Box Turtle Bulletin

Friday Protests Planned at Salt Lake City Temple and Several California Cities

A protest is planned for 6 p.m. Friday at the LDS Temple in Salt Lake City. The protest is intended to show solidarity with those protesting in California over the Mormon church’s heavy involvement in Prop 8.

The Utah protest is being organized by Jacob Whipple, a 29-year-old former LDS Church member who served a mission in Argentina. Joining the protest will be Valerie Larabee, executive director of the Utah Pride Center.

Update: Other protests are planned for Friday night, including:

• San Francisco: 5:30 p.m., from the San Francisco Civic Center (Market/7th), with a march to Dolores Park.
• Long Beach, CA: 6:45 p.m. – 9:00 p.m., Broadway and Redondo.
• Santa Barbara, CA: 5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m., 700-756 De La Guerra Plaza St.

Update: San Diego: 9 p.m., at Laurel and Sixth, with a walk to City Hall.

If you know of any more protests, please let me know either by email or in the comments.

Protesters Target Mormon Temple in Westwood

A crowd of protesters, variously estimated at between 500 to 3,000 strong, gathered outside the Mormon temple on Santa Monica Boulevard in Westwood, CA to protest the church’s involvement in Tuesday’s passage of Proposition 9.

The protest began at about 2 p.m., as people stood in front of the temple, waving banners and screaming “Shame on you” to church members behind the temple’s gates. Police closed portions of Westwood Boulevard, Wilshire Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard around the temple, leading to massive traffic jams.

There were reports of more protests near the UCLA campus, in which protesters sat down in the middle of Wilshire Boulevard. Another protest is expected at the Los Angeles Federal Building, with possibly additional protests continuing on into the night.

This follows a night of protests in Hollywood and West Hollywood, where thousands of protesters effectively shut down Santa Monica Boulevard. The massive protest caught L.A. police off guard, requiring them to call a tactical alert. At least seven people were arrested. Television cameras caught one protester being struck by batons.

What about New York?

Public opinion polls in New York suggest that the residents of the Empire State may well be strongly supportive of marriage equality. The Governor is a strong advocate of marriage and has on more than one occasion demonstrated his support. In June 2007, the state assembly passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in a decisive 85-61 vote, with four Republicans supporting the bill.

Same-sex marriages conducted outside New York in a place where they are legal are currently recognized by the state.

And for the past year, the only thing standing in the way of a Senate vote on the bill was that the Republicans had a tiny majority and the Senate Leader refused to let the bill come up for a vote.

And now that has changed. As a result of Tuesday night, the Democrats will go into the next legislative session with a two vote lead in the Senate.

So why is it too early to celebrate?

Because four of the Democratic Senators are considering backing a Republican Senate Leader. The Democrat up for Leadership is black, which does not sit well with these Senators.

Three of the four holdouts are Latino legislators who feel Latinos have been underrepresented in leadership roles in city and state government and want to press the issue in the Senate.

Mr. Díaz said the four men, who have formed an independent political caucus, may put off making a decision on whom to back for leader until the new legislative session begins in January.

“There’s a concern that we have a black president, a black governor and we have a concern that we have to be sharing power,” said Mr. Díaz.

But race is not the only factor in the decision as to who should lead the Senate.

Mr. Díaz, a Pentecostal minister, has long been one of the most socially conservative voices in the Senate. He continued to say on Wednesday that he could not support as leader any lawmaker who would help make gay marriage become law, even if it were his own son, Assemblyman Ruben Díaz Jr.

“I would not support anybody, Malcolm Smith, my son Ruben Díaz Jr., anybody who supports that,” he said.

Senator Diaz seems to be indicating that he would rather that Republican Dean Skelos lead the Senate than that marriage equality come to New York. And while Senator Skelos has met with Log Cabin and has indicated a willingness to be more open to gay issues than his predecessor, Senator Bruno, he is not in favor of gay marriage and it is doubtful that he would allow such a bill to go forward.

As yet there is no indication as to who these four Senators will eventually support. And there is some indication that the Democratic leadership may be willing to jettison marriage equality – at least temporarily – in order to achieve control of the Senate.

Senator Thomas K. Duane, an openly gay Democrat from Manhattan who has been a major advocate for marriage legislation, said, “We’re putting everything on hold until we fix the economy.”

And even were a vote to take place, there is no certainty that marriage equality would pass. While I believe some Republicans may be lined up in support, they may not be enough to outnumber these and other potential Democratic defectors.

Obama Transition Team’s Inclusive Non-Discrimination Policy

President-elect Barack Obama’s transition office is hiring, and they’ve posted their job application form on the web. This is your chance to work for the White House. And guess what? In the new administration, you’ll be protected from discrimination regardless of your sexual orientation or gender identity:

The Obama-Biden Transition Project does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or any other basis of discrimination prohibited by law.

This statement goes above and beyond the legal requirements. Currently employers are free to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Gender Identity is not included in the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s policy on non-discrimination. The Bush administration’s appointments page does not contain a non-discrimination policy.

Things are already looking up.

[Hat tip: Connecticut Employment Law Blog]

Patronizing B.S., Part 2.

From Exodus International president Alan Chambers:

And, while I am thrilled with the vote in support of keeping marriage the way God intends it, I am truly heavy in heart for the men and women who saw same-sex marriage as an answer to their struggle for acceptance. I do not take any joy in seeing people’s dreams or hearts crushed even if I disagree with them. I pray this morning that the proponents of Arizona’s Prop 102, California’s Prop 8 and Florida’s Amendment 2 celebrate with these broken hearts in mind and with a desire to comfort those who need comfort in the wake of what has to be bitter disappointment. Truly this is what Jesus would do!

This is the same guy who just a year ago characterized these same “brokenhearted people” as following an evil agenda. 

Exodus International Vice President Randy Thomas’s reaction on his liveblog was much more transparent:

11:37 Randy Thomas: CNN says that Amendment two is still at 62% with 87% of the precincts reporting in.
11:38 Randy Thomas: I JUST GOT AN EMAIL FROM THE AMENDMENT 2 CAMPAIGN SAYING THAT IT PASSED!
11:39 Randy Thomas: That’s a big wow. I will be honest… this is the second time I have gotten emotional tonight.
11:40 Randy Thomas:

Patronizing B.S.

From LDS Elder L. Whitney Clayton of the Presidency of the Seventy:

Now that California voters have outlawed same-sex marriage, an LDS Church leader called Wednesday for members to heal rifts caused by the emotional campaign by treating each other with “civility, with respect and with love.”

“We hope that everyone would treat [each other] that way no matter which side of this issue they were on,” said Elder L. Whitney Clayton, of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Presidency of the Seventy.

Civility, respect and love? Bull!

One Proposal for Going Forward Towards Marriage Equality in California

The voters of California have spoken twice about whether gay citizens are to be considered full citizens of the State, regarding marriage. In 2000, the voters declared with a majority of 61.4% that the state would only recognize marriages between opposite sex couples. And just this week they declared by 52% that the decision of the Supreme Court be overturned to exclude gay couples from marriage recognition.

But the voice of the people need not be silent at this point, never to change their view. And polls show that time is working in favor of marriage equality. Both a growing comfort with gay couples and a sharply different attitude between youth and seniors suggests that without unanticipated circumstances it is inevitable that soon a majority of California voters will believe in marriage equality.

So I propose that we, as a community, consider the following strategy:

We place a constitutional amendment on the ballot of every statewide election until Proposition 8 is overturned. Such an amendment would be written to do nothing other than reverse the language that was inserted on Tuesday night.

An amendment to the state constitution can be placed on the ballot by means of valid signatures totaling 8% of the previous gubernatorial votes. This means that as few as 694,324 valid signatures need to be collected. A serious effort combining No on Prop 8 and HRC lists along with pride parades and festivals and Universal Unitarian, United Church of Christ, Episcopal, and some United Methodist congregations should make this a relative inexpensive project. Even if signature gatherers are required, the cost should be less than a million dollars in total.

I propose that beyond the cost and effort to collect and submit signatures that we do nothing towards passing the amendment. Nor should we go in with any expectation of success. Our community cannot well afford either the financial or emotional cost of a battle like the one we have just gone through.

But we should make it clear to the voters that we can and will continue to place this issue before them until they side with equality.

There are a few possible negative results of such a plan.

If we spend nothing to pass such an amendment, it may fail by a larger than 52% to 48% margin. This will embolden those who seek to oppress us to claim that California is moving in their direction.

This might even cause some of our allies to become disheartened. We must make it clear that we know it will take time for Californians to come to our aid but that we will be unrelenting.

Also, it may give some voters the impression that they’ve “already answered this”. Why are we back when they said “No” once, twice, three times, etc.? That is an irritation that we will just have to withstand.

But this approach also has some positive sides.

For what we spent on Proposition 8, we could fund 35 amendments. And the cost could be spread over several years allowing us to recover financially and emotionally without giving up a constant pressure.

Repeatedly having to choose discrimination is emotionally distressing to those persons who like to think of themselves as decent and loving. You can always tell yourself, “gosh, how did I vote?” on one or two amendments and “remember” that you just must have sided with decency and love for your neighbor. But after the third time, it’s pretty hard to lie to yourself.

And if we spend no money to front this, the enemies of freedom will have to expend increasingly large amounts to fight against us which keeps that money from doing evil elsewhere.

And finally, if we do decide that the time is right to make another large stand and that we could win, we already have the apparatus in place to raise funds, run ads, and make our claim on the promises of equality that will still stand in the Constitution ready to be freed from the shackles of bigotry, religious intolerance, and heterosexual privilege.

No On 8 Concedes

California’s No on 8 campaign has issued a statement conceding the passage of Prop 8:

Tuesday’s vote was deeply disappointing to all who believe in equal treatment under the law.

All Americans are harmed when any of us are discriminated against or have our fundamental rights taken away.

Make no mistake, this fight is not over.

We remain committed to ensuring full equality under the law, just as the thousands of same-sex couples who joyously married in California are committed to each other.

While it is understandable to be angry that a deceptive campaign could lead to such an unfair and wrong outcome, we need to keep focused instead on the progress we have made.

Thousands of volunteers and contributors gave selflessly to this fight for equality. Political leaders—Democrats and Republicans alike–took strong stands and spoke out against the distortions against us. Clergy, labor, educators and business leaders eagerly joined our cause. And we came within 4% of making history and protecting marriage equality in California.

The momentum is clearly on our side.

So, as disappointed as we are, we know that there is still hope and there is still love and, yes, there is still work to do. With our continued effort and by building on the support generated in this campaign, we will prevail. There will be equality. For us all.

Since No on 8 is not involved with the lawsuits filed before the California Supreme Court seeking to overturn Prop 8, that effort will likely continue.

Hair You Can Straighten, Gays Not So Much

Colorado-area and national groups Beyond Ex-Gay, Soulforce, Truth Wins Out, the Colorado Queer Straight Alliance, PFLAG, the GLBT Center of Colorado, Our Savior’s Lutheran Church, the Religious Society of Friends and more have been working the past few months to organize a public response to this weekend’s NARTH conference.

NARTH, the National Association for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality, is an anti-gay “secular” group that believes that being gay is a sickness that can and should be cured. Wait, have we traveled back in time to the 19th Century???

We have planned a series of events under the banner, “Ex-Gay Exposé: Exploring Practices and Harm in Reparative Therapy.” As former clients of NARTH and NARTH-inspired ex-gay therapy, we speak directly to destructive nature of theories and therapies designed to change and suppress gay and lesbian orientation and gender differences.

In addition to standing up as public witnesses to counter the false and misleading messages of NARTH, we will meet with ex-gay survivors to explore our ex-gay experiences and look at ways in which we have creatively sought to recover from them and integrate our sexuality as part of our healthy development. We will also convene a team of mental health experts for a summit to consider treatment plans and best practices designed to help ex-gay survivors overcome from the harm we have experienced at the hands of anti-gay practitioners.

Lisa M. Diamond, Ph.D., an Associate Professor of Psychology and Gender Studies in the Department of Psychology at the University of Utah, speaks out in this video about how NARTH distorted and misrepresented her work in order to push their anti-gay agenda. (hat tip to Wayne Besen and Truth Wins Out)

Weekend Schedule

Friday, Nov 7th

7pm: Doin’ Time with Peterson Toscano. Well-known ex-gay survivor Peterson Toscano, as seen in The Advocate and LOGO’s “Be Real,” will be on hand to perform excerpts from several plays inspired by his years spent in the ex-gay movement. Location: Our Savior’s Lutheran Church (915 E 9th Ave, Denver. An affirming congregation)

Saturday, Nov 8th

8:45-10am: Rally at NARTH Conference site, Renaissance Hotel (3801 Quebec St, Denver). Meet outside to the south of the hotel.

11-4pm: Ex-Gay Exposé Gathering. Gathering for ex-gay survivors as well as allies who wish to learn more about the ex-gay movement. Location: Moutain View Friends Meeting. (2280 S Columbine St, Denver)

6-8pm: Mental Health Professionals workshop, part 1 (What is the ex-gay movement? What are common needs of ex-gay survivors?). Location: GLBT Community Center. (1050 Broadway, Denver)

Sunday, Nov 9th

9am-12pm: Mental Health Professionals workshop, part 2 (Exploring best practices for treating ex-gay survivors). Location: GLBT Community Center (1050 Broadway, Denver)

7 pm: Transfigurations: Transgressing Gender in the Bible. Written and performed by Peterson Toscano. Location: Our Savior’s Lutheran Church (915 E 9th Ave, Denver. An affirming congregation).

If you’re interested in attending any of these events, please fill out the information on this signup page and we’ll email you as needed.

The Homosexual Agenda: What’s Next?

So we have a new Congress and a new President, with both branches of government held by Democrats. For some of us, this is a dream come true. After eight years of a hostile administration and more than a decade of a hostile Congress, it would appear that this is our best chance to advance several issues which are important to the LGBT community.

Of course, this setup has disappointed us before. A similar arrangement in 1993 brought us Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

But things just might be different this time. During this presidential campaign, President-elect Barack Obama included four specific LGBT issues among his campaign promises:

• Full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
• Passage of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act
• Passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)
• Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), the ban on gays serving in the military.

So, what’s really on tap for 2009?

We’ve been focused so much on marriage amendments the past several months that the DOMA is probably topmost in our minds right now. Timothy offered some possibilities and alternatives for repealing all or parts of the DOMA. As he pointed out, all of those options are problematic.

I personally don’t see DOMA going away anytime soon. Just because it’s foremost in our thoughts right at the moment doesn’t mean it will necessarily be the top of the “agenda” in January.

But we have seen considerable momentum building on the other issues. In the past two years, we saw movement on the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act and the ENDA. Unfortunately, that ENDA was the non-inclusive variety, and the resulting dissention among LGBT advocates ultimately doomed ENDA’s passage.

We also saw Congressional hearings on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, although that hasn’t translated yet into legislative action. Nevertheless, the groundwork has been laid for DADT going the way of the dodo bird and polar icecaps.

The top LGBT priorities for 2009 will be driven by what is politically possible. In the current climate, I think Hate Crimes and repealing DADT are doable. ENDA is achievable as well, but only if we get our own act together and get behind a fully inclusive one. Otherwise, we’ll suffer the same division and acrimony as we did the last go-round, with the same result.

Besides those three items, there are some other opportunities as well. The new administration will almost certainly lift the HIV traveler’s ban after Congress repealed the 1993 law which mandated it. That law was one of Sen. Jesse Helms’s great legacies. The Bush administration signed the repeal, but it has so far failed to follow up by actually rescinding the ban. That unfinished business will be left for the next administration

We might also realize other important gains as well, like support for honest reality-based HIV prevention programs that rely on something more realistic than abstinence until marriage — especially when marriage continues to be pushed out of reach for so many gays and lesbians.

And that brings us back to DOMA. And unfortunately, DOMA is probably off the table. With the passage of three new marriage amendments in Florida, Arizona and California, there will be few legislators on Capital Hill willing to put much effort into something their own constituents voted against back home. In a stretch, we might be able to add some domestic partnership benefits for federal employees, but I’m afraid DOMA itself will probably be around for quite some time to come.

WeHo Protest March

Watch your news.

There is a very large 60’s style protest march going on right now in West Hollywood.

Coalition to Challenge Legality of Prop 8

The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights have filed a petition before the California Supreme Court, urging the court to invalidate Proposition 8 if its passage is certified by the Secretary of State. The groups charge that Prop 8 is invalid because it changes the state constitution’s core commitment to equality for everyone. According to the group’s press release (PDF: 2 pages):

The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works. Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn’t happen with Proposition 8, and that’s why it’s invalid.

“If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not to men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw — it removes a protected constitutional right — here, the right to marry — not from all Californians, but just from one group of us,” said Jenny Pizer, as staff attorney with Lambda Legal. “That’s too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just be a bare majority of voters.”

Opponents of Prop 8 tried to block the innitiative from appearing on the ballot on similar grounds last July. At that time, the Supreme Court denied the petition without comment.

Looking Forward: DOMA

Going into this next administration, the country will have a strong Democratic majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Although there are seats as yet undecided, it’s possible that Democrats will have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

The country will also have a president that has verbalized commitments to the gay community. And one of those commitments was the revokation of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Considering that the voters of California seem to have rejected marriage equality, I am not at all certain that the Obama administration will have overturning DOMA as a priority any time soon. It may well be that this election will be viewed as a referrendum on issues of gay equality, especially among the President-elect’s strongest support demographic, and that “the people” have spoken in favor of discrimination. And Barrack Obama, as a candidate, did not (to my satisfaction) demonstrate an unwaivering dedication to the goals of the gay community.

Further, we cannot assume that Democratic affiliation equates to support for marriage equality. For example, the newly elected Udall cousins in Colorado and New Mexico may adhere to the Mormon Church’s anti-gay position on the issue.

However, let’s assume that at some point within the next four years or so Congress and/or the President will address DOMA.

First, I should state that I find it entirely unlikely that both provisions of DOMA will be reversed. DOMA was constructed to do two things: to protect states from the marriage laws of their neighbors, and to deny any federal marriage benefits to gay couples. Pragmatically, there just aren’t many Senators or Representatives of either party that are going to want to pass legislation requiring Alabama and Alaska to recognize the same-sex marriages of Massachusetts or Connecticut. That provision isn’t going away any time soon.

But they may well try to provide some federal benefits for same-sex couples. As I see it, there are several responses that could be crafted.

States Rights – The federal government could just lift the ban on federal recognition and leave it up to each state to decide what will be recognized as marriage. Ironically, this might have had greater appeal to John McCain than to President-elect Obama.

Such a direction would likely result in some upper East Coast states in converting their civil unions or in passing new marriage legislation. Likely New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island would shortly join Connecticut and Massachusetts in providing for same-sex marriage.

However, those states with anti-marriage constitutional amendments such as California and Oregon would see no recognition for their relationships. While this might eventually serve as impetus to overturn the discriminatory amendments, this would not be a quick or easy process and many couples would continue to be denied rights for quite some time.

Alternately, they could recognize marriages that states recognize and also allow states to assign other arrangements – such as civil unions or domestic partnerships – the status of federal recognition.

Civil Unions – The federal government could create a new federally-recognized relationship status and grant it equal benefits to marriage. This is likely to appeal to many Democrats that want to provide equality but fear public response and is the official position of President-elect Obama as well as many Democratic legislators.

This would be beneficial to gay couples from those states that have no recognition or rights whatsoever. And it may well serve as a way to shame those states that do not have amendments barring couple recognition to provide civil union rights on a state level.

Such a step would probably provide the greatest good in the short term but it may delay our quest for marriage equality. This may seem “good enough” for gay couples and could result in a greatly lengthened tiered status.

Additionally, I just don’t think there are adequate votes at present to accomplish this step.

Reciprocal Rights – The federal government could leave DOMA in place and instead allow certain rights and benefits to be granted to any one other person that a citizen might select, be they spouse, partner, brother, or neighbor. This is the preferred status of homophobes when the electorate is against them – it allows the impression of compassion while adamantly denying that gay people form enduring and important relationships.

In the short term this might benefit some gay couples with some few rights, but in the long run it might serve to further delay equality.

Such a direction would, in my opinion, be demeaning to the relationships of couples, both gay and straight. It denies the union of the two into one and instead doles out rights based on proof of need. Thereafter, there is no assumption that rights given to marriages should be considered exclusionary if they aren’t given to gay couples because it denies the existence of gay couples at all.

Piecemeal Rights – The federal government could leave DOMA in place and instead address specific rights such as immigration or social security. Those couples who register – showing some evidence of interdependance – could have some few rights granted to same-sex married couples – irrespective of their state status. This is by far the most likely scenario, I believe.

Like the civil unions option, this would have an immediate and direct effect on gay couples from all states. This approach is likely to be incremental, starting with partner immigration in the near future (a bill has been crafted in past sessions of Congress). This is also likely to gain limited bi-partisan support.

It is likely that eventually most rights granted to opposite-sex couples would be granted to same-sex couples. And we can dream of the day in which the federal government will recognize marriage of all of its citizens without assigning second-class citizenship to its gay children.

No on Prop 8 Refuses To Concede

The No on 8 campaign called a quick news conference to declare that they are not conceding the race:

Kate Kendall, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said 3 million to 4 million ballots remain uncounted statewide. “The fact is depending on the turnout model we are looking at millions of votes yet to be counted,” Kendall said. The race is too close to call. People’s fundamental rights hang in the balance.”

Many of those ballots are absentee and provisional ballots. The California Secretary of State’s office is expected to issue an estimate of the number of uncounted ballots later today or tomorrow. It could take several days to process all of them.

Prop 8 supporters declared victory shortly after midnight early this morning in a move that No on 8 called “presumptuous.”

“What You Intended for Harm, God Intended for Good”

The following email appeared in my inbox this morning from one of our wonderful No on Prop 102 volunteers.

The quote in the subject header comes from Genesis 50:20. It’s what Joseph told his brothers years after they sold him into slavery. Because of what they did to him, he ended up a chief official to the Pharaoh and saved the lives of his whole family during a famine.

Four years ago, like most of you, I sat desolate as the presidential results came in. I could not conceive how the nation could survive another four years of Bush. And yes, it did get worse.

But out of that loss four years ago came a victory tonight that we dared not even imagine back then. Instead of a leader that was merely better than Bush, we now are looking at a future with a leader who I believe will change our country and our world for the better.

So with this in mind, I think about our loss on Prop 102 and the potential loss on Prop 8 in California . As sad as I am to see bigotry and discrimination win, I can’t help but wonder, what amazing thing that we cannot dare dream of now is this setting us up for?

It has been a great honor to work with all of you throughout this election, and I look forward to rolling up my sleeves alongside of you for the next task. And the next. And the next.

Because we know that good and right don’t always win, but they eventually win. And we will win. In ways we never even imagined were possible.

–Kelly