Did author of anti-gay study collude with religious right groups?

Did Mark Regnerus collude with the religious right?

Those of us who have been saying for a while now that the Mark Regnerus study on gay parenting was bought and paid for by religious right groups now have a bit more proof of that charge thanks to an Advocate article.

The article points out that the study - in spite of the complaints about its fraudulence (over 200 professors and therapists complained about it) - has been cited in a federal court case defending DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).

And the time between when the study was published and when it was submitted in a brief should raise many eyebrows (emphasis added) :

Just one day after the results of a controversial parenting study were released to the public, the research was used — and misrepresented — in a federal court brief defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

The brief was filed by a conservative medical group at the urging of the Alliance Defending Freedom, an influential religious right legal organization. It illustrates the right’s strategy of using the new research — which was funded by two conservative organizations — in legal battles to preserve bans on gay marriage.

On June 10, the journal Social Science Research published the findings of University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus’ “New Family Structures Study,” which compared people raised in biologically intact two-parent families to people raised in families in which one of the parents had a same-sex romantic relationship at some point. Regnerus found that the children of parents who had a same-sex relationship fared poorly by comparison. Almost immediately, the study was criticized for using a “loaded classification system” to engage in an apples-to-oranges comparison.

The day after Regnerus’ study first appeared online, a conservative group called the American College of Pediatricians cited it in a “friend of the court” brief in Golinski v. United States Office of Personnel Management, one of the ongoing federal lawsuits challenging DOMA. The ACP’s use of the study was first reported on The New Civil Rights Movement website.

Unfortunately the article didn't go into detail regarding the American College of Pediatricians as it should have. But I have talked about this group several times and do not mind exposing them again.

The American College of Pediatricans is not a legitimate organization. It is a shell group designed to pass along anti-gay junk science as fact. In 2010, it attempted to pass along a junk science brochure in high school across America. The brochure, Facts About Youth, claimed to present "facts" supposedly not tainted by "political correctness."  Of course these were not facts, but ugly distortions about the gay community, including:

Some gay men sexualize human waste, including the medically dangerous practice of coprophilia, which means sexual contact with highly infectious fecal wastes.

Isn't it convenient that this group was able to get their hands on this study and submit it in a brief a day after it was published? Could there have been some collusion between Regnerus, the American College of Pediatricians, and the Alliance Defending Freedom?

It certainly seems that way.

I have written many posts like this one exposing religious right lies and for those familiar with these posts, this is the point where I generally make a plea to the mainstream medical organizations and the media to please do something to stop the ease in which religious right group are able to distort science for their own benefit.

I'm glad to report that this time I don't have to make that plea because prominent medical organizations have in fact called out ACP's brief and Regnerus' study in a brief of their own.

According to Think Progress:

The nation’s major mental health organizations have filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit case Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, arguing that the Defense of Marriage Act stigmatizes against gays and lesbians and should be overturned. The brief recounts the scientific evidence that explains the nature of sexual orientations, but also takes time to debunk Mark Regnerus’ flawed study that attempts to draw negative conclusions about gay parents. Proponents of DOMA have already used the paper to defend their arguments, but the medical professionals explain why it should be ignored.

These organizations include the American Psychological Association, the California Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers and its California chapter, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychoanalytic Association.

So that's one problem taken care of. But there is still the big question which needs to be asked of Regnerus continuously until he provides an answer.

Just how much did he collude with anti-gay and religious right organizations in the publishing of his study?

Why is NOM playing a sick game on American families?

NOM wants us to ignore families like this one.

A reader of this blog made an excellent point when it come to the National Organization for Marriage's passive-aggressive and phony "defense of traditional marriage:"

Whether same sex marriage is legal or not, same sex couples are going to continue to form families and raise children. So how is denying these couples the right to marry going to be advantageous for their children? How exactly are they being "protected" by not allowing their parents to marry? Do they think these couples will suddenly all go out and find an opposite sex partner if denied the right to marry otherwise?

I get that they feel having a mother and a father together is the ideal situation for raising a child, but again, how is denying same sex parents the right to marry going to help the children they already have or will have?

Basically it's simple. When NOM talk about "protecting marriage," it's an ugly smokescreen. What exactly is this organization protecting and from what? The way NOM tells it, same-sex households raising children are not deserving of the same rights as heterosexual households.

And if they get those rights, then heterosexual households will suffer. So the best thing we should do is to ignore same-sex households AND their children. Not because ignoring them will make them go away, but because in the eyes of NOM and folks like Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, and Frank Schubert, these families and their children are so inferior that they don't matter.

But acknowledging these families won't cause heterosexual families to suffer because the two entities are not at war nor in any type of competition with each other. NOM may think of reasons via anecdotes and distorted stories, but these reasons are highly specious.

Ignoring same-sex families on the other hand, which NOM and its employees want us to do, will harm not only them, but their children. By ignoring these families we will deprive them of their voice and the protection they should receive, like all families who provide love and support should receive.

This simple fact begs the question:

If NOM is successful at "saving traditional marriage," then who will be there to protect families from NOM?

'Majority of Mainers would vote for marriage equality' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

VIDEO: Maryland Equality Advocates Reach Out To Black Voters - Good move in their part: 



In other news:

POLL: 57 Percent Of Mainers Would Vote For Marriage Equality - Good news for now but remember this is BEFORE NOM's Frank Schubert pushes that "gay marriage will harm children" lie. Don't lose the momentum.

Fischer: Gays are Driven by a 'Dark, Venomous, Demonic Hatred' - I think we can all agree that Bryan Fischer is a couple of fries short of a Happy Meal.  

NOM, ActRight become *even more* extreme; meet Dr. Laurence White - Just in case you are wondering how low NOM can stoop . . .  

Priest in lesbian communion controversy no longer works with DC archdiocese - Sorry to sound so harsh but good riddance.

Religious right flips out over comic book gay wedding (again)

When it comes to religious right groups, you have to hammer a point to get folks to realize just how off base and ridiculous they are with their so-called attempts to defend "Christian values."

Or to show their strange obsession with attacking the lgbtq community. From The Huffington Post:

The Florida Family Association, a conservative organization that says it's "defending American values," has set its sights on Marvel Comics and its parent company, Disney, for featuring the same-sex wedding of two of its heroes in "Astonishing X-Men" #51, according to Comic Book Resources.

"It is shameful that two companies like Marvel and Disney would deliberately create a superhero homosexual wedding for our children to embrace," the group wrote on its website.

"Astonishing X-Men" #51, which was released in June, features the marriage of Jean-Paul Beaubier, also known as Northstar, to his longtime boyfriend, Kyle.

The Florida Family Association is just one of a few religious right groups raising hell over this comic book wedding. Last month, I wrote a post talking about how strange it is for these groups and individuals to decry a simple gay wedding while turning a blind eye towards violence in comic books.

Well let's try a visual demonstration.

To the religious right, the following picture is evil and deserves much criticism:

While for some reason, one hears nary a peep from them when it comes to scenes like the following:

Perhaps if Northstar had invited polar bears to his wedding maybe religious right groups wouldn't object so much?

Family Research Council pastor has no problem with lying on gay community

Peter Sprigg

It never ceases to amaze me how religious right groups and spokespeople continue to lie about certain incidents even after these lies have been refuted. Case in point:

EF12G17

The above document is from the Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg and it calls out the Obama Administration for supposedly "promoting the homosexual agenda."

Once you get rid of the semantic garbage code words (i.e. the phrase promoting the homosexual agenda), you see that the Obama Administration has done a lot of good things for lgbtq equality.

But then you have to get rid of the lies that Sprigg tells in this document. For example:

Appointment of a Homosexual Activist with Notorious Past: May 19, 2009 –
Kevin Jennings, notorious founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network(GLSEN), who once all but admitted that he covered up a case of child sexual abuse when working as a teacher -- to the Department of Education.

That claim is a straight up lie. Sprigg is talking how religious right organizations accused Obama appointee Kevin Jennings of covering up the alleged fact that one of his students had sex with an adult male.

'Maggie Gallagher called out for her many lies' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

An Open Letter To Maggie Gallagher - Pay attention those wanting to calling NOM's Maggie Gallagher out for her MANY lies. DO NOT attack her personally. THIS is how you do it. A sweet snippet:

When organizations that you have been key in guiding like the National Organization for Marriage plan to encourage children of gay parents to speak out against them, you hurt real families. When NOM planned to divide this country based on race, you hurt an even wider audience, opening wounds that are yet to heal and go back hundreds of years. Your words, however civil on their face, create fear, division, and distrust. When the affiliated Ruth Institute publishes snippets of essays by anti-gay folks like Michael Brown, and then link to stories hinting at gay men being pedophiles, you knowingly foment the prejudices of others far less "civil" than you. This is uncivil. This is monstrous.

You're like those sweet little ladies from Arsenic and Old Lace. So charming... and yet serving up poison in their tea. Their behavior was monstrous too.

 Does Gay Mean White? - This is a conversation our community needs to have.

 Catholic Church in Scotland Declares War on Marriage Equality - Not surprising.  

Pettiness Of Minnesota Marriage Inequality Amendment Evident In Dispute Over Its Title - Looks like the anti-marriage equality forces in Minnesota are having problems. 

NOM strategist harming same-sex families through his willful ignorance

Editor's note - It's a rare two post morning. After reading this piece, feel free to scan down and read how NOM is falsely claiming that support of marriage equality is costing Obama a victory in North Carolina. It's a lie, of course.

Schubert

So many of my lgbtq brothers and sisters have focused their anger towards Maggie Gallagher because of NOM's attack on marriage equality.

However, an article in the San Francisco Chronicle shows that perhaps we have been missing a key person in the attack on marriage equality. The Chronicle focuses on Frank Schubert, NOM's strategist in attempts to hinder marriage equality.

It's an interesting profile:

To supporters of same-sex marriage, Frank Schubert's name inspires a chill.

Few political consultants are as personally associated with their advocacies as Schubert, 56. The nationally lauded Sacramento strategist masterminded California's Proposition 8 and is guiding every similar ballot campaign to ban same-sex marriage, including measures before voters this fall in Washington, Maine, Minnesota and Maryland.

To Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which supports marriage as between a man and woman, Schubert "gives people hope that they're not alone." But to the gay blog Queerty.com, Schubert is a "marriage rights rapist."

Schubert is feared not only because he wins - voters have defeated same-sex marriage measures 32 times, including some campaigns led by him - but because he is able to seed doubt in swing voters with ads that show how legalizing same-sex marriage would affect children. Even if, as a former co-worker said, some ads contain "hyperbole."

In the article, Schubert paints himself as a devout Catholic who has made it his mission to supposedly preserve marriage:

Since voters approved Prop. 8 in 2008, Schubert has gone through a spiritual awakening that merged his personal and professional life. Defending traditional marriage isn't just a day job anymore; now he considers it a spiritual calling. Before Prop. 8, Schubert acknowledged that he "didn't spend five minutes thinking about marriage - not in a deep way."

In the months afterward, he began "really reflecting what I had been through. Was this an accident? That here I am, a political consultant who happens to believe in the cause, on the scene at the very moment that this debate is occurring."

But there is a sad contradiction to this man's nonsense.

NOM falsely claiming that Obama is losing because of marriage equality

The National Organization for Marriage is attempting to create a nonsensical meme that Mitt Romney is leading President Obama in North Carolina due to Obama's support of marriage equality:

Ben Knotts of the Examiner asks that question:

A current poll from Real Clear Politics has the presumed GOP nominee, Mitt Romney, consistently leading PresidentObama in the fall election, since May 15th, 2012.

Prior to May 15th, polls showed President Obama continually leading his GOP opponent in North Carolina., but since that day, Mitt Romney - the former Governor of Massachusetts - has not failed to carry the support of the state.

What caused the shift in numbers? The issue of same-sex marriage provides a reasonable explanation.

On May 8th, North Carolina voters banned same-sex marriage by amending their state constitution to only recognize marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

On May 9th, President Obama endorses same-sex marriage - putting himself at odds with North Carolina voters on the controversial issue.

On May 12th, Governor Romney addressed social-conservatives at Liberty University declaring that marriage is only between one man and one woman - putting himself in agreement with North Carolina voters on the issue.

By May 15th, Obama's lead has shifted to Romney, and Romney has held the lead consistently ever since.

It sounds like a good point, doesn't it? Think again. As a comment on NOM's blog points out:

Be mindful of the messenger. Real Clear Politics is a conservative and Christian and polling company. Their recent poll shows a two point lead which in statistical terms means a tie. You will notice that while NOM breathlessly reports Romney "consistently leading Obama" they never actually disclose the lead numbers:

RCP Average 6/7 - 7/1: Romney 47.3 Obama 45.3 Romney +2.0

Furthermore, this is the bio of Knotts, the man who wrote the piece:

Rev. Ben Knotts (M.Div., M.A.R., B.A.) is an alumni of Liberty University. He is a well-recognized communicator, pastor, reporter, commentator, and mentor. 

So basically NOM is citing a biased, anti-Obama source who has no proof of his claims except for a poll for which he holds back facts which destroys his premise.

Not surprising at all, is it?

Focus on the Family displays its ignorance and false 'religious entitlement'

This video by Focus on the Family (which by the way does not allow you to rate it or leave comments) is bad, but it makes several points as to problem of some people who think that their religion absolves them from accepting the rules which the rest of us have to abide by:




As inane as this video is, it underscores the audacity and entitlement that some feel that their religion should grant them.

If you own a secular business, you should have to abide by the same rules that others who own secular businesses should.

And if your church owns a business which rents out events which may not necessarily be religious in nature, then you should abide by the same rules that other rental properties should, specifically if you are receiving tax breaks on said property. 

If not, where does one draw the line with this? I know of churches who own rental properties where people live. Is is right for the church to deny someone the right to rent their property if said person is lgbtq or a part of another religion?

And I won't even talk about the little blip about public schools.

It's truly sad when some folks' religious beliefs blind them to the simple fact that they are not the only people existing in this world.


Hat tip to Right Wing Watch

'Supposed ex-gay pens awful letter to gay youth' and other Monday midday news briefs

One of the most reprehensible 'advice' columns you'll ever read. For shame, Matt Moore - This is an awful lie to tell a gay child. If I had read this when I was young, I hate to think what I would have done to myself. And I am not saying that simply for shock value.


Hate Group Leader Bradlee Dean Ordered To Pay Rachel Maddow's Defense Fees - This just in. Looks like somebody got smacked down in his lawsuit.

Arizona Governor Asks Supreme Court To Strip Same-Sex Domestic Partner Benefits - To what purpose would it serve to be so nasty to same-sex families.

Lou Engle Dreams Of 100,000 Ex-Gays And Ex-Lesbians Curing AIDS - There is a reason why I never talked that much about Lou Engle. Religious right liars is one thing. Religious right crazies is something entirely different.

“Ex-Gay” Leaders Resentful Of, Threatened By Alan Chambers’ Honesty - The 'ex-gay' industry is having serious problems right now. Good.

Catholic Church has no room to attack same-sex parenting

Bishop Cordileone

In spite of the myriad of problems with the Regenerus study on gay parenting (over 200 professors and therapists have complained about its errors), the National Organization for Marriage and members of the Catholic Church are busy pushing it to defame marriage equality and same-sex families:

The legalization of “gay marriage” in America, even on a civil level, is unjust to children and poses a threat to religious liberty, warned Bishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of Oakland, Calif.

“Marriage is the only institution we have that connects children to their mothers and fathers,” he said. “So really, the question is, do you support that institution?”

In a June interview with CNA, Bishop Cordileone, who leads the U.S. bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, explained that Church teaching against the redefinition of marriage on a civil level as well as a sacramental level is a matter of justice.

“Marriage is about fundamental justice for children,” he said. “Children do best with a mother and a father.”

... Based on sound social science, this [New Family Structures] study complements common sense and “demonstrates what we’ve always known,” Bishop Cordileone said. “Children do best with a mother and a father.”

The bishop explained that this issue is of crucial importance because “we cannot have two different definitions of marriage simultaneously in the country.”

“Only one definition of marriage can stand,” he said. “This is not expanding the right of marriage. It’s changing the definition, or taking away something is essential to marriage – that it’s the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of the binding of the two and the procreation and education of the next generation of offspring.”

I know what you are thinking. Based upon the problems the Catholic Church has been having with pedophile priests, it is the height of hypocrisy for the bishop to attack same-sex families.

Recently, it was alleged that Cardinal Timothy Dolan (who has been very outspoken against marriage equality) paid suspected pedophile priests to leave the church while he was head of Diocese of Milwaukee.

And even more recent than that, Monsignor William Lynn was found guilty on one count of endangering the welfare of a child because he allegedly covered up a case of abuse.

With all due respect because I am not attempting to disrespect anyone of the Catholic faith, if we compared the two entities, just who has less credibility when it the harming of children:

An entity pushing a bad study while it's not covering up the activities of priests exploiting children as sex objects

OR

Same-sex couples, many who open their homes to children who need love and support:

Let me repeat that I am not trying to disrespect anyone's faith, but I simply don't think it's right for the Catholic Church to accuse same-sex parents of harming children when it has many skeletons in its closet when it comes to pedophiles in the priesthood.

Know Your LGBT History - New York passes marriage equality law

A little over a year go, New York passed a bill allowing gay couples to marry. It was a long fight and the victory was well earned by those fighting for it:



So why am I posting this? Because it is a historical moment in gay history and also, just a few hours ago, this happened:

A state appeals court rejected a challenge to New York's year-old same-sex marriage law Friday, ruling closed-door negotiations among senators and gay marriage supporters, including Gov. Andrew Cuomo, did not violate any laws.

The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court in Rochester ruled against gay marriage opponents who argued that Republican state senators violated New York's open meeting rules ahead of the law's passage last year.

The marriage law was given final legislative approval by the state Senate after weeks of intensive lobbying and swiftly signed by Cuomo, making New York the largest state to legalize same-sex weddings. Same-sex couples began marrying by the hundreds on July 24, 2011, the day the law became official.

"The court's decision affirms that in our state, there is marriage equality for all, and with this decision New York continues to stand as a progressive leader for the nation," Cuomo said after the court's ruling.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, whose office argued for the state, called the decision "a great victory for marriage equality."

New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms said Cuomo and another gay marriage supporter, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, met behind closed doors with the Senate's Republican majority in violation of the open meeting law.

The appeals court heard the case after acting state Supreme Court Judge Robert Wiggins in Livingston County ruled in November that he didn't have enough facts to rule on whether the open meetings law was violated. Wiggins dismissed other grounds for the legal challenge brought by the group.

New York's open meeting law requires public access to the deliberations of legislative bodies, but Schneiderman argued that the Republican caucus with invited guests was exempt, even if the guests aren't in the same party. In a 5-0 ruling, the court agreed.

BOOM! A frivolous lawsuit bites the dust and gay couples enjoy another victory lap!

Past Know Your LGBT History posts:

'Religious right head - Anderson Cooper coming out might make her listeners vomit' and other Friday midday news briefs

Janet Mefferd Warns Listeners They Might Vomit from Story about Anderson Cooper Coming Out - And that's not the most infuriating part of this story. Read what she says about what she does when her child tells her that he/she has a stomach ache. I would NEVER say that to my child.  It just illustrates the point that some folks who call themselves Christian are anything but.
  
Push to Ban Gay Marriage Flagging in Iowa - Let me tell NOM, PLEASE!
  
  Why Frank Ocean's Coming Out is More Significant than Anderson Cooper's - An excellent piece by my online buddy Rod McCullom (yes I am name dropping)  

Maggie tells us 'not this, not now' as if we're spoiled teenagers seeking a later curfew - Maggie Gallagher has to be on "that stuff" if she thinks we will let her determine when we should seek our rights.

 Essex: Head praises ‘greatly loved’ trans teacher - A story like this proves that religious right lies don't always win the day. 

NOM keeps pushing phony victim Damien Goddard

On NOM's blog is the following:

if you have a chance, take a look at this video of NOM's Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance spokesman Damian Goddard speaking about his "re-conversion" to faith, and his decision to stand up for marriage. He's paid a bigger price for it than most of us will ever be able to equal:

That's the story. Now here is the reality of the incident in question:

Rogers Sportsnet fired Damian Goddard as an on-air host last month following his tweets on a debate sparked by New York Rangers forward Sean Avery's support of same-sex marriage.

Goddard tweeted in support of hockey agent Todd Reynolds, who used Twitter to voice his opposition to Avery's position.

Dave Rashford, Sportsnet's director of communications, said Goddard was fired because "it had become clear that he is not the right fit for our organization."

Labour lawyer William Gale calls Goddard's firing a "clear violation" of his freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Gale says it gives the impression that Goddard's Catholic beliefs are grounds for dismissal and sets a dangerous precedent for all Canadians.

"I completely and whole-heartedly support Todd Reynolds and his support for the traditional and true meaning of marriage," Goddard, a lifelong Roman Catholic, tweeted from his personal Twitter account on May 10.

. . . Rashford said Goddard is aware of the "well documented" reasons why he was terminated by Sportsnet.

"Out of respect for our employees we do not discuss personnel issues in the press," Rashford said Thursday in an email. "We will, however, bring forward the facts during any proceeding initiated by Mr. Goddard."

I personally would love to hear about those other reasons. It appears that Goddard may be another phony victim that NOM is pushing as a part of its failed Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance. NOM started the endeavor to show how marriage equality would supposedly cause some Christians to be discriminated against. But so far, the majority of examples NOM pushed has backfired on the organization:

According to Equality Matters:

 . . . out of NOM’s nine Marriage ADA stories, three weren’t about marriage, three were from a different country, and zero demonstrated an instance of actual “defamation.”

Equality Matters documented all Marriage ADA stories and regarding Goddard, it said the following:

 . . . the decision to fire Goddard was made long before his tweet. Goddard himself admitted that it was “absolutely” possible that his tweet had nothing to do with his termination. Moreover, Goddard’s entire ordeal took place in Canada, which has significantly tougher standards against anti-gay speech than the U.S.

And that's the truth of the matter, not that NOM cares. The organization has never let truth get in the way of a good story.

Do the religious right care about same-sex parents and their children?

The following story has a happy ending, but I am still angered by it.

 From Think Progress:

Same-sex couples Will Trinkle and Juan Granados had purchased a family membership to the Roanoke Athletic Club so they could take their 2-year-old son to its outdoor pool. Less than two weeks later, their membership was revoked because, the club claimed, they were not a “family” under Virginia law. A viral Change.org petition and lawsuit from the couple received national attention, and now the club is changing its ways, announcing today on Facebook that it was changing its policy from a  “Family Membership” to a “Household Membership”:

In keeping with this goal, and in recognition of the many contemporary households that can benefit from our facilities through discounted membership fees, we are pleased to announce that we have expanded our Family Membership into a new Household Membership with the following criteria:
A household consists of a primary member and up to one additional household member that permanently lives in the household, and any of their dependent children under the age of 22 who also reside in the household on a permanent basis.

All I can say is thank God that child was two-years-old, so he probably won't remember this.

But what if he was of an age where he could understand what transpired? What if he could understand that some people don't think of his family as equal?

It gets me angry to think about it and it should get you angry too. Because you see, when organizations like the  National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research Council and people like Maggie Gallagher and Tony Perkins whine about "the rights of parents" and "family values," they seem to always omit the simple fact that same-sex families exist.

And it's not by accident. On NOM's blog is this tripe about children supposedly being forced to learn about marriage equality in Great Britain:

Schools could be required to teach children about gay marriage, Government documents seen by the Daily Mail reveal.

Officials at the Home Office and the Department for Education concede that teachers may be under a legal obligation to inform children about same-sex marriage once it has passed into law.

Under the Education Act 1996, pupils must learn about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life in sex education classes.

Critics said the documents, released under freedom of information laws, demonstrate that plans to introduce civil marriage ceremonies for gay couples in addition to existing civil partnerships, could have far-reaching and unintended consequences.

The article sounds so alarming that some folks may be fearful to ask what's wrong with children learning about marriage equality? If children in same-sex households attend public schools - which they do - then odds are their fellow classmates already know about these homes.

So learning the fact that same-sex couples can marry wouldn't "force" school children to learn something they already know about.

But what bothers me is the message stuff like this sends to children in same-sex households. That's a subject that Maggie and company conveniently (and deliberately) never want to talk about.

However, I think our community owes it to these households and these children to force the issue. Otherwise there will be incidents like what happened in Roanoke but this time it will involve children old enough to notice that some people don't like their families.

And I cringe to think what it could do to their self-esteem.

'Religious right's war on California's gay youth' and other Thursday midday news briefs

What a despicable image. And it's a part of an awful lie on the part of religious right groups:

Save California: Bill Limiting Ex-Gay Therapy is 'Locking Children into Homosexual Bondage' - A California religious right group claims that limiting fraudulent ex-gay therapy will expose children to danger.

Anti-gay groups peddling discredited information, bearing false witness - And this post contains the false information they are using.

 Focus On The Family Objects To California Bill That Would Train Foster Parents On LGBT Youth - Meanwhile, in the SAME state, they are objecting to a bill which would help train foster parents on the needs of lgbt youth. So if these children are rendered "invisible," the easier it is to hook them in "ex-gay" therapy. I'm not saying that it's a deliberate plan but we know how these things always turn out.

In other news:
  
 Chaplains Aren’t Leaving Military Over DADT Repeal - Oh let me tell the religious right! Please!
  
Go the Way Your Blood Beats: Frank Ocean Frees Himself and Others - R&B singer Frank Ocean comes out. I was just telling myself that some black folks need to get into the mix of all of these folks coming out. Mr. Ocean is the first but I would like to see some others. 
  
Connor Ferguson, Transgender Prom Queen, Takes The Crown In Trenton - And we have another hero. You can't have too many of those. 

No one is buying NOM's fake 'neutrality push'

As many of you already know, the National Organization for Marriage is pushing a boycott of General Mills and Starbucks because of these two company's support of marriage equality and gay rights in general.

NOM claims that companies should be "neutral" in the area of gay rights, i.e. not taking one side or the other.

So imagine everyone's surprise - or rather non-surprise - when NOM wraps its arms around another coffee company because its refusal to "remain neutral."

At www.DumpStarbucks.com you can enter your city or zip code and come up with local coffee shop alternatives to Starbucks. However, most of us do not purchase every cup of coffee while we are out around town. This week we are proud to roll out Jitters and Bliss Coffee as a provider of excellent coffee that can be brewed with a clean conscience any time you want at home, at the office or at your church.

. . . During the month of July Jitters and Bliss is offering a 5% discount to every customer who enters the promotional code "marriage". A small portion of each purchase made also goes to support the National Organization for Marriage as we work to educate people and corporations on the importance of marriage to our society.

. . . Let me be clear. Jitters and Bliss has not, as a corporation, taken a position in the debate over marriage. Just like every company, they have customers, employees, and vendors who hold personal views on what marriage ought to be. They are committed to honoring those views by maintaining a neutral corporate position on marriage.

So, according to NOM, Jitters and Bliss is remaining neutral in the debate over marriage equality while at the same time agreeing to donate a portion of proceeds from its discount to NOM's coffers.

I gotta tell you that while I am not buying the doublespeak here, I admire NOM's chutzpah in its attempt of actually trying to get away with it.

And I am not the only one who isn't falling for the doublespeak. In a surprising degree of candor, comments on NOM's blog are also voicing problems with NOM's hypocrisy over "remaining neutral."  I say it's surprising because NOM usually has strict control over the comments section, making sure to block negative comments while allowing pro-NOM comments from what seems to be the same cadre of individuals.

That's not the case here:

Offering a discount to NOM supporters and donating a portion of profits to NOM is hardly remaining neutral.I respect the right of Jitters and Bliss to give money to whatever cause they want, but let's keep in mind that they are not staying neutral; they are indeed picking a side.

From this blog June 14, 2012:
"[T]he Target Corporation is donating $120,000 to same-sex marriage advocates who are official participants in the campaign, is saying that the debate will be bad for the Minnesota business community, and still has the nerve to say they are not taking a position on the marriage amendment itself."—Jonathan Baker, Director of the Corporate Fairness Project, NOM—

Seems to me that in this instance it equally true that:
""[T]he Jitters and Bliss Corporation is donating X dollars to same-sex marriage opponents at NOM, who are official participants in the campaign, and still has the nerve to say they are not taking a position on the marriage amendment itself."

I see the NOMers suddenly have no words. NOM is soley based on bigotry and hypocracy.

Cue the ant-gay protests. Another mainstream company has hired an openly gay celebrity as a spokesperson.Procter & Gamble announced Monday that comedian and actress Wanda Sykes ("The New Adventures of Old Christine") has become its "Gain Scent Matchmaker" to promote Gain detergents. The interactive YouTube spot features Sykes helping visitors to choose their scent among such options as Apple Mango Tango, Icy Fresh Fizz and Butterfly Kiss. Sykes was already doing voiceover work for Gain. “Gain understands, like me, that it’s all about finding the things that make us happy, like scent, and having a little fun,” Sykes said in a press release. Sykes, who came out as a lesbian in 2008 and whose wife gave birth to twins in 2009, is the latest high-profile gay pitchwoman to back a mainstream company.

How exactly is it "respecting all customers" to be donating to an organization that is dedicated to denying some people full equality under the law? I mean, we can agree to disagree, but Jitters and Bliss is clearly NOT, as NOM would like, "remaining neutral." They have picked a side. So, no way are they "respecting all" customers.

So... how is that whole "remain neutral" thing going, Brian? Remaining neutral means remaining neutral: not offering discounts and donating 5% of profits to the National Organization for Marriage. Hypocrisy.

Isn't providing a 5% discount to those, who wish to have a portion of their purchase sent to NOM, really in effect a 5% surcharge on those, who do not wish to fund anti-gay discrimination with their coffee purchase? Also, NOM and it's minions pitched a fit last month when Target chose to sell pride t-shirts and donate the proceeds from the sale of that item only to a pro-equality group. I don't recall you objecting to NOM's actions then with the argument that Target customers not wanting to support equal treatment of their LGBT fellow citizens could simply chose not to purchase pride t-shirts. So you've merely provided us with yet of further example of situational ethics, without which NOMies would be completely bereft of any ethics what so ever.

Wayne Besen battles the 'gay exorcist' on the David Pakman show

On a recent episode of the David Pakman show, Former Navy Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt and Wayne Besen, Executive Director of Truth Wins Out debate "ex-gay therapy" and exorcisms.

Did I say debate? I meant slaughter. However, notice at the end of the debate how Klingenschmitt cites Mark Regnerus' recent anti-gay study:

'NOM's neutrality demand is a lie' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Bill Gates, Microsoft Founder, Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO, Each Donate $100,000 For Marriage Equality - Okay NOM, will you boycott Microsoft? Come on. I dare you. 

When you seek out NOM, you forfeit neutrality - Hypocrisy define - NOM demands that companies supporting marriage equality stay neutral, but embraces companies which supports NOM's madness.

The 11 Most Pro-Gay U.S. Representatives - I talk a lot about those who are anti-gay. Let's spotlight those who are pro-gay. 

Are Gay Black Men the 'Mammies' of Reality Television? - A good question and article.


Anderson Cooper’s Coming Out Reminds How Society Still Confuses ‘Sexuality’ With ‘Sex Life’ - So when you are open about being gay, folks still think you will be talking about your alleged sex acts. Welcome to our world, Anderson ;p

 

Group trying to dictate idea of civil rights to President Obama

President Obama

I read an absolutely ridiculous article this morning on the American Family Association's One News Now webpage.

I know what you are thinking and I agree. That webpage is always pushing ridiculously stupid, one-sided tripe. But this article is especially annoying. The title alone should tell you why:


Pastors: Obama doesn't understand 'civil rights'

And it gets more interesting:

The Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP) is demanding a meeting with President Barack Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder to discuss the president's endorsement of homosexual "marriage."

The CAAP is headed by Rev. William Owens, who says the majority of African Americans are on the opposite end of the agenda and "feel betrayed by the president"

"We have written him and asked him to reverse his position, and we're going to stay on it until we get some kind of answer," he asserts. "We're asking the African-American community to withhold their support until further notice."

Owens had a direct role in the civil rights movement that gained equality for African Americans, so he knows the difference.

"[Obama] wants to call [homosexual marriage] a civil right, so he undoubtedly doesn't understand the difference in the 'gay' and lesbian community and the African Americans who fought for civil rights, who put their lives on the line," the coalition leader offers. "To equate them is absolutely wrong, and it's like he has turned his back on the African-American community."

I think I speak for the vast majority of the black community when I ask what the heck is the The Coalition of African American Pastors.

From what I have read and have heard about this group, it seems to have been in the media recently as a counter group against marriage equality. In May, it came out with a statement saying that it does not agree with the NAACP's support of marriage equality (the statement was naturally highlighted by the right-wing publication The Daily Caller).

Since that time, the group has been constantly threatening to not support President Obama during the upcoming November election

Of course that would be very weird to me because I don't remember this group giving him support when he won in 2008.

With all due respect to Owens and the Coalition of African American Pastors, it sounds like this organization isn't on level. 

What it sounds like is someone else in the religious right decided to use the National Organization for Marriage's race wedge strategy and a certain person (I won't name names) decide to play the game with his hand out.

Owens has absolutely no idea what he is talking about when he claims that the black community feels betrayed by President Obama's support of marriage equality. Some articles have said that the black church has felt conflicted by President Obama's support of marriage equality. 

Others have noted an increase in support for marriage equality in the black community since Obama's announcement.

But nowhere have I ever read that the majority of black folks have voiced a feeling of betrayal.

Also, I take a bit of offense to the passage -  Owens had a direct role in the civil rights movement that gained equality for African Americans, so he knows the difference.

I sincerely doubt this is true and if I am wrong, Mr. Owens can correct me by pointing out his direct role. Was it more direct than the role of Bayard Rustin, Dr. King's  aide who coordinated the 1963 March on Washington?  Rustin was a black man who put his life on the line for civil rights and he was openly gay.

But I don't mean to preach. The article did provide me with a few laughs, particularly this statement by Owens:

"We're asking the African-American community to withhold their support until further notice."

Yeah right.

If Owens thinks that the black community is so monolithic and one-issue oriented that we will withhold our support from President Obama due to his support of marriage equality while ignoring other issues such as education and healthcare (i.e. Obamacare) then he is sadly mistaken.

And his presumptions only prove that Owens and his Coalition of African American Pastors are less concerned about the needs of the black community and more concerned with their own notoriety and press.

The religious right has an 'Erica Kane' complex

From Right-Wing Watch comes a yet another "oh Lawdy, Lawd! America is in the greatest trouble we have ever seen!" video from the religious right:




How many times have we seen religious right figures sound the alarm about yet another supposed moral calamity facing this country?

It would seem that America has had more close calls with disaster than Erica Kane from the soap opera All My Children.

My question will how long will it take before someone starts to ask just how many supposed calamities can one country face? According to the religious right, America has been at death's door so many times that we have worn out the welcome mat.

Either this country has problems or certain entities are making their name and money off of scaring folks.

I tend to think it's more of column B than column A.

'Anderson Cooper comes out, anti-gay study to be investigated' and other Monday midday news briefs

Anderson Cooper Comes Out To Andrew Sullivan! You're Welcome - Not one for the celebrity thing, but this is a HUGE deal.  

University Of Texas To Investigate Flawed Parenting Study - And while eclipsed by Anderson Cooper coming out, this is ANOTHER HUGE DEAL. 

 Related post -Anti-gay study another chapter in history of religious right distortions
 

BREAKING: Boehner appeals DOMA cases to Supreme Court - I'm personally all for this.

 Facebook stick figures catch up with wedded reality - And now, Facebook is getting with the times.

Anti-gay study another chapter in history of religious right distortions

Regnerus

In what should be front page news on a vast majority of lgbtq publications and blogs, as well as mainstream publications (but for some reason isn't), over 200 professors and therapists took the unusual step of calling out a recently published study by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas which challenges the notion that gay parenting is equal to heterosexual parenting.

The letter (seen here) signed by these professors and therapists called into question the study's credibility due to it's funding, poor methodology, and suspiciously short process it took Social Science Research (where the study was published) to review it prior to publication.

At the heart of the letter is the suspicion that from day one, this study was bought, paid for, and pushed by individuals who seek to not only curtail marriage equality, but gay equality in general under the guise of scientific legitimacy.

This controversy, which has been brewing since the study was announced in early June, is far from over. But for those interested in such things, it shines a light on what I have repeatedly called an overlooked  scandal in the fight over gay equality.

Over a number of years, there has been a tendency on the part of religious right and supposedly pro-family groups to either distort legitimate science in their pursuit of hindering gay rights.

There have been a number of researchers and professors who have had to openly complain as to how these supposedly Christian groups and their spokespeople distort their work in order to demonize the lgbtq community and prove a false theory that homosexuality is a "dangerous lifestyle."

They include:

National Institute of Health director Francis Collins, who rebuked the right-wing American College of Pediatricians for falsely claiming that he stated sexual orientation is not hardwired by DNA.

Six researchers of a 1997 Canadian study (Robert S. Hogg, Stefan A. Strathdee, Kevin J.P. Craib, Michael V. Shaughnessy, Julio Montaner, and Martin T. Schehter), who complained in 2001 that religious right groups were distorting their work to claim that gay men have a short life span.

The authors of the book Unequal Opportunity: Health Disparities Affecting Gay and Bisexual Men in the United States (Professors Richard J. Wolitski, Ron Stall, and Ronald O. Valdiserri), who complained that their work was being distorted by Focus on the Family.

University College London professor Michael King, who complained that the American Family Association was distorting his work on depression and suicide in LGBT individuals

University of Utah professor Lisa Diamond, who complained that NARTH (the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality), a group which also share board members with the American College of Pediatricians, distorted her research on sexual orientation.

Dr. Carol Gilligan, Professor of Education and Law at New York University, who complained that former Focus on the Family head James Dobson misrepresented her research to attack lgbtq families.

Dr. Kyle Pruett, Ph.D., a professor of child psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine, who has also complained that Focus on the Family distorted his work.

Dr. Robert Spitzer, Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, who has consistently complained that religious right groups distorted his study to claim that the LGBT orientation is easily changeable. Earlier this year, Spitzer not only retracted his study but apologized for conducting it.

 Judith Stacey, Professor of Sociology at New York University, who has had to, on more than one occasion, cry foul over how religious right groups distorted her work on lgbtq families.

Greg Remafedi, Professor  at the University of Minnesota, who has complained several times about how religious right groups such as the American College of Pediatricians and PFOX have distorted his work, all to no avail. The American College of Pediatricians refused his request to remove his work from their site.

In 2010, John Horgan, a science journalist and Director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, became yet another professor to complain about how religious right groups were distorting his work.

Earlier this year, Seton Hall professor Dr. Theodora Sirota complained that Rick Fitzgibbons of NARTH (the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) misused her work to make the case that children in same sex households are not raised better than children "in stable homes with a mother and a father."

In addition, there have been other cases in which religious right groups and their spokespeople have freely played the "sin of omission," i.e. citing a study to criticize the gay community while either omitting the fact that the study had nothing to do with the gay community or deliberately omitting details in said study which destroys their theory that "negative behaviors" such as drug and alcohol abuse are indicative of the gay community instead of the result of the homophobia thrown at the gay community.

Over 200 professors, therapists condemn anti-gay parenting study

Editor's Note - Today's edition of Know Your LGBT History has been put on hold because of some explosive news:

From Think Progress:

Regnerus

Mark Regnerus’ flawed paper on gay parenting has won the acclaim of hate groups and ex-gay therapists and its publication seems to have been politically calculated with marriage equality opponents like the National Organization for Marriage. A group of 18 anti-gay religiously-biased professors defended the paper, but now, a group of over 200 professors and therapists have written a “bombshell letter” critiquing its methods and publication.

Among the concerns are how quickly it was published, the validity of its peer review, and the merits of its methodology and conclusions:

We are very concerned about the academic integrity of the peer review process for this paper as well as its intellectual merit. We question the decision of Social Science Research to publish the paper, and particularly, to publish it without an extensive, rigorous peer review process and commentary from scholars with explicit expertise on LGBT family research. The methodologies used in this paper and the interpretation of the findings are inappropriate.
The publication of this paper and the accompanying commentary calls the editorial process at Social Science Research, a well-regarded, highly cited social science journal (ranking in the top 15% of Sociology journals by ISI), into serious question. We urge you to publicly disclose the reasons for both the expedited peer review process of this clearly controversial paper and the choice of commentators invited to submit critiques. We further request that you invite scholars with specific expertise in LGBT parenting issues to submit a detailed critique of the paper and accompanying commentaries for publication in the next issue of the journal.

Read the full letter for more detail about the professors’ concerns.

The data in this study clearly lacks the integrity to actually impact mainstream psychological thinking on the question of same-sex parenting, as exemplified by this letter and the American Psychological Association’s rebuke of the study. Whether its publication was politically intentional is irrelevant to the fact that the only purpose it serves is to add to the stack of invalid studies the anti-gay movement cites to defend its anti-equality actions.

The letter also raises another question regarding Regnerus' study - the length of the review process before it was published  and who was chosen to review it:

We question the process by which this paper was submitted, reviewed, and accepted for publication. The paper was received by the journal on February 1, 2012. A revision was received on February 29, and the paper was accepted on March 12. This suggests that the peer review process and substantive revisions occurred within a period of just five weeks. According to the peer review policy of the Social Science Research website hosted by Elsevier, the first step of the review process is an initial manuscript evaluation by the editor. Once deemed to meet minimum criteria, at least 2 experts are secured for a peer review. The website states that, “Typically manuscripts are reviewed within 2-3 months of submission but substantially longer review times are not uncommon” and that “Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the initial referees upon receipt.” Clearly, Dr. Regnerus’ paper was returned to him very quickly, because he had time to revise the manuscript and get it back to the journal by February 29th. Further, it appears that a second substantive peer review may not have occurred as the paper was accepted just two weeks after the revision was submitted.

The five-week submission to acceptance length was much shorter than all of the other articles published in the July 2012 issue. The average period of review for papers published in this issue was more than a year and the median review time was more than ten months. As we note below, there are substantial concerns about the merits of this paper, and these concerns should have been identified through a thorough and rigorous peer review process.

We further question the selection of commenters for the Regnerus paper. While Cynthia Osborne and Paul Amato are certainly well-respected scholars, they are also both active participants in the Regnerus study. According to her curriculum vitae, Dr. Osborne is a Co-Principal Investigator of the New Family Structure Survey. Dr. Amato served as a paid consultant on the advisory group convened to provide insights into study design and methods. Perhaps more importantly, neither Osborne nor Amato have ever published work that considers LGBT family or parenting issues. A cursory examination of this body of literature would reveal a wide range of scholars who are much more qualified to evaluate the merits of this study and were neither directly involved in the study design nor compensated for that involvement.

Slowly but surely, this study is becoming a headache for all involved in its creation, funding, publishing, and promoting.

It's extremely unprecedented that over 200 professors and therapists condemn one study. Instead of jaded comments of "well we know it was biased," the gay community needs to spread news of this to the four corners and beyond. A lot of people DO NOT know this study is trash and it's up to US to tell them.

Hat tip to author Scott Rose who has been on the ball from day one exposing the truth about this study.

'NOM affiliates with ex-gay church' and other Friday midday news briefs

NOM Hosting Summer Student Conference At “Ex-Gay” Church - Sort of speaks for itself, doesn't it?

 Head of PAC trying to stop marriage in Maine: Refer to 'sodomy-based marriage' as 'monstrous insaneness' - Geez, what is the deal with homophobes and anal sex. They are like racists and interracial sex. 
  
 Porno Pete Mad At Facebook Guy For Giving Money To Cause He Believes In - Cause you know everyone who gives to a gay cause is apart of the secret plot to make everyone gay.  
  
Obamacare Will Help LGBT People Access Health Insurance - Now about that mocking of the "fierce advocate" label . . .  
  
Tyler Clementi's Parents Give Interview, Blame Dharun Ravi's Webcam Spying For Son's Suicide - As well they should. Just plain trashy what Ravi did to that child. 

Reason why Christianity is getting a bad reputation

A recent poll claims that young Americans are beginning to lose faith in God:

The poll, conducted in April by the Pew Research Center, showed that 31 percent of respondents under the age of 30 have doubts about the existence of God, compared to 9 percent of those polled who were 65 or older.

When asked to evaluate the statement, "I never doubted the existence of god," 18 percent of all respondents said that they mostly or completely disagreed.

Now some folks may chalk it up to the "last days before Jesus returns." Others may call it a minor blip.

Personally I think the following has a lot to do with it:








Finger-pointing and lies never does any good, does it? What would Jesus do, indeed?