behavior. (New Scientist)

Female mice lacking the gene avoided the advances of males, stopped sniffing male urine and attempted to mate with other females, though their ability to have pups was unaffected.

This is getting some attention. As Fox News asked, “Have Scientists Found the ‘Gay Gene’?”

Sure. If you’re a female mouse.

Obviously human sexuality is far more complex than the mating instincts of mice. And it is extremely unlikely that any single gene is going to be found which dictates sexual orientation. But as time goes on we get a clearer picture that biology plays at least some part in the development of sexual orientation.

Simon LeVay, who researches the origins of sexuality, says that the Korean study is not directly relevant to the issue of human sexual orientation. As he points out, it is testosterone not oestrogen that masculinises the human brain, and human AFP doesn’t prevent oestrogen from entering the brain as it does in mice.

“Nevertheless, it is probably only a matter of time before molecular geneticists identify genes that influence sexual orientation in humans,” says LeVay.

It will be fascinating to see the response of conservatives when that time comes.

NOM’s Marinelli “miscounts” the counter-protesters

Louis Marinelli, the organizer of NOM’s Big Bus of Animus nineteen city tour (and driver of the RV), blogged about the two girls who served as silent observers of the rally in August, ME. From the rather unsettlingly named One Man, One Woman: Inside Look:

Meanwhile, after an all-out call for homosexuals and gay rights activists from around the state, Equality Maine and other national gay rights groups which have been scrambling to organize counter rallies in opposition to the Marriage Tour were only able to turn out one lesbian couple who attended the rally silently and without any disruption.

They were “only able to turn out one lesbian couple”? Really? I guess that’s what you have to say when you don’t want to admit that your rally was dwarfed in size by the counter-protest.

And it’s not like Marinelli didn’t know about the counter protest; he dismisses it a “press conference” before going on to deride the girls for not wanting to be identified (he names one anyway) in NOM’s tour blog (He needs to get his NOM talking points straight). This “Summer Marriage Tour” is so pathetic that Marinelli is willing to say anything so as not too appear a complete failure.

“Homosexuals Have Never Faced Persecution”

As Timothy already noted, James Preece, writing as an administrator at the National Organization for Marriage’s official wacked-out facebook page that they totally, totally deny, wrote this:

Protect Marriage: One Man, One Woman I’m not making a retraction: Through out history homosexuals have never faced persecution at the level Jews, Christians, and Blacks have. For the homosexual population, their only focus is WWII.

Ahem:

April 19, 2009 edition of Uganda's Red Pepper (Scans via GayUganda. Names and faces obscured by Box Turtle Bulletin. Click to enlarge).

And by the way, that was just one episode of a long campaign that was encouraged by American Evangelical “Christians.”

NOM’s Big Bus of Animus tour continues to struggle

I guess the public exposure about National Organization for Marriage’s new image is starting to sting a little. NOM’s Brian Brown posted “Brian Brown said that we have ALWAYS stood for respect for the dignity of ALL people” on NOM’s tour site. Perhaps it would have been more effective if he hadn’t followed it with “Notes that civil rights activists in the African American community are sick and tired of opposition attempts to hijack the legacy of that movement.”

Brown also posted a picture from his rally in Manchester, NH, the second stop on the marriage tour of NOM’s Big Bus of Animus.

The crowd doesn’t appear to be any bigger than in Augusta, ME; I counted about 53 in this picture. But while the crowd may not be large, NOM certainly has a lock on the long-black-skirt wearing crowd.

I wonder what those “sick and tired” civil rights activists in the African American community think about the sign of the fellow up front? It says “Want diversity? Have more kids.”

NOM claims to be separate from the Facebook page they tout as their own

The public relations firm for the National Organization for Marriage has sent us a statement about the Protect Marriage: One Man One Woman facebook page:

“The Huffington Post on Wednesday falsely attributed statements to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) about discrimination faced by gays and lesbians. The statements were apparently posted by an unnamed “administrator” of the “Protect Marriage: 1 Man 1 Woman” Facebook account. Huffington Post falsely claims that this is NOM’s Facebook page. The Facebook account on which these statements were reportedly made is not NOM’s Facebook page and neither NOM nor anyone representing NOM made these statements. The Facebook account in question is operated by a private party and NOM does not control what is allowed to be posted on the account, a fact that could have been easily known to Huffington Post had they reached out to NOM to verify the report.”

Because BTB was referenced in the piece, they wanted to be sure that we know that NOM is not responsible for the false, hostile, and hate-filled statements being made by the administrators of the site.

I don’t buy it.

Not only has Jeremy at GoodAsYou.org fully documented that Louis Marinelli and his organization/website have become integrated into NOM’s structure, but NOM is touting the site as their own. From Twitter:

And what do you see when you get there?

So this is “not NOM’s Facebook page”? Really?

Now, I understand the distinction between running a site and just linking to others who may share similar goals but different perspectives. In fact, Box Turtle Bulletin has a whole blogroll of sites we offer for those who are looking for additional coverage of issues which we discuss. But we don’t put them under our heading, let them use our Logo, or utilize their site to collect names for the “BTB Team.”

And let’s take a little look at the language on NOM’s Big Bus of Animus:

Gee, it certainly looks to me like the National Organization for Marriage has adopted the phrase “One Man, One Woman” as their own. And who is driving that bus? Louis Marinelli, who is the “owner” of the facebook page that NOM is simultaneously touting and denying.

And finally, if “neither NOM nor anyone representing NOM made these statements”, then maybe you should tell him that. Earlier today, James Preece, writing as an administrator, had this to say about the comments which were quoted in the Huffington Post:

Protect Marriage: One Man, One Woman I’m not making a retraction: Through out history homosexuals have never faced persecution at the level Jews, Christians, and Blacks have. For the homosexual population, their only focus is WWII.
…
Jaimi, when you work in the area I and others of NOM and Protect Marriage, you will hear a lot of thing from the homosexual activist…

So, no, I don’t believe that NOM has any right to complain that anyone might have confused the two organizations. In fact, they have so commingled their image, their staff, and their slogans that they have for all practical purposes become one entity.

If NOM doesn’t believe or support the statements made by the facebook page administrators, then they need to publicly denounce them and pull their logo from the site. Otherwise, claims such as the one made by NOM’s PR firm are not worth the digital space they occupy.

World Net Daily officially endorses homophobia and anti-gay slurs

This hardly counts as news; World Net Daily makes no bones about being virulently anti-gay. However, most anti-gays make at least a shallow attempt to say, “we don’t hate” and try to keep their language – in public – from including the worst slurs.

But it looks like WND has given up all pretenses.

WND has a recurring “comedy” feature called News! News! with D.J. Dolce, WorldNetDaily Exclusive Commentary. Dolce, the wife of Molotov Mitchell, shares her husband’s contempt for gay people. But while he masks his animus in religion (he endorses the death penalty for gay people using Scripture), Dolce just engages in slurs and endorses bigotry.

In a piece from March (which I missed at the time) titled About that ‘slur’ leveled at Barney Frank …, she says

Speaking of whiners, Democrats are still complaining that someone used the “N-word” in reference to Obama and the “F-word” in reference to Barney Frank. Well, not the “F-word” … the other “F-word” …

Faggot!

Now one of these attacks is unacceptable. Racism is wrong.

And the other thing… [shrugs, smiles]

It’s been a while since I’ve seen hatred expressed to blatantly in public.

Argentina legalizes same-sex marriage

At about 4:00 am this morning, the Argentine Senate voted 33-27 to enact marriage equality. The bill now goes to President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, who has in recent days spoken out in support of the bill.

And so Argentina makes ten:

2001 Netherlands
2003 Belgium
2005 Spain
2005 Canada
2006 South Africa
2008 Norway
2009 Sweden
2010 Portugal
2010 Iceland
2010 Argentina

Updates from Jim B: Here is video of reaction as the crowd of supporters watch live television coverage in Buenos Aires:

Here is President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, speaking as Argentina’s “fierce advocate” a few days ago:

Marriage Equality brought to you by… Republicans?

The Atlantic’s Joshua Green gives a brief listing of the “liberal activist judges” who have been instrumental in bringing about marriage equality in those states in which it exists.

Nearly as significant as the [finding that DOMA is unconstitutional] itself is the political affiliation of the judge who made it: 79-year-old Joseph Tauro, the longest-serving appointee of Richard Nixon. Why is this significant? Because while the recent confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan dwelt on whether ”activist” liberal judges appointed by Democrats would trample legal precedent, the judges who have begun the constitutional protection of same-sex marriage have mostly been Republican appointees like Tauro.

Last year, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down a gay-marriage ban on the grounds that it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the state constitution. The unanimous decision was written by Justice Mark Cady, a conservative placed on the court by the former Republican governor Terry Branstad. In 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court struck down a comparable prohibition in an opinion written by Justice Richard Palmer, an appointee of Governor Lowell Weicker, a three-term Republican senator who became an independent. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling was written by Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, named to the court by one Republican governor (William Weld) and elevated to chief justice by another (Paul Cellucci).

Green sees these judges as being in contrast with more recent Republican judicial appointments.

What all these judges share is their distinctiveness from Republican appointments over the last two decades, who tend to be activists affiliated with conservative outfits like the Federalist Society — think John Roberts and Samuel Alito. This makes the Republican pedigrees of the judges moving gay marriage toward legality all the more striking, particularly in how it contrasts with conservative outcries about judicial activism. But more than that, it’s a gauge of how far from the mainstream modern conservative jurists have drifted.

Author of CA Supreme Court’s judicial decision in favor of marriage to step down

From the Mercury News:

California Chief Justice Ron George announced his retirement Wednesday, stunning colleagues and court watchers who saw him issue the opinion that briefly legalized gay marriage and passionately work to consolidate the state’s once Byzantine court system.

George said he timed his decision in part so Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger could name his successor.

George is advising Schwarzenegger on his replacement. As the In Re: Marriages case is George’s legacy, it seems likely that he will counsel in favor of a replacement who shares his perspective on gay issues.

Georgia GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Karen Handel: classic example of unthinking prejudice

Heterosexuals are superior to gay people because, well, they just are. Everyone knows that!

This is the type of “thinking” that is based solely in prejudice, an assumption that goes unchallenged and is so basic to one’s beliefs that to think otherwise would be jarring. And this is the type of “thinking” that Karen Handel, a Republican candidate for Governor of Georgia, uses to determine her policies.

Doug Richards, writing for 11alive.com, interviewed the candidate.

Q: Would you favor outlawing gay adoptions?

A: Yeah, I would consider that, absolutely.

Q: Do you know any gay couples with children?

A: Not that I’m aware of.

Q: So you think gay couples are less qualified to function as parents than straight couples?

A: I think that for a child to be in a household — in a family in a household with a situation where the parents are not married, as in one man and one woman, is not the best household for a child.

Q: Is it better or worse than a single parent household?

A: Doug, I’m really trying to be straightforward with you but I’m not going to debate all the nuances. I’ve made it abundantly clear that I think that marriage is between a man and a woman. And that’s what I believe, and I don’t know what more you would like me to add to that.

Q: I guess I want to know why you think gay parents aren’t as legitimate as heterosexual parents.

A: Because I don’t.

No knowledge. No reason. No experience. Just prejudice.