Box Turtle Bulletin

Paul Cameron: “Mary Cheney Cruel To Children”

Paul Cameron is trying to use the occasion of Mary Cheney’s family way to worm his way into the national spotlight. Yesterday, he issued a press release where he condemns “the Vice President’s unmarried daughter”:

Unmarried women should not deliberately have children. Their children are more apt to experience privation and disruption. Consequently, such children are more apt to do poorly in school, disrupt society (e.g., engage in criminality), and be personally troubled. These wrongs are compounded when the child is brought into a homosexual setting.

Cameron offers his opinion on what some of these “wrongs” would be, based largely on his own discredited research:

Mary, 37, is currently “partnered” with Heather Poe, 45. The median age of death for lesbians is around the late 50’s. If Poe and Cheney stay together, odds are this child will lose at least one caretaker before graduating high school.

In 1993, Paul Cameron claimed that the median age of death for lesbians was 44. This is when he released his famous and discredited obituary study. By 1998, he began to raise that estimate to “less than 50 years” although anti-gay activists continue to use his earlier statistic (for example, Christopher Rosik and Kathleen Melonakos, both writing for NARTH).

Now he’s saying “around the late 50’s”. For this, he’s referring to his 2002 paper in the low-ranked pay-to-publish Psychological Reports, “Homosexual partnerships and homosexual longevity: A replication.” Here, he uses the same methodology from his original obituary study, except he limits it to news stories from a single outlet (The Washington Blade) between 1999 and 2001. In that period, only 22 lesbians’ deaths were reported. That tiny non-representative sample yielded a median age of 56. The problem with this methodology is that only notable people make the news; ordinary people who die of old age don’t. Otherwise, it would be very odd to believe that only 22 lesbians died in the metro Washington area in that three year period.

Children of homosexuals testify that day-to-day living is more difficult – and they are more apt to report personal disturbance as a consequence.

Since 1995, Paul Cameron has published more than a half-dozen papers on gay parenting in that same low-ranked journal. Most of his research on “reported personal disturbances” rely on case reports and court reports of children caught up in custody disputes. This is hardly a representative sample.

A high proportion of lesbian “partnerings” break apart — with custody issues haunting the child for the rest of his life.

A high proportion of heterosexual “partnerings” break apart as well. When cohabiting straight couples are combined with non-cohabiting couples, that figure can be astronomical. And since gays can’t marry, that is the only basis for comparison.

But I have a feeling Heather and Mary will do just fine. They’ve been together for fifteen years. These days, that’s quite an admirable accomplishment for any couple, gay or straight.

The child will disproportionately associate with homosexuals – who are as a class considerably more apt to have STDs and a criminal history, be interested in sex with children, involved in substance abuse, etc.

Again no source and no statistics. But it is interesting to point out that many of these claims come from his deeply flawed ISIS Survey. They were also repeated in a more recent 2005 paper he published in Psychological Reports titled, “Homosexual sex as harmful as drug abuse, prostitution, or smoking,” a rambling 47-page screed that exemplifies Cameron’s misuse of data at its finest.

The child will have a much higher probability of learning homosexual tastes (at least a third of lesbian’s children adopt homosexuality).

This one is my personal favorite. “Learning homosexual tastes” is a nice touch. Here, he’s flogging his laughably illogical and unrepresentative study that was published in last May’s Journal of Biosocial Science. The flaws in this study are so incredibly obvious it doesn’t take a Ph.D. to list them all.

Paul Cameron continues to exhibit his lack of regard for the truth, his lack of ethics in reporting scientific evidence, and his highly creative deployment of the English language to denigrate lesbians and gays. If it weren’t for the fact that some very prominent anti-gay extremists take his work seriously, we could all sit back and laugh about it. But we can’t. He doesn’t often get that much attention himself, but his junk science often makes it into mainstream venues with or without attribution. (Update: He does occasionally manage to get himself in front of television cameras however. He appeared today on MSNBC News Live reciting this press release.) And while some anti-gay activists are embarrassed by him, they find his “facts” useful.

Mary Cheney and Heather Poe are having a baby together. Their decision wasn’t a political one but a deeply personal one. And unlike most pregnancies, we know this one was very well planned and is eagerly awaited by both parents. This baby will do just fine. Most children of gays and lesbians do. They turn out just as good — and sometimes just as bad — as anyone else’s kids. That’s what the research really shows.

2006 Weblog Awards

This site is one of the nominees for Best LGBT blog in the 2006 Weblog Awards. Thanks to those of you who have voted so far. Voting will be open for the next ten days, and much like in my old childhood Appalachian hometown, you can vote more than once. In fact, you can vote once a day. So, as they say back home, “Vote early, vote often!”

A Schism in Global Exodus

With the rapidly falling dollar, economists point to the silver lining that American-made goods are cheaper on the world markets, and that this should spur American exports. But there is one export that is faltering in the world market of ideas. The American ex-gay ministry Exodus, which claims to offer “freedom from homosexuality” is having trouble gaining a foothold in Europe.

Ex-Gay Watch reports that Exodus of Europe has decided to part ways from Global Exodus. The Swedish Ex-gay ministry Medvandrarna placed this notice on their website (translation from an Ex-Gay Watch reader and confirmed by Swedish reporter Tor Billgren):

Exodus Europe has been something of a sad series of events in the newsletter of the Medvandrarna ministry over the years. The latest developments is that since the Exodus conference in Northern Ireland in the summer of 2005 the work of the elected board [of Exodus Europe] has come to almost a complete breakdown, and a lot of the reasons for that is disparate views on how the relations to the Exodus Global Alliance (EGA) are supposed to look like. The board of the Medvandrarna ministry has, together with many of the other member organizations, for long held the opinion that Exodus has been too much affected by non-functioning structures and American thinking. After a great deal of discussion we were called to a yearly meeting in Denmark the 25-27th of April. The turnout was great, with all the member organizations represented. We elected a partly new board of directors we decided also to cancel our membership in the Exodus Global Alliance. The board of directors has been assigned with the task of developing new bylaws and visions and also coming up with a new name for Exodus Europe.”

The complaint that “Exodus has been too much affected by… American thinking” appears to refer to the stridently anti-gay political rhetoric that Exodus insists on espousing. Rather than simply confining their efforts to helping those who want to conform their behavior with their religious values as Exodus often claims their goals are, Exodus insists on spreading a broad range of stridently anti-gay propaganda and distortions.

Tor Billgren, a journalist and author of the Swedish blog Antigayretorik, described the Medvandrarna ministry to me in an e-mail this way:

Medvandrarna is an organization for people who “struggle with their [homo]sexuality”. The word means something like “The go together-goers”. The chairman Erik Johansson is a priest who identifies himself as a man with homosexual feelings, and therefore he lives in celibacy. He opposes the “homosexual agenda” and encourages people to sign a big anti-gay-marriage petition.

However, he seems to be a nice guy. He realizes and accepts that there are other valid views on the topic of Christianity and homosexuality. On the site he links to EKHO, a Swedish homo-Christian organisation, which believes that homosexual love (and thus love acts) are OK in the eyes of God. He also links to my blog, which deals with anti-gay activism.

Maybe Medvandrarna and other formerly Global Exodus-affiliated groups, in time, will evolve in ways similar to the UK-based Courage (not to be confused with the American Catholic ex-gay organization of the same name). UK Courage started out as an American-style ex-gay group, but they have since evolved into an ex-ex-gay group, “stepping out of ex-gay ministries in faith”. They now proclaim:

We do not see a gay Christian as someone compromised in any way. We do not believe that gay Christians are sub-standard, sick, or second-class. Our fellowship is a place where God is at work amongst us – where we are secure in the love of God, centred in Christ and led by the Holy Spirit…

Moreover, the gay Christian is uniquely well placed to bring the light of Christ to the gay secular world, witnessing to Jesus’ message of hope for all gay men and women who are searching for true and lasting fulfilment in relationships.

We can only hope that other European ex-gay movements will recognize that ongoing vilification is a serious stumbling block for millions of gays and lesbians around the world. And we can only hope that this realization someday dawns on Exodus and NARTH here at home.

Voting for the 2006 Weblog Awards Is Now Open

After a delay, the Weblog Awards are now open. This site is one of the nominees for Best LGBT blog against some pretty high-powered competition. The question is not whether Box Turtle Bulletin will come in last or not, but by how much. Your vote counts. And I appreciate each and every one.

Concerned Women With Bad Manners

Mary Cheney, the daughter of vice president Dick Cheney, is expecting a baby with her partner, Heather Poe, in late spring. Now normally, you’d think that news like this would be greeted with cheers all around. But you’d be wrong:

Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America described the pregnancy as “unconscionable.”

“It’s very disappointing that a celebrity couple like this would deliberately bring into the world a child that will never have a father,” said Crouse, a senior fellow at the group’s think tank. “They are encouraging people who don’t have the advantages they have.” …

Carrie Gordon Earll, a policy analyst for the conservative Christian ministry Focus on the Family, expressed empathy for the Cheney family but depicted the pregnancy as unwise.

“Just because you can conceive a child outside a one-woman, one-man marriage doesn’t mean it’s a good idea,” Earll said. “Love can’t replace a mother and a father.”

Now you see, that’s the difference between Carrie & Janice and me. I was brought up to believe that when someone announces that they are expecting their first child, the proper response is “congratulations.”

And as for their “concern” over Mary and Heather’s child, they needn’t worry. The American Academy of Pediatrics has looked into this and has found nothing to worry about. Focus on the Family will claim that studies “prove” that children need both genders as parents, but the studies themselves say no such thing.

But Janice Crouse isn’t much swayed by science. Her real problem lies in politics:

Not only is she doing a disservice to her child, she’s voiding all the effort her father put into the Bush administration.

Say what you will about Dick Cheney. Many have, and I don’t need to add my opinions except this: I have a feeling that the cold icy exterior that we all see melts in the presence of a grandchild. Dick Cheney has stood by his daughter, I presume because, as is the case with most people, family comes first. Surely the “pro-family” Janice Crouse can recognize that, can’t she?

So everybody needs to relax and offer their congratulations and best wishes for a safe delivery to Mary and Heather.

An Honor Just To Be Nominated

Believe me, I had no idea. I just learned by reading Terrence’s blog that he — and I — have been nominated for best LGBT blog in the 2006 Weblog Awards. The nominees are:

Best LGBT Blog

Queerty
Keith Boykin
Dorothy Surrenders
Pam’s House Blend (Yay Pam!)
Ohlala Blog
Gay Patriot
Transcending Gender
Box Turtle Bulletin (Ahem!)
Towleroad
The Republic of T. (Parker’s Dad!)

Somehow this humble blog looks a little out of place among all of those mighty big names. As I said, it’s an honor just to be nominated. I’ll try to keep this from going to my head…

Voting begins Thursday. That means I gotta write something.

Privacy Policy Update

I’ve just discovered that some of the services I use to generate site statistics (Statcounter and Google Analytics) uses cookies. I’ve updated the Privacy Policy to reflect this new information.

FRC and the Maryland Gay Marriage Case

I wish I had found it earlier, but just yesterday I ran across an Amicus Brief that the Family Research Council submitted to the Maryland Court of Appeals for Conaway v. Deane. This case will decide whether marriage equality for gays and lesbians will be granted in that state.

I looked into the brief to see what it said. Most of it consists of legal arguments citing case law, court precidents, and so forth. But one portion of the brief claims that gays and lesbians don’t deserve the right to marry because of what social science says about them. I looked into these claims, and it turns out that the FRC has a problem with the truth when it comes to citing social science. You can read about it in my latest report, The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing.

So, my questions are these: What exactly are the legal obligations of a friend-of-the-court to present their arguments truthfully? And what weight, if any, do courts give to amicus briefs when deciding cases? And what does it say about their arguments when a “values” group throws away the values of truth to become a false witness?

Somehow, I don’t recall reading “the ends justify the means” in Proverbs, or anywhere else in Scriptures for that matter.

AIDS, Fifty Years Later

That’s right. Fifty years — and that estimate is on the low end. And here you thought AIDS was “only” twenty-five years old.

In 1986, Dr. A.J. Nahmias, writing in the journal Lancet, reported on testing that had been done on blood samples taken during a 1959 malaria study in Kinshasa, in what was then the Belgian Congo. When those preserved samples were tested in 1986, one sample tested positive for the HIV virus. Other stored blood samples from Central Africans taken in 1960’s and 1970’s tested positive as well. According to one expert:

If the prevalence detected in those collections is at all representative, several hundred or several thousand HIV infections may already have existed in Kinshasa in 1959 and 1970, several tens of thousands by 1980, and tens or hundreds of HIV infections in (the Zairian province of) Equateur by 1976…

Doctors in Europe were baffled by a mysterious disease that they were seeing in wealthy Africans who were going to Paris and Brussels for treatment in the late 1970’s. This new disease was similar to diseases that some European doctors were themselves suffering and dying from — doctors who had served several years meeting the medical needs of poor villagers in the Congo River basin under primitive conditions in the 1970’s. This new disease was also similar to one that suddenly started appearing among Haitians, after thousands had returned to that island after working for several years in civil service jobs in the newly independent country of Zaire. And later, this strange new disease was similar to diseases that were striking otherwise healthy gay men in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Miami.

It was easy for AIDS to go unrecognized in Africa amid impoverished conditions, poor nutrition and hygiene, and social upheaval. But we now know that AIDS began spreading through Africa some fifty years ago. (Some believe it may have started in the human population in the 1930’s.) But it wasn’t until gay men in America started dying of the disease that the world took notice, and the world noticed it as a “gay plague”.

Today is World AIDS Day. AIDS is likely more than fifty years old, but the stigma surrounding it dates to June 5, 1981, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued its first report on the syndrome. Today, we remember those millions who died here in America and around the world. And just as importantly, we honor those who survived and cared for the dying and the living.

The word “family” has a very strong resonance in the gay community — in a way that few outside of the community know about. When someone wants to ask whether someone is gay or not, the question most often asked is “Is he family?” That’s not a rhetorical question; “Family” is an honorific that the gay community has earned through twenty-five years of hard work and determination. As those with AIDS were cast out of their own homes and natural families, they turned to those who stepped in and filled the rightful role of family in their lives. The gay community has reinvented the family, not in imitation of what others think a family should look like, but in response to the life-and-death need for all of us to be “our brother’s keeper.” AIDS, more than anything, awakened a realization in the gay communities that nothing is more important than family. And today’s drive for gay marriage was born from this realization of how very essential family is to each and every one of us.

In Opportunistic Infections, I discuss how the stigma of AIDS has shaped the gay communities in America, and how the gay communities have risen to meet the challenge when no one else would. AIDS was the conflagration that forged a new sense of community and determination that never again will we be marginalized in such a cruel and heartless fashion. And never again will we be denied the simple dignity that is due to everyone who is born a child of God.

Where Does It All Lead?

Non-stop profanity-laced taunts and a torched car. This is what Zack, who has two fathers, experienced at Harper Junior High School in Davis, California:

Harper Junior High School student, Zack, hasn’t been to school in almost a month. He says after years of being teased because his father is gay, one day, it went too far.

Several students were disciplined, from detention to suspension. But Zack’s father says it’s not enough, especially when his son went back to school and was teased again…

To complicate matters, the family’s car was torched in front of their South Davis home in October. While police say there’s no evidence of a hate crime, Zack and his father say they fear what could happen next.

Appropriately enough, Tam K. Dao and colleagues addressed the consequences of adolescent bullying on the psychological well-being of young people in the August 2006 issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health. They examined 186 middle-school students — students who are approximately Zack’s age — and they were able to confirm the link between persistent experience of aggression (either verbal or physical) and non-specific psychological distress. These researchers note in their discussion that this sort of stress can have serious long-term consequences:

One component of PEV (Past Experience of Victimization) among adolescents is the negative experiences often associated with chronic exposure to victimization. These negative experiences include feelings of greater unhappiness, greater social isolation, and decreased levels of self-esteem. As a result, these negative feelings over time might cause intense physiological reactions, such as posttraumatic stress. It might be that the perception of possibly re-experiencing the event of being victimized by another student leads to feelings of vulnerability and in turn, to depression or other psychosomatic problems.

I imagine that seeing the family car burned in front of your home might have just such an effect.

The problem of bullying is one that many anti-gay activists have dismissed or downplayed. Many have opposed anti-bullying measures which specifically address LGBT-directed taunts, bullying or violence. They complain that efforts to protect LGBT students and others like Zack (and as far as I know, Zach is probably straight — he’s being taunted because of his gay parents), that these efforts somehow infringe on their free-speech or religious-liberty rights. But what about basic Zack’s right to an education? And what about his right to simple safety?

As we learn more about what students like Zack go through, it leaves open the very real question: What would these opponents to anti-bullying measures propose instead? That Zack and his family simply disappear? For some, that may be precisely the answer.

No Rights, No Responsibilities

On the Friday before Thanksgiving, Michael Kopper, once an Enron managing director in finance and the head of investor relations was sentenced to 37 months in prison. He pled guilty to colluding with Enron chief Andrew Fastow by helping cook Enron’s books. Both made millions as Enron employees, retirees, and shareholders lost everything. Kopper will serve his reduced sentence after having pled guilty four years ago and agreeing to help prosecutors. He was also forced to return $8 million of his ill-gotten gains to the government and to relinquish his rights to another $4 million through forfeiture proceedings.

I don’t normally write about corporate scandals or partisan politics, but it’s worthy to note this because Michael Kopper is gay, and because he is not legally married to his domestic partner William Dodson, authorities could not go after Dodson’s share of the loot which is another $9 million. According to the Washington Blade:

The fact that U.S. and Texas laws do not recognize same-sex relationships most likely prompted authorities against going after Dodson’s financial gains in the Enron affair, financial observers have said. Federal prosecutors forced the married spouses of several Enron figures to forfeit money they obtained in schemes operated jointly with Enron executives.

According to the Houston Chronicle and other media accounts, authorities have placed Dodson in the same “third party” category of individuals or entities, including churches and hospitals, that received tainted Enron money that the government won’t attempt to recoup.

Opponents to same-sex marriage often focus on all the benefits that gays and lesbians allegedly are after, as if these are some sort of jackpot winnings that we’re trying to elbow our way in to. But this opposition doesn’t consider the mutual responsibilities that marriage demands on us — not just responsibilities to each other as a couple, but responsibilities that we are held to as a couple to society as a whole. If society does not officially recongnize a couple, then it cannot demand anything of them because, after all, legally they don’t exist.

With today’s laws, one partner can go bankrupt while the other keeps every cent he has squirreled away. One partner can claim disability benefits while the other is gainfully employed. One partner can run up debts and the other partner is not held accountable to the credit card companies. And of course, neither partner is paying the marriage penalty when tax time comes around.

You cannot have rights without responsibilities; this axiom has been recognized since time immemorial. And when it comes to the law, the converse is often true: you cannot enforce responsibilities without conferring the rights that go with them. Justice is not served when William Dodson is allowed to keep $9 million in stolen funds as retirees are forced to sell their homes and work at fast food joints to pay the bills. But justice is also not served when gay and lesbian couples are blocked from exercising their rights and responsibilities as citizens. It’s ironic — and sad — to see the point illustrated in such sharp focus as it is here.

Center for Arizona Policy Concedes

To everyone’s surprise and many people’s delight, Arizona’s Prop 107, the so-called “marriage” amendment continues to go down with an ever-widening margin. Late yesterday, the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), Prop 107’s chief sponsor, conceded defeat, but not before blaming their opponents for pointing out how their amendment would have affected straight unmarried couples:

Our opponents were able to focus the debate on what Proposition 107 was not about: benefits for unmarried individuals. Our opponents were able to scare seniors into believing they would lose their social security benefits if prop 107 passed. Our coalition simply did not have the funds to respond to opponents’ attacks and distortions about the true intent of Prop 107.

As I pointed out yesterday, the 2000 census showed that there were 105,864 households with opposite-sex unmarried partners in Arizona, but only 12,332 same-sex unmarried partners. This suggests that opposite-sex unmarried couples outnumbered same-sex unmarried couples by a ratio of more than 8.5 to 1.

CAP may have intended for the debate to center around gay couples, but the simple fact of the matter is that there are far more straight couples in Arizona that stood to lose from Prop 107 than gay couples. CAP was never honest about that fact, and its not wonder. CAP and its supporters are just as hostile to straight couples “living in sin” as they are to gay couples.

In Michigan, Ohio, and other states, domestic partners — gay and straight — of state and local governments and universities are losing their health insurance. In Ohio, unmarried couples — gay and straight — stand to lose domestic violence protections with the active encouragement of their marriage amendment supporters. Cincinnati-based Citizens for Community Values (CCV) filed this brief with the state Supreme Court demanding that the court strike down Ohio’s domestic violence laws:

The Marriage Amendment does not proscribe the extension of benefits to persons in marriage-mimicking relationships. Rather, it proscribes the very legal recognition of the relationships in the first place, for any purpose.

The fact remains that many more straight couples are harmed by these amendments than gay couples. CAP refused to acknowledge that, and still clings to the fantasy that this amendment was all about gay marriage. It was not. Same-sex marriage was illegal before election day and it is still illegal today. The only thing that would have changed had Prop 107 passed would be that thousands of families would have woken Wednesday morning to find their health insurance and other protections under assault. And the chances are more than 8.5 to one that that family would have been headed by a heterosexual couple. These are the plain and simple facts that CAP have refused to address. But they will have to if they try to put a similar measure on the ballot in two years.

See Also:

Were Arizona’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban Opponents Deceptive?
Arizona Is Still Going Strong
De-Gaying The Marriage Debate?
Appraising Arizona
Gay Marriage Is Still Illegal In Arizona

Were Arizona’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban Opponents Deceptive?

The vote counting for Arizona’s Proposition 107, the same-sex marriage amendment, goes on as absentee and provisional ballots continue to be processed. Interestingly, Prop 107’s margin of defeat has actually widened over recent days. Meanwhile, same-sex marriage opponents are starting to cry foul, claiming that the only reason Prop 107 failed is because Arizona Together “distorted” the issues. Leading gay-marriage opponent Maggie Gallagher complains:

You may beat a so-called gay marriage ban, as long as you never use the word “marriage” … or “gay.”

And the Scottsdale-based Alliance Defense Fund says:

Even in Arizona, the only state where a marriage amendment has apparently failed (defeat has not been conceded yet as many ballots are still being counted), opponents of the amendment have admitted that they had to distort the real issues in an effort to confuse the public.

The Center for Arizona Policy had intended Prop 107 to be a referendum on same-sex marriage — following the playbook in every other state where this issue has come up for a vote. By “distorting the real issues”, ADF is referring to the fact that Arizona Together built their campaign message on how Prop 107 would affect straight people.

But how is that message “distorting the real issues”? The Houston Chronicle begged precisely that question the other day.

When Arizona voters signed enough petitions to put a same-sex marriage ban on Tuesday’s ballot, opponents decided their best shot at defeating it was to shine a light on real people who would be hurt by Proposition 107.

If most of those real people were not gay, they said, all the better.

Here are the statistics. According to the 2000 census, there were 105,864 households with opposite-sex unmarried partners in Arizona, but only 12,332 same-sex unmarried partners. This suggests that opposite-sex unmarried couples outnumbered same-sex unmarried couples by a ratio of more than 8.5 to 1.

The Center for Arizona Policy, who wrote Prop 107 and got it on the ballot, clearly intended to target gay couples. But their over-reaching proposal would have hit far more opposite-sex couples than same-sex couples. And if many times more opposite-sex couples were going to suffer the consequences of Prop 107, how is it deceptive for Arizona Together to make that the centerpiece of their message?

The fact is, same-sex marriage was illegal before Prop 107 was put on the ballot, and it is still illegal now that Prop 107 has been defeated. Absolutely nothing would have changed for same-sex marriage regardless of whether Prop 107 passed or failed. And to argue that Prop 107 was needed to guard against activist judges, well I have to wonder where these swarms of activist judges in Arizona have been hiding. The very idea of it is ludicrous.

The only thing that would have changed if Prop 107 passed was the ability to create alternatives paths to some of the benefits for unmarried couples. Tempe, Tucson, Phoenix, Scottsdale and Pima County all offer some type of benefits to domestic partners of their unmarried workers. Tucson also has a domestic-partner registry that grants certain rights, such as hospital visitation, to those who sign up. Prop 107 would have take that away for far more straight couples than gay couples. This fact is inescapable.

If the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) had written a “clean” proposition similar to the one that passed in Colorado which simply ended with their proposed definition of marriage and didn’t try to destroy other avenues for unmarried families to see protections and benefits, Arizona Together would have been left without a message. Or at least, their message would have been limited to gay equality, and that would almost certainly have meant that Arizona would have joined the other seven states in adding discrimination to the constitution.

But CAP’s careless shotgun blast at gays in Arizona would have inflicted far more “collateral damage” on straight couples. Arizona Together was just smart enough to point that out to everyone. Arizona voters, like voters everywhere, are just smart enough to vote for preserving their own interests. This isn’t deception. It’s the truth. And it’s nothing but sour grapes on the part of gay rights opponents to gripe about it.

See Also:

Center for Arizona Policy Concedes
Arizona Is Still Going Strong
De-Gaying The Marriage Debate?
Appraising Arizona
Gay Marriage Is Still Illegal In Arizona

Arizona Is Still Going Strong

The late vote tally continues, and Prop 107, the so-called “Protect Marriage Arizona” amendment is continuing its slide toward defeat — 621,488 (48.5%) for, versus 660,509 (51.5%) against. According to news reports, there are still some 120,000 mail-in ballots yet to be counted, mostly in Maricopa county (Phoenix, Tempe, Scottsdale, Mesa, Glendale and other suburbs). Since Maricopa county is defeating the measure by a nearly three percent margin, we would have to see a very sudden reversal in the trend, and see the remaining ballots break more than two-to-one for the proposed amendment.

So the question now is, what line of reasoning will the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) take in explaining its defeat?

See Also:

Center for Arizona Policy Concedes
Were Arizona’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban Opponents Deceptive?
De-Gaying The Marriage Debate?
Appraising Arizona
Gay Marriage Is Still Illegal In Arizona

Comments

I have now added comments to this web site. Horay! We’ve joined the late 1990’s!

Since this web site’s inception, I’ve wrestled with whether to have comments. My reservations mainly were that comments on the topics that I cover mights descend into the sort of mindless, argumentative statements found on most web sites. I don’t think the sort of “dialogue” that you find on the Daily Kos website is very informative, and I didn’t want that to happen here.

But the more I thought about it, the more I felt that well-reasoned comments really can add value. Some of the best examples are the conversations that take place at Ex-Gay Watch, Warren Throckmorton’s blog or Straight Into Gay American. So that led me to wonder if maybe I should have moderated comments (like Warren has). But then that would place the responsibility on me to decide which comments make the grade and which ones get dumped. I didn’t like the lack of transparancy that goes with that approach — or the tremendous amount of time it takes to actively moderate a commenting system. I’m already stretched for time as it is.

And yet, there is clearly something missing without comments. Mainly, the opportunity to share additional or related information. Or an easy way to tell me where I screwed up. Or a publicly humiliating way to point out my many typos and spelling errors.

So in the end, I’ve put my reservations aside and implemented comments. Please review the Comments Policy, because I do plan on enforcing it. (My thanks to Mike Airhart at Ex-Gay Watch for letting me steal his guidelines.) But more importantly, I look forward to reading your feedback. And your corrections.