Box Turtle Bulletin

Boos and Cheers for a Homecoming King

Eighteen-year-old Kyle Hutchinson accomplished something that no one at Red Mountain High School in Mesa, Arizona, has ever done before. He was crowned king of the high school prom as an openly gay man.

Kyle’s parents were present when he was crowned king Saturday night amid cheers and boos:

“He kept telling me he was going to win, and he had convinced me,” said his mother, Doreen Hutchinson. “When they called his name, we heard the cheering, but then we immediately heard the boos,” she said. “My heart went into my stomach. It was so awful. My husband said he was expecting it, but I wasn’t prepared. It was so sad.”

Hutchinson said he felt bad that his parents had to hear his classmates who weren’t supporting him. But he also said their reaction is something he has known his whole life, and he wasn’t about to let it ruin his moment.

Kyle said he had always been picked on for not fitting in with the other boys in school. He came out to his parents on his sixteenth birthday, and he moved from his former high school to Red Mountain the following year, he started his first day of class being open about his sexuality. And while Mesa is known for having a large conservative Christian population, Kyle found that he had very few problems until his prom night.

Kyle was crowned king after winning the contest in a landslide, which is perhaps indicative of the changing attitudes among the younger generation — even among young conservative Christians, 80% of whom thought the church was “too anti-homosexual” in one recent survey.

BTB’s Father’s Day Celebration

This is one of my favorite pictures of Dad and me. Whenever I see this picture, it makes me think of two things: 1) how much fun it was to wrestle and climb all over him and 2) aren’t those drapes behind the couch fabulous?

This picture is one of the very few that I have of my Dad and me. Like many fathers of that generation, Dad was always the one behind the camera, not in front of it. And so while I have many wonderful memories of Dad (he died when I was in college), we actually have very few pictures of him. We have whole albums of vacation pictures where one would think he was never there. But of course, it’s impossible to think of those vacations without him.

Like the time we went to Florida for Christmas in 1972. The night before we were due to leave, my mother, my brothers and I all came down with a horrible case of the flu. But Dad was undeterred. He said we could just as easily be sick in Florida as in Ohio, and all in all he’d prefer Florida. So we packed up the Skylark and threw a couple of extra coffee cans in the back seat and off we went.

Ah, yes. Vacation memories…

Anyway, Father’s Day is coming up this year on June 15 — just one week away. I thought it might be nice to turn this blog over to you, and let you post a short (or long) tribute to your father — or gripes (not all fathers are perfect!) or hopes or whatever else stirs you. You can write that letter to your father you’ve been meaning to write, or you can tell us what happened when you did. Your story is all up to you. You can send photos, essays, letters, drawings, videos, podcasts, or whatever else conveys a sense of what your father has meant to you. Your only limitation is your imagination.

You can send your submissions to Superdad@boxturtlebulletin.com, or you can just leave them in the comments and we’ll re-post them with your permission. We can keep your name and other personal details anonymous if you like. Please say so if that’s what you prefer. The best submission gets a free BTB T-shirt.

So tell us. What makes your Dad so special?

A Voice of Reason in Kern Co.

Not every elected official in Kern County places their personal biases above their duty. County Supervisor Don Maben is now trying to clean up after the mess made by Clerk Ann K. Barnett… and he’s not lovin’ it.

“I think it sucks,” Maben said of Barnett’s decision to cease county clerk’s office weddings June 13. “The fact is this is a service that has been provided for a long time and to take away the rights of any citizen because of your personal beliefs when you’re a public official is wrong.”

I’ve still not determined whether there are other measures in place to accommodate non-religious marriages in Kern County, but it appears that Maben shares my concern.

A county supervisor is looking for ways to offer civil marriages — gay and straight — in Kern now that the county clerk’s office will no longer do it.

Supervisor Don Maben said this afternoon that on Tuesday, he will ask the county administrative office to look into options for providing the low-cost service.

In a related article, the Californian reveals that many residents avail themselves of the County’s services to avoid the cost (about $300) of hiring the services of a third party. About 20% of the county population lives below the poverty line.

See also:
Kern Co. Supervisors Reject Anti-Gay Ordinance
Calaveras County Joins Kern and Butte
Barnett Breaks Her Media Silence – Stupidly, of Course
Chad Vegas – Kern Co. School Board Trustee’s Double Standard
Ann Barnett Annoys Local Bakersfield Media
Two More California Counties Stop Officiating at Weddings
CA Anti-Gays Either Completely Idiotic or Shameless Liars
No Non-Religious Marriages in Kern County
A Voice of Reason in Kern Co.
Kern Co. (Bakersfield) Clerk Ann K. Barnett Cancels Straight Weddings
More Bakersfield Bigotry
Bakersfield – Not a Place to Plan Your Wedding

Can’t Wait ’til June 17 for Marriage?

If you want to be among the very first same-sex couples to marry in California, you won’t have to wait all the way until June 17th. The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that the pesky overnight wait is unnecessary and that licenses can be issued immediately after the ruling becomes final at 5:00 p.m. on June 16.

“At 5 o’clock, all county clerks can begin using begin using the (new marriage) forms,” said Suanne Buggy, spokeswoman for the vital records office. That office sent an advisory to all 58 California counties this afternoon informing county clerks of the determination.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said earlier this week he wanted to start marrying couples “the minute” the ruling takes effect.

Not all clerks will be issuing marriage licences after closing time and some will look for any chance to rain on the parade. But as the day grows closer, I’m sure that other counties will jump to be part of history.

Liberty Counsel Needs Refresher Law Class

I’m not an attorney, nor do I play one on the internet. However, even I can see through the latest claim by the Liberty Counsel.

Liberty is the ugly stepchild of the anti-gay legal badgering movement. Alliance Defense Fund gets all the big headline-grabbing cases, leaving the offshoot of Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University playing second fiddle. And perhaps this latest play by Mat Staver, Liberty’s founder and spokesman, illustrates just why.

In a fundraising plea disguised as an “alert”, Staver responds to the California Supreme Court’s decision to deny a stay or reconsideration of their decision.

Today, the California Supreme Court denied the Petition for Steay and for Rehearing in the California marriage cases.

The 4-3 decision was split along the same lines as the original May 15 ruling with Chief Justice George and Justices Kennard, Werdegar and Moreno in the majority. Justices Baxter, Chin and Corrigan dissented.

But a less casual look at the ruling suggests that Staver is either careless in his reading or is being deliberately deceptive.

Though Staver rails at “a handful of judges”, it appears to my reading that the stay had no support at all. While three judges were of the opinion that rehearing should be granted, there is nothing in the ruling that tells me that the decision to deny stay was anything less than unanimous.

While that declaration of Staver can be forgiven as perhaps inattentiveness, what he says next seems to be downright ridiculous.

The cases now will return to the California Court of Appeal for the Supreme Court’s order to be implemented. Liberty Counsel is considering filing a petition with Court of Appeal requesting a stay pending the outcome of the November vote on the state marriage amendment. The Court of Appeal panel previously upheld the state’s marriage laws.

Staver seems to be implying that the Court of Appeals can override the decision of the California Supreme Court. I find it difficult to fathom that a dean of a law school – even one catering solely to conservative religious adherents – can suggest such a thing.

The role of the Court of Appeals at this time is not a contemplative or judicial one. It is an administrative role to facilitate the decision of the state’s Supreme Court. The state’s highest court has stated that its decision will become final on June 16th at 5:00 p.m. and no inferior court has the authority to use administrative delaying tactics to thwart its will.

Should the Court of Appeals fail in its duties – a highly unlikely possibility – County Clerks would simply go ahead in issuing licenses and recording marriages as directed by the decision of the highest court.

If Staver thinks this will be a successful tactic, he needs to take some refresher courses in constitutional law. If, on the other hand, he is simply creating artificial hype so as to give him a reason to beg his donors for money, he needs to retake a course in ethics.

Kern Co. (Bakersfield) Clerk Ann K. Barnett Cancels Straight Weddings

Yesterday we told you of Kern Co. Clerk Ann K. Barnett and her decision to cancel all weddings officiated by county officers so as to avoid allowing gay couples the same privileges as straight couples. Today the Bakersfield Californian provides more information about the extent she went to accommodate her biases.

At her request, County Counsel Bernard Barmann filed a brief with the California Supreme Court opposing implementation of the May 15 ruling allowing gay marriage.

She tried to resign her elected position as county clerk — while keeping her positions as auditor-controller and elections boss. “She really wanted to get rid of it,” Barmann said.

And finally, when the ruling came down Wednesday that she had to license same-sex marriages, she decided to stop performing all weddings. That involved canceling 25 heterosexual ceremonies that had been scheduled after June 13, according to her staff.

The Californian also obtained email correspondence between Barnett’s office and the anti-gay legal advocacy group Alliance Defense Fund.

Our question is, now that the Supreme Court has refused to stay its decision, will Alliance Defense Fund defend the County Clerk if she ceases performing all marriage ceremonies as of 5:00 pm on June 16th?

The newspaper also disproved Barnett’s claims about the cost of conducting ceremonies and space requirements.

I don’t fault Barnett for seeking to find some method by which she would not be called to perform a ceremony which she found to be contrary to her religious beliefs. And if that means that she personally would not perform any ceremonies at all, that would be fine with me.

But Barnett did not limit her actions to herself. She declared that no persons authorized by the County will perform weddings. And if that is an inconvenience to the 25 heterosexual couples, all gay couples, and those clerical officials who would delight in bringing joy to couple of all orientations, well that’s just too bad. Everyone must pay the price for Bennett’s disappointment and all her employees must work according to Bennett’s religious dictates.

It appears that County Clerks are not obligated to provide civil ceremonies and indeed some counties do not. This, however, raises the question – are all marriages in Kern County now religious ceremonies? Is there no mechanism by which atheists or others can seek a civil wedding? If, say, a divorced Catholic wishes to re-marry are they required to seek officiation by someone whose sole qualification is that they are the practitioner of some other faith?

This may not be the last we hear of this story.

[Hat tip: Stefano]

See also:
Kern Co. Supervisors Reject Anti-Gay Ordinance
Calaveras County Joins Kern and Butte
Barnett Breaks Her Media Silence – Stupidly, of Course
Chad Vegas – Kern Co. School Board Trustee’s Double Standard
Ann Barnett Annoys Local Bakersfield Media
Two More California Counties Stop Officiating at Weddings
CA Anti-Gays Either Completely Idiotic or Shameless Liars
No Non-Religious Marriages in Kern County
A Voice of Reason in Kern Co.
Kern Co. (Bakersfield) Clerk Ann K. Barnett Cancels Straight Weddings
More Bakersfield Bigotry
Bakersfield – Not a Place to Plan Your Wedding

More Bakersfield Bigotry

Yesterday we told you about Kern County Clerk Ann Barnett and her objection to providing the same services to gay couples as she joyfully provides to straight couples. Barnett was rumored to have told her staff that she would refuse to allow same-sex marriage in Kern County.

Now the Bakersfield Californian is reporting that while Barnett will issue licenses, she’s stopped the Clerk’s office from solemnizing weddings for anyone, gay or straight. She explains:

“Because of long-term administrative plans, budgetary reasons, and the need to increase security for elections, the Clerk’s office will cease solemnizing weddings, which is discretionary on the part of the County Clerk,” the release said. “As done in other counties, information necessary to solemnize marriages will be made available to those acquiring licenses.”

Ummmm, yeah right. Budgetary reasons.

Somehow this explanation seems a bit less than honest.

See also:
Kern Co. Supervisors Reject Anti-Gay Ordinance
Calaveras County Joins Kern and Butte
Barnett Breaks Her Media Silence – Stupidly, of Course
Chad Vegas – Kern Co. School Board Trustee’s Double Standard
Ann Barnett Annoys Local Bakersfield Media
Two More California Counties Stop Officiating at Weddings
CA Anti-Gays Either Completely Idiotic or Shameless Liars
No Non-Religious Marriages in Kern County
A Voice of Reason in Kern Co.
Kern Co. (Bakersfield) Clerk Ann K. Barnett Cancels Straight Weddings
More Bakersfield Bigotry
Bakersfield – Not a Place to Plan Your Wedding

TiVo and Focus On the Family Partner for a Father’s Day Contest

G-A-Y’s Jeremy Hooper has discovered that Focus On the Family has partnered with TiVo for an “I Know A Super Dad” contest, in which sons and daughters are asked to submit an essay explaining why their dad is a “super dad.” Winners will get a TiVo Series2 DT DVR with a full year of TiVo service.

But it raises a question: how many gay dads do you think would be Super Dads in Focus/TiVo’s eyes? Or how many dads who love and support their LGBT sons and daughters would Focus/TiVo be wiling to certify as a Super Dad?

We know there are lots of Super Dads out there who fit both discriptions, so so let’s find out. Between now and Father’s day (June 15), we encourage you to enter Focus/TiVo’s contest and explain why your Dad is a Super Dad. We also ask that you send a copy of your stories to us, maybe along with some photos, too! (Just make sure you have permission!) You can send them to: Superdad@boxturtlebulletin.com

We’ll post the best Super Dad stories between now and Father’s Day. You can immortalize your Super Dad on the World Wide Web! What better prize is there than that?

Okay, how about this: The best Super Dad story gets a free BTB T-shirt. It’s no TiVo, but hey, it’s something.

LaBarbera Award: Judge Bill Graves

We’ve got another winner. It has recently come to light that Oklahoma Judge Bill Graves objected to proposed changes to the state Code of Judicial Conduct regarding sexual orientation.

In an April 8 letter to the Oklahoma Bar Association, Graves objects that the new code would prohibit him from refusing to award custody and adoption cases if a parent were gay. Graves also objecsd to the gender and ethnicity clauses as well, leaving us to wonder exactly which century he’s living in.

But this is Judge Graves’ award-winning argument against the homosexuals:

“Sexual orientation” would protect pedophiles, polygamists and homosexuals who practice anal sodomy, defined in state law as “the detestable and abominable crime against nature,” the judge wrote.

That’s right. Judge Graves is spreading the same old tired, disproved canard that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia. That, coupled with his refusal to consider gay parents fit to raise their own children, leaves us wondering about his capacity to dispense justice.

The long-suffering citizens of Oklahoma have another embarrassing wingnut on their hands again, and we have another LaBarbera Award winner. Sadly, it’s beginning to appear as if the two go hand in hand. Congratulations Judge Graves.

Carl DeMaio Wins City Council Seat

Gay Republican Carl DeMaio won his election for San Diego District 5 outright and will not need to participate in a run-off election in November.

Ex-gay gadfly James Hartline did not place in the top three contenders for District 3. It seems that the good Christians of San Diego must have failed the test that Hartline thinks God set out for them.

San Diego’s Pro-Marriage Mayor Re-elected

In September, Republican San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders surprised residents when he changed his views and endorsed same-sex marriage. This decision did play a part in his campaign for re-election.

While his largest opponent, Steve Francis, supports domestic partnerships and did not make Sanders’ position on marriage a central issue, he did criticize Sanders for his decision and say that he would have vetoed the city’s amimus brief filed in support of the gay marriage case that was before the state Supreme Court.

Oddly, this election did not follow the predictable lines. The San Diego Union-Tribune reports

Francis welcomed a number of progressive groups to his cause this year as opposed to 2005, when he ran as a conservative with the backing of the county GOP. In another change this year, that party’s endorsement went to Sanders.

The county GOP flooded the homes of San Diego’s 185,000 registered Republicans with mail praising the mayor and protesting Francis. At the same time, the mayor targeted the city’s 205,000 absentee voters exclusively with his own campaign mail, most recently two weeks ago with a brochure that asked, “Who do you trust to get our city back on track?” The piece answered the question by comparing Sanders’ accomplishments with alleged examples of Francis’ hypocrisy.

Francis, on the other hand, shopped for votes on the political left. His final mailer touted endorsements from three labor unions, two Latino newspapers, the Sierra Club and leaders of the black, Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender, and Filipino/Asian-American communities.

Although Francis sought to portray himself as the more liberal Republican and hired a gay policy director, Democratic activists in the gay community, including Nicole Murray-Ramirez, rewarded Sanders for his support and worked for his reelection.

Sanders, who served as chief of police and as CEO of the San Diego United Way and board member for the city’s Red Cross, was “always reaching out to the gay and lesbian community,” said Murray-Ramirez, who rode in the city’s first Pride parade in 1974. “He marched in over a dozen Gay Pride parades and was the first police chief to march in uniform. He’s more of a public servant than a politician.”

When Sanders pledged his support for gay marriage, he also revealed that his daughter, Lisa, is a lesbian. Many have attributed Sanders’ marriage views to his daughter’s sexual orientation, but Corbin and Murray-Ramirez said that having gay appointees to advise him also contributed to his support.

In Tuesday’s election Sanders received 52% of the vote, enough to avoid a run-off in November.

Bakersfield – Not a Place to Plan Your Wedding

Bakersfield, CA, is an armpit.

With an economy based in agriculture, manufacturing, and oil refining, it’s no exaggeration to say that Bakersfield stinks. Literally. And with a high rate of poverty, one of the nation’s worst cities for ozone and particle pollution, and a reputation for red-necks and bigots, there’s little to encourage one to visit.

Okay, maybe I’m a little biased. I’m sure that Bakersfield has many lovely aspects and charming attributes. I don’t doubt that there are some wonderful people and pleasant neighborhoods. It has to be better than its neighbor Taft.

But now it has two more reasons for me to stay away.

Kern County (where Bakersfield sits as its county seat) isn’t named for Sally Kern, but it might as well be. In 2000, Kern County voted 80% in favor of banning gay marriage, and gay Southern Californian’s use the city as an example of where they would not feel safe in public.

And local officials like it that way. Now that the Supreme Court has overturned that statutory clause, let’s just say that the County Clerk isn’t happy. Lois Henry, columnist for The Bakersfield Californian, followed up and found her to be less than communicative.

I heard a rumor that Barnett held a staff meeting after the California State Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriages on May 15 and said she would not allow them in Kern County because of her personal beliefs.

So I asked Barnett.

“My staff meetings are confidential so I will neither confirm nor deny that information,” she tersely told me.

I don’t doubt that Barnett will eventually comply with the law. But I also expect she’ll make it as miserable on gay couples as she legally can.

But Barnett is not the only bigot in Bakersfield.

Bakersfield carrot farmer William Bolthouse donated $100,000 to an initiative aiming to fight gay marriage — a measure that will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot along with the presidential race.

Jeremy at Good As You reports that this William Bolthouse appears to profit from the sales of Bolthouse Farms juices (carrot and other).

So when y’all come to marry here in the beautiful Golden State, don’t plan on walking the streets of Bakersfield. And don’t serve carrot juice at the reception.

See also:
Kern Co. Supervisors Reject Anti-Gay Ordinance
Calaveras County Joins Kern and Butte
Barnett Breaks Her Media Silence – Stupidly, of Course
Chad Vegas – Kern Co. School Board Trustee’s Double Standard
Ann Barnett Annoys Local Bakersfield Media
Two More California Counties Stop Officiating at Weddings
CA Anti-Gays Either Completely Idiotic or Shameless Liars
No Non-Religious Marriages in Kern County
A Voice of Reason in Kern Co.
Kern Co. (Bakersfield) Clerk Ann K. Barnett Cancels Straight Weddings
More Bakersfield Bigotry
Bakersfield – Not a Place to Plan Your Wedding

Fun With Polls

In the wake of the California Supreme Court’s decision on marriage equality, there have been several polls attempting to measure the reaction of the state’s citizens. They have had conflicting results.

An LA Times poll reported May 23 tells us that Californians oppose gay marriage by 52% to 41%. A Field poll released five days later reported just the opposite, that Californians favor gay marriage by 51% to 42%.

If we believe a survey by the anti-gay activist group Capital Resource Institute, Californians support banning gay marriage by 56%. If we were to accept a USA Today / Gallup poll as it is being reported, we would believe that two thirds of Americans favor gay marriage.

Why are there so many contradictory conclusions? Part of the answer can be found in the way that questions are presented.

Take, for example, the USA Today poll. In this, the respondent was asked to determine if the decision to marry was “strictly a private decision between the two people” or whether “the government has the right to pass laws to prohibit or allow such marriages” for a series of hypothetical couples. Respondents were asked about mixed religion and mixed race marriages along with same sex couples.

The dichotomy between “private” and “government prohibition” along with the grouping of same-sex with mixed-marriage and mixed-faith couples is almost certain to yield results that have little or no reflection on how most Americans view gay marriage.

There are undoubtedly those who think that a union between two persons of the same-sex should be private but who also believe that it should not be recognized by the state. And without the leading questions about currently illegal marriage prohibitions, the respondants would not be coached into rejecting same-sex prohibitions.

These types of polls where a desired result is falsely constructed are called “push polls” and are favorites of political campaigns that seek to present their candidate or issue as a winner.

The claims of the anti-gay Capital Resource Institute can also be dismissed completely. CRI didn’t even pretend to use a credible polling agency, relying instead on an advertising agency that “ensure[s] that [their] political, public policy and service organization clients have their messages reach the households they have targeted, usually based on location or anticipated household demographics.”

But neither the LA Times nor the Field poll were constructed to yield a desired result. The Times asked:

Do you approve or disapprove of the California Supreme Court’s decision last week to allow same-sex marriage in California?

and allowed “strongly approve”, “somewhat approve”, “somewhat disapprove”, “strongly disapprove”, and “don’t know” as answers. The Field Poll allowed only “approve”, “disapprove” or “no opinion” and asked:

Do you approve or disapprove of California allowing homosexuals to marry members of their own sex and have regular marriage laws apply to them?

The questions about voting on the constitutional amendment were also similarly worded:

Times: A proposed amendment to the state’s Constitution that may appear on the November ballot would reverse the court’s decision and state that marriage is only between a man and a woman. If the election were held today, would you vote for or against the amendment.

Field: There may be a vote on this issue in the November election. Would you favor or oppose having the state constitution prohibit same-sex marriage, by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman?

The Times found the amendment passing 51% to 36% and the Field Poll found it failing 51% to 43%.

So how do we decide which poll to believe? Are we to be encouraged or worried?

ABC New’s polling director, Gary Langer, provides some guidance:

Sample differences can matter (the Times poll was among all adult Californians, the Field Poll among registered voters only, and both noted big differences among areas of the state and demographic groups). Timing can matter, too (the Field Poll was done May 17-26, an unusually long 10-day field period; the Times poll, May 20-21, a short one). So can the order of questions, and these are worth a look.

Langer states that “Both polls are high-quality, with clear, balanced questions” and does not conclude as to which poll best reflects public sentiment.

So I guess the answer is that it’s just not possible to tell at this time.

For those who need extra encouragement, you can look to how well the Field Poll compared to California’s Proposition 22, an initiative that restricted marriage (on a stututory level) to opposite-sex couples. If we can guestimate from this graph, in 2000 about 40% of Californians supported gay marriage. About 39% of California voters opposed the proposition. This suggests that the Field Poll is not necessarily far off from the opinions of voters.

However, as the conflicting polls show, opinion on this issue is difficult to measure and may be subject to influence. It is of utmost importance that a carefully crafted campaign be designed and funded to appeal to the better nature of California voters.

CA Supremes: No Stay, No Reconsideration – Marriages Start June 17

The San Jose Mercury News is reporting

Moving swiftly to remove legal uncertainty, the court turned a way a request from gay marriage foes to stay the ruling until after the November election, when voters will consider a ballot measure that would change the state Constitution to again outlaw same-sex weddings.

The court also rejected a request to reconsider their decision by the same margin as the original decision.

Dallas Prosecutor Claims Spittle is Deadly Weapon

Willie Campbell is not a model citizen. He’s a homeless vagrant who has been in and out of prison and he regularly resists police efforts to enforce ordinances. But now Willie will not be bothering anyone but prison guards and inmates for a very long time. Willie was just given a 35 year sentence (Dallas Morning News).

For spitting.

You see, Willie has HIV and he spit at a police officer with some of his spittal landing in the officer’s mouth and eye.

Prosecutors convinced a Dallas County jury this week that HIV-positive saliva should be considered a deadly weapon.

Now you, I, and the Centers for Disease Control all know that there have been no known cases of HIV transmittal by means of spittle. And surely the Dallas County prosecutor knew that as well.

She just didn’t care.

But Dallas County prosecutor Jenni Morse, who handled Mr. Campbell’s case, said any risk level is sufficient for the deadly weapon finding used during the trial.

“No matter how minuscule, there is some risk,” said Ms. Morse. “That means there is the possibility of causing serious bodily injury or death,” the legal definition of a deadly weapon.

No matter how minuscule? By that standard, there is nothing that would not be a deadly weapon. What about cigarette smoke? Or sneezing?

But how fairly did the jury treat this “deadly weapon” of spittal? Interestingly, we have a comparison.

Mr. Campbell’s sentence was nearly double that given the same day to a man being tried in a courtroom next door. That man, De Leon Vanegas Jr., was sentenced to 18 years in prison for giving “cheese” heroin to a 15-year-old boy who died after using the drug. The jury in that case declared heroin a deadly weapon.

I believe that Jenni Morse is unethical. In her zeal to “put away a bad guy” she was willing to deceive a jury and play on fears and stereotypes. She doesn’t seem concerned in the slightest that she has heightened false fears and made the lives of all HIV positive citizens more difficult.

Who cares? She got her guy. He’s off the streets.

Now I agree that Campbell is a nuisance. And he most certainly should be charged with any crimes he committed. But criminalizing HIV status is, to me, a greater threat to the citizens than is sleeping on a sidewalk and spitting on an officer.