Box Turtle Bulletin

Same-Sex Marriages Begin Today In Connecticut

Marriages will become available sometime after 9:15 a.m.:

Superior Court Judge Jonathan Silbert has scheduled a hearing at 9:15 a.m. Wednesday in New Haven to enter the final judgment in the case that allows same-sex marriages in Connecticut. Once the hearing ends, couples can pick up marriage license forms at town and city clerk’s offices.

It’s unclear how many couples will get married. The state public health department says 2,032 civil union licenses were issued in Connecticut between October 2005 and July 2008.

On October 10, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that gay couples had the right to marry under the Connecticut Constitution rather than settling for separate-but-almost-equal civil unions. On November 4, voters rejected a constitutional convention, which marriage opponents hoped would be their opportunity amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Connecticut’s constitution cannot be amended by an initiative process.

North Carolina Home Destroyed In Anti-Gay Arson

A fire destroyed Catawba, North Carolina home Friday night, and authorities are investigating it as a hate crime. The nearby Newton Observer News Enterprise takes it from there:

Melvin Whistlehunt was at work when he got a call from his mother at 2:30 a.m. Friday that his home was engulfed in flames. As firefighters began hosing down the house at 1275 Buffalo Shoals Road, it became clear the home was set on fire intentionally. What they found launched an immediate hate crime investigation.

The fire was intense, but it didn’t keep Jason Drum, chief of the Bandys Crossroads Volunteer Fire Department, from noticing graffiti written across the back of the brick home within five minutes of arrival. Someone used white spray paint to write a derogatory message referring to sexual orientation and race.

Drum asked Whistlehunt’s mother, who lives next door, if the graffiti had been there. She told him it was new.

Whistlehunt said everyone who knows him is aware he’s gay, but few people have outwardly criticized him for it. “I don’t know of anybody who would go this far,” he said.

What We’re Up Against

Listen here as Michelangelo Signorile talks with Nancy, a Mormon from Texas and a Prop 8 supporter.

Calling The LDS’s Bluff

On the day after election day, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints issued a triumphant press release crowing about their smashing success in stripping gays of their rights in California and permanently assigning gays to second-class citizenship in Arizona and Florida. But they insisted that they weren’t anti-gay, or even opposed to some rights for gays and lesbians:

… the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

Well now Equality Utah and Sen. Scott McCoy, Utah’s first openly gay state Senator, is taking the LDS Church at their word and calling their bluff. Using the very same points raised in the Mormons’ press release as their legislative agenda, Utah state Senator Scott McCoy and state Rep. Christine Johnson will introduce five bills for the 2009 general session of the Utah legislature.  They are (PDF: 32KB/3 pages):

1. Hospitalization & Medical Care
   Most gay people with insurance cannot insure their family. This bill will mandate that insurance plans, which extend benefits to an employee’s spouse, also cover an employee’s partner. When insurance plans cover families, they should cover every family member.
2. Fair Housing & Employment
   Currently, it is legal to fire a person from her job or evict a person from his home just for being gay or transgender. The Fair Housing and Workplace bill will expand on HB 89, introduced by Representative Christine Johnson in the 2008 session. It will add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of characteristics employers and landlords may not consider when making employment or housing decisions.
3. Probate Rights – Wrongful Death Amendments
   The death of a loved one is painful. When someone dies, we can protect the family’s financial security by removing barriers to inheritance and insurance. As part of this effort, we will continue to support Senator Scott McCoy’s Wrongful Death Amendments legislation.
4. Domestic Partner Rights & Responsibilities Act
   The term “marriage” has proven to stir up many conflicts. Aside from marriage, we can do much more to help committed couples care for each other. This bill creates a statewide domestic partner registry as exists in California and attaches rights of inheritance, insurance and fair housing.
5. Repeal of part 2 of Utah’s Amendment 3
   A registry that covers inheritance, housing, and insurance is not the legal equivalent of marriage. Yet the second part of Amendment 3 has been misinterpreted to avoid any recognition of gay couples. Laws that deny basic protections under the law should be repealed. This bill will repeal the portion of Amendment 3 which states “no other domestic union; however, denominated, may be recognized as marriage or be given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.”

If the LDS leadership is serious about their rhetoric about not being anti-gay, they have a golden opportunity to try to put some action behind their words. Mike Thompson, Equality Utah’s Executive Director invited the LDS church to do just that by asking these very pointed questions:

The LDS Church has stated that it does not oppose same-sex couples receiving such rights as “hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights?” Will the LDS Church be willing to support efforts to secure these rights?

Is the LDS Church willing to assign a member of its Presidency of the Seventy to lead Church efforts to secure these rights, just as it did with Proposition 8?

As it did in California, will the First Presidency draft a letter to Utah Latter- Day Saints in support of rights and protections for gay couples?

As it did in California, will the First Presidency ask for this letter to be read to all Utah congregations on a specified date?

Will the First Presidency ask that all members of the LDS Church do all they can do, including “donating their means and their time”, to assure that gay couples receive such rights as hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights” — just as it asked its members to do in support of California’s Proposition 8?

Will local Church leaders provide information to its members about how to get involved in supporting such rights, just as it did in California?

Finally, we ask members of the LDS Church, will you ask your church leaders to support these efforts?

In other words, are the LDS leaderships protestations that they aren’t anti-gay real? Or are they just empty words uttered in the face of a backlash?

CA Supremes to Decide Perhaps by the End of the Week

The Sacramento Bee is reporting:

The California Supreme Court could rule as early as this week on a lawsuit that seeks to invalidate Proposition 8, court spokeswoman Lynn Holton said today.

The decision this week would be whether to put a stay on the State’s enforcement of Proposition 8 until lawsuits could be heard. The lawsuits are based on the argument that Proposition 8 did not amend the Constitution, but rather revised it to do something materially different than it did before. In other words, this was not a change in how something is done but rather a change in an underlying principle of the Constitution: that all citizens are equal and that gay citizens cannot be excluded from the institutions of the State.

If the court finds that removing a fundamental right of a suspect population is a revision rather than an amendment, the process is different. It requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature before submission to the public.

Some scholars are of opinion that this suit is unlikely to prevail. But there are a few indicators – purely from observation and guesswork – that I find encouraging.

First, this court did not find, as some have, that the State did not provide adequate reason for excluding same sex couples. Rather, they found that gay persons are a suspect class and that all laws written for the express purpose of excluding gay persons or couples are presumed to be in violation of the Constitution and can only pass strict scrutiny if they are narrowly tailored to be the least restrictive means for achieving a compelling governmental interest.

Proposition 8 did nothing to invalidate the strict scrutiny requirements or equal protections provisions of the Constitution. And no one pretends that Prop 8 achieved even a vague government interest and it was inarguably greatly restrictive and broadly tailored. Thus, the proposition leaves the State Constitution in a state of internal conflict. The reading of this document now is “Gays cannot be excluded. Gays are excluded.” Such language is clearly nonsensical.

It leaves the legal scholar with a document that is not much different from that painted on the side of the barn in the Animal Farm, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

Next, I’m going to speculate on how a judiciary views precedent. Regardless of the conclusions of a court, jurists hold them as concluded. Those who found other evidence to be compelling do not disagree with whether the court has decided or whether such decisions must be followed.

This court found by a 4-3 vote that gays are subject to strict judicial scrutiny and that marriage is a fundamental right. But – and this is the important part – even the three dissenting judges will uphold the position that marriage is now a fundamental right and that gays are now a suspect class. Once the conclusion is reached, it has the force of law and the backing of both supporters and dissenters.

That voters disagree about the fundamental nature of the right to marriage is not of importance to the dissenting judges. That 52% of voters don’t want gays to have equality does not make the suspect status of gays any less real – even to the dissenters. Those who sought to overturn the decision did not disagree with a few judges, but rather with the right of the court to determine who is included in the protections of the constitution – something that all jurists take seriously. Or so I hope.

Finally, and this may seem counterintuitive, these are not liberal activist judges. They did not come into their position with a “gay agenda” and use creative reading to find a “special right”. Six of the seven judges are Republicans, and they found that gay people are equal out of their understanding of constitutional protections. Their decision was based on their reasoning and contrary to what may have been initial prejudices. They will not be easily swayed by Party, ideology, or the whims of political winds. If they found marriage to be a fundamental right, a 52% vote of the populace is unlikely to cause them to no longer see such a right.

Now I may be unduly optimistic, but I have reason to hope that the California Supreme Court will invalidate Proposition 8. And I have a suspicion that the vote will be greater than 4 to 3.

Nationwide Protests Called for Saturday

This thing is now going viral, complete with its own Facebook page. Ordinary folks, disillusioned by our “professional advocates,” have shoved them aside and are now taking matters into their own hands. The web site they’ve set up, Join the Impact, is calling for protests in more than 125 cities across America on Saturday November 15, at 1:30 p.m. EST / 10:30 a.m. PST.

Their web site has been had trouble staying online because of the heavy traffic. So I’m re-posting the information below after the jump.

Update: I’ve updated the post above to reflect the more active and most current web site. I’ve also updated the information below.

Click here to find a city near you.

El Coyote Update

The consequences of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ decision to enter the political arena and seek secular enforcement of their religious doctrines can be measured in part by the chaos and turmoil caused in the lives and livelihoods of their own members.

We know of families who have been torn apart by Mormon theology on human sexuality. We know of suicides and depression. We know of estranged children and miserable holidays. But we respect the rights of churches to select their own articles of faith – even those that bring unhappiness on those adherants who are gay.

But when the Mormon Church decided to spread outside of its own fold, the tragedy expanded to neighbors and employees and friends and customers. No longer can hurt and difficulty be excused as a matter of private faith; now we see and condemn the public policy efforts that have left a trail of victims in their wake.

And not all victims of this agressive effort are gay, some are faithful members of the church that have been caught in the crossfire.

One example of such is Marjorie Chrisoffersen, the family manager of El Coyote Restaurant. Word of her contribution of $100 to the Yes on 8 Campaign has flown by email throughout Los Angeles’ gay community. And with this community – and its friends and allies – as her best customers, this has the potential to severely hinder her business.

Today Margie released a message:

I have been sick at heart that anyone has been offended by me. I have family, friends, employees from the gay community who are treasured people in my life.

I have been a member of the Mormon church all my life. I responded to their request with my personal donation.

For years the El Coyote has financially and generously supported the gay community and its charities.
Please be my guest for an early lunch Wed., Nov. 12th, @ 11:00 am and allow me to personally speak with you.

Please call and make a reservation as seating is limited. (323) 939-2255.
Margie

I don’t believe that Margie acted out of ill intentions. I suspect that she was just obedient to a call put out by her church leadership, a leadership that I believe gave no care or concern to the sacrifice that they had requested of those members with gay friends, families, and customers.

But I may be wrong. She may feel that the profits made from catering to our community can then be spent on civil harm towards us – as long as the motivation is religious.

I have made my reservation for tomorrow. I want to hear whether Margie believes that giving to a charity excuses taking away a basic right. I want to hear whether she will provide statements of justification or a request for forgiveness.

UPDATE

From JazzyJeff63’s Flickr site

11/10/2008 – I had dinner at El Coyote tonight. When Marj finished having dinner with her family, I called her over to my table and asked “What was your position on Prop 8?”, She replied with “I love you guys, I would never do anything to hurt you, I wish I hadn’t done it”.

She was sincerely regretful, I could feel her hurt as she probably felt mine.

But from Eater:

“El Coyote is known for being a melting pot, we love and tolerate everyone. This has nothing to do with the restaurant. I donated through my church. We would never tell our employees they couldn’t contribute to political organizations—as individuals, they do and support whatever they want. El Coyote has donated thousands of dollars to the gay community through charitable organizations. As a rule, we don’t do politics. We have too many varying opinions here, and that’s the staff’s right.”

While the former sounds a bit like, “I’m sorry”, this statement sounds like justification. It’s the age old plea that “my personal actions should not have any impact on my business” and “I’m separate from my restaurant, so just ignore that the profits come to me”.

I do not in any way challenge Marjorie Cristoffersen’s right to contribute to whomever she wishes. But she will not use profits made from my dollar to take away my rights.

And frankly, I’m not all that interested in being “tolerated” at the moment.

So I’m quite interested in hearing what Margie will have to say tomorrow.

There are now over 4,000 google hits for “el coyote” prop 8.

For an update to this story, see: El Coyote: An Uncompromising Faith

HRC’s Self-Parody

As angry protests continue to erupt across California in the wake of Prop 8’s passage, our so-called leaders at the “Human Rights Champagne” is ready to mix it up with — get this — spa night:

HRC invites you to an evening of pampering and relaxation while you sip wine, snack on appetizers, and mingle with friends! We are proud to partner with Nickel Spa on this evening spa event.

…Note: There is a 50 person maximum for this event, you must be on the list to attend! Receiving a service is not required to attend. 20% of proceeds from spa services to benefit the Human Rights Campaign.

The HRC’s tepid response to ballot measures is now 0-30, their accomplishments on Capital Hill are minuscule — they are in serious danger of becoming completely irrelevant. With this, they are now reduced to self-parody. It’s like they’re not even trying anymore.

More Protests Yet To Come

The protests against Prop 8 continue without any apparent letup. Here are some more scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, including one in St. Paul, Minnesota:

Tuesday, November 11:
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
1:00 p.m.
Corner of Haven and Foothill.

Redlands, CA
4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.
Redlands Mormon Temple
1761 Fifth Avenue

Santa Monica, CA
5:00 p.m.
321 Santa Monica Pier

Fresno, CA
5:00 p.m.
Fink-White Playground
Amador St and B St.

San Francisco, CA
5:00 p.m. – 10:00p.m.
San Francisco City Hall
1 Dr Carton B Goodlett Pl

San Diego, CA
5:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
San Diego Mormon Temple
7474 Charmant Drive

Los Angeles, CA
6:00 p.m.
La Cienega Blvd and Centinela Ave

Saint Paul, MN
3:00 p.m.
State Capitol (Meet on Old Main Lawn)

Wednesday, November 12
Encinitas, CA
4:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
Corner of Saxony and Encinitas Blvd.
Phone: 5305759264
dancewithwolves@wildmail.com

West Hollywood, CA
7:00 p.m.
Santa Monica & San Vicente

New York, NY
6:30 p.m.
Manhattan Mormon Temple
125 Columbus Ave at 65th Street

San Diego, CA
7:00 p.m.
St. Paul’s Episcopal Cathedral
2728 Sixth Ave.
For more info, contact Chris Harris at (619) 298-7261 or harrisc@stpaulcathedral.org.

Keith Olbermann on California’s Prop 8

Click here to read the full transcript

Hope for a Cure

1990’s Longtime Companion ends with an imagined day in which AIDS and the HIV virus is overcome, a day of celebration. Now there is a story that hints that such a day may come.

It has been long known – and seldom discussed – that some persons are immune to most strains of the HIV virus. I’ve wondered whether there couldn’t be a way of using that immunity to kill the virus in those who are infected. Now it seems that a German doctor has done just that. (WSJ)

The breakthrough appears to be that Dr. Hütter, a soft-spoken hematologist who isn’t an AIDS specialist, deliberately replaced the patient’s bone marrow cells with those from a donor who has a naturally occurring genetic mutation that renders his cells immune to almost all strains of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

This treatment for leukemia yielded an unexpected result

The patient, a 42-year-old American living in Berlin, is still recovering from his leukemia therapy, but he appears to have won his battle with AIDS. Doctors have not been able to detect the virus in his blood for more than 600 days, despite his having ceased all conventional AIDS medication. Normally when a patient stops taking AIDS drugs, the virus stampedes through the body within weeks, or days.

This case may be a fluke. And this bone marrow procedure is so risky, and has such a high death rate, that this cannot become a method for treating HIV infected persons. And we have seen many promising treatments turn out to be failures later.

Nonetheless it is stories like this one that give us continued hope for a cure. It certainly provided hope to this patient.

Nearly two years later, standard tests haven’t detected virus in his blood, or in the brain and rectal tissues where it often hides.

Cleveland May Offer Token Couple Registration

Those who crafted the Ohio ban on gay marriage did so with the intention of excluding gay couples from even the most rudimentary of protections.

Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

While some anti-gay advocates will loudly proclaim that they have no problem with civil unions, those who sought and achieved the ban in Ohio had no such pretenses. Their prime effort was to ensure that ALL concessions, be they hospital visitation or property rights or any other small conveniences no matter how benighn, be denied to the gay citizens of the state.

Nevertheless, the cities of Cleveland Heights and Toledo have created registries for same-sex or opposite-sex couples. Though such registries have no requirements on any entity, public or private, and provide no benefits, they are useful for employees of those companies that offers domestic partner benefits. It provides an easy and convenient method by which to prove qualification.

Now some councilmen in Cleveland are hoping that their city will join them. From the Plain Dealer

The registry would be nonbinding, meaning employers and other organizations would not be forced to extend health care benefits to unwed couples or allow visits with a hospitalized partner. But supporters of the plan are hopeful it might encourage the allowance of such rights.

Councilman Joe Cimperman, a sponsor of the idea, said a registry would help Cleveland as it bids to host the 2014 Gay Games, a sporting event with a global audience. In addition, fees paid by those who register could pour some much-needed cash into city coffers.

“We are trying to show that we are a serious city when it comes to tolerance,” said Cimperman, who with other colleagues is expected to introduce legislation next week.

We wish them success.

(hat tip Stefano)

Should I Give Up my Favorite Mexican Restaurant?

I just received a very distressing email. It started:

I wanted to share with you that the owner of El Coyote, Marjorie, donated $100 to the Yes on 8 campaign…

El Coyote Café is a Los Angeles landmark. Over 75 years old, and still family owned, it is perhaps best known as the site of Sharon Tate’s last meal.

Locals know it as a favorite of many of who just want a meal and a drink, and don’t want to pay much to get it. A taco and enchilada with rice and beans is $9.50; pair that up with a margarita and you’re out the door for less than twenty bucks.

El Coyote is also delightfully tacky with a vast collection of “art”, the kind that includes paintings with windows that light up and frames made of shells. The waitresses wear huge Spanish dresses with lots of frills and most have been there for decades. It’s loud, it’s high in fat content and calories, it’s unsophisticated, and it’s always always busy.

But what makes El Coyote a delight is that its one of those places that are loved by straights and gays alike. On any given night, a quarter to a third of all patrons are gay and the rest are singles out together, birthday parties, families with kids, or old married couples.

A search of the website via the LA Times shows that Marjorie Chrisoffersen did contribute $100 to the Yes on 8 Campaign. And Marjorie is the daughter of Grace Salisbury, the owner.

But what do I do with this information? I’ve been a faithful patron for many years, sometimes as frequently as weekly. So it is for me a particularly distressing dilemma.

Do I boycott the establishment? If so, for how long and to what effect? What would alleviate my concern, what can I demand? Is it enough that Marjorie (who runs the place with her husband) gave though Grace did not? Is $100 enough for me to view the establishment at “anti-gay” when I know full well that several of the staff are gay and that the environment is always welcoming? What would I say if Marjie came by with her water pitcher asking how everything was?

I think this is but an example of the sort of conflict that we are going to each have to resolve as we find that friends, family, and service providers that we had thought of as supportive actually do not believe that we are entitled to equality under the law.

Boycott Utah?

There’s a move afoot to launch a boycott against the state of Utah in response to the LDS Church’s heavy-handed role in passing California’s Proposition 8 (and please don’t forget their role in Arizona’s Prop 102!):

Gay rights activist John Aravosis, whose well-trafficked AmericaBlog.com is urging the boycott, is unapologetic about targeting Utah rather than California, where voters defined marriage in the state Constitution as a heterosexual act. Utah, Aravosis said, “is a hate state,” and on this issue, “at a fundamental level, the Utah Mormons crossed the line. . . . They just took marriage away from 20,000 couples and made their children bastards. You don’t do that and get away with it.”

Utahans didn’t vote on Prop 8 or Prop 102, not all Utahans are Mormons and many Mormons opposed these marriage amendments, including faithful Mormons in Utah. I can see boycotting Mormon-owned businesses which supported Prop 8 and Prop 102. There’s no shortage of targets there. I can also see the logic of boycotting Mormon-owned businesses which make their LDS connections an integral part of their identity — Marriott, for example.

There are businesses I refuse to patronize on principle, even though I’m sure they don’t miss my dollars much. While I question the effectiveness of boycotts as a tactic, I’m all for it in principle as long as the target is appropriate.  But boycotting an entire state? I’m not so sure what that will accomplish. It seems to me we risk harming those who had nothing to do with this, while letting others — businesses in California, Arizona and elsewhere — off the hook.

What do you think?

Black Support For Gays: It’s Out There. Where Are The LGBT Leaders?

Michael Petrellis found this item in the San Francisco Chronicle:

Black and gay: The overturning of same-sex marriages in California has triggered a wave of resentment in the gay community, some of it aimed at African Americans. Blacks turned out in droves to vote for Barack Obama for president. Unfortunately for gays, exit polls show that many of them also voted for Proposition 8.

Just last Sunday, Third Baptist Church minister and former San Francisco Supervisor Rev. Amos Brown – a veteran of the civil rights battles of the 1960s – launched into a sermon about the need to protect the rights of gays.

Suddenly, a young associate minister seated in the front row stormed the pulpit, grabbed a microphone and began lecturing Brown about the need to “just preach the Gospel and leave that other stuff alone.” Brown snatched the microphone from the man, who was quickly escorted out.

“There are African Americans who … feel the white gays haven’t stood with them on issues like social justice, education and housing,” Brown said.

On the other hand, Brown also knows the black community was slow to offer support to gays at the outset of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s. Brown warned the ugliness will continue if cooler heads don’t prevail.

“What this man did storming the church pulpit was just the tip of the iceberg,” he said.

In the midst of all the hurt feelings in the gay community over African-Americans’ supporting Prop 8 by some seventy percentage points, Michael Petrelis asks what ought to be an obvious question:

Not only is Brown pro-gay marriage, he opposed Prop 8, but, big surprise here, the No on 8 leadership didn’t recruit him to help defeat the ballot measure. I didn’t see any No materials with him and all his associations from the black community, touting his opposition. Were the No leaders unaware of his position, or, did they not know how to work with Brown to persuade other black… voters to say No?