Box Turtle Bulletin

Miss Beverly Hills thinks gay people should “surely be put to death”

This is Lauren Ashley, the Miss Beverly Hills contestant to the Miss California USA beauty pageant. Yes, that Beverly Hills. I kid you not.

And following in the shoes of Carrie Prejean, Lauren wants everyone to know that she too opposes marriage equality for gay people. But if we take her at her words, she wouldn’t stop there. (Fox News Pop Tarts)

“The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. In Leviticus it says, ‘If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.’ The Bible is pretty black and white,” Ashley told Pop Tarts.

“I feel like God himself created mankind and he loves everyone, and he has the best for everyone. If he says that having sex with someone of your same gender is going to bring death upon you, that’s a pretty stern warning, and he knows more than we do about life.”

Ashley, who says, “There’s no hate between me and anyone” doesn’t explain whether this “bringing of death upon you” also applies to her “lot of friends that are gay”, or only to those who want to get married. Somehow I just don’t think she’s ever really thought about what it would mean to live according to Leviticus.

I’m sure that this poor foolish girl is all delighted that she’s found an issue that will give her an additional minute and a half of fame. And no doubt she’ll try and latch onto Carrie’s martyrdom when she doesn’t make the first cut.

But sadly for Lauren, she does not yet know the cost of selling your soul to a campaign of discrimination. And she doesn’t realize that she doesn’t quite have what it takes to headline a Family Values dinner. No one is impressed that you’re a champion of virginity when, well, they can’t fantasize about taking it from you.

Religious Groups in UK beg for religious marriage freedom

Marriage equality is a freedom of religion issue. Currently, in most US states, the voters have acted under pressure from some religious entities to deny the rights of other religious entities to have their sacraments accorded the same respect and legal standing. Your Congregational Church or Reformed Synagogue may conduct holy vows and say sacred prayers that have been a part of their faith for centuries, but socially conservative Christian denominations have convinced civil government that they, and only they, get to determine what is defined as marriage.

In the United Kingdom, things are both better and worse. Better, because the civil government does allow for civil partnerships that are in most ways identical to marriage. And better because most of the citizenry sees these unions as being weddings.

But the UK is worse in that civil partnerships cannot take place in premises that are either designed for, or are in use mainly for, religious purposes. And they cannot include language that is sacramental and churches are barred from offering blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples.

That is an unequivocal violation of the religious freedoms of those churches which wish to sanctify, solemnize, and bless the union of their same-sex parishioners. And three have come forward to protest.

In July of last year we informed you that the Quakers (the Society of Friends) in Britain formally requested that the government change the law to allow them to worship in accordance with their faith. And last month Liberal Judaism joined the Quakers and the Unitarians when Baroness Neuberger, president of Liberal Judaism, called for a change in the law to allow civil partnership ceremonies for same-sex couples to be held in synagogues.

Now these minority religions have received the backing of some powerful allies. A number of leaders in the Church of England have issued a letter in which they call for religious freedom.

Sir, The Civil Partnership Act 2004 prohibits civil partnerships from being registered in any religious premises in Great Britain. Three faith communities — Liberal Judaism, the Quakers, and the Unitarians — have considered this restriction prayerfully and decided in conscience that they wish to register civil partnerships on their premises.

And in their call for religious freedom, these Englishmen turn for moral authority to a most curious document:

To deny people of faith the opportunity of registering the most important promise of their lives in their willing church or synagogue, according to its liturgy, is plainly discriminatory. In the US it would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise . . . of religion.

The wording of the First Amendment is clear to our friends across the pond; a powerful religion cannot usurp the spiritual independence of smaller communities. Let’s hope that American jurists and political leaders can come to find the obvious meaning in our Constitution.

Palm Center: No problems with ending gay bans in other militaries

Opponents of allowing gay men and women serving in our military to treated by the US Government exactly the same as the heterosexual counterparts are oh so very worried that Seriously Dire Consequences will occur if the policy is changed. But Dr. Frank at the Palm Center studied 25 militaries that allow gay service members and found none of these Seriously Dire Consequences.

Stars and Stripes

Supporters of “don\’t ask, don\’t tell” insist that repealing the law will result in mass resignations among troops uncomfortable serving alongside homosexuals, and that new accommodations like separate bathrooms for gay and straight soldiers or new housing benefits for unmarried gay couples will be too complex and costly for the military to absorb.

But the report notes that in both Britain and Canada — two counties with militaries the U.S. frequently uses for comparison — the debate leading up to full acceptance of homosexuals in the ranks included predictions of major disruptions and resignations by officers who refused to serve alongside gay troops.

“But when inclusive policies were implemented, no more than three people in each country actually resigned,” the report states.

Researchers also said that none of the foreign militaries they studied installed new “gay only” or “straight only” facilities, but still managed to maintain order and discipline without any trouble.

Additionally, the report found that the best implementation is that which is swift and decisive.

Air Force Times

And given the experience of the five countries studied, Frank said that “a quick, simple implementation process is instrumental in ensuring success.”

As such, Frank argues that the longer-term 11-month study — of service member attitudes, potential changes to Pentagon regulations and policies, and the potential impact of repeal on military effectiveness — announced Feb. 2 by Defense Secretary Robert Gates is unnecessary.

“There is no operational justification for another year of study,” Frank said in a Monday telephone interview. “We\’ve been studying this for 50 years.”

Lisa Miller is now officially a fugitive

Isabella Miller-Jenkins and Lisa Miller. Both are reported missing.

On January 1, Miller was to meet Janet Jenkins, with whom her civil union has been terminated, to turn over custody of their daughter Isabella. A court in Vermont, where they were civilly united and where they resided together, had ordered visitation rights to Jenkins and, after years of refusal by Miller, determined that the only way to keep both mothers in Isabella’s life was to reassign primary custody to Jenkins. But Miller went into hiding and hasn’t been seen by her neighbors since September, and the last public communication from Miller was in December, when she passed a message to her supporters though ex-gay leader Debbie Thurman.

Last Tuesday, Judge Harrison of Bedford County Virginia’s Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court chose not to issue an arrest warrant for Lisa Miller. He determined that it could not be proven that Miller was aware of the court order to transfer custody, so he would reward her disrespect for the judicial system by refusing to press criminal charges against her. He scheduled another hearing for May 19.

It is clear that Miller is fully aware of her responsibility to turn over Isabella and to think otherwise requires an amazing suspension of disbelief. The story been covered by newspapers nationwide, and Miller was still in communication with her supporters after the November 20 order was announced. But Miller’s friends swore that they don’t know where she is and the judge chose to give credence to their testimony (I’ll let you decide for yourself whether the reputation of conservative Christians encourages you to trust them or to immediately assume that they are lying through their teeth).

In January, Judge Cohen, the Vermont judge who has been involved with the custody since the breakup, gave Miller’s supporters an additional 30 days to convince her to follow the law. Miller did not show up, so Judge Cohen has now found her in contempt. (WaPo)

Family Court Judge William Cohen found Lisa Miller of Forest, Va., in contempt of court during a hearing Tuesday and issued the arrest warrant.

Considering the entrenched homophobia in Virginia and the political power of Thomas Road Baptist Church, I am not hopeful that the Bedford County Sheriff’s Department will do much to recover Isabella. However, unless I am mistaken, this arrest warrant would allow bounty hunters and private investigators to initiate steps to rescue Isabella from a life on the run with the fugitive Lisa Miller.

WV House GOP To Force Vote on Gay Marriage Ban

Republicans in the West Virginia House say that voting on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage is an “urgent” issue and should be voted on by the full 100-member House:

They also argue that the House leadership is keeping the issues away from a vote because it doesn’t want Democrats on record opposing measures that are appealing to conservative-leaning West Virginians or because conservative-leaning Democrats might break away. …Republicans admit the bills they want considered have little chance of passing the Legislature, but they say the issues are urgent enough that West Virginians deserve to see action on them, one way or another.

WV Couple Denied Apartment

Rayetta Darby and Erika Johnson, a lesbian couple in the Huntington, WV area, were denied an apartment by their prospective landlord because they are gay. The reporters investigating this story discover that West Virginia and 29 other states don’t have any laws protecting LGBT people from discrimination, and neither does the federal Fair Housing Act.

“It’s terrible. It\’s terrible we even need such a law,” said Bill Dotson, executive director of Huntington Housing Authority. You can only prevent people from renting if they have a bad payment history or if they they’re bad neighbors or don\’t take care of their property,” Dotson said. “If a landlord refuses to rent to them for any reason other than those, it’s heavily frowned upon.” But, the fact that there\’s no law preventing such behavior in West Virginia is deeply disturbing to Darby.

Lieberman To Introduce Bill Repealing DADT

Jamie Kirchick reports that Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) will introduce a bill into the Senate that would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ban on open LGBT people serving in the military. By all rights, this bill should have the wind at its back. A new CNN poll shows that 69 percent of the public favors repealing DADT, including 62 percent of registered Republicans. But in the current political climate in which the minority would fillibuster the sun’s rising in the morning and force the Democratics to consider exempting Nebraska from the earth-rotation mandate, I have a feeling it won’t see smooth sailing.

Even CPAC Doesn’t Want To Ban Gay Marriage

CPAC Poll results. Click to enlarge.

This is bad news for Maggie Gallagher and the folks at the National Organization for Marriage. According to this straw poll (PDF: 14 pages), nobody at this weekend’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) listed banning same-sex marriage as their first priority, and about 1% listed it as their second choice. Maybe that helps explain the boos directed toward Ryan Sorba on Saturday. More than half the votes were cast by people 25 years old or younger, which bodes well for the future.

CA Gay “Cure” Mandate Targeted

Hidden in the recesses of California’s massive Welfare and Institutions Code is a 1967 provision that charges the department of Mental Health with the task of conducting research on “the causes and cures of homosexuality.” While it appears the department has not been following the provision (if they ever did), California assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal has introduced a bill to remove it from the books.

Petraeus supports ending DADT

When Admiral Mullen stated that it was his personal opinion that the anti-gay Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy should be ended, Senator John McCain became furious.

This put McCain in a difficult position. Just three years earlier he had said, “the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, ‘Senator, we ought to change the policy,’ then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.”

The Senator spoke sharply in opposition to changing the policy and immediately news reports noted the apparent change of position. His press agent released a “clarification”:

“One person, speaking individually, not on behalf of the Navy at all, is not going to change Senator McCain’s position,” she told the Post. “There has to be a determination from our military leaders that they think it is a good idea to change the policy. Then of course Senator McCain will listen to them.”

On the face of it, this looked like a flip-flop, but I think something else is going on here. I think that John McCain genuinely believes that the push to repeal the policy is entirely political in nature and that the real military leaders – those who are trying to win the war, not win political battles – oppose allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the Military.

It seems inconceivable to him that the military’s culture would not be homophobic. So this all seems to be political posturing which will harm the military. He’s holding out for the real military leaders.

Well, it doesn’t get much more real than General David Petraeus, commander of the military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. And say what you may about Petraeus, he’s not the kind of man who will put “social engineering” and “political correctness” ahead of achieving his military goals.

Which makes it particularly effective that Gen. Patreaus supports Adm. Mullen’s intentions. Speaking today on Meet the Press:

MR. GREGORY: General, with the, the military engaged in two wars, with a country fighting terrorism in other forms as well, is this an appropriate time for the military to revisit the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, there’s a process at work here now, David, and I, and I think that it is a very sound and good process. The secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs announced, when they were testifying, the creation of a review be headed by General Carter Hamm, U.S. Army four-star, and DOD General Counsel Jay Johnson. I don’t think this has gotten enough prominence frankly. It is very important to this overall process. It will provide a rigorous analysis of the views of the force on the possible change. It will suggest the policies that could be used to implement a change if it, if it does come to that, so that it could be as uneventful as it was, say, in the U.K. or the Israeli militaries or, indeed, in our own CIA and FBI. And then it will assess the effects, the possible effects on readiness, recruiting and retention.

MR. GREGORY: What do you say?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Very important for that process to move forward. We’ll hear from the chiefs, the Joint Chiefs on this I think, probably their personal assessments and personal views in the course of the next week or so…

MR. GREGORY: But…

GEN. PETRAEUS: …when they’re on Capitol Hill. And then the geographic combatant commanders, the other combatant commanders and I, will have our turn on Capitol Hill in a few weeks.

MR. GREGORY: But what, but what, what do you say, General? Should gays and lesbians be able to serve openly in the military?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, I’ll provide that, again, on Capitol Hill if, if asked at that time. I, I know you’d like to make some news here this morning. I support what our secretary and, and chairman have embarked on here. I will–I’m fully participating in that process. And I think it’s very important, again, that these issues be handled and discussed and addressed by this review that will be so important in informing decisions as we move forward.

MR. GREGORY: Do you think soldiers on the ground in the field care one way or the other if their comrades in arms are gay or lesbian?

GEN. PETRAEUS: I’m not sure that they do. We’ll see. Again, that’s why this review panel. You know, all we have are, are personal soundings to go on, and I’ve certainly done some of that myself. I mean, you’ve heard General Powell, who was the chairman when the policy was implemented, had a big hand in that, who said that, yes indeed, the earth has revolved around the sun a number of times since that period 15 months (sic: years) ago. And you’ve heard a variety of anecdotal input. We have experienced, certainly, in the CIA and the FBI, I know. I served in fact in combat with individuals who were gay and who were lesbian in combat situations and, frankly, you know, over time you said, “Hey, how’s, how’s this guy’s shooting?” Or “How is her analysis,” or what have you. So–but we’ll see. Again, that’s the importance of this review that will be conducted by General Hamm and also by the DOD general counsel. I think it is hugely important that we have the answers from the questions that they’ll be asking in a very methodical way, something we’ve not done before because of the emotion and the sensitivity of this issue.

Yes, Petraeus danced and put it off on the review, but ultimately he knows that soldiers in wartime care a lot more about skills and abilities than they do about sexual orientation. That concern is a luxury of legislators who are in less danger and have more free time to imagine bunking arrangements and shower configurations.

Mt. Vernon Statement – how can they not see the irony?

A collection of America’s most extreme social conservatives have signed onto a new declaration of unanimity called the Mt. Vernon Statement. It has all the usual suspects, including virtually every anti-gay activist out there.

The basic premise of this statement is that they, unlike the rest of the country, truly support the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence:

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America\’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

And they call for a return to upholding the principles of our founding documents. They so revere these documents that they met to sign their statement at Mt. Vernon, George Washington’s estate.

The only problem is that they don’t value the ideals of the Constitution. They support life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness… just as long as it is their own. But they most certainly do not support our right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

Now – to be fair – most of these folks really wouldn’t call for our execution. Or not publicly. Though in private some probably share the view of Joel McDurmon, the Director of Research for American Vision, who thinks we should be executed. And, of course, Tony Perkins was on hand to oppose tracking those who target us for murder.

But as for “liberty” this group includes its most devoted enemies. Elaine Donnelly is there to oppose our liberty to serve in the military. Richard Viguerie doesn’t think we should have the liberty to “be out there trying to re-order society”.

And oh do they hate our pursuit of happiness. Surely there is no single issue more related to happiness than family, yet not a single signatory believes that I have the right to choose whom I marry, certainly not Ken Blackwell or Edwin Meese. And David McIntosh is on hand to make sure we can’t adopt. Heck, many of them don’t even believe that we should have the right to pursue a little happiness in the privacy of our own bedroom.

Signatory Brent Bozell… he even objects to our playing baseball together and Wendy Wright even objects to our being counted in the US Census. There is not a single right for gay people that these folks support.

I really wish that the signers of this statement would actually embrace the Mt. Vernon Statement. I wish they would champion life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The irony is that they think that they do.

Real Men

Real man Rob Tisinai saw a photo of this bumper sticker making the rounds at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this weekend. He also is a man with photoshop and is not afraid to use it. More here.

Santorum: Don’t Trust The Generals

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” supporters have often defended their support by saying they were only following the advice of top military leaders. Now that military leaders are coming out in favor of repealing the ban on gay servicemenbers serving openly, former Sen. Rick Santorum says we shouldn’t trust the generals:

Addressing how the military leadership, led by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen, could now favor a repeal of the law, Santorum raised the specter of brainwashing.

“Political correctness is reigning in the military right now,” he said. “”Some people say: [Do] whatever the generals say [on DADT]. I’m not too sure that we haven’t so indoctrinated the officer corps in this country that they can actually see straight to make the right decision.”

The line went over well with the CPAC crowd.

Really? Somehow I missed that on GayPatriot’s and GOProud’s Twitter stream. But Bruce Carroll does defend Rick “Man-On-Dog” Santorum as being “not homophobic.” Right. Because you’d have to be brainwashed to believe otherwise.

GOProud Showed Up. Which Is Very Good, But…

Alexander McCobin, at Students for Liberty, welcomed GOProud to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) amid cheers and boos.

Ryan Sorba, of the Young Conservatives of California, responded by denouncing CPAC amid boos and cheers.

For some reason, it’s often the gays who start the hottest trends in this country. The Republican Party’s acrimonious split between the traditional followers of John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine and other believers of individual freedom, and the emerging purer-than-thou wing who today would be loudly lamenting the absence of a “real Republican” if Ronald Reagan himself were alive and running for office — like so many popular trends in America — is just an imitation of what the gays had already started. It was just last April when a group of Log Cabin Republican dissidents split off to form GOProud over the former group’s perceived lack of ideological purity.

But despite GOProud’s purer-than-pure stance, it’s still regarded as being outside the mainstream among other purer-than-pure ideologues who are, in addition, also non-believers in individual freedom. But that didn’t stop GOProud from becoming sponsors of that annual purer-than-pure ideological love-fest known that is CPAC in Washington, D.C. This marks the first time a gay group has been a co-sponsor of the event. It also marks the first appearance of the John Birch Society as a co-sponsor, which had always been excluded for being too extremist.

But while the Birchers were allowed to parade around in their tinfoil hats, the GOProuders would not have a platform to to speak about gay issues at the conference. Outside of their booth with the other exhibitors, their only planned contribution that I’ve been able to discern was a talk about “Using Technology to Mobilize Conservatives.” Other than that, their message was limited to their booth.

Silence appears to be the price of admission. GOProud’s Twitter stream and web site have been uncomfortably silent over the wacky news conference at CPAC over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Okay, there hasn’t been complete silence, at least not when a good opportunity for spin comes along. Bruce Carroll, aka GayPatriot, giddily twittered, “Nation\’s most vocal supporter of gay marriage & removing Don\’t Ask, Don\’t Tell speaks at #CPAC10 – DICK CHENEY! HA.” Except Cheney didn’t utter a single peep about gay marriage or DADT. Chris Crain responds, “Gentlemen… please… we can hold the bar higher than this, can’t we?”

But as we all have come to know, it’s not enough for the purest of the purer-than-pure crowd to have us agree to shut up about our issues and rah-rah conservatism in general. It’s our mere presence, and even our very existence, that many find so horribly offensive. And that offense was on display yesterday when Ryan Sorba decided to go after CPAC for GOProud’s quiet existence. When he was boo’ed, Bruce Carroll (aka GayPatriot) celebrated, saying that this “shows that most mainstream conservatives don\’t have much stomach for such nasty rhetoric.” But I have to wonder whether it’s the rhetoric they can’t stomach or the embarrassment over the fact that CSPAN cameras were capturing a dissenting speech live on national television.

Think about it. Sorba’s remarks weren’t that much nastier than those mouthed at the DADT news conference. Sorba just didn’t follow agreed-upon talking points and he compounded that by openly dissenting with fellow CPAC attendees. The boo’s started when he said he was denouncing CPAC before he even said why he was denouncing them. Was it the rhetoric they were booing? Or was it the open dissent — complete with calling people out by name — on nationwide television that garnered the boos (and cheers)?

(By the way, some are saying Sorba was boo’ed off the stage. It looks to me that he left the stage when he finished saying what he wanted to say.)

But just showing up is all it takes for GOProud to excite the purest of the purer-than-pure element, then even GOProud’s most ardent critics would have to concede that their mere presence served, at least, as a small but important measure of community service for LGBT citizens. Besides, anyone who makes life unbearably uncomfortable for the National Organization for Marriage, which found its booth located just a few short steps away from GOProud’s, is worthy of respect. Jimmy LaSalvia’s “Who’s the pansey?” line by itself is worth GOProud’s sponsorship and travel costs.

Playing rope-a-dope, which GOProud has evidently done, is a very useful role to play. The more dopes we can rope, the better. But at some point we ought to see something other than blind cheer-leading among gay conservatives. I mean please, tying Cheney’s standing ovation over his opposition to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and support for gay marriage? Not uttering a single peep over the ridiculous news conference supporting DADT? That just looks pathetic, especially when compared to the open revolt among gay Democrats over their party’s failure to deliver on promises. I’m glad that GOProud decided to stake out a presence at CPAC, but a presence with a clear eye and critical voice would be more helpful still. Woody Allan said that 90% of life is just showing up, but he’s a moviemaker. What does he know about politics?

Air Force Chief speaks as though DADT’s repeal is a foregone conclusion

Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley spoke yesterday to the Air Force Association’s Air Warfare Symposium and Technology Exposition. He addressed the issue of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and appears to have spoken as though its repeal is a foregone conclusion.

The Air Force website and the Air Force Times have a slightly different report and a transcript of the speech is not available so I am gleaning what I can.

Air Force Times:

“The president as commander in chief has answered the question of whether this legislative change will be pursued, and the answer is ‘yes,\'” Donley told the several hundred airmen who came to hear him speak. “We know this will be an issue of interest to all airmen and is certain to generate much discussion.”

Donley warned the audience that the Air Force cannot be “pulled into the political debate” and that it should “add light and not heat to the discussion.”

Beyond legal issues, Donley said, the Air Force will advise the Pentagon on how repeal of the law could affect unit cohesion and military readiness.

“Congress will be listening to what the military has to say,” he said.

Air Force website:

“A working group chaired by the DOD general counsel will examine all aspects of properly implementing a repeal to the current law with recommendations in areas such as housing, benefits and other policies to be completed by the end of this calendar year,” Secretary Donley said. “For the services and our Air Force, this is a test of whether we can have a professional and dispassionate conversation, develop the facts related to implementation, and appropriately advise the president and Congress without being involved in the political debate that surrounds this issue.”

The secretary noted the Air Force will endeavor to “add light, not heat, to this debate.”

It appears to me that Donley will not be giving any testimony that contradicts the intentions of the President and the Joint Chiefs Chairman to repeal the policy. The Air Force, it seems, will limit its involvement to discussions about implementation.

But in the meanwhile, expulsions will continue to be processed.

“We are continuing to process those cases,” Donley replied when asked whether the service would wait to act until the Defense Department finishes its assessment, which should be in 45 days.