Religious right trying to get troops to undermine DADT repeal

You know the religious right just won't let the DADT repeal die without a fight. The queen of irrelevancy, Elaine Donnelly is trying a new tactic:

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, says she has already heard from a number of service members who are upset that the lame-duck session of the 111th Congress passed a bill to repeal the 1993 law banning homosexuals from military service. President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen must still certify that the new law will not adversely affect troop morale and unit cohesion.

It is unfortunate, says Donnelly, that military personnel are not permitted to speak freely about the issue. Consequently, she has created a special area on her website for service members to express their concerns about the new policy.

"There is a location on the site called 'Confidential Contact.' Anyone can go there," she explains. "There is a place there to indicate military service. We never repeat names and we can convey messages on behalf of anyone on active duty service to anyone in Congress. They can also directly write their own member of Congress, but there are some issues that are bigger than individuals.

And I will bet a steak dinner on what happens next. Donnelly's site will get several (anonymous of course) comments magically mirroring religious right talking points regarding why DADT shouldn't be repealed.

I bet we will even hear nonsense from some "unknown" military men and women about how they are being "sexually harassed" by gay and lesbian troops and how their commanding are either looking the other way or siding with gay and lesbian troops.

Or even worse, they will claim that the commanding officers are the gay and lesbians doing the harassing.

And all of this will lead to a "coincidental" hearing about the so-called hidden dangers of getting rid of DADT.

Which of course will lead to a vote by House Republicans to somehow stop or slow down the implementation of DADT's repeal.

It's a variation of the "get rid of Planned Parenthood" plan - tacky but effective.

A rabid homophobe steps away from 'retirement' and other Monday midday news briefs

Scott Lively Warns of “Outbreak of Homosexuality” In Moldova, Part of a “Secret Plan By the Homosexual Powers of the EU” - A bloodsucking homophobic snake never retires, no matter how many times he claims to.

Santorum: Obama Will "Eviscerate" Freedom By Supporting Gay Rights - So much santorum dripping from one person has to be unhealthy.

Gay Legislators Having Impact In Marriage Debates - Some good news for a change.

Boehner launches effort to defend gay-marriage ban - Surprising NO ONE. But I am intrigued to learn just how will Boehner and company try to defend this monstrosity.

The truth about African-American voters and gay marriage

 A recent piece in The Root breaks down - or rather - tears apart assumptions about the African-American community and the subject of gay marriage:

According to The Root:

A report indicates that black voters who don't support same-sex marriage will vote for candidates who do. This spells opportunity for white LGBT activists, if they're willing to take heed.

Basically the article seems to be saying that it's not that the black community does or doesn't support gay marriage, it's just that it's not on the top of the list of concerns to many black voters:

Focused far more on job creation, health care and education than on gay marriage, black voters aren't supporting conservative candidates simply because they oppose LGBT rights. Instead, they are voting for progressive pro-LGBT candidates -- despite disagreeing with their pro-LGBT platforms.


"The truth is, we just don't see blacks voting against a candidate based on [his or her] support of gay marriage," says Patrick Egan, assistant professor of politics and public policy at New York University. "We actually don't see this becoming an important issue for voters of any race."

Lastly, the article gives a little advice to those pressing for gay marriage - something which many lgbts of color have been saying for the longest - don't take the black voter for granted because of assumptions. Include black voices in your messaging:

As in Maine's successful 2009 marriage-equality repeal, national white LGBT leaders will undoubtedly "parachute" into Maryland to help direct the ballot battle. But this time, black voters -- and leaders -- must take central roles in defining the battle's narrative.

This was the case in the successful 2010 campaign to secure marriage equality in Washington, D.C.; pro-LGBT black voices and faces must now be front and center if a similar campaign comes to Maryland. And white LGBT leaders will have to step aside and let this happen.

"One of the reasons the D.C. campaign was so successful is that black voters -- including religious voters -- saw folks like themselves supporting marriage equality," explains Lanae Erickson, deputy director of the Culture Initiative at the Third Way. "Just as important: Many [white] LGBT leaders went out of their way to ensure that these [black] activists were heard."

Maggie Gallagher addresses NOM's claim about gay marriage and children

In my last post, I talked about National Organization for Marriage's Maggie Gallagher attempt at covering her tracks in regards to claims of racism she lodged against those angry at Maryland legislator Sam Arora.

Gallagher had initially implied that the anger of the lgbt community over Arora's shift from supporting gay marriage was due to racism. However, this was not the case. Lgbt anger at Arora dealt with his backtracking on gay marriage even after he campaigned for and supported the issue.

In the midst of her efforts to wipe away her initial claim, Gallagher emailed me. I took that opportunity to ask her for a response on another matter regarding NOM's claim that gay marriage was being "taught" to kindergartners in Massachusetts because of that state's law allowing gay marriage.

The Pulitizer-Prize winning site PolitiFact had called NOM out in February after investigating and finding this claim to be false. However, NOM continued to push the claim, even to the point of sending out mailers last week in Maryland saying the following:

Massachusetts public schools teach kid as young as kindergartners about gay marriage. Parents have no legal right to object!

This was the initial claim - word for word - which PolitiFact said was false.

Gallagher's response to me was as follows:

Contact Brian Brown for NOM's response.

But personally I think deciding the two instances Politifacts says were offered (I don't know the details only what PolitiFActs claims happened) were insufficient might justify a finding of "unproven" but hardly shows it is "false."

Moreover in the court cases surrounding these incidents, all the major gay marriage groups argued that in fact parents have no right to prevent their children from being exposed to gay marriage in public schools.

We have never claimed the law will require teaching about gay marriage. We have only said that once it is the law, it will be taught in public schools.

In fact don't you think it ought to be?

Now in all honesty, there should be some fairness to Gallagher there. She is the Chairman of the Board at NOM, and not the operational CEO.

But still her answer to my response leaves a lot to be desired. It does appear to be misleading.

Arora controversy has National Organization for Marriage scrambling for cover

The situation with Maryland delegate Sam Arora which nearly derailed gay marriage in Maryland is fastly blowing up in the face of the National Organization for Marriage, the organization trying to prevent gay marriage from taking place.

Arora is the Maryland legislator first supported the gay marriage bill. He campaigned on it, raised money because of it, and engaged in discussions with lgbt families in terms of why this bill is important.

And for while he decided, even after all of this and publicly giving his support to the bill, to change his mind and vote against it.

Arora faced a serious firestorm from voters who felt betrayed, angry, and hurt at his shift. Because of this, he changed his mind again and said he will vote for the bill, while emphasizing that the question of gay marriage in Maryland should be the subject of a referendum.

Into this controversy stepped Maggie Gallagher, head of NOM, via a post on the organization's blog during Arora's initial change:

First, if Sam Arora is wavering under this media firestorm, he must be hearing from hundreds of constituents who do not want him to vote for gay marriage.

Secondly, as someone married to an Indian-American, I find it interesting that the gay marriage machine appears to be re-focusing its attacks from Black Democrats who oppose gay marriage to an easier target: Indian-Americans.

Tiffany Alston appears now to be off the hook regardless of how she votes.

Supporters of the Maryland gay marriage bill seized on Gallagher's comment, claiming that she was unfairly accusing those angry Arora of being racists. And they had a point. Nowhere in her post did Gallagher address the simple fact that the ire at Arora was solely because of his backtracking of an issue which played such a central part in his election.

Know Your LGBT History - Black Shampoo

To paraphrase Jane Fonda, there are a lot of things to say about the happenings of this week. But this isn't the time to say them.

What it's time for another segment of my Know Your LGBT History posts.

I apologize for today's post because it's as bad as last week's. However, again I reiterate how important it is for the lgbt community to understand how far we have come concerning images of ourselves on television and movies.

Today's post is about a little-seen blaxploitation movie entitled Black Shampoo (1976). Like many other blaxploitation movies (i.e. Blackenstein, Dr. Black and Mr. Hyde, Blacula) Black Shampoo is supposed to be a black version of a more widely seen movie.

In this case, it is Warren Beatty's movie Shampoo.

However this version has less to do with angst and relationships and more to do with violence and the glorification of the stereotype of the "big black buck."

John Daniels (who never had a starring role after this one because his acting was abominable) stars as the owner of a hair salon whose touch makes women so crazy that he generally ends up doing more than their hair, if you get my drift.

The conflict comes when he is trying to rescue his receptionist from the mob.

For the purposes of this blog, let's focus on one of his assistants, Artie. Artie is a stereotypical gay man - weak, flighty, and subject to all sort of abuse.

Naturally he also a living version of "Chekov's gun," in that you just know that he is only in the movie for something awful to happen to him. And it does at 1:14 of this trailer.

My gosh, we have come a looooong way:



Past Know Your LGBT History Postings:

Religious right group stoops to tacky images and other Friday midday news briefs

CWA: Obama the "Despot" is Discriminating Against Americans by Not Defending DOMA - It's so hard to take the religious right group Concerned Women for America seriously when they push drivel like this with pictures like the following:

And in other news:

Liz Hurley to play bisexual villainess in Wonder Woman reboot - That ought to be interesting.

Clashes Pit Parents vs. Gay-Friendly Curriculums in Schools - Cause lgbts don't have children attending America's schools. Yes that was sarcasm.

Harding University Attempts To Silence Gay Students’ Voices - Hot mess happenings at Harding University.

Gingrich Secured $200,000 For Iowa Judge Recall Campaign - These were the judges who overruled Iowa's law against gay marriage. I wonder how Gringrich would have felt if those judges supported adultery. Probably would have thrown them a fundraiser.

Lgbt community hit with betrayal in Maryland?

MAJOR UPDATE - Arora will grudgingly support the gay marriage bil. Thanks for the sour persimmons, cousin. Meanwhile, Maggie Gallagher continues to tackily push the "race card."

This is Sam Arora, a Maryland delegate who campaigned on the fact that he would vote for gay marriage.

He knocked on doors, sat down with same-sex families, and accepted donations (a list is here) while expressly saying that he supports marriage equality.

And now after he is in office, he is planning on changing his vote.

Naturally the members of the lgbt community who supported him, who introduced him to their families, who told him their life stories and why this piece of legislation is important are furious.


And some are asking for their donations back.

Now Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage is claiming that lgbt anger is strictly racism because, according to her, the lgbt community is ignoring another delegate who may switch votes.

She also claims that Arora is changing his vote because of, as she puts it, IMMENSE pressure from folks opposed to bringing gay marriage to Maine.

Arora has not given a reason why he is changing his mind. And based on NOM's past actions and statements, folks should take what Gallagher says with a grain of salt - i.e. every word dripping from her mouth is a lie including the words "and" and "the."

However, if the situation with Arora is true, this is a huge setback and betrayal.

Seems to me that if you campaign specifically on an issue and folks - along with their families - sit down and talk with you about how important the issue is, and they get a promise of support from you, then you should follow through with that promise.

It's just basic decency.

Now if Gallagher and company want to mark basic decency as one of the qualities they are willing to step over in pursuit of their goals, that is their prerogative.

However, Mr. Arora should aspire to something better.

This issue is not about racism. It's about lies, broken promises, and betrayals of constituents and their families.

Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post said it best:

The outrage directed at Arora is understandable. As is the sense of betrayal. He raised money from gays and lesbians based on his support for marriage equality. He secured the endorsements of Progressive Maryland and of Equality Maryland because of it. In fact, get a load of what he wrote as an addendum to his questionnaire for Equality Maryland:

I am a former law clerk to Attorney General Doug Gansler. I publicly supported his decision to recognize out-of-state marriage licenses for same-sex couples and immediately put out a release praising his findings. For me, it's simply a matter of equal rights under the law.

If this situation turns out the way it's trending, then NOM and Maggie Gallagher will have a lot to crow about. No doubt the spin will be how Arora "fought with himself" and "fought the slings and arrows of the radical homosexual movement to protect marriage."

I don't think that spin will work this time. There are some situations so ugly, so starkly monstrous that all of the spin in the world can't clean them up.

This looks like one of those times.


Folks, if you are going to write to Arora, Gallagher, or even vent, please be aware that this is one of those situations where Gallagher and company stalk pro-lgbt blogs looking for the ugliest comments they can pull to use against us. Don't let your anger allow you to be played.

500,000 hits later, a reminder to the lgbt community to keep on pressing

You will forgive me for not doing a usual post tonight. A little before noon today, this blog had its 500,000 visitor. That's over 500,000 readers in less than five years, which is not bad at all for a part-time blog which makes me no money at all. In commemoration of this, I want to repost my most popular piece, Message to the Religious Right. I wrote it in 2008, just weeks after we lost the Proposition 8 vote in California in response to Newt Gingrich claiming that our justified anger over the travesty was because lgbts are "secular fascists." I hope you all take this piece to heart and never lose your anger when things don't seem to be fair for us. But at the same time, never lose your hope. We are going to win this:

Message to the religious right - this isn't just about marriage, it's about history

I keep hearing all of this nonsense about us lgbts attacking people, about us using intimidation and violence to oppress people, about us somehow being ugly aggressors.

Newt Gingrich (who wrote the book on deceptive messaging during his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives) actually accused us of being "secular fascists."

Gingrich's attack on us seem to be the prevailing theme with those on the other side of the Proposition 8 argument.

And I think there needs to be some historical perspective on this matter.

True, Proposition 8 has galvanized our community. We have become a bit more politically engaged in our anger. That is a good thing.

However, any display of violence on either side of the argument should never be tolerated.

Nor should letting the religious right frame the moment.

I have a few questions to people like Newt Gingrich, Bill O’Reilly, Chuck Norris, Gary Bauer, Peter LaBarbera and the rest who are trying to push this "gay intimidation" image.

Where were you in the late 1970s when Anita Bryant accused us of trying to “recruit” children?

Where were you in 1983 when Paul Cameron accused gay men of stuffing gerbils up our rectums and castrating children? Or afterwards when he went from state to state pushing his phony research papers all designed to make us the boogiemen of American society?

Where were you when Jerry Falwell exploited the AIDS crisis to generate more money for the Moral Majority? Or when those dying of AIDS were cast out of their communities and excommunicated from their churches?

Where were you when Colorado passed that law in 1992 that basically said cities in the state had absolutely no right to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination?

Where were you when over the course of 20 years all of those phony “pro-family” groups told lies in front of federal and congressional state houses in attempts to beat back pro-gay laws or spread discredited research that gave “upstanding, moral” families the perfect excuse to put their gay sons and daughters out on the cold streets?

Where were you when organizations like Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, the Traditional Values Coalition, and Focus on the Family unconsciously gave reasoning for groups of roaming thugs to bash our heads in, chase us out in heavy traffic, beat us to bloody pulps with nail embedded boards, and hang us from fences on dark and lonely roads?

How is it that you can dare call us aggressive when for over 30 years, you have done everything in your power to make America hate and fear us?

How it is that you can dare infer that we don't have a right to get just a tad angry when for over 30 years, you have done everything in your power to make us hate and fear ourselves?

Every lie, every indignity, every attempt to dehumanize the lgbt community has brought us to this point. The Proposition 8 vote was the last straw in a chain of indignities that stretch as long as Jacob's ladder.

This ain’t just about marriage. Nor is this a single moment in time.

We are not the aggressors. We are learning to fight back.

When I was coming out, it wasn’t the fact that I was gay that bothered me more than the knowledge that so many had already written my life for me; told me who I was, what I liked, what I didn’t like, and even where I was going after I died.

Worst of all, they had the nerve to tell me that I had absolutely no rights to the words "values," "family," "tradition," or "honor."

And you know what the saddest thing about this is? I was not alone. Hundreds of thousands of lgbts went through the same experience. It was our "rite of passage."

So while I may not have a media spin machine behind me and therefore very few will give a damn about what I say, while I may not be a member of a religious think tank who is presently working to use this moment to again dehumanize lgbts, and while I may not be considered as a "leading gay talking head," I am an American, a human being, and a child of God.

Therefore, I will never forget what has brought me to this point of outrage.

And I will do my best to make sure that this country never forgets either.

Lastly, I will do my best to make sure that YOU never forget.

Black church leaders meet with lgbt community and other Thursday midday news briefs

Black Church Leaders Ask Forgiveness From the LGBT Community - The Root is an awesome site and this article NEEDS more coverage.

Ohio’s Radical Anti-Union Bill Also Has A Hidden Provision To Deny Equal Rights To Same-Sex Couples - SURPRISE! Why not kick everyone in the pants!

Now comes the part of the week day minute where FRC tells us how 'immoral', 'harmful', 'ungodly' we are - If I am praying with the Family Research Council, I want some lightning insurance.

Indiana's Jud McMillin: A Tale of Glass Houses & Rocks - NAAAAASTY but necessary. People who live in glass houses shouldn't touch sex arousal instruments.

Conservatives trying to use DOMA decison to drive between Obama and the black community

It's getting ridiculous how the religious right are trying to trot out their versions of "black leaders" to eviscerate President Obama over the Justice Department's decision not to defend DOMA in the courts.

It began last week when Mike Huckabee claimed that Obama's decision was alienating him from the African-American community - a charge which was hilarious to me because I never remembered Huckabee as a black leader.

Then we heard various rumblings from organizations such as the National Black Church Initiative (whoever they may be) and then religious right favorite Harry Jackson  - who was designated as The Most Influential Black Christian in America in the article which gave voice to his disapproval.

I personally never knew that there was a vote on that sort of thing.

National Organization for Marriage continuing to spread false claim about gay marriage and children

It is obvious that in its zeal to stop gay marriage in Maryland, the National Organization for Marriage is going full throttle for the jugular even at the expense of truth.

According to The Washington Blade:

The National Organization for Marriage has launched a series of attack mailers in Maryland, as a House committee gears up for a key vote on a measure to legalize same-sex marriage.

Several mailers target Sen. Jim Brochin, a Baltimore County Democrat and member of the Judicial Proceedings Committee, which approved the bill last month. Brochin initially supported civil unions instead of marriage equality. But he said he changed his position and supported the bill, in part, because of the harsh and intolerant-sounding testimony against the measure by some of its opponents at a public hearing in Annapolis on Feb. 8. NOM’s Maggie Gallagher testified at that hearing.

 One of the mailers is as follows:

One of the claim on the mailer reads:

Massachusetts public schools teach kid as young as kindergartners about gay marriage. Parents have no legal right to object!

However according to the Pulitzer Prize-winning news site PolitiFact, this claim is misleading.

During an investigation of the claim earlier this year, PolitiFact talked to:

• Christopher C. Plante, executive director of the Rhode Island Chapter of NOM,
• Kris Mineau, executive director of the Massachusetts Family Institute,
• Jonathan Considine of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education,
• the Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Curriculum,
• the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and
• Thomas Gosnell, president of the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts.

PolitiFact's conclusion about NOM's claim of kindergartners being taught gay marriage in Massachusetts is as follows:

Bottom line: The National Organization for Marriage mailing says that Massachusetts public schools teach kindergartners about gay marriage. The wording, including the present tense verb, gives the impression this is happening now, in many schools.

But the group’s only evidence is two incidents five years ago. It’s possible that somewhere, in one of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts, other kindergartners have been taught about same-sex marriage. But NOM couldn’t cite any other examples. We find its statement False.

Clearly the NOM is following the same game plan it played in California and Maine, i.e. spooking people by claiming that  "the gays are coming for their children."

If the organization's efforts bear success, expect NOM leaders Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown to step on the mantle of self-righteousness and falsely claim that they are helping people "stand up for marriage,  when in reality they are getting them to cower in fear at the thought of fictional gay boogeymen.

Related post:

Yes Maggie Gallagher, you are bigoted and NOM is homophobic. Here's why.

Media Matters catalogs Mike Huckabee's history of homophobia

Whatever our grievances are with President Obama, one person who the lgbt community does not need in the White House is Mike Huckabee.

I've written on his subtle yet nasty homophobia on several occasions. And now, Media Matters has catalogued Huckabee's sly way of interjecting his homophobic point of view into the conversation.

One thing the report makes clear - if Huckabee gets anywhere near the White House, the lgbt community had better learn how to moonwalk because that's how fast he will set back our struggle for equality. Some tidbits of the report include:

Politico reports that when running for U.S. Senate in 1992, Fox News host Mike Huckabee called homosexuality "aberrant, unnatural and sinful." Huckabee does not appear to have changed his anti-gay rhetoric since becoming a Fox News host, comparing homosexuality to drug use and incest, claiming that same-sex marriage is a threat to a "stable society," and promoting virulently anti-gay guests.

Huckabee Made Virulent Anti-Gay Comments As A Public Official

As A Public Official, Huckabee Called Homosexuality An "Aberration" And Condemned The Government For Supporting It Along With Pedophilia, Sadomasochism, And Necrophilia. In a 2007 appearance on Meet the Press, Tim Russert asked Huckabee about his assertion in a 1998 book claiming "it is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations - from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia." Huckabee responded that "all of these are deviations from what has been considered the traditional concept of sexual behavior." Russert also asked Huckabee about his assertion in 1992 that "I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle." Huckabee responded that "all of us are sinners." [Towelroad.com, 1/2/08]

In 1992, Huckabee Came Out Against Additional Funding For AIDS Research And Called For U.S. Government To "Isolate" AIDS Patients. From a December 9, 2007 Politico article:

Huckabee wrote on [an Associated Press] questionnaire that AIDS research was receiving an unfair amount of federal money. Instead, he said celebrities should pay for the research.
"In light of the extraordinary funds already being given for AIDS research, it does not seem that additional federal spending can be justified," Huckabee wrote, according to the AP.
"An alternative would be to request that multimillionaire celebrities, such as Elizabeth Taylor, Madonna and others who are pushing for more AIDS funding be encouraged to give out of their own personal treasuries increased amounts for AIDS research."
[...]
Huckabee also wrote that he wanted to quarantine AIDS patients, according to the AP:
"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague.... It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents." [Politico, 12/8/07]

 . . .

Huckabee Hosts Virulently Anti-Gay Guests In Segments On LGBT Issues 

Matthew Staver 

Huckabee Hosts Matthew Staver From Liberty Counsel. In his January 24, 2009, segment attacking Obama for including LGBT issues in the civil rights section in his website, Huckabee hosted Matthew Staver from Liberty Counsel and Liberty University.

Staver's Group Suggests Schools Should Encourage Students To View Homosexuality As "Temporary Sexual Confusion." From an April 7, 2010 post on Staver's website titled "Pediatrician Sets the Facts Straight about Sexual Orientation and Gender Confusion":

The letter reminds school superintendents that it is not uncommon for adolescents to experience transient confusion about their sexual orientation and that most students will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation if not otherwise encouraged. For this reason, schools should avoid developing policies that encourage nonheterosexual attractions among students who may merely be experimenting or experiencing temporary sexual confusion. Such premature labeling can lead some adolescents to engage in homosexual behaviors that carry serious physical and mental health risks.

There is no scientific evidence that anyone is born homosexual. Therefore, the College further advises that schools should not teach or imply to students that homosexual attraction is innate, always life-long, and unchangeable. To the contrary, research has shown that therapy to restore heterosexual attraction can be effective for many people.

It is not the school's role to diagnose or attempt to treat any student's medical condition, and certainly not the school's role to "affirm" a student's perceived personal sexual orientation. The "Facts About Youth" website counters the propaganda published by the pro-homosexual pamphlet called "Just the Facts," which is riddled with inaccuracies.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: "Public schools can harm students by suggesting that same-sex attractions are natural and unchangeable. Research shows that youth who experience sexual confusion often do so only for a temporary period. To suggest to a student that temporary sexual confusion means the person is homosexual can be damaging and harmful. The information provided by the 'Facts About Youth' website is invaluable for anyone who works with children." [Liberty Counsel, 4/7/10]

Staver Attacked Janet Napolitano For Appointing Gay Judges. In 2009, Staver's group announced an "Adopt A Liberal" program that "encourages people to pray for those in leadership to restore poor leaders to right thinking." One of the people targeted by Staver was Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. One of his major criticisms of Napolitano was that "Twenty percent of the state judicial appointments Napolitano made as governor were of homosexuals, reflecting her pro-homosexual agenda." [Liberty Counsel, 10/5/09, 10/5/09]

Staver Suggested Washington Mutual Collapse Was Related To The Company's Support For Gay Rights. In a September 29, 2008 post attacking Google for putting out a statement against California's Proposition 8, Staver's group stated "Of course, Google is not the only search engine available to consumers. Washington Mutual became an active supporter of the homosexual agenda. But today, it is no more. Corporate America has learned the hard way that anti-family policies are bankrupt in more ways than one." [Liberty Counsel, 9/29/08]

Janet Porter 

Huckabee Hosted Janet Porter To Criticize Anti-Proposition 8 Activists. Huckabee hosted Janet Folger (now known by her married name, Janet Porter) on the November, 15, 2008, episode of Fox News' Huckabee.

Porter Suggested "Homosexual Activists," Abortion-Rights Activists And The ACLU Are "Enemies Of God." From a WorldNet Daily column by Janet Porter:

To those who still believe that we should stay out of the cultural war, I have a question: How is that working out for you?

We now have two generations who are lost in the lies of humanism, evolution and homosexuality, facilitated into fornication and abortion, trapped in pornography and devastated by divorce. Congratulations.

If you're still having a hard time discerning what to do, here's a helpful hint: if you find yourself on the same side as the ACLU, homosexual activists, the baby killers and the enemies of God, chances are, you're on the wrong side .

Put the rocks down. Come out of the closet and bring your manger scene with you. Spend more time reading the Bible (and the news) than all those rock-throwing slander sites. Because all the people that they're targeting? They're the ones fighting to keep the Internet, the airwaves and the public square free. And if they're successful, they're also the ones who will keep the padlock off your closet door. [WorldNetDaily, 6/8/10]

The entire report is here. Read only if you have a strong stomach and a high tolerance to quick anger.

The lgbt community has to stop shooting itself in the foot and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Military Funeral Protesters - I never really followed this case because I could see the conclusion a mile away.

When protesting for my rights, please try not to be incredibly stupid and counterproductive - How the lgbt community tends to do counterproductive things Exhibit A. This is burning up the comment line on Box Turtle Bulletin. And please don't start with me about Stonewall and the Civil Rights Movement. My problem isn't the public protest in this case but more with the lazy belief that "gaining attention" by itself is a suitable tactic when we are up against groups who do a lot of strategizing and work behind the scenes. Everyone seems to want to figuratively show our asses in public but VERY FEW wants to do the hard work, the meeting with legislatures, the formulating of talking points, the smack down of religious right talking points and the educating in our community (which is sorely needed) in terms of why our issues are important. Oh wait. Let's wait for Lady Gaga to do it, then we will follow along.

Tempers flare over anti-gay bullying at Anoka-Hennepin school board meeting - Not bragging (oh yes I am) but some of my information was used during this meeting.

Bill that bans bullying of gay students stalls in Kentucky House - Ugh.

Someone call homophobe Robert Knight a waaaaaambulance

Okay, I admit it. One of the side benefits of the Obama Administration's decision not to defend DOMA in the courts is how it has sent the religious right into orbit.

One person in particular who doesn't seem to be happy is one of the original crafters of DOMA, Robert Knight. When he helped to craft DOMA,  Knight allied himself with the so-called major religious right groups like the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America.

But now, as a senior fellow of the American Civil Rights Union (what exactly is that anyway), Knight isn't too happy with the Obama Administration's decision.

I mean we're talking practically apoplectic:

Allow me to take off the gloves. As one who helped draft the first version of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), I regard Obama's order on Feb. 23 to Attorney General Eric Holder to abandon DOMA's legal defense as lawless, reckless, arrogant and a violation of his oath of office. I think it is an impeachable offense.

I'm just warming up.

Obama, like Hillary Clinton and countless other prominent Democrats -- and some useful idiot Republicans -- have been pretending to support marriage while doing everything in their power to undermine it.

First of all, I am so sure that the Obama Administration is shaking in its boots that Knight "took off the gloves" to get nasty.

Knight's piece gets funnier:

If you doubt what they intend, check out Brian Camenker's shocking exposé, "What same-sex 'marriage' has done to Massachusetts." Mr. Camenker, who heads the group MassResistance, is warning the nation that there will be no quarter for those who think homosexuality is wrong and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Putting Catholic Charities out of the adoption business was just the beginning, followed quickly by brainwashing children in government schools and denying people jobs

Way to Knight. Cite a known anti-gay hate group - Mass Resistance - and include some nonsense about brainwashing. The subtlety of  the brainwashing statement is hilarious, seeing that Knight has, on more than one occasion, accused the lgbt community of "going after children." And not necessarily to "brainwash" them if you catch my drift.

Obama's decision on DOMA not alienating the black community

There is a religious right meme going around that the Obama Administration's decision not to defend DOMA in the courts has alienated him from the African-American community.

Well the Washington Post did something "amazing" and "absolutely astounding" to see if this theory as accurate.

It actually talked to African-Americans and created a story from what it found.

And the results are just as many black folks knew - it doesn't make that much of difference:

Some say the decision is dismaying, though not damning. Others may be rethinking their views, given the influence Obama has in the African American community. And there are those who don't seem to care much at all.

"I don't think that this is a deal breaker in terms of whether we are going to support the president . . . but it doesn't help," said Cheryl Sanders, pastor of a small church in Washington, D.C.t, who described herself as fairly conservative theologically.

She is among the 68 per cent of churchgoing African Americans who oppose same-sex marriage and among the 90 per cent who support Obama.

As a question on its own, churchgoing African Americans are against same-sex marriage. But when the issue is wrapped up into a larger political context, it becomes just one of many and generally not the deciding one, said the Rev. Al Sharpton, an Obama ally.

"I remember in 2003 when I said I was for gay marriage. I got a lot outrage from my fellow ministers," Sharpton said. "I've been on my radio show and on conference calls with other pastors, and I haven't heard any outrage on this position."

The only person in the article who voiced an outright rejection of Obama was Anthony Evans of the the National Black Church Initiative,. I never even heard of this group.

But I especially liked this part:

Sharon Lettman-Hicks, executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition, which advocates for gay rights, praised Obama's decision, saying it makes clear "there is not just one moral authority in the black community."

Rev. Joseph Lowery, the civil rights leader who prayed at Obama's inauguration, has long supported civil unions and predicted black churchgoers will continue to support Obama even if he backs same-sex unions.

"The president has overwhelming support from the black church because people are looking at the bigger picture," Lowery said. "He will not be hurt by one issue."

Isn't it amazing what happens when folks actually talk to black folks about our likes and dislikes rather than trying to predict them?

Mike Huckabee continues his war on same-sex families and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Huckabee: Icky things happen in the bedrooms of same-sex couples - Geez, what is Mike Huckabee's problem? Again he reduces the quality of lgbt families through his fevered homophobic imagination.

What's with African American opposition to gay marriage in Maryland? - A great divide which needs to be delved into further. One of the groups mostly affected by pro-gay marriage legislation are lesbians of color raising children.

Elton John to Host "Saturday Night Live." Expect Gay Jokes. Probably Bad Ones - Lord, give me strength.

Video: Even AFA's General Counsel finds DOMA indefensible! - Trouble in American Family Association land?

The Family Research Council's deceptive use of social science to defend DOMA

With news coming out of Washington  from Speaker of the House John Boehner that Congress may take up the defense of DOMA and recent comments from the Family Research Council stating that they are in talks in helping with that possible defense, one has to ask will the propaganda and anti-gay points in yesterday's post and today's post be a part of that strategy.

On its Defend DOMA web page, the Family Research Council has another link, Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same Sex Marriage which supposedly speaks against gay marriage. While this piece isn't as guttural as Q&A What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry?, there still remains a number of misdirections.

In the piece, Family Research Council is basing the argument against gay marriage on the claim that "children need both a mother and a father."

FRC makes the claim that lesbians household "raising children without a father" is wrong because according to them:

Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls.

And gay households "raising children without a mother" is wrong because:

fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family.

However, very little (if any at all) of the literature/studies FRC cites to make these conclusions have anything to do with same-sex households.

When the organization does address the studies involving same-sex households, it throws out an insulting addendum:

A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are "no differences" between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems. Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who is agnostic on the issue of same-sex civil marriage, offered this review of the literature on gay parenting as an expert witness for a Canadian court considering legalization of same-sex civil marriage:

Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.

This is not exactly the kind of social scientific evidence you would want to launch a major family experiment.

There is a huge problem with FRC citing Nock's testimony. He gave it in 2001. Since that time, there have been numerous other studies , as well as personal stories from children in same-sex households which back up the conclusion that same-sex households are a perfectly fine place to raise children.

Also, Nock's testimony was rejected by other researchers. (*see below)

Christian foster parents will most likely be the new religious right cause celebre

Something happened today overseas which I know will play out in this country:

Mr and Mrs Johns said they could not tell a child homosexuality was an acceptable lifestyle.

Eunice and Owen Johns, 62 and 65, of Derby, said the city council did not want them to look after children because of their traditional views.

They claim they were "doomed not to be approved" due to their opinions.

The Pentecostal Christian couple had applied to Derby City Council to be respite carers.

They withdrew their application after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable.

At the High Court, they asked judges to rule that their faith should not be a bar to them becoming carers, and the law should protect their Christian values.

But Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation "should take precedence" over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.

They said that if children were placed with carers who objected to homosexuality and same-sex relationships, "there may well be a conflict with the local authority's duty to 'safeguard and promote the welfare' of looked-after children".

And while we know the religious right will be chomping at the bit over this (Lifesite News has already started), the situation to me is not as simple as folks will most likely make it.

While I have nothing against the couple, I do have a problem with their failure to acknowledge the plain possibility that one of the children they seek to foster may turn out to be an lgbt.

And then what will happen to that child in that environment?

This isn't a matter of the lgbt community trying to strong arm the law in our favor. It's a matter of a creating the best environment for a child to be nurtured.

 And  no matter how Christian and nurturing as the Johns family claims to be, the chance that an lgbt child may be placed in this unaccepting household is a chance that shouldn't be taken.

The words of Robert Pigott, BBC religious affairs correspondent, says it better than me:

The case is likely to be seen as a landmark decision, as senior judges ruled so decisively against any idea that attitudes might be justified purely because they were Christian in origin.

The court discriminated between kinds of Christianity, saying that Christians in general might well make good foster parents, while people with traditionalist Christian views like Mr and Mrs Johns might well not.

Such views, said the judges, might conflict with the welfare of children.

Will the House of Representative defend DOMA with FRC lies? and other Monday midday news briefs

To Block A Gay-Straight Alliance, Texas High School Shuts Down All Extracurricular Clubs - Just unbelievable how some people will stoop. Was all of this really necessary?

John Boehner: I'd Be Very Surprised If The House Doesn't Decide To Defend DOMA - Given what I said in my post this morning, one has to wonder if the House does defend DOMA, will it adopt the Family Research Council's propaganda against the lgbt community.

Black, Gay & Elderly - A VERY important documentary which should have a wider audience.

Right-Wing Commentator Calls Marriage Equality "An Act of Societal Suicide" - They just can't help themselves with their rhetoric.

Hey CBN: Why not ask Peter Sprigg about 'exporting' or criminalizing certain humans? - If Peter Sprigg wants to "debate" then why does he keep running away from the debate?

Family Research Council pulling the 'gay = promiscuous pedophiles' card to defend DOMA

Audacity is always rooted in what someone feels he or she can get away with.

In other words, if no one calls you out for lying then you are mostly likely going to do it again.

It's helpful to keep this in mind while perusing a Family Research Council's website directed solely at Defending DOMA.

One has to hand it to the organization for not letting a moment - in this case, the Justice Department saying that it will no longer defend DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) in court cases - go by without using it as an opportunity to  fund raise.

But in attacking the decision not to defend DOMA - and gay marriage in general - FRC uses the page to push incredibly ridiculous arguments having nothing to do with gay marriage.

And when it does attack gay marriage head in, the organization uses tactics which led to its being called out several times in the past (most recently by the Southern Poverty Law Center) for deliberately passing along awful anti-gay propaganda and distorting legitimate science to quantify this propaganda.

Two sections of the webpage (Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex 'Marriage, and Q&A What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry?) are rife with deception.

For today, let's look at Q&A: What's Wrong with Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry?

A following passage in this piece is a perfect example of the low road FRC has chosen to travel in order to defend DOMA:

Do homosexuals pose a threat to children?

Homosexual men are far more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexuals. The evidence for this lies in the findings that:

·  Almost all child sexual abuse is committed by men; and

·  Less than three percent of American men identify themselves as homosexual; yet

·  Nearly a third of all cases of child sexual abuse are homosexual in nature (that is, they involve men molesting boys). This is a rate of homosexual child abuse about ten times higher than one would expect based on the first two facts.

These figures are essentially undisputed. However, pro-homosexual activists seek to explain them away by claiming that men who molest boys are not usually homosexual in their adult sexual orientation. Yet a study of convicted child molesters, published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, found that "86 percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (W. D. Erickson, M.D., et al., in Archives of Sexual Behavior 17:1, 1988).

This does not mean that all, or even most, homosexual men are child molesters--but it does prove that homosexuality is a significant risk factor for this horrible crime.

That's right. FRC is pulling the homosexuality = pedophilia lie and distorting legitimate work prove this point.

Know Your LGBT History - Never Too Young To Die

Allow me to apologize in advance for this segment of Know Your LGBT History because I have a feeling that it will offend a lot of folks.

But today's clip is a good reason why I began these posts a while back. A lot of young folks know Glee, TransAmerica, Brokeback Mountain, and The Kids Are Alright. But many of them don't know the road that the lgbt community traveled to get positive portrayals of ourselves on television and in the movies. A lot of these young folks aren't aware of the controversy caused by that awful film Cruising in the early 80s or why The Killing of Sister George received an X rating when it came out in the 60s.

The lgbt community have fought very hard for our public dignity. And as recent incidents show (i.e. that awful SNL skit attacking the transgender community), we still have a long way to go. But still, it's a long way from where we were when the following came out:

Never Too Young To Die (1986) was a hideous movie with a terrible plot. All you need to know is that John Stamos is fighting to save the world from the evil mastermind who murdered his secret agent father.

And this criminal mastermind is Van Ragnar, an intersexed rock star-cum- showgirl out to poison the world's water supply.

Just awful. By the way, the female interest in this movie was played by former Prince protege Vanity (Denise Matthews). Matthews is now a Christian minister.

After a movie like this, I would have hands laid upon me too. The following clip features the "best" of Gene Simmons as Van Ragnar played to the song Ladies Room:



Past Know Your LGBT History Postings:

Why is Mike Huckabee declaring war on lgbt families?

Mike Huckabee has attacked lgbt families again. This is what he said recently on CNN:

"I believe that we're in denial about potential problems as we see more and more homosexual couples raising families. Essentially, these are experiments to see how well children will fare in such same-sex households. It will be years before we know whether or not our little guinea pigs turn out to be good at marriage and parenthood."

Personally, I think the only person dealing with denial problems is Huckabee. If he had any true questions regarding same-sex households, there are a plethora of studies out there which prove that same-sex households don't pose a danger to children.

But let's be honest there. Huckabee  has no interest in educating himself on same-sex households.

He just doesn't like same-sex households just as he has proven that he has a serious disdain for the lgbt community in general.  His comments are obviously carefully measured soundbites designed to bash same-sex households while simultaneously making himself sound like a reasonable person.

No matter how nice he tries to make them seem, they still add up to ignorant homophobia of the highest level (yes I know I am using an oxymoron but it best describes the depths that Huckabee stooped to in this attack). 

Huckabee comes across as a bully, not a presidential candidate.

And by the way, just in case you need to keep score, in the perfect world of Mike Huckabee, a same-sex household who takes in children, thereby giving them the love and support they need to get through life is wrong:

However, mingling with an anti-gay hate group who claim that lgbts are trying to sexualize children when we aren't pushing gay marriage to open the door for bestiality, that's right:

A bizarro world indeed.

SPLC puts Cliff Kincaid's homophobia on centerstage

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media

The Southern Poverty Law Center has given a "much deserved" spotlight to another purveyor of  homophobic propaganda - Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media (AIM).

In the newest issue of its Intelligence Report, SPLC documents Kincaid's history of lies:

 Cliff Kincaid is one of the American far right’s most energetic and obsessive propagandists. For more than 30 years at Accuracy in Media (AIM), a right-wing outfit opposed to the “liberal” media, Kincaid has cranked out reams of material — rife with innuendo and speculation but light on facts —aimed at buttressing his far-right, xenophobic and homophobic views.

Regarding the lgbt community, SPLC had this to say about Kincaid:

He has blamed gays for corrupting the military and making America more vulnerable to terrorism. He says the “pro-homosexual media” has created the false perception of “overwhelming public support” for repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. “Establishment journalists,” he has written, “are aligned with academia” (“sexual perverts masquerading as scholars”) in supporting transgendered individuals — “a cruel hoax to undermine the already shaky foundation of the traditional family.” He can’t contain his rage at the Republicans for not expelling gays from their ranks, titling a recent article, “Is the GOP becoming the Gay Old Party?” And he has been one of the staunchest defenders of a draconian proposed law in Uganda that would impose the death penalty on large numbers of gay men — a proposal so radical that even many hard-line U.S. anti-gay groups have felt constrained to denounce it. To Kincaid, the proposed law seems merely “designed to send a message to … the foreign homosexual lobby to keep their hands off Uganda’s families and kids.”

Kincaid has taken his anti-gay message on the road recently, participating in an August conference put on by the hard-edged Americans for Truth about Homosexuality where he promised to expose “gay influence on the media” and “the homosexual drive for the ‘right’ to donate possibly infected and contaminated blood to the nation’s blood supply.”

Believe it or not, there is worse stuff in the article regarding Kincaid's "crusade" against the lgbt community, including his bad attempt at smearing Obama appointee Kevin Jennings as a pedophile; a crusade which backfired in his face.

The article sounds like there may very well soon be a new addition to SPLC's list of anti-gay hate groups.

And based on Kincaid's past behavior, it would be a welcomed addition.

Related posts:

One News Now and Cliff Kincaid demonstrate homophobia, ability to lie

Family Research Council distorts British article in attack on gay soldier


Anti-gay 'Truth Academy' on deck for this week


Cliff Kincaid's International Gay-Bashing

Cliff Kincaid: Outcry against Ugandan bill a conspiracy to save Kevin Jennings


From 'Fistgate' to 'NAMBLA-gate' - The attacks on Kevin Jennings get stranger and stranger


Cliff Kincaid: Outcry against Ugandan bill a conspiracy to save Kevin Jennings

Right-wing site removes post calling Kevin Jennings a pedophile

Homophobic Paul Cameron enabler gets smack downed in debate

From Bilerico comes this awesome video.

Remember Patrick Roth? He guest posted his testimony in front of the Indiana House committee debating a marriage discrimination amendment. His testimony was so powerful that the local Fox station invited Patrick to face off against local religious right fundie Micah Clark of the American Family Association of Indiana. Patrick mops the floor with him. It is Teh Awesome.

Now before you watch the video, you need to know a little information on Micah Clark. In 2002, he bragged that during a hearing on domestic partnerships in Indianapolis, he not only cited the distorted data of Paul (gay men stuff gerbils of their rectums) Cameron, but sidestepped a councilmember who called him out for it:

“The author of the (domestic partner benefit) bill . . . tried to come at me for using a Paul Cameron study. I diverted that one pretty well by pointing out that I have spoken with Dr. Paul Cameron and her information was wrong. In any event, I said it was published in a well respected peer review journal and the research has not been disproved. I have been waiting for that one for years.” (Indianapolis Rejects Domestic Partner Benefits, Concerned Women for America, August 8, 2002)

 As the video shows, he doesn't do that well against someone - Patrick Roth - who has done his homework:

 

For some homophobes, it's all about sex and other Thursday midday news briefs

Video: Pat Robertson vs. 'their way of doing sex' - For Pat Robertson, it's all about gay sex.

Proposed bill may quiet conversation on homosexuality - speaking of which, it's just insane that some folks think that talking about same-sex households automatically equals talking about sexual intercourse.

Hawaii’s Governor Abercrombie signs civil unions bill - Good news from Hawaii.

Fighting Prop 8: Lawyers Ask Court To Lift Stay On Gay Marriage Ban - That would be nice.

Mike Huckabee uses DOMA decision to show contempt for the lgbt community

Possible presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (right) meeting with Brian Camenker of Mass Resistance at a right-wing conference in 2009. Mass Resistance was designated as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

As predicted, heads have figuratively exploded on the right over the decision by the Obama Administration to stop defending DOMA in the courts.

From the right, the reason is the usual nonsense about gay marriage assaulting the family.

But with possible presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, the whine not only fails to make sense but also further shows just how little he cares about the lgbt community:

Huckabee noted that 33 states have affirmed, via ballot initiatives, that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

"When the voters are so overwhelmingly [supportive of DOMA] what does the president believe he knows that citizens in all these other states don't," Huckabee said.

Perhaps Huckabee should pose that question to United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt because in 2009, he declared DOMA unconstitutional.

This crap about the "will of the people" is a dodge. Huckabee no doubt knows law and the history of this country. He is aware of the fact that majority rules means nothing if that majority can't defend their nonsense in court.

But Huckabee's nonsense gets better:

Nonetheless, Huckabee opposes gay marriage on the grounds that, according to him, it destroys traditional families.

"There is a quantified impact of broken families," Huckabee said. "[There is a] $300 billion dad deficit in America every year...that's the amount of money that we spend as taxpayers to pick up the pieces because dads are derelict in their duties."

Huckabee doesn't even bother the explain the connection between gay marriage and broken families. Where the hell is the connection?

With Huckabee, there doesn't need to be a connection. He is that certain breed of politician whom the right can always count on to verbally bash the lgbt community, even while he is claiming to "love us" at the same time he is spewing his venom.

Huckabee has in the past:

• aligned himself with Southern Poverty Law Center - identified hate group Mass Resistance whose leader Brian Camenker once made a claim in 2006 that "gays were trying to get legislation passed to allow sex with animals" in Massachusetts,

• attacked lgbt families by comparing them to people raising puppies,

• bent over backwards to assure Ann Coulter that he wasn't  "pro-gay" and "pro-sodomy."

And lest we forget, Huckabee's poor attempt at defending the Family Research Council last year when the Southern Poverty Law Center called them out for their homophobic rhetoric and propaganda.

If Huckabee gets anywhere near the White House, the lgbt community are going to have a hard time getting any progress. Hell, we may have to keep from going backwards.