Box Turtle Bulletin

Dr. Albert Mohler and the Battle Over Language

Dr. Albert Mohler and I seldom agree about issues surrounding the intersection of sexuality and religion. But he is undoubtedly one of the more thoughtful opponents of gay equality.

In his first installment on the importance of the issue of gay marriage, Dr. Mohler stepped outside the culture war tactic of falsifying anecdotes and demonizing gay people and instead identified the central theme of the conflict between gay people and those whose religion condemns gay people: human dignity and the future of our civilization.

I found his second commentary to be less insightful. In this effort he sought to use argumentum ad populum to support his theological position. He divided the world between those persons – and then those nations – that are supportive of gay people and those that are not, claiming that his majority status supported his theological thinking. Sadly, he did not notice that this put him in the company of Muslim theocracies, dictators and despots, and third world nations. Nor did he not notice that – in contrast – he had to a greater or lesser extent placed gay people in the company of all of Christendom.

But in his third discussion on gay marriage, Mohler returns to an intellectual and perceptive analysis of what legal gay marriage may mean to the community in which we live.

Now, Mohler simply cannot resist repeating the myths, misstatements, and fabrications that are churned out by the anti-gay industry. Some he debunks (in a polite way), some he “clarifies” so as to make them less false, and some he accepts at face value.

For example, Mohler does note that California schools do not necessarily teach sex education; but he still repeats the talking points about marriage licenses containing “Partner A” and “Partner B”. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he simply has not been informed that “Bride” and “Groom” are returning to the forms in less than a month, regardless of the results of the election.

But setting aside the anti-gay mantra of imagined grievances that flood his third installment, Mohler makes a point which is, to me, about the only argument against marriage equality that merits attention.

Language is, as we now know, integral to a culture. In fact, anthropologists such as the influential Clifford Geertz refer to human culture as a “cultural-lingustic system.” The language and the culture are inseparable. Each influences the other, and together they produce an entire system of meaning.

Mohler, in essence, concedes that the difference made by legal marriage is one of vocabulary and explains why this issue of nomenclature is worth anti-gays contributing tens of millions of dollars.

Given the state’s huge population and cultural influence, all eyes are now on California. But so should be our ears. Do we hear a shift in the language coming? If so, the language will change far more than vocabulary and word usage.

Civilizations are built on careful and necessary distinctions. As an institution, marriage has been defined throughout history as a heterosexual union. Marriage is so central to our civilization that its related words have become equally essential. Words like “husband” and “wife” have been necessary to understanding our stories, our laws, our families, our social arrangements, and our aspirations. Transform marriage into a homosexual institution, and the vocabulary no longer works.

Mohler is saying the same thing that those who favor equality are saying: words have meanings. And the word marriage carries a cultural association far more important than just hospital visitation and inheritance rights.

And in this Mohler has identified the one real change that truly impacts opposite-sex couples: ownership of language. No longer does “husband” denote heterosexuality. To say that someone is a family man or a newlywed or happily married no longer can serve as code for “he’s employable” or “he’s one of us”.

I agree with Dr. Mohler that words define our stories, our laws, our families, our social arrangements, and especially our aspirations. But his underlying premise is one that I find abhorrent.

Distilled to its elements, Mohler’s argument is this:

Marriage is a differentiating term. And limiting the use of that term to heterosexuals will justly place limits on the stories, laws, families, and especially the aspirations of gay people. And that is a good thing. If gay couples are restricted from calling their relationships “marriage” they can be set apart and condemned. They should not aspire to be treated like me.

Now, of course, he does not put it in those terms. He’s neither a fool nor intentionally insulting. But behind his insistence on owning the words “marriage” and “husband” and “wife” is a proprietary instinct not based on his own reflections but rather on gay exclusions.

He wants not only to retain the word “husband”, which he undoubtedly would, but to retain it to the exclusion of those who are not married to a woman. He sees this label as something that sets him apart and if same-sex couples can use it then he’s lost a tool to identify and exclude them.

However, within Mohler’s warnings, I take encouragement.

For I look around me and see that culture has already accepted the notion of same-sex couples. Television, movies, music, and literature all make the assumption that gay people form couples under the same terms and conditions as heterosexuals. And, as Mohler noted, the relationship between culture and language is inseparable.

As more Americans come to see gay couples as identical to their relationships, language will adjust. Marriage will be accepted terminology which will, undoubtedly, result in continued adaptation of stories, laws, families, and aspirations.

As, indeed, in many ways it already has. Young kids coming out today dream of marriage and a fairytale life not unlike that of their classmates. They aspire to honesty, self worth, and advancement based on their merits, unhindered by discrimination or bigotry. And heterosexual kids today have expectations of their gay friends and siblings that mirror those placed on themselves.

Our stories, our families, and our aspirations have already been changed. In time, law and language will have no choice but to follow.

Apple’s Tasty Contribution

On their website, Apple Computers is listing the following news:

No on Prop 8
October 24, 2008

Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.

Thank you, Apple!!!

Lee Baca Opposes Proposition 8

Los Angeles County’s Sheriff Lee Baca, a Republican, has announced his opposition to Proposition 8:

The gay men and lesbian women of the law enforcement community are some of the most responsible and virtuous people I know. To deny them their ability to further responsible lives outside of the job is inconsistent with the core values of public service.

Republicans Against 8 is reporting

Other prominent California Republican elected officials opposed to Prop. 8 include Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, San Diego City Councilmember Jim Madaffer, Redondo Beach Mayor Mike Gin, Laguna Beach Mayor Pro Tempore Cheryl Kinsman, Los Angeles City Councilman Dennis Zine, Laguna Beach Councilman Kelly Boyd, Laguna Beach Councilwoman Elizabeth Pearson, Cathedral City Councilman Chuck Vazquez, former Assemblyman Jim Cunneen and Los Angeles Businessman Steve Soboroff.

People from all walks of life and all political persuations are coming together to oppose this effort to write discrimination into our Constitution.

Tom Campbell Opposes Proposition 8

Tom Campbell is a distinguished professor with a high profile in Republican politics. He worked in the Reagan White House and was a clerk to US Supreme Court Justice Byron R. White. He served five terms in Congress, a term in the California State Senate, and was the Republican nominee for US Senate in 2000. He was Stanford’s youngest tenured professor, has served as the director of the California Department of Finance, and currently is the dean of the Haas School of Business at UC, Berkeley.

Writing in Reason Online, Campbell explains why Republicans should vote No on Proposition 8.

• Republicans believe deeply that government should be limited. Government has no business making distinctions between people based on their personal lives.
• Republicans also care about jobs; and as a business proposition, it makes no sense to support Prop. 8. Discrimination at any level is bad for business.
• Gay couples are asking for a chance to play by the rules. We can give them that chance. For those of us who are proud of our party’s and our state’s reputation for fairness and against discrimination, our choice is very clear: No on Proposition 8.

To those who became Republican for the conservative values of independence from governmental interference and the notion that all citizens should be equal and judged by one’s efforts and abilities, these may be compelling arguments.

Yes on 8 Launches Blackmail Campaign

CBS8 and the Associated Press are reporting that the Yes on 8 campaign has sent out threatening letters to several small businesses in an attempt to shake them down for contributions.

San Diego realtor Jim Abbot received one of those letters featuring a Yes on 8 letterhead demanding that he contribute $10,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign, which is equal to the amount that he had given to the No on 8 campaign. That letter read, in part:

Equality California is advertising on its website that it has received a contribution of at least $10,000 from you. … Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error and restore Traditional Marriage. … Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to protectmarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published.

Here is the entire Yes on 8 threat letter (PDF: 4KB/4 pages).

The letter was signed by four members of Yes on 8’s executive committee: campaign chairman Ron Prentice; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, ProtectMarriage.com’s lawyer. A donation form was included with the letter.

Jim Abbot, who married his same-sex partner at the end of August, refused to buckle:

We’re not caving, no. No, we’re going to support our employees. We’re going to support the freedom to marry. We think that’s a fundamental right to do what we can to make sure its not taken away.

When Yes on 8 was first asked about the letter, a spokeswoman denied that their campaign would use such tactics. The campaign later admitted to sending about thirty-five letters to California businesses. The spokeswoman defended the action, citing the boycott of the San Diego Manchester Grand Hyatt after Doug Manchester donated $125,000 thousand to the Yes campaign. At least one very large group canceled their reservations as a result.

All large donations to either campaign are a matter of public record. There is no evidence however, that anyone from the No on 8 campaign demanded money from Manchester or the Grand Hyatt in exchange for silence. That boycott was organized by Californians Against Hate, which is not affiliated with the No on 8 campaign.

Update: Yes on 8 complained that at least one very large group canceled their reservations at the Machester Grand Hyatt because of publicity over donations to the Yes campaign. I wonder if that group they’re referring to was GLAAD?

Video: Inside “Love Won Out”

In honor of Saturday’s Love Won Out to be held in CO Springs we’re releasing more videos of Jim Burroway discussing having attended the ex-gay conference when it came to Phoenix last year.

Being gay is a life of misery

You can’t be gay and Christian

How science is misrepresented

Small Town Editor Makes Personal Plea to Voters

Editorial boards in every major newspaper in the State of California have encouraged readers to vote no on Proposition 8. They have sat and listened to presentations from both sides, weighed their arguments, checked their facts, and without fail came to the same conclusion: Proposition 8 should not pass.

The Editor of the Desert Dispatch in the small town of Barstow has taken a different approach. Most know Barstow, if they know it at all, as a small city on the road between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. But Scott Shackford knows it as his home. And he knows his readers as his neighbors, an independent, but often powerless, bunch who respect individuality.

Today I’m shedding the more impersonal “authoritative” voice of one of my typical editorials: Proposition 8 means something more personal to me. It directly affects my rights. As such, I want to make a more direct appeal to try to convince Barstow residents to vote against Proposition 8.

Scott finds common cause with the frustration that Barstow residents have – no local representation, a state districting plan that leaves them powerless to the whims of a city 200 miles away. And he acknowledges their fear of government interfering in their religious rights and recognizes the seriousness of their concerns.

But then Scott takes a very brave and very touching step, an approach that may be pointless in an urban center. He admits his vulnerability and asks for support.

You have the power to control an important part of my future. You can control my independence. Is that something you’re truly comfortable with?

I ask you to vote in favor of our tradition of independence. Vote no on Proposition 8.

Newspaper Positions

Love Won Out To Be Held Saturday In CO Springs

And a coalition of local gay organizations have planned a response which is cutely called “Love Came Out.” Here’s a poster for the event:

Anti-Gay Students Keep Control of Student Government at Sacramento Area Junior College

ABC News 10 is reporting

Nine members of American River College’s student association survived a recall effort this week staged in protest of their votes to support a ballot measure seeking to ban gay marriage in California.

You will recall that these students representatives are part of a coalition of Russian evangelicals and Mormons that are using the college’s student government to serve their religious goals. Following an endorsement of Proposition 8, students concerned about their agenda collected enough signatures for a recall. Nine percent of students voted.

For a fascinating narrative of the anti-gay efforts of Russian evangelicals in the Sacramento area, one that features at least one of those students under recall, read Kel Munger’s article Things to do in Sacramento with a megaphone in the Sacramento News and Review.

These are not your usual collection of College Republicans or Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

A partial list of the protests over the last half-dozen years is impressive. The Dividers have protested at Wal-Mart (for saying “Happy Holidays!” instead of “Merry Christmas!”); at theaters that screened Brokeback Mountain, the “gay cowboy” movie; and at other churches, with signs that read, “This is a fake church” (for sins such as offering free gasoline to new members or being too nice to gay people). Luke’s father has dressed up in a devil costume, complete with pitchfork, to make sure people know where they’re headed for not doing things the Divider way.

But this small band of Dividers have focused with laserlike intensity on protesting at gay events, where that “Sodomy is Sin” banner functions as both a calling card and a demand for gays to return to the closet.

And why does this matter?

What conclusions have I come to out of all this? It seems pretty clear that a small group of committed activists—the usual suspects—can stir up a ruckus and attract attention. But it’s also clear that they can alter the climate in a pretty serious way. At ARC, both students who identify as Christian and students who are members of the gay community have told me that they feel targeted. Young men and women there told me in tears that they no longer felt safe at school. A transgender student told me she’d transferred to another community college because she didn’t feel safe on ARC’s campus.

Mormon Church Calls Off Out-of-State Phone Banking

Per the Salt Lake Tribune

On Sunday, leaders in several Mormon wards in Provo and Springville read a letter from Elder Donald J. Butler, an LDS Seventy over Utah South Area, saying that all those who were “called” to help with the initiative were “released” immediately.

LDS spokesman Kim Farah said the Coalition to Protect Marriage’s request for help prompted the initial plea for volunteers in California and later in Utah, but “the church has since determined that such phone calls are best handled by those who are registered California voters.”

Analysis: A Closer Look At Those Prop. 8 Poll Numbers

Ever since California county clerks began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples last June, Proposition 8 ­- the proposed constitutional amendment to eliminate marriage equality ­- has appeared likely to lose at the ballot box. Throughout the summer, statewide surveys from the Field Research Corporation and the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) consistently found that the measure lacked majority support. In fact, it was opposed by more than 50% of likely voters.

But earlier this month, a new poll of Californians’ voting intentions on Proposition 8 was released, sponsored by several CBS local affiliates and conducted by SurveyUSA. Here’s a section of the news report on the poll findings:

“According to the poll, likely California voters overall now favor passage of Proposition 8 by a five-point margin, 47 percent to 42 percent. Ironically, a CBS 5 poll eleven days prior found a five-point margin in favor of the measure’s opponents….”

This was a surprising shift, and the poll results have received a lot of media attention.

In my latest post at Beyond Homophobia, I analyze those recent polling data. I conclude that the SurveyUSA polls probably are more or less accurately stating the number of likely voters who support Prop. 8, but are undercounting the number who oppose it. The statewide polls conducted by Field and the PPIC -­ both of which show Proposition 8 losing ­- are probably more accurate.

Nevertheless, marriage equality supporters can’t afford to be complacent. The race is likely to tighten in the next two weeks, and the outcome will ultimately depend on voter turnout. So it’s important to continue to donate to the No On 8 campaign, to speak out against the measure, and to make sure that your family and friends vote.

Jewish Weekly News Opposes Proposition 8

The Jewish Weekly News of Northern California strongly opposes religion-based marriage discrimination

If Prop. 8 passes, what a terrible precedent to set, especially in a state that so often leads the country into the future.

As Jews, we cannot help being sensitive to this encroachment on liberties. It’s the slipperiest of slopes, far worse than any perceived moral breakdown due to same-sex marriage.

Don’t let it happen here.

Let us as a community speak loudly and clearly. Please vote “No” on Proposition 8.

This is a community very familiar with what happens when religious values are given higher priority than civil rights.

Newspapers Endorse

Republican Ex-Mayor of Conservative Town Comes Out and Opposes Proposition 8

Folsom, CA is probably best known for Folsom Prison, made famous by a Johnny Cash recorded concert. But Folsom is also a upper-middle class suburb of Sacramento, one that is strongly Republican.

Naturally, local elected officials tended also to be Republican family men, like Glenn Fait. (Sacramento Bee)

Fait was married for 40 years and raised two daughters. He was on the Folsom City Council from 1994 to 1998, serving as mayor from 1995-1996. He was also president of the Folsom Historical Society.

But five years ago, Fait came out to his family. And now he has taken the step of coming out to his neighbors – in a quarter page ad in the local newspaper.

In the ad, he appealed to his neighbors, business associates, and friends to oppose Proposition 8. Although Fait has no intention of marrying, he believed so strongly that no one else should be able to make that decision for him that he was compelled to take the step.

“I hope that some of the people who know me might take that into consideration when they vote,” said Fait. “People often have stereotypes of gay people. It helps sometimes when they realize that someone they have a business or community relationship with is gay.”

I admire Fait’s decision. He has put a face on the issue for some who would only think of gay people as “them”. Now when they vote, they are voting on Glenn’s rights and perhaps his public appeal will make some difference in Folsom.

LDS Elder: “Central Doctrine of Eternal Marriage” At Heart of Political Activities

Do you want any more evidence that a powerful religious minority is bent on imposing its theological doctrines on the state constitutions of Arizona and California? Look no further than the words of LDS Elder M. Russell Ballard.

Ballard is a member of the Mormon Church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, which means that the church accepts him as a prophet, seer, and revelator. This gives his words special meaning among church members. In a special satellite broadcast to the church faithful, Ballard was clear about what they were really trying to do:

“We know that it is not without controversy, yet let me be clear that at the heart of this issue is the central doctrine of eternal marriage and it’s place in our Father’s plan,” Ballard said.

The doctrine of Eternal Marriage is unique to Mormonism. An Eternal Marriage is one that is “sealed” in secret ceremonies in an LDS temple (a sealing, by the way, which can occur by proxy on behalf of deceased non-Mormon couples as well). Once sealed, the couple are permanently married on earth and in the afterlife in the Celestial Kingdom. The Celestial Kingdom itself is subdivided into three “heavens or degrees”, and only those who are sealed in eternal marriage in a temple while alive (or after death by proxy) will be permitted to enter into the highest degree of celestial kingdom. Once there, they will eventually become “exalted” and live “the kind of life God lives” — and some will even become gods themselves.

In yesterday’s hour long broadcast to churches in California, Utah, Hawaii and Idaho, church elders exhorted members to embark on a week-by-week strategy before the Nov. 4 election. In speaking of the church’s efforts to impose its theology onto state constitutions, Ballard reiterated, “What we’re about is the work of the Lord, and he will bless you for your involvement.”

PPIC Survey: Prop 8 is Behind

At the end of August the Public Policy Institute of California released a survey showing that Proposition 8 was trailing among likely voters by 54% to 40%. A new poll released today shows that while the supporters of Prop 8 have made some progress, at two weeks out the initiative is still likely to fail.

Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that would end same-sex marriage in California, is losing among likely voters, 52 percent to 44 percent, according to a statewide survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California.

Although this is encouraging news, their polling shows that the Yes on 8 Campaign ads are being effective in reaching certain populations, particularly Republicans. The proposition has picked up eight points among Republicans since September (from 62% to 70%).

Demographic turnout could impact the final vote

At least half of men, women, Latinos, and whites oppose Proposition 8. Regionally, majorities of likely voters in the San Francisco Bay Area (67%) and Los Angeles (55%) are opposed. But majorities in the Central Valley (54%) and in the “Other Southern California” region that includes Orange, San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties (52%) favor the measure.