Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyOctober 14th, 2008
“George Pepperdine” — I don’t know if that’s his real name or if it’s a pseudonym in honor of Pepperdine University’s founder — left a statement from Pepperdine University in our comments section. This statement by Pepperdine University president Andrew K. Benton addresses the recent controversy over the “Yes on 8” television ads which prominently displays Pepperdine’s name.
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: University Faculty
FROM: Andrew K. Benton
RE: University Neutrality and Academic Freedom
DATE: October 14, 2008
I want to provide an update on an issue that weighs heavily on many of our minds: encouraging academic freedom while refraining from political endorsement by Pepperdine University. As most are aware, Yes on 8 ads airing on television and radio feature one of our professors. The Pepperdine name is prominently displayed in the current round of ads and many vocal supporters and opponents of Prop 8 see the opinions expressed as not only the professor’s, but Pepperdine’s as well.
Many of our professors write op-eds, books and give speeches; and they are appropriately identified with Pepperdine University. My first reaction to this series of television ads was that Pepperdine was too prominent. Many on the faculty disagreed, some agreed strongly. At the faculty conference I learned that a disclaimer would satisfy the professor and others who were involved. We offered language that was simple and clear, and while we knew the firestorm would continue in some quarters, we felt a straightforward disclaimer would allow the professor his right to speak and our right to remain outside any role of endorsement in the political fray. The next day, I learned that the professor and those promoting Proposition 8 preferred to withdraw Pepperdine’s name completely. We agreed. It was a change from a position announced just the day before, but it seemed a stronger measure and appropriate.
Just prior to running a second ad, the campaign announced to us that in their opinion it would be more effective if Pepperdine’s name was back in. They added a disclaimer, albeit so small and bare, that most do not see it. It was not the language which we had suggested. They did not ask us; they told us what they were going to do, and they did it.
Without any involvement in the campaign, Pepperdine has been lionized and vilified. We have been given credit where it is not due and blamed beyond anyone’s wildest imaginings. I, and perhaps many of you, continue to receive words of praise and condemnation from people who are either thanking us, or sharply criticizing us. Whether the writers are for or against Prop 8, I take no comfort from either position as it puts us where we don’t belong — in partisan politics.
This is a very challenging situation. We believe that the right to freedom of expression must be balanced with the fact that universities cannot endorse political candidates and propositions. We can host debates, we can educate, but we can’t endorse.
We regret when anyone supposes that we are inappropriately involved in a political issue when we are not. We will take whatever measures we deem appropriate to correct the misunderstanding. I will be writing to alumni and donors to explain the delicate nature of the balance we strike. We must not chill the right to free expression, but we must also avoid the appearance (intended or not) of political partisanship.
You can be of service to our institution by helping us clear up this confusion with those who may ask. I appreciate your understanding, your assistance and your patience.
October 14th, 2008
Regina Griggs, past LaBarbara Award winner, has out out another press release under her PFOX banner, announcing that they are suing the Washington D.C. Office of Human Rights for “failing to protect former homosexuals under its sexual orientation anti-discrimination law.” And get this:
The ex-gay community is the most bullied and maligned group in America, yet they are not protected by sexual orientation non-discrimination laws,” said Regina Griggs, PFOX executive director.
…
“Former homosexuals and their friends have been fired from their jobs, repeatedly ridiculed, assaulted, and intimidated. This harassment is most often perpetrated by the same groups who demand protection under sexual orientation laws but work to deny ex-gays the same respect.”
Really? The ex-gay community is the most bullied and maligned group in America?
Really, Regina? Are you serious?
Chutzpah isn’t a strong enough word to describe this outrage. I am truly at a loss for words. I’ll let you take over in the comments.
Please provide examples of LGBT people and/or ex-gays being bullied, murdered, or fired from their jobs. I’m all ears.
[Hat tip: Stefano]
October 13th, 2008
PolitickerCA is reporting that LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is increasing his effort to oppose anti-marriage initiative Proposition 8.
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa jumped fully into the Prop. 8 fray Monday, sending out a statewide message via the Courage Campaign, a grass- and netroots activist organization, urging people to defeat the measure.
The popular Democratic mayor, who is thought to be actively considering a run for governor in 2010, also announced he was personally donating $25,000 to the effort directed at getting voters to reject the initiative that would permanently codify marriage in the California Constitution as being strictly between a man and a woman.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor for representing me and my fellow Angelinos in our efforts to retain our equality.
October 13th, 2008
File this one under “Too Wacky for Words”.
It seems that some Iowa State Senator was not invited to speak from the podium at a local McCain rally. And David Hartsuch, now running for Congress, thinks he knows why. In a press release issued by his campaign he states:
According to a representative of the McCain ’08 campaign, the national campaign office would not approve Senator Hartsuch to speak because of comments which he had made two years earlier in defense of traditional marriage.
Senator Hartsuch has been a strong defender of traditional marriage in Iowa. He introduced legislation to prevent same-sex marriage and to protect the Boy Scouts of America.
Somehow I suspect that Hartsuch “misunderstood” the representative. I really doubt that the reason that McCain did not invite this frothing homophobe to speak at his rally had anything to do with his support for marriage exclusion. I’ve seen plenty of folks at McCain rallies who supported a federal ban against same-sex marriage. This feels to me to be more of a plea for attention by a desperate candidate.
But it would be nice to think that anti-gay rantings can have negative consequences, even within Republican circles.
October 13th, 2008
Oklahoma State Representative and LaBarbera Award winner Sally Kern still thinks that the homosexuals pose the greatest threat to America. She said so again last Thursday during a debate with her opponent Ron Marlett:
When asked about the biggest threat facing the United States, Marlett said it was dependence on foreign oil. Kern said it was homosexuality.
“While terrorism has killed more than 3,000 people, in the continental United States in the last 15 years, homosexual behavior has killed more than 100,000,” she said. “It’s a danger to life. It is a danger to health.”
“To compare certain members of our community to a cancer that might need to be removed is chilling to me,” Marlett said.
“Our county is united pretty much against terrorism, but homosexuality is being promoted in schools and by the government,” said Kern.
Kern first gained national ridicule last March when she said that homosexuality was “the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam.” At least she’s consistent.
October 13th, 2008
The Sacramento Bee has an article today about the sacrifices that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have made so that they can take away the right to marry from same-sex couples.
Rick and Pam Patterson gave $50,000.
He drives a 10-year-old Honda Civic to his job at Intel. She is a stay-at home mom who makes most of the family meals and bakes her own bread. The couple, who have five sons between the ages of 3 and 12, live in a comfortable but modest three-bedroom home in Folsom.
David and Susan Nielson gave $35,000.
The couple will forgo a vacation for the next two years and make other sacrifices to pay for their donation, he said.
Yes, they are faithful members of their church. And while the couples deny that they were pressured to contribute, both couples did so after the June 29 letter came out from the First Presidency and the church leadership requesting that Mormons “do what you can”.
However, this sacrifice seems not to have extended to the leaders actually contributing from their own personal funds. A search of the contribution database listing all contributors of $100 or more yields:
Perhaps “our best efforts” means something different to the leaders than it does to the followers.
October 13th, 2008
This past week a parent of a first grader in San Francisco thought it would be a good and supportive act to have the children in the first grade class surprise the teacher by showing up for her wedding to her same-sex partner. The school’s interim director thought this was a good idea and a “teaching moment” and so they organized a field trip. In total, 18 children from the charter school participated and two families chose to have their children remain at school with another first grade class.
I do not think that first graders are too young to know about marriage. Nor do I think that same-sex marriage is any more shocking, confusing, or inherently controversial than a marriage between persons of the opposite sex. And I don’t think that an outing to the marriage of a teacher is an inappropriate excursion for school children.
But I do think that one must be aware of the ramifications of ones decisions and choose wisely.
It is three weeks before California voters will decide whether to take away the right from same-sex couples to marry. And those who support the anti-marriage amendment have decided that fears about children are their strongest argument.
Surely even the most obtuse of parents and administrators had to have been aware that their actions were tailor-made for use by anti-gay activists. I find it hard to understand what they were thinking.
I know that San Francisco is insular and a conservative is hard to find. All of their friends and acquaintances support marriage equality and no doubt they thought this was a brave show of support. But did they not see the potential for misrepresentation or were they truly naïve enough to believe that supporters of Proposition 8 would behave admirably?
This should not be an issue. The parents were the ones who decided to which marriages their children would be exposed. This is not an example of “gay marriage being taught to first graders” over the objections of parents.
And I truly do appreciate the attitude behind their choice.
But anti-gays have already begun to use this in their effort to deny me equality. And I find it frustrating and annoying that the actions of some presumably-heterosexual people in San Francisco may well provide the basis for some Californians to become afraid of treating me equally.
Think, people. Think.
October 13th, 2008
I got a phone call last night from a reporter from Phoenix’s ABC15, telling me that a spokesperson for the ‘Yes” side for Prop 102 says that more than a hundred of their campaign signs were vandalized. Obviously, everyone here at No on Prop 102 condemns such vandalism. While we are happy to engage in a vigorous debate on the issues, vandalism has no place in rational debate.
October 13th, 2008
I hadn’t planned on posting another installment, but I just happened to run across this at the library Sunday. It’s from the Winter 1998/9 edition of the Harvard Gay & Lesbian Review. Ten years ago today, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) rose on the House floor to address the chamber on the need to amend the Federal Hate Crimes law to include sexual orientation. A portion of that speech was adapted as an op-ed in the HG&LR.
Recently a very decent young man was brutally murdered by two savage individuals. I am particularly struck by this, because — given the reason that those two mentally and morally deformed individuals murdered that young man — it could have been me. Had I, alone and unarmed, confronted these two thugs, I could have been subjected to the same brutalization that Mr. Shepard was in Wyoming, because his crime was to be a gay man. Something in the culture in which these two young men grew up led them, without an ounce of humanity, without a scrap of decency, to set upon this young man with a weapon, beat him, and leave him not quite dead, but at the point of death, alone, and in a way that added further his torment.
I am encouraged by the number of people who have spoken out against this savagery. I am optimistic, having spoken with leaders on both sides in the House, that we will take an important step and add to the Federal hate crimes legislation a provision that would say that if a young man who happens to be gay, as I happen to be gay, is set upon by thugs in the future who are so consumed with prejudice as to lose any shred of their humanity and kill him, that in appropriate circumstances, if the Attorney General found that certain very stringent requirements were met, and if a Federal presence were necessary, the Federal presence could be there. So, I hope we will add this to the legislation now pending.
But we need to go beyond that. I do not argue that those who have been critical of various proposals that gay and lesbian people have put forward are guilty of murder or of even creating a murderous climate. But this savage murder does call us to the need to improve what we as a society do to protect other young Mr. Shepards from this kind of brutality in the future.
In particular, we have debated on the floor of this House measures whereby Members have sought to penalize secondary schools for setting up programs to that do two things. First, they would offer protection to the young gay men and lesbians who find themselves tormented and abused and sometimes physically assaulted in school. Second, some of these schools would try to teach young people in their teens that brutalizing people because they don’t like their sexual orientation is not acceptable human behavior.
I hope that one thing that will come out of this terrible murder will be a cessation of those efforts to prevent schools from trying in turn to prevent this kind of behavior. It is not random that the terrible murder was committed upon a gay man, and it is shocking that a 21-year-old and a 22-year-old could be so bestial in their attitude toward a fellow human being. These are people not long out of high school themselves. This underlines the importance of allowing educators to deal with prejudice. We talk about teaching values. But when some talk about teaching the value of tolerance, when some talk about condemning violence based on someone’s basic characteristics, we are told we cannot do that. We have been told that we cannot let a school teach acceptance of the gay lifestyle. Think about that: What does non-acceptance mean? If acceptance is interpreted to mean approval, then I don’t care about it. There are bigots in this world whose approval holds no charms for me. But when non-acceptance means not accepting someone’s right to live, we have a serious problem.
If the two murderers who so brutally beat Mr. Shepard and left him to die – if they had been in a school system in which people had taught that gay men and lesbians were human beings with a right to live, maybe this would not have happened. Maybe teaching people to accept differences, not in the sense of becoming their advocates or supporters, but in refraining from this sort of assault, would be a good thing. Ad so we will return to this. I hope we will, in the piece of legislation that’s about to wrap up this session, adopt the hate crimes statute, and I hope we will no longer see in this House efforts to harass and penalize educators who understand the importance of trying to remove from young people’s attitudes the kind of hatefulness that led to this murder.
The Republican Congressional leadership of Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich refused to allow an appropriate amendment to the Hate Crimes law into this bill, so it died for the year. Ten years later, Federal law continues to provide hate crime protections on the basis of race, religion, and national origin, but not sexual orientation.
Also ten years ago today, vigils were held around the country and the giant rainbow flag in San Francisco’s Castro district was lowered to half staff. And Fred Phelps, of the Westboro Baptist Church, announced that his clan would be protesting at the funeral.
See also:
(Oct 16) Today In History: Rest In Peace
(Oct 13) Today In History: “Something In the Culture”
(Oct 12) Today In History: Matthew Wayne Shepard (Dec 1, 1976 – Oct 12, 1998)
(Oct 11) Today In History: The Vigil
(Oct 10) Today In History: Armbands and Scarecrows
(Oct 9) Also Today In History: Details Emerge
(Oct 9) Today In History: “We Just Wanted To Spend Time With Him”
(Oct 8) Today in History: Two Men Arrested
(Oct 7) Also Today In History: Another Assault In Laramie
(Oct 7) Today In History: “Baby, I’m So Sorry This Happened”
(Oct 6) Today In History: Before Matthew Shepard
October 12th, 2008
Retired Minnesota state Senator Allan Spear, one of the first openly gay state legislators in the country, died Saturday of complications following surgery. He had heart surgery earlier this year, which later caused an infection.
Sen. Spear served in the Minnesota Senate for 28 years from 1972 until his retirement in 2000. He was president of the Senate from 1993 to 2000. He announced that he was gay in 1974. He was a co-founder of the National Association of Gay and Lesbian Elected and Appointed Officials, and he was a board member of OutFront Minnesota.
Sen. Spear is survived by his partner of more than 20 years, Junjiro Tsuji.
October 12th, 2008
An op-ed by University of Arizona President Emeritus Peter Likins appeared in Saturday’s Tucson Citizen urging everyone to vote against Prop 102:
We are at a critical juncture in time, nationally and in Arizona, obliged to confront crucial problems relating to such fundamental issues as the economy, education and health care.
These problems will not be solved until we learn to work together throughout society, especially in our governing bodies. Until our elected officials learn to search out common ground and build from a shared foundation, we will continue to founder on the rocks of conflicting ideologies such as those that divide and destroy the effectiveness of the Arizona Legislature.
Proposition 102 commits to the state constitution the definition of marriage that already exists in Arizona law as a union between one man and one woman. Passing this proposition will do nothing to change the law or to protect the sanctity of marriage.
(After nearly 53 years of a beautiful marriage, my wife and I are beyond the reach of state law.)
A similar proposition was rejected in 2006, but we are back again in angry conflict over an issue that seemed settled then.
You can read the rest of the op-ed here.
October 12th, 2008
In the midst of our battles to obtain and retain such measures of equality and control over our own lives as we can, we should not forget that for others this battle is far more difficult.
Take, for example, Tanusree and Rinku. They had eloped and were living together as spouses (with Rinku disguised as a man) until police captured them and returned them to their parents. Now they are being forcibly detained.
Despite the fact that parents of both girls had accepted the duo as married partners in the district court where police had produced them, they decided to forcibly separate the two immediately thereafter. The two girls vehemently protested, but in vain. While Tanusree was taken to Gabberia, Rinku was taken by her brothers to their parental home in Manikpir, Nayachak, about 5 km away.
“No matter what we said that day on record, we cannot accept such an evil alliance. Have you ever heard of a girl marrying another girl? Someone might have cast a spell on Tanusree and we have managed to wrest her back from there,” said father Kanai Manna. Ever since the pucca road to Domjur was laid near the village, claiming his grocery shop like many others of the village, Kanai idles away at home, while his three unmarried daughters run the household by doing zari embroidery. “We were desperate to get Tanusree back, not only because she is our daughter but also because she is a key breadwinner for us. I am perennially ill and cannot work. I cannot afford to let go of the Rs 2,000 that she earns,” Kanai says.
October 12th, 2008
The Miami Herald has issued an editorial encouraging a No vote on anti-gay Amendment 2. In addition to banning gay marriage in Florida, it would reverse local domestic partnership provisions that are beneficial to both gay and straight unmarried couples. Florida has a large population of senior citizens, some of whom cannot marry lest they lose essential retirement benefits but who seek pragmatic protections for their personal relationships.
This amendment is mean-spirited and misguided.
It targets gay and lesbian couples, but it would cause grief and suffering to other couples, whether they’re gay or not. That’s because of ambiguous language that says any legal union that is the ”substantial equivalent” of marriage would not be recognized.
This would jeopardize the benefits and health insurance that many companies provide to unmarried, heterosexual couples.
[Hat tip: Stefano]
October 12th, 2008
Coming out in opposition to Proposition 8, the Ventura Star says
The Star urges a “no” vote on Proposition 8, which would embed discrimination in the California Constitution.
Chief Justice Ronald M. George, writing the majority opinion, got it right in the May ruling: “An individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”
October 12th, 2008
Arizona Together has begun showing these ads around the state to drum up opposition to Prop 102, the so-called “marriage amendment.” It costs about $375 to air one ad on one television station. So by my calculation, this means that:
Okay, so you get the picture. And even if you can’t afford a triple-digit contribution, every little bit helps. Even a tenth of a television spot will make a difference when bundled with nine others.
Arizona became the first in the nation to defeat one of these so-called “marriage amendments.” We can do it again, but only with your help. It’s important, because if we lose in Arizona, then they will have gotten the message that they can take other victories away from us simply by coming back again and again.
Please don’t let that happen. Give generously to Arizona Together today.
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email: