Box Turtle Bulletin

Shrek Is the New Tinky Winky

Maybe Ewa Sowinska, Poland’s children’s rights watchdog, was tipped off by all the Jerry Falwell eulogies when she announced that she was going to see what exactly was in Tinky Winky’s purse. I’d caution Ms. Sowinska however that if she’s not careful, she may single-handedly revive the whole 1970’s-era genre of Polish jokes, something none of us around here would like to see anytime soon.

Besides, Tinky Winky is so 1999. If Ms. Sowinska really wants to stay up with the latest, she’s going to have to do better than Teletubbies. In 2007, it’s all about the Shrek.

A Gay Man’s Experience Attending Love Won Out – Part III

Today’s podcast the final segment in my interview of Jim Burroway, a gay man who attended Love Won Out. Jim says of Nancy Heche’s presentation “She left them, at the end of her talk, praying for their children to change.” Jim also discusses Alan Chambers’ presentation in which Alan tells the audience “expect a life of denial.”

Gallup Poll: They Like Us! They Really, Really Like Us!

The latest Gallup poll of attitudes toward gays and lesbians shows significant improvements on several fronts. Among the findings:

1. 59% now think homosexual relations should be legal. This is up from 50% in July 2003, during the aftermath of Lawrence vs. Texas, which threw out anti-sodomy statutes nationwide. Interestingly, that 50% figure represents something of a backlash reaction; 59% thought homosexuality should be legal just two months earlier. With this latest poll, that backlash is now officially over.
2. 89% agree that gays and lesbians should not face discrimination in job opportunities. That figure has been in the eighties since 1993.
3. 57% think homosexuality is an acceptable “lifestyle”; 39% do not.
   • And time is definitely on our side. Among those 18-34 years of age, 75% say it’s acceptable while 23 do not.
   • Among those aged 35-54, it’s still 58% acceptable; 39% not.
   • You have to go to the 55+ age group to find a majority disapproving, and even there the level of acceptance is quite high (45% acceptable; 51% not).
4. The public is split on whether homosexuality is morally acceptable: 47% think it is, and 49% say it isn’t.
5. On the nature/nurture debate, 42% now believe gays and lesbians are born that way, and 35% think it’s the result of upbringing or the environment. Eleven percent say it’s both.
   • Where people fall on the the nature/nurture debate plays a humongous role in whether they believe homosexuality is an acceptable “lifestyle”.
   • Among those that believes gays and lesbians are born gay, a whopping 78% believe it is an acceptable “lifestyle”; only 19% do not.
   • Among those who subscribe to the nurture side of the debate, a mere 30% find homosexuality to be an acceptable “lifestyle,” while 68% do not.
6. When it comes to same-sex marriage, we still have some work to do: 46% support them; 53% do not.

To me, there are two significant findings. First of all, time is definitely on our side. As far as everyone who is under the age of 55, we’re golden. And even for those who are above the age of 55, there’s a significant level of acceptance. Barely over half disapprove.

And the second thing is that this poll shows in the sharpest contrast imaginable the differences between those who believe gays and lesbians are born gay versus those who think we were raised that way. It’s no wonder anti-gay activists are so heavily invested in the ex-gay movement and the environmental theories which are at their core.

Sampling error varies according to the number of respondents and the responses they give. The Gallup organization gives the maximum sampling error at +/- 3% (95% confidence level).

Homophobia in Sweden

Anti-gay activists often claim that because there is supposedly no homophobia in Sweden, then every social ill that occurs there will happen here if we accept full equality for gays and lesbians.

But if there is no homophobia in Sweden, how do you explain ax-wielding attacks, LGBT centers that can’t post signs due to safety fears, closeted gay Swedes and ex-gay speakers? Ex-gay survivor and performance artist Peterson Toscano blows the lid off of the myths.

Nikolai Alekseev Released

Nikolai Alekseev, the organizer of Moscow Pride who was detailed overnight by Moscow police in the aftermath of yesterday’s violence, sent the following text message to

“I am released by court! Next hearing on 9 June. Volker Beck [member of German Parliament] was brilliant witness/ MP Mitrofanov provided me a brilliant theatrical lawyer. He was also in court. He helped to lobby authorities in our direction. That was a great combination together with Western European pressure. Thanks to the German Presidency of the EU.”

Charles Nelson Reilly, 76

Charles Nelson Reilly, who acted and directed on Broadway but became better known for his appearances on games shows and shows, died of pneumonia at 76 in Beverly Hills. He is survived by his partner, Patrick Hughes.

There are many ways to remember Charles Nelson Reilly. He can be remembered for his Tony award winning performances and directorial efforts on Broadway, or for his high-camp appearances on television. I don’t know how he would rather be remembered but I’d prefer to remember him this way, bringing laughter into the world:

Moscow Pride Broken Up By Thugs And Police

Violence broke out for the second year in the row as Russian nationalists and Orthodox extremists attacked about 100 gay rights activists and supporters. Russian Gay Pride organizers had gathered in front of the offices of Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov to deliver a letter, signed by more than 50 members of the European Parliament, appealing the city’s ban on a Gay Pride march. Luzhkov had earlier banned Pride events, calling gays “satanic.”

The protest started peacefully, but quickly degenerated into violence when police swooped in and grabbed about a dozen marchers and hustled them onto waiting buses as thugs began pelting the crowd with eggs and fists.

Nicolas Alexeyev, the organizer of Moscow Pride, is still being held by police. As many as 31 marchers were detained, including UK activist Peter Tatchell, German member of Parliament Volker Beck, and Italian members of the European Parliament Marco Cappato and Ottavio Marzocc. UK Gay News has a running account of events earlier today. It’s a chilling glimpse into what life can be like for gays and lesbians living in Putin’s Russia today.

Nicolas Alexeyev has released the following statement:

We ask the western democracies to put a maximum pressure on the Russian authorities to release us immediately.

“The protocol written by the police is completely falsified and all the Western MEPs and MPs who were with us could confirm it.

“We are accused of having blocked the streets and insulted the police which is a complete lie. We were on the pavement and we never insulted the police. This has never been our methods.

“All this is nothing else that the good old method of KGB. We can see that agents of FSB are at the police station (ex KGB). The same people who were this morning at the hotel trying to prevent us to leave.”

More coverage:

• BBC: Eggs and punches at Russia gay march
• International Herald Tribune: Gay rights demonstrators in Moscow detained by police, attacked by opponents.
• Pink News: Peter Tatchell attacked at Moscow Pride.
• UK Gay News: Moscow Gay Pride: Dispatches from the Eastern Front

Iowa Bans Workplace and Housing Discrimination

Iowa became the 18th state (plus the District of Columbia) to ban discrimination in employment, public accommodation, credit, housing or education based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Democratic governor Chet Culver signed the bill into law this morning.

The bill’s prospects had been uncertain due to conservative House Democrats refusing to vote for it. The tide turned when several urban Republicans decided to support it after an amendment was added specifying that the bill did not legalize same-sex marriage.

A Hate Crime Allegation Too Far?

Anti-gay opponents often falsely claim that proposed federal legislation to extend hate crime protections to cover violent crimes based on sexual orientation would somehow infringe on their freedoms of speech and religion. Some have even re-dubbed the legislation “Thought Crimes.” Of course this is nonsense, as the First Amendment simply wouldn’t allow it.

But, they say, what about the case of a 16-year-old teen in Crystal Lake, Illinois who was arrested for passing out a flyer?:

A 16-year-old Crystal Lake girl facing a felony hate crime charge alleging she and a friend distributed anti-homosexual fliers at her high school must remain locked up until her case goes to trial, a McHenry County judge ruled Tuesday.

If this were all we knew, then this should be an open-and-shut case. There should be no hate crimes attached to distributing anti-gay fliers by themselves. This is simple freedom of speech. Obnoxious speech, perhaps, but free speech doesn’t mean anything unless obnoxious speech is free. The First Amendment should prevail.

And if this were all we knew about this case, then we might presume that what we’re seeing is an overzealous prosecutor and judge. While their actions might be unconstitutional, it wouldn’t be the first time overzealous prosecutors and judges overstepped their bounds. Recently we’ve learned of a number of innocent people convicted for rape, murder, robbery, etc. This is why we have appeals. Our system of justice is far from perfect simply because the people in it aren’t perfect.

But because a law is sometimes abused doesn’t mean the law shouldn’t exist in the first place. Nobody thinks we should repeal laws against rape, murder, robbery, etc. because prosecutors and/or judges overstep their bounds in those cases. Instead, we insist that these prosecutors be held accountable for their actions, either through the appeal process or through criminal or civil action against the prosecutors office.

So when anti-gay activists pounce on this case to justify their distortion of what hate crime legislation really means (as they will surely do), don’t let them get by with the argument that says that abuse of the law is a good reason for the abandonment of the law. It isn’t.

And if this were all we knew about this particular case, then I think I can join those who say that this is a clear miscarriage of justice in the making.

If this were all we knew. But of course, it’s not. There’s more:

Citing concerns over the girl’s home environment and her already lengthy juvenile record, Judge Michael Chmiel denied the girl’s request for home detention. Instead Chmiel ordered her held in the Kane County Juvenile Justice Center while the case is pending.

The girl’s record, Chmiel said, features 13 contacts with police, including an arrest for marijuana possession in August. McHenry County court records show that within the past year the girl also has been charged for driving without a license, consumption of alcohol by a minor, possession of tobacco by a minor, trespassing and three curfew violations.

Thirteen prior contacts with the police? That should raise some red flags. And what about the fliers?

Authorities say the fliers were directed specifically toward a male classmate — and neighbor of one of the girls — with whom they had been feuding.

This doesn’t look like the usual anti-gay fliers that teens are encouraged to hand out at school. Until we know more about what was in this flier — did it identify the classmate specifically? Did it include a threat? — it’s hard to conclude that this is a simple exercise in free speech.

This case may turn out to be an example of misapplying a state hate crime law. Or it may be a legitimate response to a serious threat. When danger signs have not been acted upon elsewhere, we’ve suffered tragic consequences at Columbine and Virginia Tech. With thirteen prior dealings with the police in this particular case, we’re clearly dealing with a deeply troubled teen.

Maybe we’re dealing with a constitutional question, or maybe we’re dealing with a teen who was caught before doing something far more serious. Right now, we don’t know. But I wonder how many anti-gay extremists will hitch their wagons to this horse anyway?

Geneticist Francis Collins Responds to NARTH’s Dean Byrd

On April 4, the NARTH website published an article titled, “‘Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired,’ Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project” by A. Dean Byrd, who is NARTH’s incoming president. In this article, Dr. Byrd pulls several quotes from Dr. Collins’s book, The Language of God, A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief , suggesting that Dr. Collins shares Byrd’s view that homosexuality is overwhelmingly environmental in origin and behavioral in expression.

David Roberts of Ex-Gay Watch contacted Dr. Collins to ask whether he agrees with Byrd’s descriptions of his views. Collins responded this way:

It troubles me greatly to learn that anything I have written would cause anguish for you or others who are seeking answers to the basis of homosexuality. The words quoted by NARTH all come from the Appendix to my book “The Language of God” (pp. 260-263), but have been juxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion that I intended. I would urge anyone who is concerned about the meaning to refer back to the original text.

The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.

Your note indicated that your real interest is in the truth. And this is about all that we really know. No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about a gene on the X chromosome from the 1990s have not held up), but it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years.

David Roberts concludes:

NARTH is obsessed with theories on the cause of homosexuality. It enables them to treat it like a disease, not simply part of the human condition. And of course, a disease needs a cure, right? In a way, this article is NARTH in miniature; a lot of odd, recycled theories packaged with an facade of professional authority and provided to other organizations as a pseudo-scientific alternative to the truth.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

NARTH Tries London

Dr. Joe Nicolosi will be lecturing in London on June 22-23, 2007 on the subject of The Time for Truth – is gay real? (venue not announced). I think we can guess Dr. Nicolosi’s answer to that question. What remains unknown is if he will do his “better brain damaged than gay” joke. It always gets a laugh.

Oh, and you have to love this description:

NARTH is a non-profit, educational organisation dedicated to affirming a complementary, male-female model of gender and sexuality.

(This post was updated to correct the date.)

Familiarity Breeds Support

Pew Research has released a report that shockingly shows that people who know gay folk are more likely to support their civil freedoms than people who only hear about gay folk from preachers and politicians. 

An analysis of survey results suggests that familiarity is closely linked to tolerance. People who have a close gay friend or family member are more likely to support gay marriage and they are also significantly less likely to favor allowing schools to fire gay teachers than are those with little or no personal contact with gays, the poll found.

Well knock me down with a feather.  Who’d a thunk it?

Gay Blood Still Unacceptable

In 1983 the FDA wisely decided that gay men should not donate blood to the country’s blood banks.  HIV had not been identified and no tests were available to identify its presence.

Things have changed since 1983.  Now you can take a saliva-swab test and find out your HIV status within 20 minutes.  And it is increasingly likely that gay men regularly test and are aware of their seroimmunity status.

Also, the face of HIV/AIDS has changed.  In 2005, only half of reported HIV transmissions were related to sex between men.  And currently the greatest contributing factor to HIV transmission and to knowledge of HIV status is race.

Taking these changes into consideration, those responsible for our blood supply called gay ban “medically and scientifically unwarranted” and requested that the FDA rethink their requirements.

In March 2006, the Red Cross, the international blood association AABB and America’s Blood Centers proposed replacing the lifetime ban with a one-year deferral following male-to-male sexual contact. New and improved tests, which can detect HIV-positive donors within just 10 to 21 days of infection, make the lifetime ban unnecessary, the blood groups told the FDA.

The FDA said “no” because “men who have sex with other men have the highest risk of transfusion-tramsmitted diseases like HIV and hepatitis.”

I would like to believe that decisions made in Federal agencies are based on fact and science rather than because of appointments predicated on ideology and political loyalties and alliances. I would like to think that this decision was made because the FDA put principle and protection first and not the religious-based agenda of the administration’s partisan allies.

To answer that question, Fox News asked Dr. Louis Katz, a past president of America’s Blood Centers:

Given what the medical community knows today, do you think the FDA is being overly cautious in upholding its 1983 ban on gay men?

“I support a less stringent deferral,” Katz said. “I think deferring blood donation to six months or one year after male-to-male sexual contact is reasonable and would not have a negative impact on the current safety of our blood supply. I understand their thought process. But the other issue is fairness. Not all men who have sex with men are at high risk for HIV. I’m not violently angry about it, but I think they could have dealt with the concern a little differently.”

Dr. Katz is more generous than I.  He can see faulty thinking, while I see policy that eliminates healthy blood contributions during a time when the need is increasing.  And while I too am not violently angry, I am fully disgusted at the politicians who place their biases, stereotypes, religious alliances, and personal loyalties over what is best for our nation.

Close Enough?

We reported earlier on an article appearing in the San Francisco Chronicle which drew a false link between the  anti-gay positions of Focus on the Family and Nazi-revisionist Paul Cameron. The Chronicle followed up with a correction which provided a bit more information concerning Cameron’s status as a illegitimate researcher, but the link between him and Focus on the Family remained. Today, the Chronicle added an addendum to its correction:

Writings by Cameron, who split with Focus on the Family many years ago, are still relied on by many conservative Christians.

They say “close enough” applies only to horseshoes and hand grenades. Maybe we should add journalism. (Hat tip: Warren Throckmorton)

Where Did The Parents Go?

As I said yesterday, congratulations on Mary Cheney and Heather Poe on the birth of their healthy baby boy. Since I posted that announcement, I’ve thought about it some more and have a question I hope someone can answer.

I understand that Mary may not feel much like having her picture taken right away, but it’s odd that the first publicly-released photo is one in which the grandparents are holding the baby. Sure, these particular grandparents are famous and powerful, but isn’t it traditional to wait until the baby’s parents are ready to have their photo taken? After all, they’re the ones who will be raising little Samuel, not the opposite-sex couple you see smiling in the photo.

Or are Heather and Mary reprising their disappearing lesbian act from the 2004 Republican National Convention? Or am I making too much out of this? It just strikes me as odd.