Box Turtle Bulletin

Another Perspective on the Ocean Grove Pavilion

The Transplanted Lawyer at Not a Potted Plant blogsite provides another perspective about the decision to allow a lesbian couple to go forward with their lawsuit against the Ocean Grove Meeting Association for its refusal to rent the couple the boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union. In my commentary, I focused on the finding of the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights that one lesbian couple’s suit could advance. He finds more relevance in the fact that another lesbian couple was denied.

That two couples suing the Association with different results brings a contrast, one that should provide comfort to those worried about the infringment on religious rights and one that further illustrates the dishonesty in the way in which anti-gays have spun the story.

In Bernstein v. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a lesbian couple wanted to perform a civil union ceremony at a beachside facility owned and operated by a [Methodist] faith organization (it appears to not be a church per se, but it affiliates and identifies with [Methodist] Christianity). The New Jersey agency investigating the complaint found probable cause to permit the charge of discrimination proceed. But, in Moore v. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, another lesbian couple wanted to perform their civil union ceremony at the exact same facility. In that case, no probable cause was found. Both case results were announced on the same day — yesterday.

Same facts, same defendant, same facility, decided on the same day, but different results.

The reason for different results is because the circumstances had changed. When Bernstein requested usage, the Pavilion had been used for a wide variety of purposes – religious and non-religious – including weddings of people of all faiths or no faith at all. All that was required was to pay a fee. Thus it was a “public accomodation”. And the sole reason for rejection of Bernstein’s usage of this public accomodation was that their union was of persons of the same sex.

But when Moore requested usage, the Association had changed their policy and tightened the purpose of the Pavilion. They no longer allowed weddings in the space at all and limited those who were allowed use of the space based on religious affiliation. Thus, the space was no longer a public accomodation but private property with restricted use. Therefore, religious exemptions again applied.

He further noted that this process, presenting one’s discrimination case before a board before a lawsuit, is further protection for religious bodies.

The Transplanted Lawyer found three lessons:

the first lesson is that someone who claims to be the victim of discrimination cannot immediately walk into court and file a successful lawsuit. They must present their charge to a state or federal agency for investigation first, and that agency has to investigate and decide if there’s any merit.

there is the second lesson about the law of discrimination. You are subject to the requirements of non-discrimination only if you are engaged in something called a “public accommodation.” So if you don’t want same-sex wedding ceremonies in your church, don’t rent your church out to people who are not members of your church’s congregation.

That’s the third lesson — [when invoking freedom of expression,] commercial activity does not enjoy the same level of Constitutional protection as expressive activity.

I found the arguments well thought out and easy to comprehend. And I think that the Tranplanted Lawyer very well expressed the moral of this story:

When the church stops being a church and starts being a banquet hall, then yes, it is vulnerable to a discrimination lawsuit because it’s not acting like a church anymore. The message to churches that are opposed to same sex marriages is “stay true to your faith and the law will be on your side.”

Religious Business, Public Access, and Discrimination

The recent campaign against civil marriage equality for gay people was rife with misinformation, spin, falsehoods, and downright lies. And one story which was repeated to great effect was a legal dispute over the use of a privately-owned public pavilion in New Jersey.

Seldom were the claims accurate.

Take, for example, Charlene: a single-mother of two who warned on her website of the dangers of gay marriage that she had learned at church. Amidst a heap of campaign propaganda and homophobic bogus statistics was this rather hysterical retelling:

Our Pastors would be arrested for preaching against homosexuality according to the BIBLE. God’s word would be restricted! Recently, a Methodist church in New Jersey refused to marry a lesbian couple and they were sued and LOST! Now they lost their tax exemption and the government actually TAXES their tithes! That is God’s Money!!

And it was not just frantic repetition of misunderstood sermons by those who rely on their church for their information; the anti-gay media also joined in the chorus.

The Christian Examiner ran an article – ironically titled Proposition 8: Separating the Fiction from Fact – in which they delared:

Religious liberty
CLAIM: Current California law exempts churches and other religious organizations from having to perform marriages for same-sex couples or conduct other services against their religious beliefs.

FACT 1: New Jersey’s Ocean Grove Camp, lost its tax-exempt status after refusing to allow a same-sex couple to marry on its grounds.

The problem with these astonishing facts? They are not factual.

The LA Times explained it this way:

Another “Yes on 8” canard is that the continuation of same-sex marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings — of any religion — could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.

The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it’s not public. The ruling does not affect churches’ religious tax exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn’t about a wedding ceremony.

The facts of the story are these:

• The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, while a religious ministry, is not a church.
• The association lists two sites available for weddings on its website: Thornley Chapel and Bishop Janes Tabernacle, both of which are restricted to usage that is consistent with the United Methodist Church book of Discipline and both of which ban smoking or alcoholic beverages on the premises. The lawsuit did not involve either of these church buildings.
• SEE UPDATE BELOW – The structure where the lesbian couple requested rental was the Auditorium Pavilion. The Pavilion was not designed as a place of worship but rather was built in the 1880’s as a covering for “a scale model of 1st Century AD Jerusalem”. The Historical Society of Ocean Grove reports that the model was removed about 1950 and that “Today the Pavilion is used by the Camp Meeting Association, the Historical Society and various community groups.” It did offer its services as a wedding site until April 2007, shortly after the complaint.
• The Association owns all of the land in Ocean Grove (one square mile) but by no means is all of this property dedicated to religious use. There are a number of homes on the land who lease from the association, along with stores, restaurants, and hotels, in 99 year leases, and a beach boardwalk along the public beach.
• The Association rents out the religious meeting facilities to various groups, although it does maintain a ban on smoking and drinking on those properties. However, Ocean Grove was known as a location that was very gay-friendly and welcoming.
• The Association made the beach, the boardwalk, and the boardwalk pavilion public access property. A 1908 ruling referenced that they “had been dedicated years ago by the association as a public highway”. As privately-held public lands, the beach properties were available for a number of benefits including federal state and local funds for repairs and maintenance and exemption from local property taxes through participation in the state’s Green Acres Program.
• After a lesbian couple was rejected by the Association when they tried to rent the space for a civil union ceremony in March 2007, they contacted the State Division on Civil Rights to make a discrimination complaint.
• The State of New Jersey reinstated the Association’s exemption from property tax for the beach and the rest of the boardwalk, but stated that it could not continue to exempt the pavilion as it was not truly open to the public. (NY Times)
  

  “When people hear the words ‘open space,’ we want them to think not just of open air and land, but that it is open to all people,” said [Lisa Jackson, state commissioner of environmental protection]. “And when the public subsidizes it with tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not going to be parsed out, whether it be by activity or any particular beliefs.”

As we can see, the situation in no way mirrors the “facts” as presented by anti-gay activists and those who choose to believe them. No church lost its exempt status, no tithes were taxed, and it wasn’t related to a same-sex marriage in New Jersey (the right to which remains denied to New Jersey residents).

But we can expect even more distortion and truthiness in the days to come. In a move likely to inspire more untruthful rants in the anti-gay media, today the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights ruled further in favor of the lesbian couple (AP)

The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights said its investigation found that the refusal of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association to rent the oceanfront spot to the couple for their same-sex union in March 2007 violated the public accommodation provisions of the state’s Law Against Discrimination.

The legal resolutions on this case are far from settled.

Meanwhile, the parties in the dispute are awaiting a ruling from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on whether the issue should be decided in the division on civil rights or in federal courts. A lower federal court has ruled that the state could consider the case.

This case highlights some of the conflict between religous and civil separations.

Churches can and do often operate outside the realm of the faith and doctrine. A church may own performance halls, bookstores, restaurants, or a great many other establishments, some of which have little to no religious function. And the further away they get from their central purpose, the more gray and hazy become the distinctions that allow them to claim religious exemption from civil rights laws.

A Catholic bookstore, owned and operated by a parish for use by parishoners, is probably exempt from hiring those who do not share Catholic faith. But it becomes much less clear that a Catholic-affiliated hospital who accepts Medicare and insurance payments can refuse to hire a Jewish doctor or provide care to a black Muslim.

As anti-discrimination laws run up against anti-gay theology, churches will have to decide whether they wish to ‘uphold their doctrines’ or keep their sideline businesses. This will become particularly sticky when those sidelines seem to be part of their mission and when those businesses are facing competition from secular sources. And public financing only complicates the matter.

Take, for example, the feeding of the poor.

As an act of Christian charity, many churches or other religious organizations make an effort to provide food to the less fortunate. Not always, but quite often, this charitable act comes with the price of listening to a sermon or having someone pray with/over/about the hungry. And while most of these efforts are voluntary, some are large enough and sufficiently well funded so as to employ staff.

This is not a problem when its a local church helping out the neighbors. But churches have, in many instances, ceased thinking of their efforts as a duty or an outreach of their faith and have instead began to view their efforts as a service provider for the needy. And, as such, they see the government and public funds as a logical source for paying for their efforts.

What would have been considered bizarre but a century ago – “faith based” initiatives funded by taxpayers but managed according to religious doctrines – now seems quite acceptable and even laudable. And religious organizations are clamoring for their place at the public trough, while simultaneously demanding exemptions from government strings or any duty to the taxpayers.

The Ocean Grove Pavilion is but a very visible instance of a religious body seeking the benefits of taxpayer largess while demanding the privileges of religious exemption. I expect many more such conflicts will arise.

UPDATE – 1/26/10

The Auditorium Pavilion is a separate structure from the Boardwalk Pavilion, the location requested by the couple for their civil union ceremony.

Disgusting Protest At Murray, KY

Last month, we noted the innovative event sponsored by Murray State University’s Gay-Straight Alliance, in which alliance members performed “live homosexual acts” on campus’s Free Speech Zone. Those “live homosexual acts,” of course, consisted of reading books, chatting, studying, having coffee — that sort of thing.

Of course, things aren’t always that enlightened in that small southwestern Kentucky town. A reader from Murray wrote to me to describe another recent protest taking place in that fair city:

Ours is a small, conservative town, where protests and other forms of “making waves” are discouraged, message aside.  Thus it was all the more disturbing to see this man, his wife (presumably) and his child doing the corner preacher thing.  The center sign in the picture I’m sending you is the truly disturbing part of this whole ordeal.

Just a reminder that anti-gay fire exists everywhere, even places where the movement has made strides and opened minds, and even places where the anti-gay current is typically status quo and not incendiary.

The child in the middle, who looks to be about eight years old, is holding a sign reading “2 gay rights: AIDS and hell.” Gee, it’s a good thing they don’t hate us.

Washington Times’ Dishonest Anti-Gay Insinuation

The Washington Times was started by the Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon and is known as a conservative paper. For many years the Times ignored the AP Stylebook and refused to use the word “gay” when referring to same-sex attracted persons, preferring “homosexual”, and put quotation marks around the word “marriage” if it applied to a same-sex couple, even when such marriage was legal and recognized by the state.

At the beginning of 2008, the Times brought on a new editor-in-chief, John Solomon, who sought to remove some of the more obvious bias from news stories, including a change in the words used to describe gay people. At that time, Solomon expressed an intent to remove editorializing from the news stories and make them about, well, news.

The only point I have made with the reporters and editors who write for the news pages is there must be a bright line between opinion and editorializing that rightfully belongs on the op-ed and commentary pages and the fair, balanced, accurate, and precise reporting that must appear in the news sections of the paper.

While that is a commendable goal, an article in the paper today shows that the Washington Times is still willing to insert opinion into their news stories and will even go so far as print insinuations to do so.

The story in question is about the adoption of an infant by a gay couple. In late 2005, the child was born prematurely in Shreveport, LA, and after a month in the hospital was given to the New York couple. They began adoption procedures in their home state and on April 27, 2006, the State of New York made the adoption final.

State law in Louisiana requires that the Office of Vital Records reissue a birth certificate with the adoptive parents’ names when receiving a notice of adoption. However, the state refused, saying that their state laws don’t allow for two unmarried people to adopt a child together so they were not going to recognize the adoption. On Monday, a US District Judge ruled that the US Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause requires that Louisiana record both parents on the revised form.

This is, in itself, an interesting story. But what I found more interesting was the way in which it was misreported and distorted by the Washington Times. Although the AP reported the story in a straight-forward manner, in the middle of the Times version, the following paragraphs appeared:

In the national debate over gay marriage, one often-cited scenario involves a federal court using similar logic to require states that bar such unions to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, as all states now do with each other’s marriages under the federal Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause.

Such a federal ruling would effectively impose same-sex marriage on the entire nation, and homosexual activists celebrated this decision as requiring every state to recognize any other state’s gay adoptions.

This story has nothing to do with marriage, and as the law currently stands the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) allows states to ignore marriage in other states. But reporting the story wasn’t good enough for the Times; they needed to insinuate and scare and demonize.

What the Times is insinuating in that rather astonishing last paragraph is twofold. First, that the celebration of adoption rights somehow portends marriage rights and, secondly, that “homosexual activists” are out to get you and impose things upon you. If the “homosexual activists” are celebrating, you should be afraid.

Sorry, Mr. Solomon, but the homophobia and bigotry for which the Washington Times has always been known doesn’t seem to have gone away and your “news” is still chuck-full of opinion and editorial.

My Christmas 2008

This year was one of both pleasant and challenging experiences.

On Christmas Eve, I found myself at the home of a lovely woman. I was having a wonderful time when this woman’s son’s girlfriend announced that she had voted for Proposition 8. This was said loudly and proudly to the four gay people in the room.

I found myself unsure what to do. Frankly, I was shocked. I tried to pull myself out of the group and the girl came over to explain her position. She thought, “If they let two men marry, they might as well let three or four”.

Now this was coming from a girl who was waiting for the father of her daughter to finish Christmas Eve with his two other girlfriends, one of whom he lived with and the other of whom is pregnant. I found it more than a little perplexing that she felt entitled to an opinion about the legal rights of gay relationships.

And any efforts to make her realize that this was not abstract or theoretical but that she had voted to deny rights to people right there in the room only yielded her polygamy response. I finally realized that there was not going to be a rational meeting of minds and settled for the agreement that discrimination is not pleasant to the recipient, regardless of the reasons – though no empathy was present in that concession.

We went on with the evening – a meeting of very different cultures – and I found that I did enjoy the night. I even found that I enjoyed this particular girl.

I wonder if my response was correct.

I was a guest in someone’s home and at no point did anyone treat me with overt bigotry. Yet, someone sat and looked me in the face and told me that she had voted to make me inferior. Proudly. And no argument would sway the certainty of her position.

On the other hand, Christmas Day was delightful and without any conflict. It was a gathering of gay men (and a straight woman) for a delicious dinner, conversation, and watching (or, really, talking over) movies.

We also found that Oxygen On Demand had a karaoke channel which had Christmas songs. And I think the high point of the day was belting out Christmas Carols and seeing black and white, Christian and Jewish and Muslim and Native, singles and couples, all joining together in trying to reach the high notes on O Holy Night (Celene Dion version).

I hope that all of you enjoyed the holiday as much as I did.

AFA Steamed Over Campbell Soup Ad

The Campbell Soup Company is running an ad in the Advocate featuring a child with two mommies. The ads for Swanson’s broth ran in the December 2008 and January 2009 issues. This has the American Family Association boiling:

Campbell Soup Company has openly begun helping homosexual activists push their agenda. Not only did the ads cost Campbell’s a chunk of money, but they also sent a message that homosexual parents constitute a family and are worthy of support. They also gave their approval to the entire homosexual agenda.

They appear particularly upset that the ads featured a homosexual family:

“Not only did the ads cost Campbell’s a chunk of money,” writes AFA Chairman Donald Wildmon in an email alert, “but they also sent a message that homosexual parents constitute a family and are worthy of support.”

They are a family. What other term would Wildmon propose we use to describe two parents and a son? A pack maybe?

Wildmon is calling on his followers to call Campbell soup to complain. This is typically the first step to one of his boycotts. Campbell appears to be pretty resolute though:

A spokesperson for Campbell’s, however, explained that the advertisements are simply an attempt to reach a wide audience. “Campbell’s has been in business since 1869,” spokesperson Anthony Sanzio told WND. “For more than century people from all walks of life have enjoyed our products. We will continue to try to appeal to all people in ways that are meaningful and relevant to them.”

A Little Tomfoolery for the Holidays

UPDATE: It turns out that the following story was a total fabrication. Bogus. Big Lie. But gosh, it was fun while it lasted.

Like all of you, I don’t watch Jimmy Kimmel’s show. But it seems that Tom Cruise was a guest on Monday when he decided to discuss whether the US Census should include information on sexual orientation. According to the HuliQ website:

As Cruise told talk show host Jimmy Kimmel last night: “I am tired of not knowing. I am tired of hearing numbers quoted all over the map from practically zero to only a few million, all of them certainly far less than I believe there are. I think it is, psychologically, now the time to try and do something about this.”

This was just too glorious for words, but a few thoughts did fight their way through my instinct to fall on the floor laughing:

1. If Tom’s tired of hearing quotes from zero to only a few million, he’s been spending far too much time with his Scientologist buddies.

2. Tom’s church believes that homosexuality is an illness that can be “audited” away with an E-meter (or whatever it is that they do). I’m not sure I’d want to be on Tom’s list.

3. Oh, you know, the obvious one: there can only be so many lawsuits against guys who say that they’ve been on Tom’s personal census list before you begin to think that Tom’s interest may be a bit, well, personal.

4. And don’t the rumors about Tom himself serve as a good illustration of why a census that seeks to identify sexual orientation would never be accurate in the culture in which we live?

Well, in any case, Tom sounds awfully tired. So to let him get some rest, I’ll just tell him: there are, at minimum, 10,800,000 gay or bisexual men and women in the United States.

p.s. Tom, you aren’t supposed to think psychologically. It’s against your religion.

p.p.s. Don’t sue me, Tom.

Merry Christmas! Dems Duck DADT

How’s this for a Christmas present? The Roll Call is reporting that Congressional Democrats have decided to delay taking up the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” for at least two years — that would be after the mid-term elections:

Key Democrats — even openly gay lawmakers — are quietly conceding to letting another two years go by before trying to overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the controversial 1993 law banning openly gay people from serving in the military. Most fear that moving too quickly on such a divisive issue could backfire, and most would rather tread lightly, at least in the early months of President-elect Barack Obama’s administration.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) both have said the time is right to revisit the policy that Powell, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, helped implement. But Pelosi, for one, refused to say whether she planned to bring legislation to the floor next year to overturn the law…

Democratic lawmakers regularly beg off questions about the contentious policy, arguing that other issues are far more important — such as winding down the war in Iraq or bolstering the economy. They also remember the political uproar when then-President Bill Clinton used the beginning of his presidency to try to overturn an outright ban on gays serving in the military. That effort tied his administration in knots in his first months in office, and Democrats fear a repeat performance.”

The country has chanced a lot in the past fifteen years since DADT was put into effect. But the Dems haven’t. They’re just as cowardly as they always were, this time spooked by a fifteen-year-old ghost.

The Democratic party holds a commanding presence in the House, and a very strong one in the Senate. If they wait two years, we’re looking at after the mid-term elections — when the ruling party typically loses seats.  After that, we’ll hear the predictable counsel that DADT will not be doable with the more conservative Congress. This is the strongest position the Democratic party is likely to be in for some time.  As one famous politician who had no fear of shaking things up often asked, if not now, when?

And where is the HRC on this? Oh, I see. They’re fully on board with the timid wait-and-see approach. Are they representing our interests here? Or the Democratic Party’s?

It’s time we had leadership that’s not afraid of its own shadow. Our opponents certainly haven’t made their gains by moving with such timidity.

[via Queerty]

Bush Signs Law Protecting Retirement Savings for Gay Couples

President George Bush on Tuesday signed into law the Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 (WRERA). This act requires employers to allow employees to roll their retirement plans over to unmarried partners. Before now, a similar provision of an earlier act was optional:

The Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 (WRERA), signed by President Bush today, contains technical corrections to the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA). PPA made it possible for employers to allow any nonspouse beneficiary of an employee’s retirement plan—including an employee’s same-sex partner—to roll inherited retirement benefits directly to an individual retirement account (IRA) and avoid immediate taxation. WRERA requires that all employers provide this rollover opportunity to nonspouse beneficiaries.

Employers will be required to make this rollover available on January 1, 2010.

PFOX Billboard Removed

A couple of weeks ago, complaints began to pour in over a billboard for PFOX, which was put up as a “public service” by Clear Channel Outdoors along the I-19 corridor in Tucson. Fortunately, Wingspan, Tucson’s LGBT community center, was able to get the billboard removed, but without an explanation of why it was put up in the first place. Here’s the KVOA-TV report:

[Hat tip: Jason Cianciotto at Wingspan]

Eartha Kitt (January 17, 1927 — December 25, 2008)

She was… C’est Si Bon.

More videos after the jump

Merry Christmas

I wish you and all of yours the very merriest Christmas.

And leave you for the holiday with this image, a familiar one – though you probably don’t know its history.

Although Santa Claus certainly predates the 1920’s, he didn’t always look much like this guy. Although Thomas Nast had given Santa a shape and look, it wasn’t until J. C. Leyendecker created a consistent look for Santa Clause as a rotund fellow with red cheeks and a red and white suit for the covers of the Saturday Evening Post that Santa Claus, as we know him, came to be.

Leyendecker also created the Arrow Collar Man, the New Years Baby, and a number of other iconic American images. In retrospect, some of his illustration can be seen to have strong homoerotic elements. He died in 1951, leaving behind Charles Beach, his partner of 48 years.

Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas

Judy Garland’s 1963 Christmas special:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CihJrH5teQ

With Jack Jones, daughter Liza, and tap dancing Santas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gmz7XbXyts

With Mel Torme:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axT3wBWQ8VQ

Box Turtle Bulletin Has Now Gone Mobile

How’s this for a Christmas present? Box Turtle Bulletin has now gone mobile. Check it out on your iPhone. I don’t know if it works for Blackberry. If not, please let me know.

A Message To You (From Me and the Boys With the Loudspeaker)

Sometimes I delight in living in Southern California. And last night was one such night.

I was driving along Hollywood Boulevard when I heard loud music coming from a car. And then up alongside me pulls an SUV with a speaker strapped to the roof blaring music in (I assume) Hebrew and next to it was a Menorah with light bulbs lit up to represent the third night of Hanakkah.

The four teenaged Orthodox boys (whom a coworker tells me were Chabad) were smiling and waving and I’ll pass on to you the message they gave to me:

HAPPY HANUKKAH