Box Turtle Bulletin

Matt Barber Supports Jailing Married Same-Sex Couples

Nigeria has one of the most draconian anti-gay laws on the books. Right now, consenting gay sex is punishable by up to 14 year in prison with hard labor. Now, Nigerian lawmakers are upping the ante with a new anti-gay bill which would make same-sex marriage punishable by up to three years in prison. The bill also would imprison anyone who attends a gay wedding with up to five years behind bars.

The anti-same-sex marriage bill goes beyond mere same-sex marriage. It also gives police the right to raid any public or private gatherings of any group of people suspected of being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

And it goes beyond Nigerian citizens, posing a threat to non-Nigerians as well. Anyone who married anywhere and returned to Nigeria, as well as anyone who is married to a same-sex partner who travels to Nigeria — including foreign business people — can be jailed.

In other words, there are some 36,000 Californians who face up to three years imprisonment with hard labor if they should step foot in Nigeria.

Matt Barber, of the Liberty Counsel, is completely on board with that:

Barber believes Nigeria and any other country ought to be free to express its own culture without outside interference.

“We have the Defense of Marriage Act on the books [in the United States]; why aren’t they coming after the U.S.? Well, because what bullies do is they pick on someone that is weaker than they are,” he notes. “So the European Union is trying to make an example out of Nigeria because they are in a position of influence and power, yet they will not pick the same fight with the United States because they know it would be to no avail.”

Matt surely knows there is a huge difference in how American laws and Nigerian laws treat LGBT people. One merely provides governmental non-recognition of same-sex marriage while the other imposes harsh prison terms in a Central African prison for anyone, including non-citizens and visitors, who are married.

Why would Barber overlook this massive difference? Maybe he wishes that difference wasn’t really there. His vigorous defense of the Nigerian bill, one that could even jeopardize American visitors, suggests that he sees imprisoning LGBT Americans and others around the world as nothing short of progress. Or at the very least, entirely defensible.

Do Ex-Gays Hook Up In Ex-Gay Programs?

Peterson Toscano spills:

Virginia To Recognize Box Turtles

This just in:

J. Chapman Petersen, Delegate from Virginia’s 37th District, has introduced State Senate Bill 1504 to designate the Eastern Box Turtle as the official state reptile of Virginia.

It’s about time Box Turtles got a little respect in Virginia. Now if only they’d see fit to recognize gay people.

[Hat tip: David]

Today In History: Another Conference For Creating Change

Today, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is wrapping up it’s annual Creating Change conference in Denver, Colorado. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend. But I did spend some time at our local library, paging through some old LGBT magazines from fifty years ago. That’s where I learned that, by coincidence, another important national conference hosted by leading LGB (not T) leaders was also taking place exactly fifty years ago today.

The following report appeared in the March 1959 issue of The Ladder, which was the official publication of the Daughters of Bilitis, the nation’s first organization for Lesbians. The report was of the ONE, Inc. Midwinter Institute held in Los Angeles on January 31 and February 1.

ONE, Inc, you may remember, published ONE magazine, which was the first national magazine for gays and lesbians. ONE had just come off of a stunning Supreme Court victory one year earlier in which the Court ruled that just because ONE dealt with homosexuality, it was not automatically pornographic because of the unpopular subject matter.

Unlike today’s LGBT conferences which are organized with the goal of changing laws and societal attitudes, this conference was focused on much more pressing needs for the individuals who attended: Are gays mentally ill? (The audience broke into sustained applause on the suggestion that it isn’t) Is it natural? Why is there so much hostility from religion? How do we improve the lives, mental well-being, and relationships of gay men and women? There was even a revealing roundtable discussion on social separatism between lesbians and gay men, a discussion which would foreshadow subsequent debates on political separatism between lesbians and gay men with the rise of the women’s movement in the 1960’s.

One thing that I found interesting is that the esteem held for psychology was never higher than it was then. Psychiatrists, psychologists and psychoanalysts were regarded with the same awe and deference as rocket scientists and astrophysicists. Since this conference was focused on homosexuality and mental health, they naturally took center stage, where their opinions were avidly sought but rarely questioned — except occasionally by each other. A particularly interesting discussion broke out among professional leaders and Dr. Evelyn Hooker, who was in the audience. Dr. Hooker had by then published three groundbreaking studies which suggested that homosexuality was not a mental illness (although because her studies were ongoing, she was coy about making a declarative statement to that effect at the conference). It would be another fifteen years before her work would become the basis for the APA’s removal of homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

This unabridged report from The Ladder provides a fascinating look at the state of the gay community fifty years ago, and it gives us a great perspective on how far we’ve come since then. The author of The Ladder’s report was listed as Sten Russell, which, in fact, was a pseudonym for Stella Rush; “Helen Sanders” was actually Helen Sandoz. Homosexuality was listed as a mental illness and gay bars were banned or shut down under state liquor laws. Much has changed, but there’s still much more to do. People do still get fired from their jobs and shunned by their families.

They say we can’t know where we’re going unless we know where we’re coming from. We’re still on a long journey, but we have traveled many miles in the past fifty years. This is a good opportunity to pause and reflect on that journey.

Original report of the ONE Institute on Mental Health and Homosexuality is after the jump

LDS Prophets’ Latest “Revelation”: Church Gave $190,000 To Pass Prop 8

When supporters of Prop 8 went to Federal Court to try to block the public release of the names of late donors, they said that their move was to protect individual donors from harassment. Now we know the real reason Yes on 8 had to try to circumvent California’s open campaign finance laws. In fact, Yet On 8’s chief benefactor had 190,000 reasons to fight the release:

Mormon church officials, facing an ongoing investigation by the state Fair Political Practices Commission, Friday reported nearly $190,000 in previously unlisted assistance to the successful campaign for Prop. 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.

The report, filed with the secretary of state’s office, listed a variety of California travel expenses for high-ranking members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and included $20,575 for use of facilities and equipment at the church’s Salt Lake City headquarters and a $96,849 charge for “compensated staff time” for church employees who worked on matters pertaining to Prop. 8.

The Mormon church had been under investigation by the Fair Political Practices Commission for failure to report its contributions as required by law. The investigation was prompted by a complaint filed by Fred Karger, of Californians Against Hate.

IRS regulations barred from endorsing political candidates, but they allow churches and religious groups to campaign and contribute on behalf of issues. When doing so, churches are required to report their contributions just like every other donor. They are also required to report and attach fair market dollar values to “in-kind” donations, which consist of services and activities provided directly without charge by a donor that a campaign would otherwise have been required to pay for.

Until yesterday, Mormon church had denied any direct financial support for the campaign. I guess some of the Mormon prophets in Salt Lake City had one of their famous “revelations” last night.

Republican Party Resists Moving Further Anti-Gay

Most political pundits can take a glance at polling trends and predict that basing a party on conservative social policies is not a long-term winning strategy. But political parties, and those that direct them, don’t alway place logic, social change, or even the future viability of the party as a higher priority than entrenched ideology. And the Republican Party has been especially eager to hold firm to homophobic positions in the face of a decreasingly homophobic nation.

And today the Republican Party will make a decision about its future. It will choose a new leader and the choices represent either a sharp turn right, a stay the course, or a more moderate future social agenda.

None of the candidates can be considered advocates for gay equality. But one, Michael Steele, has illustrated an openness towards gay members and a common cause with some of those in the Party who are advocates for gay rights.

The voting isn’t over and the decision has not been made. However, reports are that the field has been narrowed to either the current chairman, Mike Duncan, or the more moderate selection, Steele (who appears to be in the lead). In either case, those who have build their identity on blatant and unabashed homophobia – including raging gay-hater Ken Blackwell – have now been eliminated. And that is a good thing for the gay community.

UPDATE:

Duncan has withdrawn his name. Steele is currently in the lead but does not have a majority.

UPDATE TWO: Michael Steele has won the chairmanship of the Republican Party. The former lieutenant governor of Maryland is also the Party’s first African-American to hold the position.

Steele has a difficult road ahead of him. He will be at the helm of a party that is shrinking in number, has control of no branch of government, and is fighting the perception of being old, white, and Southern. Steele will also oversee an inevitable fight between those who seek to keep the party the standard bearer for social conservatism and a permanent voice of dissent and those who seek to moderate social issues, reestablish fiscal principles and bring the Party into the 21st Century.

I wish Steele well and hope that he finds the wisdom to lead the party into an age of inclusion and away from sectarian dogma and social obstructionism. I hope he lives up to his opening comments:

“We’re going to say to friend and foe alike: We want you to be a part of us, we want you to with be with us, and for those who wish to obstruct, get ready to get knocked over”

Judge Says Prop 8 Donors Must Be Made Public

U.S District Judge Morrison C. England, Hr. denied an attempt by the Yes on 8 to overturn California’s Political Reform Act. The act, which was approved by California voters in 1974, requires political campaigns to disclose the name, occupation and employer of anyone contributing $100 or more to the campaign. Yes on 8 campaigns sought to withhold disclosing the names of late campaign donors.

Common-Law Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in Colombia

The South American country of Colombia recognizes a legal vehicle called “common-law marriage”. It is a means by which two people who are living as married are considered married even though they may not have gone through a ceremony or registered with the state.

In Colombia, common law marriages are between those who have lived together for two years or more in a permanant union and neither of whom are married either to each other or anyone else. Until yesterday, they also needed to have been between a man and a woman.

But on Wednesday, the courts of Colombia determined that same-sex couples living together could also have all of the rights of common-law marriage.

The court’s ruling means that civil and political rights such as nationality, residency, housing protection and state benefits will now be granted to same-sex partners.

This was an extension of an earlier decision. In February 2007 the Courts granted property and inheritance rights and in April 2008 added pension and health benefits.

In June 2007, the Colombian legislature attempted to enact civil unions but were thwarted by intense pressure from the Catholic Church and by an unusual political ploy.

Ironically, had civil unions been put in place in 2007, the courts may not have decided as they did. Now to the extent that heterosexual common-law couples are said to be married, so too are same-sex couples.

If You’re Attending The Creating Change Conference This Weekend

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force “Creating Change” conference is being held in Denver this weekend. Fellow ex-gay survivor Christine Bakke and I will be giving a 90 minute seminar on the ex-gay survivor movement this Saturday at 3pm. Most seminars are on Friday or Saturday and discounted registration for a single day is available. Download a PDF of the full schedule of events here.

Anti-gay Arguments We Don’t Bother With (And Should): Part 2

This is the second post in a five-part a series about anti-gay arguments that get the short shrift in public debate; we examine them here. Readers are encouraged to contribute to the discussion below.

#2: If you let gays marry, then you will have to allow polygamous, incestuous or inter-species marriage.

This is, essentially, the “box turtle argument.”

Interpreting the statement literally: it is clear that legally recognizing gay marriage does not entail doing so for polygamy, incestuous marriage, or marrying animals; these are all separate propositions. The legal determination of what a marriage is can be specified so as to allow gay marriage but not extend to marrying a box turtle. In the same way that certain states have provisions in their constitutions defining marriage as “between a man and a woman,” it could also be specified that marriage rights extend to same-sex couples but — if one is really so worried about people marrying box turtles and the rest — not to (1) more than two people; those who are (2) blood related; and (3) animals.

The “box turtle” statement above is really making the case against gay marriage by not making the case: It is not telling you what is wrong with gay marriage, but rather saying that if you allow gay marriage then you will have to allow something else you might not like.

But the literal meaning is different from the underlying argument. The question being asked is: how does the argument for gay marriage — loosely construed as “you should be able to marry the person you love” — fail to extend to polygamy, incest, or inter-species marriage? The problem in encountering the argument is that it asks you to argue — on a case-by-case basis — against polygamy, incest, or marrying animals, or show how the argument for gay marriage is different from an argument that could be made for these things. Further underlying this statement is the belief that relaxing the restrictions (viz. procreation) on marriage will lead to future deterioration in the definition of marriage and, as an inevitable result, social anomie.

1) Well, if you can just marry whomever you love, what stops you from allowing X type of marriage?

This is a twisted overgeneralization of the criterion “whom/what you love.” Gay rights advocates off-handedly state this — as opposed to simply biology — as the criterion for being able to marry someone. Maybe we should be more specific from the get-go to pre-empt this, specifying that you should be able to marry the person you love as long as they meet X requirements and this is why X requirements are important, but this is a bit unwieldy.

The assumption is that you disagree with X type of marriage, which isn’t a trivial point (for instance, I happen to think Mormons who practice polygamy should be able to structure their families as they please so long as the marriages are not coerced and the participants are of age). This question asks you to get off-track; you end up arguing against polygamy or incest. Nevertheless, here are some general thoughts that I hope BTB readers with different opinions will be able to add to.

Polygamy: My strategy here would be to shift the burden of proof and make a devil’s advocate argument.

For those who cite procreation as the basis of marriage, polygamy should be fine given that it is an efficient way to increase the population. Also, polygamy might even be more “natural” than two-personal marriages given the assumption that men are sexually voracious; this version of marriage accommodates what people think is a biological predisposition to promiscuity among men. It is really the philosophical basis of straight marriage that supports polygamy; those arguing against gay marriage on the basis of procreation have the burden of showing why polygamy is wrong.

Incest: Here, you can’t use the biology argument against anti-gay-marriage people given that children of incest are more likely to have genetic deformities. But you can say that children of gay couples are not prone to this same problem either because they are adopted or naturally conceived by non-genetically-related couples (barring blood-related gay couples). The argument against incest — preventing genetic abnormalities — is sufficient enough in itself to distinguish this case from gay marriage.

For those who are religious, the Bible is packed with divinely sanctioned instances of incest. But I try to steer clear of Biblical arguments, which are tedious and rarely fruitful.

Inter-species: This is the most ridiculous. Marriages are partnerships and animals are not capable of rational decision making to enter into one. Also, marriage involves questions of inheritance, taxation, making medical decisions, etc. that animals cannot make. Anti-gay activists make this argument in response to the statement that one should be allowed to marry whom one loves. But of course it is implicit that we mean humans.

2) Relaxing the restrictions (viz. procreation) on marriage will lead to future deterioration in the definition of marriage and, as an inevitable result, social anomie

I think it is important to frame this as an “opening up” of marriage. As conservative columnist David Brooks of the New York Times has argued, respecting the sanctity of marriage should include allowing gay marriage. It is actually strengthening relationships and families. Outlawing gay marriage actually leads to a “breakdown of society” by discouraging healthy relationships.

The best argument against the “breakdown of society” charge is not hypothetical, though: it’s the state of Massachusetts, which has one of the lowest divorce rates, highest levels of education and income in the country; since gay marriage was legalized, the divorce rate has only dropped. The sky hasn’t fallen there and there is little evidence to suggest that the state is about to allow polygamy, incest, or inter-species marriage.

Saddleback’s New Definition, Courtesy Of Dan Savage

Gay sex advice columnist and author Dan Savage isn’t known for holding back against people he views as enemies of the LGBT community. Angered by anti-gay comments made by former Senator Rick Santorum, Savage named a rather disgusting and previously un-named phenomenon relating to anal-sex after him. Performing a Google search on “Santorum” turns up Savage’s definition as the top item.

And now we get to Savage’s recent anger with Rick Warren of Saddleback Church. What is a “Saddleback” exactly? Savage wasn’t sure it had any definition so he took it upon himself to create one. After polling his readers Savage has announced his new definition of Saddleback / Saddlebacking:

From the new website Saddlebacking.com

Savage finds this new definition apropos because of Warren’s ideological promotion of abstinence-only programs which not only don’t work, but result in teens substituting anal-sex and oral-sex believing they aren’t “real” sex.

Upgrading Washington’s Domestic Partnerships

In 2007, the state of Washington introduced Domestic Partnerships. Last year they included additional coverage. This year they are taking the final steps (Seattle Times)

The 110-page bill makes changes to all remaining areas of state law where currently only married couples are addressed. The bill would add same-sex domestic partners to state statutes ranging from labor and employment to pensions and other public employee benefits.

Both of the sponsors, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle and Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, seem confident. Last year’s upgrade passed the House 62-32 and the Senate 29-20. HB 3104 enjoyed bipartisan support in both houses (all of the Democrats plus five Republicans) and no supportive Republicans lost re-election due to their vote.

Mel White, Reality TV Star?

Click to view Mel and Mike’s “cast interview”

Soulforce founder Mel White and his son Mike have been cast in the soon-to-start next season of CBS’s Amazing Race. The show premiers on Sunday, February 15th, 8:00pm ET/PT and the usual suspects from the religious right haven’t thrown a tantrum yet so there isn’t much else to put in my post just yet.

You can also view their bio on the CBS website here.

Hat tip to my mom.

Iceland To Appoint First Lesbian Prime Minister

Iceland is set to appoint  as the world’s first openly gay woman to serve as prime minister. Jóhanna is currently the island nation’s social affairs minster. She was picked by the Social Democratic Alliance Party to lead an interim minority government after the conservative-led government fell on Monday. She will serve as prime minister until elections are held in early May.

Jóhanna is stepping into a plum job. The country’s banks have all collapsed, the Krona has plummeted, and inflation and unemployment are shooting through the roof. Which kind of remind me of the November 5th Onion headline, “Black Man Given Nation’s Worst Job.” A lesbian still can’t get a break.

Research: Anti-Gay Harassment in Childhood Leads To Poor Adult Health

Mark S. Friedman, Michael P. Marshall, Ron Stall, JeeWon Cheong, Eric R Wright. “Gay-related development, early abuse and adult health outcomes among gay males.” AIDS and Behavior 12, no. 6 (November 2008): 891-902. Abstract available at DOI 10.1007/s10461-007-9319-3.

The Urban Men’s Health Survey (UMHS) has revealed a lot of useful information in the decade since it was conducted. Much of it “dismaying,” in the words of Ron Stall, who worked on the survey at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and is now at the University of Pittsburgh. Stall was one of four researchers from the University of Pittsburgh (joined by a fifth researcher from Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis) who analyzed a subset of that data and concluded that “experience of homophobic attacks against young gay/bisexual male youth helps to explain heightened rates of serious health problems among adult gay men.”

The UMHS was a telephone interview of a probability sample of men who have sex with men (MSMs) living in four cities: San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. The survey was conducted between November 1996 and February 1998, with 2,881 UMHS participants being asked a wide-ranging battery of questions resulting in 855 variables. The results of that survey were fed into a database, which scores of researchers have been mining ever since for dozens of studies covering many different topics. Dr, Mark Friedman, who has previously investigated the link between anti-gay hostility and suicide among young gay males, led a team which poured over responses to key questions in that database to see if a link could be established between anti-gay hostility against young gay men and adverse health outcomes as adults.

Among the many questions in that survey, participants were asked about their experiences, if any, with parental physical abuse, gay-related harassment during childhood and adolescence, and forced sex. They were also asked about four gay-related identity milestones: the age at which they became aware of their same-sex attractions, age of first same-sex sexual activity, age of deciding that they were gay, and age of first disclosure that they were gay.

Participants were also asked about current depression, HIV serostatus, sexual risk behavior during childhood, partner abuse during adulthood, anti-gay victimization during adulthood, and suicide attempts during childhood.

Dr. Mark Friedman and associates used the responses from these questions from 1,383 men aged 18 through 40, and divided them into three categories (early bloomers, middle bloomers and late bloomers) according to how participants answered questions based on the four gay-related identity milestones. Then, by looking at the answers to the other questions, they were able to demonstrate three principle findings:

1) Gay males who developed early with respect to their sexual orientation were much more likely to experience anti-gay harassment and sexual abuse during adolescence than middle bloomers and late bloomers. This might be something of a “duh” conclusion since it stands to reason that those who are more visibly gay draw more attention than those who aren’t, and those who are visibly gay earlier have more time in which to experience anti-gay harassment and sexual abuse. Nevertheless, it’s important to establish this finding statistically, because it leads to the next finding.

2) Those early bloomers were also more likely to anti-gay victimization, depression, and become HIV-positive as an adult. Taken alone, this finding might play into the hands of anti-gay activists who contend that gay youth should remain closeted and continue to deny their true experiences for as long as possible. Well, not so fast, because…

3) While early bloomers were more likely to experience adverse health outcomes as adults, it wasn’t just because they were early bloomers. Friedman and associates found that harassment and violence were very common experiences among all young gay and bisexual males. Regardless of “bloomage,” 74% reported experiencing anti-gay harassment and 24% experienced parental physical abuse before the age of 17. And these experiences were capable of statistically predicting specific negative health outcomes as adults:

• Early gay-related harassment was found to be positively associated with gay-related victimization in adulthood;
• early parental abuse was found to be positively associated with partner abuse, gay-related victimization, depression, attempted suicide and becoming HIV-positive;
• and early forced sex was positively associated with adult partner abuse, depression, engagement in high-risk sex, and becoming HIV-positive.

The men in this survey became adults, on average, in the mid 1980’s. We don’t know whether adolescents today experience statistically the same levels of abuse and harassment as adolescents did then. But the authors conclude that regardless of the extent of anti-gay harassment today, that:

“…a compelling case can still be made that the three sets of findings above, as a whole, support the hypothesis that the experience of homophobic attacks against gay youth contribute to health disparities among gay men. … [T]his suggests that their experience of abuse is related to homophobia and that these experiences in part determine the adult health problems that gay men often experience.

“To summarize, some of the health disparities of gay and bisexual men may have their genesis in these individuals’ childhood and adolescent years given that these disparities are already in place by early adulthood. The findings described above support the hypotheses that the disparities appear to be due, in part, to the timing of [gay-related development] and the violence these individuals experience related to being gay during their formative years.”

This week is National No Name Calling Week, sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). According to GLSEN’s non-representative survey of 6,209 middle and high school students, 86% of LGBT students experienced harassment at school in the past year, 61% felt unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation, and 33% skipped a day of school in the past month because of they felt unsafe. This survey isn’t statistically representative nationwide, but that’s beside the point. They found an awful lot of harassed and frightened kids out there.

Of course, Focus On the Family is against No Name Calling Week, complaining that it has a hidden agenda. And they’re right; it does. The “hidden agenda” consists of safer youth and healthier adults, which Focus continues to oppose at all costs. After all, they’ve invested a lot of energy in maintaining the image of gay men as depressed, suicidal and unhealthy. Now we know that their own policy solutions will only serve to perpetuate that image.