Box Turtle Bulletin

Vermont Commission Makes No Recommendation

The Vermont Legislature has commissioned an effort to determine the thoughts of citizens about civil unions. Recognizing that their opinions are a small minority, anti-gays refused to be part of the process. Consequently, the report, released today, mostly reflects an attitude that civil unions should be upgraded to marriage.

The report will not answer the ultimate question regarding gay marriage. “That’s a decision for Vermont’s elected officials,” says Little. Public testimony, however, has been overwhelmingly in support of the change.

Due to the presidential election, it is not expected that action will be taken until next year.

Defense Blames Lawrence King for his Own Murder

Deputy Public Defender William Quest, the defense attorney for Brandon McInerney, the 14 year old who shot his 15 year old gay classmate Lawrence King, has made statements intended to fuel blame against the victim.

From the Ventura Star

Quest said he believes school administrators supported one student expressing himself and his sexuality — King — and ignored how it affected other kids, despite complaints. Cross-dressing isn’t a normal thing in adult environments, he said, yet 12-, 13- and 14-year-olds were expected to just accept it and go on.

Mr. Quest is not being accurate. Other than boots and jewelry, King did not cross-dress; he wore the school uniform.

Further, Mr. Quest is not allowed to use gay panic as a defense in his case. California law does not allow it.

A.B. 1160 declares that it is against public policy for a defendant to play upon the bias of the jury, or for a jury to allow bias against the victim to enter into its decision-making.

So, other than efforts to disparage young Mr. King or to taint the jury pool, it isn’t clear what Quest is hoping to achieve by such claims. Sadly, I fear that his statements may just be the result of the common belief that gay people deserve the violence enacted against them.

The Politics of Anti-Marriage Amendments

Arizona became the first state in the union to defeat an anti-marriage amendment in 2006. Thats when voters gave the thumbs down to Proposition 107, which sought to enshrine marriage inequality into the state constitution, with 48.2% voting “yes” and 51.8% “no” (PDF: 220KB/18 pages). Now legislators in the Arizona House appear poised to approve a measure to put another anti-marriage amendment on the ballot for 2008. Some of those legislators who are reportedly leaning towards approving the measure represent districts which voted against the 2006 proposal, bucking the wisdom of their own constituents.

Let’s take the 30th legislative district as an example. The 30th spans the eastern part of Pima County (including Tucson’s eastern suburbs) and dips down to cover the northern half of Santa Cruz county and a small bite of Cochise County. This is a lightly suburban and rural district.

The way the Arizona House is set up, there are two representatives for each legislative district. Voters are asked to choose two names from a slate of candidates, and the top two vote winners are elected to seats in that district. For the 30th district, voters in 2006 chose Marian McClure (R, 36%) and Jonathan Paton (R, 34%) over Clarence Boykins (D, 30%). McClure and Paton are two of the legislators who are expected to vote to place the 2008 anti-marriage measure on the ballot.

You might think that those voters in the 30th really like their conservative Republicans, and in Arizona that’s often the case. But things aren’t always so straightforward here in the independent-minded West. A careful analysis of all the individual voting precincts which make up the 30th reveals that Arizona voters are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and don’t need party labels or outside pressure groups to tell them how to vote.

It turns out that those very same voters who sent McClure and Paton to the statehouse also chose Janet Napolitano (D, 62.6%) over Len Munsil (R, 37.4%) for governor, and they preferred Gabrielle Giffords (D, 51.5%) over Randy Graf (R, 48.5%) for the U.S. Congress. Rep. Giffords now represents Rep. Jim Kolbe’s (R) seat. Kolbe, you may remember, retired in 2006 after continuing to represent his district for some ten years after coming out as gay.

And those voters did not like the idea of having inequality written into the state constitution, with 52.5% voting against Prop 107 and only 47.5% voting for it. This means that voters in this suburban and rural district defeated Prop 107 by a wider margin than did voters statewide.

If McClure and Paton had been paying any attention to their own constituents, we wouldn’t be hearing about their intentions to vote next week against their own district’s wishes. But right now, it appears that they intend to ignore the very voters who sent them to the statehouse, and they will instead vote to permanently disenfranchise thousands of Arizona citizens — those same family members, friends and neighbors who the voters of the 30th district stood up for in 2006. Arizona is definitely changing. It’s time for our legislators to start paying attention.

Heterosexual Agenda: Sex-Crazed Principal Targets Christian School Moms

I wish I had the imagination to make stuff like this up, but I don’t. Thankfully, real life is good enough, and Houston’s ABC13 has the scoop in all of its trashy, hidden-camera glory:

The founder of a Christian school is confronted after 13 Undercover catches him soliciting sex from a parent, who’s trying to get her daughter a high school diploma.

That’s right. LaVern Jordon, founder of Parkway Christian School offered to allow a mother’s daughter to enter the private school. The mother had contacted the school after her daughter failed the state mandated TAKS test. But by paying a fee school and doing some some course work, students can graduate from Parkway Christian School without passing the required state test — which leaves one to wonder what Parkway’s accreditation status is.

But the most unique feature of Parkway Christian has to be its rather unique scholarship program:

Mother: “Yeah, what, I mean what, what, you gonna wipe out all the fees?”

Jordan: “All the enrollment fees.”

Mother: “All the enrollment fees?”

Jordan: “Three hundred dollars.”

Mother: “So you gonna wipe everything if me and you get together?”

Jordan: “The enrollment fee, yeah.”

Mother: “Ok.”

Jordan: “If you and I get together.”

Mother: “What you mean? I mean, what?

Jordan: “Excuse me and I don’t mean to be so blunt but I am talking about f—— you.”

Mother: “You talking about what?”

Jordan: “F—— you.”

But for $300, it’s not just a one time thing:

Jordan: “For the $300 I would expect maybe we could get together several times, you think?”

Mother: “Several times, whatcha mean several times?”

Jordan: “Well I don’t know, you might like whatcha getting.”

That’s one classy sweet-talking heterosexual. CitizenLink, Porno Pete, Concerned Women everywhere, are you watching?

Colombian Couples Get More Rights

365Gay.com is reporting that Colombia’s Supreme Court has added to the rights same-sex couples can receive.

The court ruled that same-sex partners must be given the same pension and health benefits as opposite-sex married partners receive.

This is in addition to the property rights granted last year.

Colorado Senate Passes Discrimination Law

Today the Colorado Senate expanded anti-gay discrimination protections.

The measure (Senate Bill 200) takes the state’s current anti-discrimination laws and adds sexual orientation to the list of things, such as race or national origin, that can’t be considered. It would be illegal to deny gays and lesbians everything from apartment rentals and a seat in a restaurant to burial plots.

This is a preliminary vote and a second vote is required before it goes to the House.

Opponents argued that they saw no evidence of discrimination against gay people. Un-huh. Guess you ain’t been lookin’.

Blade Asks What Happened in Maryland

In January I noted that Maryland was ideally situated to provide marriage equality. A poll had been taken which revealed that 58% of residents supported gay marriage or civil unions. And the Democratic Party was fully in control of all legislation.

Maryland’s legislature is predominantly Democrat with a 33 to 14 advantage in the State Senate and 103 to 36 in the House. The leaders of both chambers are Democrats, as is the Governor.

Legislation was introduced in both houses – with significant support – to bring about marriage equality. One legislator even called the bluff of those who think marriage is a religious institution, offering to have the state only provide civil unions to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

But four months later, gay couples received nothing more than the right to tranfer property and the right to make medical and burial decisions.

The Washington Blade asks “Why”?

What happened to marriage in Maryland?
Gay activists in Maryland had high hopes for this legislative session. Marriage rights seemed, for the first time, within reach. But the session ended last week with only token pro-gay measures approved. Joshua Lynsen talks to the key players to find out what went wrong.

See Also:
Blade Asks What Happened In Maryland
Maryland Passes Limited Rights for Gay Couples
Maryland Balances Budget by Taxing Gay Widows
Maryland Senator Muse Champions Bigotry
Maryland AG Endorses Marriage Equality
Maryland Legislator Calls Anti-Gay Bluff
Maryland Introduces Bill to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage – Are Democrats Committed to Equality?
Maryland Marriage Poll

Civil Union in Uruguay

Yahoo news reports that “Uruguay holds Latin America’s first gay wedding“.

That, of course, is not true as the ceremony was a civil union rather than a wedding and as there are regions in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico in which civil unions have already been performed. Further, as the law has been in place since January 1, it is at least possible that other unpublicized civil unions have been performed.

Nevertheless, we wish the couple much happiness.

Judge Estrella Perez officiated the civil union between Adrian Figuera, 38, and actor and theater director Juan Carlos Moretti, 67, in a courtroom before a small group of friends and family, as witnessed by an AFP reporter.

Moretti later told AFP that after living together for 14 years, he and Figuera thought their marriage was “a matter of justice and a step forward for Uruguayan society.”

See also:
Civil Union In Uruguay
Uruguay Approves Civil Unions
Uruguay To Offer Civil Unions

Anti-Marriage Proposition Likely For Arizona

Update: Arizona residents can take action here.

Two weeks ago it looked like efforts by members of the Arizona state legislature to place an anti-marriage amendment proposal on the ballot was effectively killed when Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Phoenix) managed to add, by a one-vote margin, a provision to grant certain rights to unmarried couples living together. This would force voters to consider guaranteeing rights for gay couples while simultaneously banning same-sex marriage. By tying the two issues together, the proposed amendment became unacceptable to conservative supporters and they voted to kill it.

Last Friday, we learned that the anti-marriage amendment is back on the agenda, and prospects for killing it this time aren’t so good. The proposed amendment was resurrected by the House Judiciary Committee without the pro-gay provisions, and the full House is expected to vote on it next Tuesday. This time, it’s expected that there won’t be enough votes to add Rep. Sinema’s pro-gay provisions. Several legislators who would have voted against the provisions two weeks ago were absent. They plan on being there this time.

If the proposal passes the House, it will go on to the Senate before being placed on the ballot.

Arizona voters defeated a proposed anti-marriage amendment in 2006, making Arizona is the only state to do so. I’ve looked into some of the precinct level results from that election. I’ve found that at least a few of those state representatives who are rumored to support the current attempt to ban same-sex marriage represent legislative districts where voters soundly defeated the 2006 proposal.

The 2006 proposed amendment not only sought to ban same-sex marriage, but all other forms of civil unions, domestic partnerships or any other state and municipal recognition of unmarried relationships. The current proposal calls for a “pure” anti-marriage amendment, without the prohibitions against other forms of legal recognition.

Are You a Second Class Citizen?

I depends on where you live. eQualityGiving.org has a handy color-coded score card which rates the fifty states according to six categories: hate crime statues, non-discrimination protections, marriage, gender identity, youth policies and adoption laws. No state scores a perfect six, but two score at five or above (California and New Jersey). Three scored less than one: Idaho, Ohio and Mississippi.

[Hat tip: Autumn Sandeen]

Michelle Shocked: Born Again Fundamentalist, Fornicator and Honorary Lesbian

There is a fascinating and often confusing interview with Michelle Shocked in the latest Dallas Voice. To the half-dozen of you who remember, Michelle Shocked was the “skateboard punk-rocker” folk singer from Texas. In 1988, her first album, “Short, Sharp, Shocked” scored several hits, including “Anchorage” and “When I Grow Up”. But after the 1990’s she pretty much disappeared from the scene, but not before declaring herself a lesbian at one point.

Or so I had always thought. I could have sworn she did, but maybe she didn’t. In her interview with the Dallas Voice, she said nope, it never happened:

“You know about the politics of identity — of outing people. If I’m guilty of one thing it’s a type of sexual McCarthyism. We’re going to forget what identity politics were like in the mid-’80s — how heavy and intense it was. I felt like it was not a shameful thing to be a homosexual. So I would never sit in front of that congressional committee and say, ‘I am not, nor have I ever been a homosexual.'”

…Okay, what if we called you an “honorary lesbian?”

“I would be honored,” Shocked says.

Whatever she was or was not, she was always all about the controversial. So its no wonder that today, since she found religion at the West Angeles Church of God in Christ in South Central while studying traditional African-American gospel music (“As they say, I went to church one Sunday too often”), her take on Christianity would be a bit unorthodox.

“There are some inconvenient truths that I’m now a born again, sanctified, saved-in-the-blood Christian. So much of what’s said and done in the name of that Christianity is appalling,” she says. “According to my Bible, which I didn’t write, homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is no more less a sin than fornication. And I’m a fornicator with a capital F.”

As if to prove her point, Shocked described how she broke up with her boyfriend after coming to the conclusion that their unmarried relationship was sinful. “After four weeks of hell,” they got back together. They’re still not married and apparently don’t have any plans or ambition to change that. Instead, she concluded that her experience taught her that even though she was a big fat fornicator, it just doesn’t matter. It’s all about the mystery of reconciliation:

“Right now, the evangelicals are staking out a ground. And they are saying there is reconciliation between God and man for every human being on this earth — except for gays. And I don’t know who gave them that right!

“I’m here to say, not that homosexuality is wrong. I’m here to say that there is reconciliation through the blood of Jesus Christ for every human being on the face of this earth. And no one is entitled to speak on God’s behalf and say who does and who doesn’t have that right. Because that price was paid — purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ.”

Broadway’s Pastor Calls It Quits

Rev. Brett Younger, the gay-tolerant pastor of Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth has decided to give up his efforts to bring about unity and peace in his church.

After surviving months of bitter infighting over the philosophical direction of his church, the Rev. Brett Younger, senior pastor at Broadway Baptist Church, is stepping down to work on the faculty of a divinity school in Atlanta.

Younger, 47, is going to work at McAfee School of Theology at Mercer University in Atlanta. Members of the church leadership were told about his resignation earlier this week. His last day at Broadway Baptist will be June 8.

I’m saddened by his decision and hope that it does not encourage those at Broadway who were intolerant and unkind to feel justified in their behavior.

See also:
Broadway’s Pastor Calls It Quits
Broadway’s Anti-Gays Vote
Broadway Baptist Finds a Happy Compromise
Broadway Baptist Punts on Gay Members’ Photos
More Baptist Controversy

Almost Getting It

I can’t report every homophobic rant that comes out of Jamaica. We’d hardly have time and space for anything else.

However, one letter to the editor illustrates not only the mindset of this island nation but also the thinking process of a great many anti-gay Christians in the United States as well.

I am replying to a letter by one Patrick Harding in which it was stated that one did not choose to be gay. I cannot conceive how a loving God would create someone with a gay gene and then have it stated in the Bible that it is an abomination.

I once came to the same question as Elaine McDonald wrote to the Jamaica Gleaner. But my questioning came to a different conclusion.

Elaine, like so very many Christians, believes that her religious beliefs define the world around her. If “God said it”, or more realistically, if her prejudices are confirmed by her interpretation of Scripture, then it really doesn’t much matter what is factual; she’s already knows what is “true”.

But this statement of hers has three assumptions: 1) God is loving, 2) homosexuality is stated in the Bible to be an abomination, and 3) a loving God would not create someone only to declare them abominable. From this she concludes that God didn’t create someone gay.

McDonald, in her unwillingness to look at all of the variables of her logic, comes to the wrong conclusion. But at least she sees the inconsistency.

I agree with her point 3 as a matter of definition. Although some religious folk believe that God predestines some to eternal torture, I cannot fathom that such a deity could be described as “loving”. Such a god, though an object to fear, would not be worthy of adoration or praise.

Thus either God is not loving, gay people become so of their own volition, or the condition of being homosexual is not an abomination.*

I knew, unquestionably, that neither I nor other gay people made a conscious decision to be same-sex attracted. God had, whether by means of genetics, environment, or some other method, created us irrevocably gay.

So I then had to determine whether or not He condemned me for the way he created me, thus earning my eternal derision and scorn. As I began to study, it became clear to me that being homosexual is not in any place condemned in scripture.

This is where I think much anti-gay and ex-gay theology falls apart. There is an insistence that recognizing or accepting one’s attractions is sinful. But the rather simple-thinking Elaine McDonald has put her finger on the logical inconsistencies of their argument. In order for a “homosexual identity” (which is, of course, nothing more than a recognition of the direction of ones own attractions) to be “a sinful lifestyle”, then one must believe that God is capricious and cruel.

And sadly, reorientation is not the answer. In almost no instances do same-sex attractions change, leaving those who continue to struggle with little hope of redemption. All that the anti-gays and ex-gays can do is to play semantics games about “identity” and “change”.

As for whether specific sexual acts are universally condemned, that is a matter of great debate between various theologies. And I do respect those who, for religious reasons, live celebately and yet dismiss both the games and the condemnation as contrary to gospel.

Personally, I believe that it’s rather unlikely that the correct interpretation of Scripture is one that condemns a specific subset of the population to a life without love. This seems rather odd from a God that places little importance in the distinctions of race, sex, personal situation or political power.

But, as McDonald clearly illustrates, there is no practical distinction in society or the church between those who are same-sex attracted and those who express such an attraction with a partner of the same sex. Rampant anti-gay discrimination and homophobia do not distinguish between the two.

So the next time you hear someone insisting that “there is no gay gene”, just realize that they are acting out of their understanding of the nature of God. And as the preponderance of evidence as to the biological basis of orientation becomes more evident, their internal dissonance will become stronger.

And although some may then argue their newfound distinction between orientation and behavior, they all know that this is a losing argument so most will either become ever more shrill or will quietly go away.

So although the ‘no gay gene’ers may seem the most hateful, it’s probably because they really almost get it. And it’s tearing them apart.

* The atheists among us could argue that another alternative is that God does not exist. I concede that logic but this does not add much to the point of my commentary and is not a subject of this thread.

Investigation into Fired Justice Department Employee

NPR raised questions recently about whether Assistant U.S. Attorney Leslie A. Hagen was fired due to a rumor that she was a lesbian. Now it appears that an investigation has been opened.

When NPR first reported Hagen’s case earlier this month, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) asked the Inspector General’s Office and the Office of Professional Responsibility to confirm that they were looking into Hagen’s case.

Leahy and Specter — the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee — received their response Monday night.

In a letter dated April 14, Glenn Fine of the Inspector General’s Office and H. Marshall Jarrett of the Office of Professional Responsibility said they are looking into whether Hagen was “discriminated against in employment decisions on the basis of alleged sexual orientation or other improper factors.”

The Washington Blade questioned Elaine Kaplan, who served as head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel during the Clinton administration. Kaplan explained that while Clinton’s executive order – which still stands – prohibited sexual orientation discrimination, the current head of the Office of Special Counsel, Scott Bloch, has created a definition that is essentially toothless.

It’s unlikely that the Office of Special Counsel would take action in the Hagen case because it involves alleged discrimination based on her sexual orientation, not a specific “homosexual act,” Kaplan said.

But somehow I suspect that neither Leahy or Specter will accept duplicitous responses to their inquiries. Specter, in particular, can get quite cranky if he feels that some bureaucrat is not adequately addressing his committee’s concerns.

Judy Shepard’s Speach in Houston: We Need to Change Hearts and Minds

It’s been ten years since her son, Matthew Shepard, was brutally murdered. And the violence still continues. She lost a son and we gained one fierce, protective mom.