Box Turtle Bulletin

Prop 8 Rallies Planned

As Timothy mentioned yesterday afternoon, we received word that a decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger is expected this afternoon between 1:00 and 3:00 pm (PDT). Already, Prop 8 supporters have already filed a request for stay of judgment pending appeal, in case Judge Walker strikes down Prop 8. If granted, this would prevent any marriages taking until the Court of Appeals hears the case.

Meanwhile, a large number of rallies are planned in California and across the U.S., forty so far and counting. Rex Wockner is keeping up to date with the latest additions.

The ethics and etiquette of outing

I have not been a fan of outing.

Most of us have, at some point, lived in the closet. And we know the trauma and upheaval that can come from a public acknowledgment (or disclosure) of one’s sexual orientation in a world that does not treat gay people equally. Choosing to publicly identify as gay is to choose to be subjected to disapproval and animus by some and to be treated as an oddity or eccentric by others.

And because every person’s circumstance, family dynamic, social network, and financial situation are different, I generally favor allowing each person to decide on their own when is best for them to take the step towards honesty and disclosure.

On the other hand, the closet is debilitating and oppressive. Virtually everyone who has left the closet, whether voluntarily or though embarrassing scandal, agrees that life is much better in the light. The constant worry about who knows and what might happen should you be discovered is a heavy burden, and when it is lifted you feel free.

Take, for example, CA Sen. Roy Ashburn who sort of outed himself by means of a DUI on the way home from a gay bar (with the help of others who blogged about the event). Held hostage to fear, Ashburn’s closet life was limiting and his new found freedom was exhilarating.

“I would not have been speaking on a measure dealing with sexual orientation ever prior to the events that have transpired in my life over the last three months,” Ashburn told his colleagues. “However, I am no longer willing or able to remain silent on issues that affect sexual orientation and the rights of individuals. And so I am doing something that is quite different and foreign to me, and it’s highly emotional.”

And things have improved over the years. Support is available, and with each passing year the cost of being honest is lower.

There is no question that leaving the closet is the right decision, almost without exception. But less certain is who is entitled to pick the timing and the circumstances under which the closet door comes down.

One argument for outing is that it is appropriate when a politician or person in a position of power is using their authority in ways that actively harm the community. And there is a certain amount of logic to that criterion; the purpose is not to punish, but rather to stop the harm.

But the problem is in how we define “harm”.

For some, being registered as a Republican would be adequate cause for outing in as humiliating a way as possible. But this is based more in a desire to punish them for the “sin of being Republican” than it is in any real effort to protect the community.

For others, a voting pattern that is not 100% in alignment with the stated position of our various organizations deems one to be an enemy. But I find this to be a bit too much like extortion for my taste. And, frankly, I find many of the bills that our community organizations support to be ridiculous partisan posturing which has little actual value or meaning. Is someone “anti-gay” or doing harm to our community if they think that a Harvey Milk Day is a pointless waste of scarce resources?

And beyond questions about the definition of harm is the inherent assumption within the concept of outing that being gay is something that is shameful or shock-worthy. Outings that are designed so as to deliver maximum damage to the party being outed rely on the ill will of the public and not only validate homophobia but encourage it.

Which is why I am troubled by Mike Rogers’ outing of Illinois Republican congressman Mark Kirk.

Many Washington insiders, including Rogers, have known for years about Kirk’s same-sex attraction. Republican party insiders in Illinois have no illusions about Kirk, either.

In fact, in a blatant appeal to homophobia, a primary opponent tried to out Mark Kirk just this past December. This effort that resulted in the obligatory (and vague) denial by the candidate and condemnation of the bigot by the party structure.

And like a number of politicians across the nation, both Democratic and Republican, Kirk has kept his closet intact by having a relatively supportive record on gay issues. Rogers notes this as his reason for not outing Kirk earlier.

Until now, Mark Kirk elected not to play the typical Washington game. Instead of supporting his party’s dismal record on gay rights, Kirk received Human Rights Campaign ratings of 67% in 2002, 88% in 2004, 76% in 2006 and 85% in 2008. That’s more impressive than a lot of Democrats.

Rogers knows that in the long run a usually-supportive Republican can be even more effective than a reliable Democrat because he can provide the oh-so-necessary bipartisan vote. And Kirk, a military reservist who recently served in Afghanistan and is on the record as supporting DADT, has not changed his position.

But Mike Rogers has decided that today is the right time to reveal Kirk’s same-sex attraction. Here is the reason he gives:

Now, for the first time in his congressional career, Mark Kirk really had the chance to stand up and do what is right with the power of a vote. When I heard that five GOPers voted to lift the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell ban I instinctively though Kirk would be one of them. What a disappointment when he wasn’t.

Rogers would have us believe that this vote was the impetus, the motivation, the single action that compelled Mike to act. And I might find that vote to be an adequate reason, if I believed him.

But I don’t.

You see, the timing is just a bit too convenient. Although he has been running slightly ahead of his Democratic opponent for US Senate, Alexi Giannoulias and Kirk now appear to be very close in the polls. This may have been just too opportune of a moment for Rogers to pass.

Had Mike Rogers made an appointment with Kirk, expressed his intention in reporting the claims of his witnesses, allowed Kirk to respond or plan his own revelation, I might doubt my instinct. Had Rogers waited until after November, had the vote gone the other way, had it not been bipartisan, any of these might lend him credibility.

But the gotcha nature of the report negates any possibility that Rogers was simply seeking to reduce harm to our community. No, his primary goal was to embarrass, humiliate, and damage Mark Kirk.

And if my suspicions needed confirmation, Rogers adds another element. He references another potential scandal/criticism of Kirk, one that has nothing to do with his sexual orientation. This piling on makes it apparent to me that Rogers’ outing of Kirk is based less on his disappointment with Kirk’s vote and more on his desire to influence the outcome of the election.

No doubt many readers will find the advancement of a Democratic candidate to be an absolutely acceptable reason to out Mark Kirk. They may believe that we are in battle and that anything that lowers the chances of a Republican majority in the Senate is fair game. Some may argue that anything which hurts any Republican candidate at any time is a tool to be employed without question.

I do not.

Because while it is possible that Rogers has hurt Mark Kirk, it is absolutely certain that he has also hurt the gay community.

Because by introducing Kirk’s sexual orientation into the senate race, Rogers is reinforcing homophobia. By giving anti-gay voters a “reason” to vote against Kirk, he is validating bigotry.

And Rogers has now justified the actions of Kirk’s bigoted primary opponent. He’s confirmed that appealing to homophobia is a valid tactic to be used in politics and sexual orientation is a weapon to be wielded against those who are gay.

UPDATE:

Mark Kirk was not one of the five Republicans who voted to include the compromise amendment in the Defense Authorization Bill. Those were Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Charles Djou (HI), Judy Biggert (IL), Joseph Cao (LA), and Ron Paul (TX).

But he was among the five Republicans who joined them to vote for the Defense Authorization Bill which included the repeal. Those were Charlie Dent (PA), Mike Castle (DE), Mark Kirk (IL), Mary Bono Mack (CA), and Dave Reichert (WA).

Ron Paul voted for the amendment but not for the bill.

Illinois primary elections: what it means

US Senator from Illinois

Republican

Today Illinois Republican voters elected Mark Kirk as their Senate nominee. Kirk, a moderate, has long been an occasional ally of the community. As a Congressman he has voted for ENDA and against the FMA and supports civil unions. During this election, one opponent sought to gain political mileage from rumors that Kirk is, himself, gay.

Kirk is not, however, perfect on our issues. He does not favor marriage equality and has stated that he does not support the reversal of the ban on open service in the Military. (Herald Review)

Kirk said he disagreed with Obama’s call to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a policy that prevents homosexuals from serving openly in the military.

“I’m a member of the U.S. military,” said Kirk, a Naval Reserve intelligence officer. “I don’t think we should change the policy.”

But while Kirk has room for improvement, his positions on our issues are significantly preferable to most other Republican Senators. With 64% of the vote in, Kirk is the clear primary winner with about 58%.

Democrat

In the Democratic primary, the choices were much broader. Alexi Giannoulias and David Hoffman both endorse marriage equality and Cheryle Jackson endorses civil unions. All candidates support ENDA and repealing DADT and DOMA.

A gay long-shot candidate, Jacob Meister, received the endorsement of Stonewall Democrats. Meister withdrew from the race earlier this week and endorsed Giannoulias.

With 64% of the vote, the current tally is

Giannoulias , Alexi 38%
Hoffman , David 35%
Jackson , Cheryle 20%

Illinois Governor

Democrat

The primary contention was between incumbent Pat Quinn, who has served since Governor Rod Blagojevich was impeached in January 2009, and Dan Hynes. Quinn supports civil unions and Hynes supports full marriage equality. Hynes received the endorsement of Stonewall Democrats.

With 64% of the vote, Quinn has 51% to Hynes’ 49%. Quinn has held a small lead through all of the precinct counts so far.

Republican

The three five candidates, Kirk Dillard, Andy McKenna, Jim Ryan, Bill Brady, and Adam Andrzejewski all share opposition to civil unions and marriage equality. In their race to be the furthest far-right social-issues troglodyte they seem to be indistinguishable, but Log Cabin suggested that Dillard was the preferable of the bunch so perhaps they have some information that makes him the “lesser of evils”.

With 58% of precincts reporting:

McKenna , Andy 22%
Dillard , Kirk 20%
Brady , Bill 17%
Ryan , Jim 17%
Andrzejewski 15%

Illinois campaign comprised of pure homophobia

There are currently a handful of candidates for the Republican nomination to the US Senate seat in Illinois vacated by Barack Obama and currently held by Roland Burris. Two are in the news today.

Congressman Mark Kirk is a moderate Republican who has voted favorably on issues before Congress which would impact the gay community. He has been supportive on ENDA and hate crimes legislation and voted against amending the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. He is involved in Republican groups that are seeking to make the party less about social issues and return its focus to fiscal conservatism and small government.

He also has been the subject of rumors relating to his sexual orientation.

Andy Martin, on the other hand, is a colorful character primarily known for creating and disseminating conspiracy theories (e.g. Obama is a closet Muslim), filing lawsuits, and for his flagrant Antisemitism. In short, he’s pretty much a complete loon.

But Martin has developed a strategy to get attention and, perhaps, hurt Kirk: repeat rumors in hopes of stirring up homophobia. He ran the following radio ad:

I’m Andy Martin, Republican candidate for United States Senator. I approved this message because Illinois Republicans deserve the truth about their candidates.

I have over forty years of experience and integrity fighting corruption, and fighting for the truth in politics.

I helped expose many of Barack Obama’s lies in 2008.

Today, I am fighting for the facts about Mark Kirk. Illinois Republican leader Jack Roeser says there is a, “solid rumor that Kirk is a homosexual.” Roeser suggests that Kirk is part of a Republican Party homosexual club. Lake County Illinois Republican leader Ray True says Kirk has surrounded himself with homosexuals.

Mark Kirk should tell Republican voters the truth.

I\’m Andy Martin a Republican you can trust for U.S. Senator.

Please vote for Andy Martin.

Paid for by Illinois Republicans for Andy Martin.

Now, I don’t know anything about Mark Kirk’s sexual orientation. But I also know that as an active Navy reservist, he’s not going to announce that he’s gay any time soon. And as he is not a enemy to our community, accusations of “hypocrisy” sound hollow.

As for Martin, he again proves my contention that haters are often inclusive. Martin is bigoted towards both Jews and gays (at least).

And his campaign is pure unvarnished bald-faced homophobia. Let’s hope it backfires.

Illinois Republican Bases Campaign on Opponent’s Sexuality Rumors

Illinois Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, Andy Martin

Martin is running for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate for the state of Illinois, and he thinks he has found a winning campaign issue against his opponent:

Transcript from the Political Ad
I’m Andy Martin, Republican candidate for United States Senator. I approved this message because Illinois Republicans deserve the truth about their candidates.

I have over forty years of experience and integrity fighting corruption, and fighting for the truth in politics.

I helped expose many of Barack Obama’s lies in 2008.

Today, I am fighting for the facts about Mark Kirk. Illinois Republican leader Jack Roeser says there is a, “solid rumor that Kirk is a homosexual.” Roeser suggests that Kirk is part of a Republican Party homosexual club. Lake County Illinois Republican leader Ray True says Kirk has surrounded himself with homosexuals.

Mark Kirk should tell Republican voters the truth.

I\’m Andy Martin a Republican you can trust for U.S. Senator.

Please vote for Andy Martin.

Paid for by Illinois Republicans for Andy Martin.

Martin has also issued a blistering press release which contain many more allegations against Roeser. Chicago radio WBBM reports:

In a written statement, Kirk campaign manager Eric Elk says, “The ad is not true and is demeaning to the political process. The people of Illinois deserve better.”

Martin says his ad is not about whether or not the rumors are true, but the fact that they are being discussed on the Internet. Andy Martin says Kirk must address the rumors.

Martin has run for several elected offices and lost. In 2004, he accused then Senatorial-candidate Barack Obama of being a “secret Muslim” and once appeared on Fox News’ Hannity’s America to charge the Obama had once trained to overthrow the government. He later appeared in CNN to publicly drop the Muslim allegation, and instead claimed that Obama’s father was actually a communist.

Marriage Bill Introduced in Illinois Senate

For several years now Greg Harris has been introducing a bill to legalize marriage in the Illinois House of Representatives. But for the first time, a Senator has introduced his bill into the other house. (Bay Windows)

A marriage equality bill called the “Equal Marriage Act” was introduced into the Illinois Senate by State Senator Heather Steans Oct. 1.

You may recall that in June the House did not act on a Civil Unions bill before them, killing it for that session. Now, whether or not this bill advances in the legislature, it has advanced the argument that same-sex couples are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

Follow Up on Brett Vanasdlen

During the attention given to the debate in Congress over the Matthew Sheppard Hate Crimes Bill, I was reminded of the story of Brett Vanasdlen, the young man in Champaign, Illinois, who was charged with a hate crime in 2008.

We reported the story, but we didn’t fully follow up. Here’s where we left it:

• Stephen Velasquez was walking with friends at 1:00 am. Another young man, Brett Vanasdlen, saw him and made a bigoted remark.
• According to Velasquez, he responded, “How ignorant was that?” and kept walking. According to Vanasdlen, Velasquez grabbed him and started screaming, “What did you say” in his face.
• In both stories, Vanasdlen threw Velasquez to the ground where he was knocked out, suffered head trauma, and was taken to the hospital.
• Vanasdlen was arrested and charged with a hate crime.
• Vanasdlen’s mother appealed to Anti-Semite Ted Pike and former KKK leader David Dukes for support and they ran her version of events on Dukes’ white supremacist website. Peter LaBarbera picked up the story from them (changing Pike to a “pro-family activist”) and sold it to conservative circles. The story spread as an example of how a conservative Christian “strapping, clean-cut, All-American looking young man” was victimized by a homosexual with brown skin through the use of hate crimes legislation.

White supremacists and anti-Semites throughout the country began including Vanasdlen as an example of the current indignities suffered by the “white race”. Anti-gay religious groups used it as an example of why gay people should not be protected by hate crimes.

Peter LaBarbera was probably most vocal about this story. And he was quite critical of the skepticism expressed by those of us who doubted Vanasdlen’s saintliness.

We\’ll see how this story plays out as Tim, ExGayWatch, BTB, Pam and the rest of the “queer” spin machine so eagerly paint a false picture of young Brett as a violent “gay basher” to further their misguided crusade.

Peter pledged to one and all that “AFTAH will be following this case closely.”

So today I turned to LaBarbera’s site to see whatever happened to Brett Vanasdlen and his campaign to clear his name. But I found nothing. No mention at all of the outcome.

So what happened? Did the courts clear him? Did witnesses come forward to declare that the “strapping, clean-cut, All-American looking young man” had actually been the victim and brown homosexual Velasquez was the “the real aggressor“?

Well, no.

On September 9, 2008 Brett Vanasdlen pled guilty to battery and the hate crime charge was dropped.

Defendant ordered to pay restitution in the amount to be determined at a later date.
Sentence: 09/08/2008
Sentence: Fines and/or Cost/Penalties and Fees
Sentence: Court Supervision 24Mos Supervised Court Service
Sentence: Anti-Crime Assessment Fee
Sentence: Public Service 200Hrs Supervised Court Service
Sentence: Substance Abuse Treatment/Evaluation 60Days
Sentence: Partner Abuse Intervention Program 60Days
Sentence: Count(s) dismissed.

I guess it’s no wonder that LaBarbera kept silent about the resolution to this case. Martyrs are much less effective when they plead guilty.

Civil Unions Bill Dies in Illinois

It now appears that the Illinois House of Representatives did not vote on the Civil Unions bill before them. The session is over and civil unions are a dead, for now.

Illinois House Vote on Civil Unions Tomorrow

The vote on Civil Unions in the Illinois House of Representatives will take place tomorrow, the last day of session. Currently there are 70 Democrats and 48 Republicans in the House. The Governor supports the bill.

Movement on Illinois Civil Unions

The Chicago Tribune is reporting

On the same day that the California Supreme Court upheld a ban on gay marriage, an Illinois House committee advanced a measure that at would allow civil unions for same-sex couples in the state.

This is an attachment to the “shell bill” (SB 1716) that we told you about last week.

Harris said he is unsure if he has enough support for the measure to pass the full House. The Senate and the governor also would need to sign off for civil unions to become legal in Illinois. With the legislative adjournment date set for Sunday, Harris is running short of time to win approval for the bill this spring.

The Register-Mail reports

The bill’s sponsor, Democratic Rep. Greg Harris of Chicago, said he is still counting votes in the House to determine whether the bill can pass. Sixty votes would be needed for passage.

Illinois Poised To Approve Civil Unions

The Washington Blade is reporting that the Illinois General Assembly may approve a bill providing for civil unions as early as next week. The bill already has the support of Gov. Pat Quinn (D). It appears that if the bill reaches the governor’s desk, it will likely become law thirty days after he signs it.

Neighboring Iowa began marrying same-sex couples April 27, 2009.

The Current Status of Marriage Equality – 5/5/09

Green = marriage; Yellow = needs Governor signature

With marriage equality issues changing so very quickly, here’s where the current status stands (my apologies for any inaccuracies):

California – the State Supreme Court has until June 6 to announce whether Proposition 8 is constitutional and, if so, what impact it has on the 18,000 same-sex couples who married between June and November 2008. There are mixed opinions on what the court will decide.

Colorado – The legislature passed a Designated Beneficiary Agreement Act, which has been signed by the Governor.

Illinois – a bill has been introduced to enact Civil Unions. The bill is currently waiting for a House vote.

Maine – The House and the Senate have both passed a marriage bill. Tomorrow it goes before the Senate for final approval and then to Gov. John Baldacci, who is “keeping an open mind”. Anti-Gays will immediately seek a “People’s Veto”, a process by which an enacted bill can be placed before the voters for an up or down vote. They would need about 55,000 valid signatures by the first of September. It would be led by Michael Heath who has established his reputation in Maine as an extremist and a homophobe.

Nevada – The Senate passed a bill to provide Domestic Partnerships with all the rights and obligations of marriage. It will go before the Assembly Judiciary on Friday. The Governor has promised to veto the bill but some sources say that there will be a compromise crafted before the legislature disbands in a month.

New Hampshire – The House and Senate have both passed a marriage bill. The Senate version had specific religious protections that were not in the House bill. The House Judiciary has approved the changes and they will go before a House vote tomorrow. The Governor has stated that he is opposed to gay marriage in the past but has not addresses this specific bill.

New York – A marriage bill has been introduced in the house. Log Cabin Republicans announced that they have found additional Republican support in the House for marriage. Senate Majority Leader Smith will not bring marriage to a vote in the Senate until adequate votes will assure its passage, which probably means that four to six Republicans will need to be convinced. Empire State Pride is doing polling in Republican districts and seeking to give them assurance that a vote for equality will not result in an election defeat.

Washington – a bill to upgrade the state\’s Domestic Partnerships to provide all the rights and obligations of marriage has passed the Senate and House with large margins and will be signed by the Governor. A petition has been filed to put it to the voters.

District of Columbia – the Council voted to recognize out of state marriages. This bill will be signed by the Mayor and then Congress has 30 days to review and possibly overturn it by a majority vote in both houses and the signature of the President. A same-sex marriage bill is expected later this year.

Also see our last synopsis on April 9

State Marriage Equality Update

There has been a lot of movement recently in various states on the issue of recognition for same-sex couples. Here is a brief synopsis (I apologize if I missed anything):

Arkansas – on March 27, a bill was killed that would have banned cities and counties from creating domestic partner registries.

California – the State Supreme Court is deliberating on whether Proposition 8 is constitutional and, if so, what impact it has on the 18,000 same-sex couples who married between June and November 2008.

Colorado – at least two initiative drives are underway to either change the constitution to allow for gay marriage or alternately to statutorily create civil unions. The legislature has just passed a Designated Beneficiary Agreement Act, which has been signed by the Governor.

Connecticut – last week codified – with bipartisan support – marriage equality in the state\’s laws to agree with the decision of the state Supreme Court.

Delaware – proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage defeated in the Senate in the last week in March.

Hawaii – Civil Unions bill was tied up in committee. Although the bill has a strong majority of support in the Senate, they voted not to pull it from committee.

Illinois – a bill (HB 0178) has been introduced to legalize same-sex marriage along with a bill (HB 2234) to enact Civil Unions. The marriage bill is resting in the Rules Committee but the Civil Unions bill passed out of committee in March and now faces a House vote.

Iowa – last week the Supreme Court found that the state must recognize same-sex marriage. It will go into effect on April 27. The Governor, the Senate Majority Leader, and the Speaker of the House have all announced that they will oppose efforts to change the Constitution. Iowa has no initiative process so it would require a change in leadership and several years before it would be possible to revoke this right.

Maine – both a marriage bill and a civil unions bill are before the legislature. The Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing on April 24. Gov. John Baldacci is “keeping an open mind”.

Maryland – on April 7, the State Senate upgraded benefits offered to same-sex couples in domestic partnership relationships but do not allow for official state recognition of those relationships.

Minnesota – there is a bill before the legislature to provide new marriage equality. It is unlikely to pass.

Nevada – a bill to provide Domestic Partnerships with all the rights and obligations of marriage has passed out of committee and is before the Senate.

New Hampshire – at the end of March the House passed a bill to allow for gay marriage. It will be considered by the Senate, where Democrats have a 14-9 advantage (a dozen Republicans in the House supported the bill). Governor John Lynch has not stated whether he will veto the legislation, should it pass.

New Jersey – a commission has found that civil unions are inadequate and polls have found that residents favor gay marriage but a bill before the legislature appears not to be moving.

New Mexico – in March the Senate defeated efforts to enact Domestic Partnerships.

New York – the Governor has announced that he will push for a vote in the Senate on gay marriage. Although marriage equality has passed in the House, without support from some Republicans, the votes do not appear to be there in the Senate.

Rhode Island – a gay marriage bill is unlikely to make it out of committee. A “reciprocal beneficiary agreements” bill, a darling of anti-gays who want to label gay couples as identical to roommates or cousins, has been proposed as a “compromise”.

Vermont – this week the legislature overrode the governor\’s veto to pass marriage equality.

Washington – a bill to upgrade the state\’s Domestic Partnerships to provide all the rights and obligations of marriage has passed the Senate and will come before the House soon.

West Virginia – last week the House of Delegates defeated a proposed state constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage.

Wisconsin – the Supreme Court is being asked to review the constitutional ban on marriage. The Governor, in his budget, has proposed Domestic Partnership benefits.

Wyoming – in February the House defeated a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

District of Columbia – the Council voted unanimously to recognize out of state marriages. Same-sex marriage bill expected later this year.

God Hates Figs

This flyer was distributed during a recent Chicago counter-protest against members of the “God hates fags” Westboro Baptist Church. Food for thought:

God Hates Figs flyer (Click to enlarge)

[Hat tip: Dan Savage]

Update On That Mormon Email: LDS Backs Away

According to one of our regular commenters, the LDS church is washing its hands of the email sent by one of its bishops to his Nauvoo, Illinois ward urging them to call on state legislators to quash a civil unions bill. I’m still looking for an original source, but in the meantime I’ll go ahead and pass this on:

As is widely known, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of traditional marriage. The Church has not taken a position on any legislation currently being considered by the Illinois State Legislature. The Church did not send an e-mail to its members in regards to House Bill 2234, although a false report to the contrary has been circulated. An e-mail was sent from a local Illinois Church leader to his congregation – one of 129 congregations in the state — who was free to express his own views.”

-Scott Trotter, Church spokesman

Contrary to how Trotter characterizes our reporting on this, I thought I explained it pretty clearly. This came from one bishop in one ward. In my post, I said “at least one ward” because I find it hard to believe that members of this ward were the only ones to receive such a message. I think the LDS church’s recent history in California and Arizona certainly gives all of us plenty of reasons to be suspicious. Given what we’ve learned about their “phone trees” and the closed-circuit satellite television system linking virtually all the wards — and now a private internal online system — I can’t think of any other organization with anything approaching the sophisticated, well-organized capabilities that the LDS church possesses. I believe it’s important to remain vigilant to every “squeak” which happens to leak out.

As to whether the church has a position on the civil unions bill before the state legislature, I confess I don’t know their inner workings. I’ll allow you to consider the church’s credibility when they speak to their positions. You know them by their fruits, after all. Again, let recent history be your guide.

Be that as it may, the LDS leadership is clearly backing away from this latest spate of publicity, and Bishop Church appears to be following their lead. I was just tipped to another email sent to Nauvoo’s 3rd ward:

From: Chris Church
Date: March 4, 2009 1:58:47 PM CST
Subject: Church Position on Legislation

Members of the Church may take any action they wish concerning legislation but the Church does not take any position in relation to these issues.

Bishop Church