Box Turtle Bulletin

David Benkof, Signing Off

David Benkof has said farewell to his “Gays Defend Marriage” cause:

It is with great sadness that I announce that I feel I must withdraw from openly supporting man-woman marriage in the United States. I recently learned quite a bit of disturbing information that makes it impossible for me to continue supporting a movement I no longer respect. I have not yet decided when or even if I will write about why I’m ending my participation in this debate.

Update: Wayne Besen has a short statement from David expressing his disillusionment about the people behind California’s proposed anti-marriage amendment.

Sacramento Bee: Ex-Convicts In Military Risky

The Bush administration’s Department of Defense has been kicking out gays and lesbians as fast as they can find them, but the number of “morality waivers” they’ve been giving out to ex-convicts who sign up has risen steadily since 2004.

Last year, a record 9,935 waivers were granted. This morning’s Sacramento Bee reports on 120 recruits who entered the military under morality waivers and found several instances of continuing criminal behavior in Iraq. The Bee also cites a U.S. army study which found that servicemembers accepted under a morality waiver were:

• 1.4 times more likely to be court-marshaled,
• 1.7 times more likely to be accused of misconduct in service at least once (and 1.3 times more likely to be accused more than once),
• more than twice as likely to desert,
• three times more likely to fail alcohol rehabilitation,
• and 1.3 times more likely to be discharged in lieu of court-marshal.

But gays and lesbians can’t serve openly because they somehow represent a danger to military effectiveness. Go figure.

More Evidence Tim Bee Isn’t Ready For Prime Time

He sees nuclear-powered cars in our future:

And, he said, there are new technologies being developed, including hydrogen and perhaps nuclear-powered vehicles. “There are incredible things on the horizon,” he said.

Insure.com’s CEO Bob Bland Responds

Earlier today we reported that we have been trying for over a month to get Insure.com to remove false and defamatory articles from their website. Specifically, the articles – which were written by Insure.com staff – rely on a non-representative AIDS study from the early 90’s and fraudulent “researcher” Paul Cameron to claim “the life expectancy of gay males to be at least 20 years below average”.

The CEO of Insure.com, Bob Bland, has replied:

Box Turtle Bulletin is too anxious to bash Insure.com and you posted private e-mails from me to you without my permission, which says more about you than me. I’ve been open and forthright in dealing with Box Turtle’s many recent inquiries.

The article(s) you’ve referenced are but one or two over 3,000 that we have posted at Insure.com since 1996.

This particular article talks about third party studies that have claimed that homosexuals have a markedly different life expectancy than heterosexuals. We posted this as a human interest story from an actuarial standpoint and without any political agenda whatsoever and without comment as to the accuracy of the third party research.

One’s sexual orientation has no bearing on how a life insurance agency, including ours, would go about quoting life insurance.

We represent 35 leading life insurance companies and do not know of any that ask about sexual orientation at the time of quoting or at anytime during underwriting. Furthermore, sexual orientation is NOT considered or asked about in the quoting or underwriting of a life insurance policy. When quoting a life insurance policy, we, as an agent and broker, ask only those questions that are required to be asked by each life insurance company, which is typically an exhaustive set of 50-100 questions about one’s health history, past and current. Every U.S. life insurance company that I know of does ask each applicant if they are HIV positive and, to the best of my knowledge, each company will automatically then decline such an applicant, so apparently the life underwriters are convinced that that medical condition is somehow relative to one’s longevity.

As I explained to you earlier this week we’ve been delayed in having our writers and editors take a another look at this article, but still expect to do so over the next 4 weeks because we want to make certain that we encompass all available current research on this topic.

Once again, Insure.com has no political agenda on this issue and never has had any such agenda.

The Insure.com article making the claim that gay men die 20 years younger remains an available part of the “impartial insurance information” provided in their “vast library of originally authored insurance articles and decision-making tools” while Mr. Bland makes certain that he encompasses all available current research on this topic.

See also:
Aug 15: Insure.com Pulls Cameron Quotes
Jul 17: Certified Cameronite: Insure.com
Jul 14: Insure.com CEO Defends Paul Cameron
Jul 11: Insure.com’s CEO Bob Bland Responds
Jul 11: Insure.com’s Anti-Gay Propaganda

Founder of Desert Stream Complains about Gay Wedding Coverage

On July 4, the Kansas City Star published an article by Derrik J. Lang with the headline At California’s gay weddings, traditions remain strong. In the article, Lang investigated whether same-sex weddings were similar to opposite-sex weddings and found that gay couples are opting mostly to follow tradition.

Rhodes said most wedding conventions — invitations, music, formal attire, cake, Champagne — are finding their way into the same-sex ceremonies that her full-service wedding and events planning company has been hired for since the California Supreme Court’s ruling in May.

The article didn’t touch on whether gay people should marry or delve into discussions about civil rights, religion, philosophy, politics or other contentious matters that often surround discussions around same-sex marriage.

But nonetheless, this article didn’t sit well with Andrew Comiskey. Comiskey is the ex-gay who founded Desert Stream ministries and will be a keynote speaker for Exodus International’s Freedom Conference next week in Asheville, NC.

He wrote a letter to the editor objecting to the use of certain words when discussing gay unions.

Soothing readers with words like “tradition,” “commitment” and “marriage equality,” Lang tried to normalize the gay marriage experience, even implying that these unions are so authentic, they don’t have to “hide behind a basic ritual.”

They cannot hide, because anyone with common sense knows that a wedding and a marriage celebrates only one thing: the audacious effort of a man and a woman to become one unit for life, a truth lost on the California Supreme Court when it overturned the will of the people and mandated gay marriage last May.

Wordplay matters in the battle for marriage, and Lang showed his hand shamelessly. I urge The Star to opt for more objective reporting on this crucial topic.

Now I’ve seen plenty of anti-gays use snear quotes aroung the words “gay” or “marriage”. But it really takes a truly bigoted mindset to insist that the words “tradition” and “commitment” are the exclusive property of heterosexuality.

Is the Church Listening?

The following guest post is a book review by Michael King, Professor of Primary Care Psychiatry at University College London Medical School. He is the author of several studies on sexual orientation and mental health. In 2004, his report “Treatments of homosexuality in Britain in the 1950s — an oral history: the experience of professionals” appeared in the British Medical Journal, where it is available online for free.

The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality. A resource to enable listening and dialogue
Editor Phil Groves
June 2008
SPCK, London
pp xiii plus 322.

This edited volume has been published just in time for the 2008 Lambeth Conference, its stated purpose to “listen to the experience of homosexual persons”. The Anglican Communion’s listening exercise began at the last Lambeth Conference in 1998 and will inform its decisions on homosexuality in the laity and clergy alike.

As the editor himself notes, this book is a curious hotchpotch of chapters on scriptural interpretation, the role of religious tradition, how to listen and conduct a dialogue, the cultural dimension, the voices of gay and lesbian people and finally what is referred to as the witness of science. It is densely written and a challenge for anyone trying to get to grips with the Anglican Communion’s approach to listening.

A large part of the book is devoted to scriptural interpretation and the place of tradition, little of which is particularly new. Although the obviously sexual elements of scripture, such as the Song of Solomon, are discussed, generally the conclusions are banal. Most of the contributors shrink from accepting the fully erotic nature of many of these texts and are fairly unequivocal that homosexuality, or least same-sex behaviour, is not accepted by scripture. In classical heterosexist fashion, they make little of the suggestions that (just possibly) the intimate friendships between figures such as David and Jonathon or Ruth and Naomi might have contained a sexual element. The default assumption is heterosexual unless declared otherwise. We are told that although gay and lesbian people are “welcomed” by the Church, they are not “affirmed” in the sense that their partnerships might be valued. The choice offered is to be in the church and live by the rules of the Church. This means no possibility of same sex relationships. Concern is even expressed that “current political pressures” (read here gay lobby) will mean that gay and lesbian people will be denied their “human right” to seek therapy for their “unwanted same-sex attraction”. If God loves homosexuals, it seems that clues to his love won’t be found in scripture.

In contrast, God seems to love polygamists. Polygamy, we are told, was part of the tradition of ancient Israel and no Old Testament passage actually proscribes it. Polygamy in modern Kenya is even regarded benignly as arising from the “great strains on the practice of monogamy” in that society. Strains for men I presume. One is left with the distinct feeling that anything heterosexual, although not entirely welcome, is not entirely banned either. The stress is on heterosexual. Opposite sex in – same sex out. A recipe for exclusion.

Trailing at the end is the “witness of science” on the biological basis of sexuality. As scientists, we might welcome such an approach but before the Church changed its mind on slavery or women priests did it debate the biological basis for race and gender? I suspect not. It appears here because of homosexuality’s persisting image as a deviation from nature’s heterosexual plan. But never mind. Just what have these chapters to tell us? The first by David de Pomerai and Glyn Harrison is a reasonable enough summary of what neuroscience and genetics can tell us about homosexuality and is fair to the literature. The second by Glyn Harrison is of much lower quality. Here we have an academic psychiatrist bending over backwards to suggest, on the basis of the weakest sort of evidence, that sexual orientation can be changed. I suspect if he were reviewing evidence of similar quality for the efficacy of a new medication he would dismiss it out of hand. And so unsurprisingly, he finds what he sets out to find – namely that given enough willingness there are treatments out there to make homosexual people into heterosexuals, or at the very least stop them wanting sex.

But not all is valueless. Hidden away in all this dross are two chapters of gold (6 & 7) that make it worth taking a second look. They are crucial contributions because they are the only sections to contain the narratives of gay and lesbian people, Christian and non-Christian alike. These accounts resonate with the pain and struggle that lesbian and gay people have always experienced at the hands of the Church and wider society and the ways in which they have prevailed over them. If the whole book were dedicated to such stories then the Church might hear what it so badly needs to hear; the views and experiences of gays and lesbians and their families and friends – their stories, their faiths. Those bishops who are here at Lambeth this July need to read and ponder these accounts. They can safely disregard the rest.

Michael King
Professor of Primary Care Psychiatry
Department of Mental Health Sciences
University College London Medical School
Royal Free Campus
Rowland Hill Street
London NW3 2PF

Insure.com’s Anti-Gay Propaganda

The trend in business relations has been towards an acceptance and welcoming of gay and lesbian clients and appreciation of them as customers. This may be because of the perception that product loyalty is particularly strong in gay consumers or because businesses generally believe that moralistic rants drive away not only gay customers but also those who love them.

Which made it all the more surprising to find that Insure.com, an online insurance purveyor, has been hosting articles that make false and defamatory statements about gay men and women.

Gay Mortality Claims
Insure.com is a publicly traded company with an advisory board ranging from a former US Senator to executives with various companies, including AT&T. The company is a major sponsor of Bill O’Reilly’s radio talk show and Bill gives voice to their commercial.

In addition to selling insurance, they provide information about the insurance industry. Joe White, an employee and company blog contributor, wrote two pieces in which he claimed that “being gay” was a health risk, and not just a minor one.

In an article on the business website entitled Top five ways to kill yourself and get away with it, White lists the number one way to kill yourself:

1. Being gay. A gay lifestyle is by far the biggest risk to life expectancy that goes unrecognized by insurance companies. The question has been considered by multiple studies, and the gay lifestyle is universally acknowledged to decrease life expectancy. A conservative estimate is that a gay lifestyle takes away 8-20 years from the average lifespan.

In other words, living a homosexual lifestyle has health risks at least as severe as smoking (by some estimates even more), but due to the sensitive nature of the issue, life insurance companies don’t charge different rates for gays. So gays save money on life insurance at the same rate they die young.

White bases his Number One self-killer information on another insure.com article he authored, Gay men die 20 years younger.

It’s a loaded subject, but let’s get right down to it: gay men, on average, die significantly younger than the rest of the population.

Vancouver Study
Part of the bases for White’s wild claim is an extrapolation from a 1997 study from Robert Hogg entitled Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men. It was based on research performed in Vancouver from 1987 through 1992. The question that they were trying to answer was not the mortality of gay men, but rather the impact that HIV might have on the gay population.

White acknowledges that this study was of HIV positive individuals but then says something curious: “Many who read the study, however, understood it to categorize the gay lifestyle as inherently hazardous.”

Perhaps recognizing that “Impact” means the opposite of “inherently”, White did not reveal the name of the study. Further, the only persons who read some inherent hazard into sexual orientation were anti-gay activists and writers. In fact, this so annoyed the authors that they responded to the claims of anti-gays with a letter of clarification.

Mr. White was aware of the letter; he references part of it.

In the same letter, the researchers reiterated their original claim, that a gay man in Vancouver had the same life expectancy as a Canadian man in 1870, 8-21 years shorter than the average male today.

The wording in the letter is

The aim of our research was never to spread more homophobia, but to demonstrate to an international audience how the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men can be estimated from limited vital statistics data. In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871.

That does sound ominous, if you stop there. Which is exactly what Mr. White chose to do. He opted to eliminate the substance of the words following this quote:

In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia .

It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure. Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man’s risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used.

This is a most curious edit. By leaving out the above paragraphs, White leaves the reader believing exactly the opposite what the authors intended. They did not “reiterate their original claim”; rather, they reported that circumstances had changed significantly and that their statistics were no longer applicable.

While Vancouver during the late 80’s may have had a large number of HIV positive individuals, and while they may have been dying young, this cannot be extrapolated to any other geographic region or time.

Paul Cameron
But Mr. White did not rely solely on the Vancouver study (with selectively eliminated information). He also based his claims on a familiar source, Paul Cameron.

In 2005, Dr. Paul Cameron, the President of the Family Research Institute, published a study in Psychological Reports that confirmed a 20-year life expectancy gap for actively gay men. Researchers performed the study by examining gay obituaries and comparing them with data from the Center for Disease Control. Both data sets put the average age of death for gay men about 20 years younger than average.

Those of us who are familiar with Cameron and his followers know that these claims are fraudulent. But others relying on White’s claims might not know that Dr. Paul Cameron has been thoroughly discredited.

He has been dropped from the American Psychological Association, condemned by the Nebraska Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association, and the Canadian Psychological Association and been barred from presenting himself as an “expert” in at least one courtroom. And even the anti-gay fringe disavowed Cameron after he lauded Rudolph Höss, the camp commandant of Auschwitz, and his efforts to eradicate homosexuality.

White takes the outdated Vancouver study, combines it with Cameron’s bogus “research” and declares:

this revised estimate would establish the life expectancy of gay males to be at least 20 years below average.

This classifies gay men with a graver risk of mortality than smokers and the obese—perhaps the highest mortality risk for any demographic its size.

Are there Mortality Variances?
To the best of my knowledge, there have been no serious studies that reveal any difference in average age of death between heterosexual and homosexual persons. But that does not mean that such a difference does not exist.

Various demographics of persons do have different average life expectancies.

Many factors impact life expectancy – genetics, diet, exercise, smoking, drugs and alcohol, stress, marital status, poverty, and many many more. And there are likely to be some characteristics that result from the social patterns found more often in the gay community.

But we cannot know whether the increased emphasis on diet, exercise, health, and body awareness leads to a measurable average increase in life expectancy. Nor can we know whether a higher incidence of drug use or stress related to discrimination or rejection leads to a measurable decrease. We don’t even know if enough gay persons share enough stereotypical characteristics that these presumed risk factors can impact the gay population as a whole.

During the 80’s and early 90’s we know that deaths from AIDS related illnesses impacted the gay community much more severely than the population at large. But current drug regimens have brought the life expectancy for some HIV positive persons to be nearly that of non-infected persons. And even if there is some reduction due to HIV infection, this subpopulation is only about 15% of gay men and no measurable percentage of lesbians.

Perhaps there is some mortality variance, but neither White nor myself have any idea as to what it might be. And only a highly irresponsible insurance provider would provide to its clients “information” that is both defaming and demonstrably false.

Corporate Response
On June 1, we contacted the Robert “Bob” Bland, the CEO of Insure.com and informed him that his company was hosting articles that were factually inaccurate and based on the work of an anti-gay activist that had been discredited.

Bland responded that because the articles were based on third party studies and not original research they would require time to do fact-checking. He did not pull the articles.

We offered to provide Bland with additional information, if needed. He responded:

I may, thank you. We want to do a wider-ranging issue that is fair and balanced and include more research and debate, maybe even quotes from you and your organization.

Can you give me a list of studies or links regarding gay male life expectancy that you think may be valid? Or are you saying that there’s no difference in mortality there?

We discovered that, while the 35 major life insurance companies do not ask about sexual orientation, virtually all of them immediately decline any applicant who is HIV positive, indicating to me that their actuaries have sound data showing reduced mortality for this group, just as they decline anybody who engages in risky hobbies or racing.

We provided Mr. Bland with thorough information about the invalidity of Whites sources as well as clarifying for him that HIV status does not equate to sexual orientation. He responded by repeating his “risky hobbies” comment. That was on June 12th.

On the 28th I wrote inquiring how the research was coming and whether they were going to continue to host the anti-gay articles on their site. Bland responded:

Other priorities came in front of this. This could take 1-4 more weeks as we have limited editorial resources. We’ve never hosted anti-homosexual articles at our site and have no corporate agenda on this issue whatsoever.

As of this writing, the Top Five Ways to Kill Yourself article is no longer at the web address. But those persons wishing to find fun insurance facts can still read that gay men die 20 years sooner, on average, than straight men. Mr. Bland has not clarified why he does not believe this to be an “anti-homosexual” article.

No doubt Insure.com does have some accurate information on their website. But considering the extent to which they are willing to accommodate and defend myth, lies, and homophobic ranting, I would be more trusting of a fast-talking guy with a bad toupee to accommodate my insurance buying needs.

See also:
Aug 15: Insure.com Pulls Cameron Quotes
Jul 17: Certified Cameronite: Insure.com
Jul 14: Insure.com CEO Defends Paul Cameron
Jul 11: Insure.com’s CEO Bob Bland Responds
Jul 11: Insure.com’s Anti-Gay Propaganda

Bumbling Bee Won’t Say Where He’ll Land

This is just nuts. Arizona Sen. Tim Bee (R-Tucson), who cast the crucial sixteenth vote to place the anti-marriage amendment on the ballot, just can’t make up his mind about where he stands on the issue. First, he signed on as a co-sponsor of the amendment. Then he took on Rep. Jim Kolbe as his honorary chairman for his race against Gabrielle Giffords (D) for the eighth Congressional district. That led him to try to bottle the amendment up in the state Senate. Then, in the final hours of the legislative session, he blasted the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) for their threats and coercive tactics, but then crumpled under the pressure to cast the deciding vote. That led Kolbe to abandon Bee’s campaign. Then the Tucson Citizen asked Bee about his opinion on same-sex marriage and he struggled to come up with a coherent answer.

Now the Arizona Daily Star is reporting that he won’t answer another simple question: will he vote for the marriage ban in November?

But asked whether he’d support the measure — a hallmark issue for social conservatives — now that he’s voted to put it on the ballot, Bee wouldn’t say, calling it his “private vote.”  “I think ultimately, as I tell my members, vote your conscience,” he said.

Bee is trying to play both sides and failing miserably. You cannot denounce CAP’s threats and divisive politics on one hand only to turn around and do their bidding on the other. And you cannot first sponsor a same-sex marriage ban before trying to duck the question just because you’re running in a congressional district that voted against Prop 107 in 2006 by more than a 9% margin.

That 2006 vote was decisive. Bee isn’t. If he can’t make up his mind on this and show some fortitude in front of fellow Arizonans, how can we expect him to make an unassisted decision in Washington?

California United Methodists Support Marriage

Highland Boulevard is a major street running through Hollywood. And due to a bend in the road between the Kodak Theater and the Hollywood Bowl, those drivers heading north have centered in their windshield the tower of the Hollywood United Methodist Church adorned with a twenty foot high red AIDS ribbon.

This symbol, now a landmark in Hollywood, went up when many others who claim Christianity as their private domain had rejected and demonized those who were afflicted by HIV and AIDS. Fifteen years later, it tells the many thousands of commuters who pass by that this Christian congregation in its beautiful traditional sactuary remains committed to the words that the denomination has adopted, “open hearts, open minds, open doors”.

And this body of believers, a Reconciling Congregation that marches in the Gay Pride parade, appears to be representative of the UMC churches in the state. While national church considers homosexuality to be “incompatible with Christian teaching” and rules prohibit the UMC churches or ministers from conducting same-sex marriages, the California Methodists are declaring their defiance of these rules and their support and welcome of gay couples.

A United Methodist News Service article, via the Dallas Morning News, reports

The church’s California-Pacific Annual Conference [Southern California], convening June 18-22 in Redlands, approved three measures that support same-gender couples entering into the marriage covenant. Each “encourages both congregations and pastors to welcome, embrace and provide spiritual nurture and pastoral care for these families,” according to a June 27 letter to the conference from Bishop Mary Ann Swenson and other conference leaders.

That same week in Sacramento, the California-Nevada Annual Conference [Northern California] approved two measures on the same issue, including one that lists 67 retired United Methodist clergy in northern California who have offered to conduct same-gender marriage ceremonies. The resolution commends the pastors’ work in offering continued ministry.

A Guardian article places the number of Northern California retired UMC Ministers offering to perform same-sex weddings at 82. By congregations declaring their support for the retired ministers, they can express their support for gay couples without the threat of having their active pastor defrocked.

The Southern California conference also voted to oppose Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage amendment.

The support of the state’s United Methodists is most welcome. As more houses of worship declare their opposition to exclusionary political efforts, this debate becomes less a battle between the Holy and the Profane and becomes better understood as an effort by a few to introduce discrimination into the state’s constitution.

Paula Aboud: State Senate Breaks Trust

We earlier described how the Arizona State Senate broke its own rules to cram a last-minute vote on the anti-marriage amendment in the session’s final hours. That was when State Senate President Tim Bee finally crumpled under the pressure from Cathi Harrod’s Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), the anti-gay lobbying group that is a political arm of Focus On the Family, to ignore the rule violations and cast the deciding sixteenth vote.

In today’s op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star, Sen. Paula Aboud (D-Tucson) describes how the Republican leadership blatantly broke their own Senate rules to force the vote. She also revealed how immoral these “defenders of morality” really are. Speaking of Republican leaders Thayer Verschoor (R-Phoenix), John Huppenthal (R-Phoenix), and Sen. Jack Harper’s (R-Surprise) actions, Sen. Aboud says:

These three Republican senators have heaped dishonor upon themselves and the institution that they are sworn to serve in order to protect “marriage.” The means do not justify the end — no matter what. State lawmakers, above all, must set the highest example of obeying the law. If they publicly break the rules just to win, they lose their moral authority to serve the state ever again.

These men should not be allowed to break the rules without consequences. The voters have an opportunity to deliver those consequences.

Bee Knows His Anti-Marriage Vote Was A Mistake

Arizona State Sen. Tim Bee knows that his crucial sixteenth vote to place the anti-marriage amendment on the ballot was a terrible mistake that he wishes would just go away. Especially now that Kolbe has withdrawn his support. The Tucson Citizen’s Mark Kimble offers this anecdote:

In a visit this week with the Tucson Citizen Editorial Board, Arnie Bermudez, the Citizen’s cartoonist, asked Bee a logical question: Why shouldn’t gay couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples?

Bee was speechless. He looked at his aide, Dunn, then back at Bermudez. For an uncomfortable 15 or 20 seconds, he said absolutely nothing hunting for an answer. Then Bee said he “was not judgmental,” “likes people of all persuasions” and feels “the core family is an important thing.”

This is not an issue Bee wants in this campaign. But Kolbe’s absence will not let it go away.

And neither will we.

More On Kolbe and Bee’s Parting of Ways

Former US Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) still isn’t directly saying why he has withdrawn his support for Arizona State Senate President Tim Bee’s run for Kolbe’s old Congressional seat. But what he’s not saying is leaving little doubt about the reasons.

Last week, Kolbe announced that he would no longer serve as Bee’s honorary chairman. That announcement came just a few days after Bee’s crucial sixteenth vote to place the anti-marriage amendment again on the ballot. A similar effort was rejected by Arizona voters in 2006.

While Kolbe isn’t talking about his decision, that’s not keeping others from talking. Mark Kimble, writing for today’s Tucson Citizen, describes Kolbe’s reversal as “a stunning six-month turnaround”:

On Jan. 19, Kolbe stood at Bee’s side as Bee announced he would run against Democratic incumbent Gabrielle Giffords for the U.S. House in District 8 – a seat that Kolbe held until he retired in 2006. When Bee stressed his commitment to bipartisanship, Kolbe told reporters, “That’s what we need in Washington.”

Kolbe’s support went beyond that. Just last month, Kolbe opened his Washington, D.C., townhome to host a fundraiser for Bee. And now Kolbe is out, with neither man saying why.

Kimble reports that Kolbe remained circumspect in a telephone interview. When asked why he withdrew, Kolbe said he would “not have a long, protracted discussion” about it. But when asked directly whether he still supported Bee, Kolbe demurred, saying, “I’m not going to get into playing that game.”

You know, if Kolbe still supported Bee in the general, non-endorsing, “I hope we can change the seat to a Republican seat” kind of way, that would not be difficult to say. But Kolbe didn’t even offer that minimal support.

But if that’s not clear enough, there’s this: When Bee was asked why Kolbe withdrew his support, Bee said, “Jim has some personal things going on now that he needs to focus on.” What are those “personal things”? Illness? Death in the family? Catching up on All My Children episodes? He wouldn’t say. But whatever they are, they aren’t keeping Kolbe from hosting a fundraiser tomorrow for state Rep, Pete Hershberger (R-Tucson), who is running for the state Senate.

Why Hershberger and not Bee? Maybe it’s because Hershberger was one of only two state House Republicans who voted against the anti-marriage amendment last May.

Connerly Speaks Up for Gay Marriage

Ward Connerly is a conservative black Republican. He opposes affirmative action and has led successful initiative drives in California, Michigan and Washington to remove race from being considered as part of college acceptance or hiring practices.

While some may think that being conservative and being opposed to affirmative action equates to anti-gay, for Connerly this naturally leads to supporting equality for gay persons. In an interview with the Arizona Republic Connerly said the following:

The government shouldn’t be making distinctions about people on the basis of what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. And those within my party that try to inject the government into that, they’re not the conservative, I’m the conservative. I’m saying, keep government small, keep government out of people’s personal lives. If you’re going to give benefits to people who happen to be straight, give the same benefits to people who are gay. That to me was a very easy call.

I took a lot of heat from “strong conservatives” who said that I was eroding the concept of marriage. I’m not “eroding the concept of marriage.” If marriage is that fragile, that giving people who are gay equal benefit (would cause harm), then we’re in big trouble. I believe in the institution of marriage, but I also believe in freedom. I believe in treating people equally. . . .

I grew up in a time when I was forbidden from marrying people who were not of my race. In 1962, when my wife and I got married, in some parts of the country, we would have been breaking the law. It wasn’t until 1967, when the Supreme Court in the Loving (vs. Virginia) case said that that’s unconstitutional. So, I feel very strongly that the government shouldn’t be treating people differently just because they are gay.

Those conservatives in Arizona who are happy to have Connerly support the end of affirmative action should listen to his advice when voting on the anti-gay amendment in November. And California voters may want to take note of James Kirchick’s article in the Advocate

Connerly, who is black and grew up in the Deep South, told me that efforts to amend his state’s constitution to ban gay marriage remind him of antimiscegenation laws. “For anyone to say that this is an issue for people who are gay and that this isn’t about civil rights is sadly mistaken,” he says. “If you really believe in freedom and limited government, to be intellectually consistent and honest you have to oppose efforts of the majority to impose their will on people.”

Dobson Nominated for Radio Hall of Fame

Imagine my surprise on learning that Focus on the Family’s James Dobson has been nominated to the Museum of Broadcast Communication’s Radio Hall of Fame. I wonder, is Father Charles Coughlin also a member? If so, then Dobson might make good company. But no, I don’t see Coughlin on the list, so I don’t see how Dobson deserves the honor. Not after such gems like this:

“Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth.”

Wayne Besen at Truth Wins Out is organizing a campaign to remove Dobson from consideration.

To fight back against this offensive decision, TWO strongly urges fair-minded people to take three actions. First, sign TWO’s formal request to have James Dobson removed from consideration. Second, contact Museum of Broadcast Communications CEO Bruce DuMont directly, brucedumont@museum.tv, to express your displeasure. Third, as an option, vote for nominees other than James Dobson or Laura Schlessinger (the general public may vote, and the other nominees are Bob Costas and Howard Stern). It is urgent to act now, as voting comes to a close on July 15.

Virtual Exodus

Every organization who has a web site hopes that their web presence is an accurate representation of who they are. Exodus International is no exception. Today, James Dye has a wonderful article appearing in Out In Nashville, where he takes us on masterful tour of Exodus’ view of the world using nothing more than their web site. As Dye describes it, Exodus’ web presence is a sublime portrayal of everything they stand for:

Exodus had to remove its response to the next question, to which its painted Jezebel directs the reader, “Is there a connection between life expectancy and homosexuality?” The website notes that this answer was pulled due to “the inaccuracies surrounding the research of Paul Cameron.”… It is unclear when Exodus finally got around to distancing itself from this maverick psychologist, but the reference to him still clings to the organisation’s website.  The elder gods have flown, but their temples remain.

The reference to Paul Cameron was removed in April of 2007.

Then there’s this:

Doing God’s work is expensive, and it doesn’t come with a warranty. Using a method of evasion that would make politicians blush, Exodus, without ever defining what success really is, only boasts a 30 to 50% success rate, based on figures that studies suggest.  Clicking on the link to these studies, one gets the notification “Resource not found,” with several possible explanations, including that the file could have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

Exodus International will be hosting their annual conference in Asheville, North Carolina next week. Local activists will hold counter events featuring a talk by Wayne Besen and films screenings of For the Bible Tells Me So and Fish Can’t Fly. If you’re in the area, check out this article for details.