Jon Stewart skewers Fox Network for not covering the National Equality March

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Queer and Loathing in D.C.
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

I never even considered this because I try not to watch the Fox Network. In light of how the network sponsored that tea party mess, it is a good question to ask why didn't it cover Sunday's National Equality March.

Jon Stewart not only asks the question but raises some very good points.

Related post:

What the National Equality marchers didn't do says a lot about what they accomplished

Presenting the dumbest reason to oppose gay marriage and other Wednesday midday news briefs

I respect people's right to believe what they want but this has to be the DUMBEST reason to keep marriage equality away from lgbts:




And in other news:

Iowa: head of local NAACP champions anti-gay gubernatorial candidate for marriage repeal promise - Or as I like to term it - "NAACP head loses his mind."

NOM and Catholic Diocese Provide Almost 2/3rds of “Yes on Q1″ Budget - Should we be even surprised?

Shareholders Ask Walt Disney to Include Ex-Gays in Company's Non-Discrimination Policies - The irony is, being "ex-gay" i.e. now heterosexual, they are ALREADY included in the company's non-discrimination policies.

Is an apology enough over 'black fag' remark? - I DARE the religious right to defend the teacher here!

Religious right anger over Harvey Milk day goes from comical to offensive

Naturally members of religious right organizations are angry at California Governor Arnold Swarzeneggar for signing legislation designating a day of recognition for legendary lgbt activist Harvey Milk.

Two of the responses, in particular, caught my attention. One came from the organization Save California:

“Harvey Milk* was a sexual predator of teens, an advocate of polygamous relationships, a public liar, and is in no way a good role model for impressionable schoolchildren,” said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com. “Sadly, children in public schools will now have even more in-your-face, homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination. This provides the strongest impetus yet for loving parents to remove their children from anti-family public schools.”

“’Harvey Milk Day’ teaches children as young as five years old to admire the life and values of the notorious homosexual activist Harvey Milk” said Thomasson. “The ‘suitable commemorative exercises’ that are part of ‘Harvey Milk Day’ can easily result in cross-dressing exercises, ‘LGBT pride’ parades and mock gay weddings on school campuses -- everything Harvey Milk supported.”

So honoring Harvey Milk will cause children to come to school "crossdressed" as members of the opposite sex?

Who knew. Someone should tell Thomasson that this already happens via powder puff football games and spirit week activities.

Now as for that other stuff - lgbt pride parades and mock gay weddings - there is nothing wrong with a school having events, i.e. parades and the like, just like there is nothing wrong with a school commemorating Black History Month or Women's History Month.

No doubt Thomasson is conjuring up images of school children in leather chaps and carrying whips or dressed as colorful drag queens.

And Harvey Milk was supposed to be the pervert?

In all seriousness, Thomasson is sounding the hysterical alarm. And rather badly too.

The second response isn't one that I can make light of because it gets me angry. It comes from a One News Now article entitled Homosexuality 'not a civil right':

Last month, the Orange County Board of Education voted unanimously (5-0) to oppose the creation of Harvey Milk Day. Dr. Alexandria Coronado, chairman of that board, says she is "absolutely furious" that the homosexual community is claiming that passage of the Harvey Milk bill is a civil rights victory.

"I think it just absolutely denigrates the entire civil rights movement. Homosexuality is not a civil right," Coronado emphasizes.

"I don't remember the last time that a homosexual person was forced to move out of their seat on a public bus, like Rosa Parks. And I don't remember the last time that a homosexual person or student...was forced to go to a segregated school, as in the case of Mendez v. Westminster, which took place right here in Orange County, California."

The title is ignorant and the piece is distractive.

Last week marked an ugly anniversary - the murder of Matthew Shepard. You do remember him, don't you? He was the young man targeted and murdered because of his sexual orientation.

Then there was Sakia Gunn, an African-American lesbian stabbed to death because she refused the sexual advances of her male attacker.

And lets not forget Michael Sandy, an African-American gay man who was hit by a car after running away from men who targeted him for robbery because he was gay.

There are so many other we have heard of and many more whose names we will never know - some of the latter are children who have been bullied, kicked aside, and not able to take advantage of a full education because they are lgbt.

But as long as no one places them in the "back of a bus," there is no problem. Right?

Coronado misses the point of why Parks took her stance. It wasn't about riding on a bus but about basic dignity; the ability to live your life without being disrespected and treated like you have no value.

In the long run, that's what it's all about, whether you are an lgbt, an African-American, or both.

The religious right fears Chai Feldblum because she believes in basic fairness

Not all of the religious right's energy has been devoted to attacking Obama's education dpt. appointee Kevin Jennings.

They are also throwing fits at the President's pick to lead the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai Feldblum.

I've heard rumblings of ugly charges right up there with those lodged against Jennings - Feldblum advocates polygamy, she is a "radical homosexual activist," etc.

You want to know the real reason the religious right fears Feldblum? It lies in a piece she wrote entitled Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion.

There is a specific part in it (starting on pg. 50) that I'm guessing makes folks like Peter LaBarbera, Matt Barber, Donald Wildmon, and James Dobson apoplectic:

Ensuring that LGBT people can live honestly and safely in all
aspects of their social lives requires that society set a baseline of
non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender
identity. If individual business owners, service providers and
employers could easily exempt themselves from such laws by
making credible claims that their belief liberty is burdened by the
law, LGBT people would remain constantly vulnerable to surprise
discrimination. If I am denied a job, an apartment, a room at a
hotel, a table at a restaurant or a procedure by a doctor because I
am a lesbian, that is a deep, intense and tangible hurt. That hurt is
not alleviated because I might be able to go down the street and get
a job, an apartment, a hotel room, a restaurant table or a medical
procedure from someone else. The assault to my dignity and my
sense of safety in the world occurs when the initial denial happens.
That assault is not mitigated by the fact that others might not treat
me in the same way.

Thus, for all my sympathy for the evangelical Christian
couple who may wish to run a bed and breakfast from which they
can exclude unmarried straight couples and all gay couples, this is
a point where I believe the “zero sum” nature of the game
inevitably comes into play. And, in making the decision in this
zero sum game, I am convinced society should come down on the
side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people. Once an individual
chooses to enter the stream of economic commerce by opening a
commercial establishment, I believe it is legitimate to require that
they play by certain rules. If the government tolerated the
private exclusionary policies of such individuals in the commercial
sector, such toleration would necessarily come at the cost of gay
people’s sense of belonging and safety in society. Just as we do
not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-
Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based
on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs
about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect
LGBT people.

In other words, Feldblum believes that a business should not be allowed to discriminate against lgbts no matter the so-called "deeply held personal beliefs" of the owner.

She does not believe owners of an apartment building should have the right to deny lgbts housing even if they have a so-called "deeply held personal belief" that homosexuality is a sin.

And she does not believe that the beliefs of service providers should override the needs of those they are supposed to be serving.

Well get the tar and feathers right now!

Just where does this Feldblum think she is?

America where we have a Constitution that guarantees equal protection under the law?

One News Now rediscovers 'THE GAYS' and other Tuesday midday newsbriefs

FRC: Their cold onslaught is nothing new. But why the cold feet? - The Family Research Council removed an interesting piece it published about President Obama's speech to HRC. I also wonder why.

Gay sailor: My comrades locked me in a ‘feces-filled dog kennel’ - This is naaaasty!

White House Talks DADT With Lieberman - Let's get the show on the road!

Guilty by Association by Association - Bearing false witness is a sin.

And now time for a little fiber in our diet courtesy of One News Now. The phony news service has discovered THE GAYS again:

Flip-flopper governor signs 'Harvey Milk' bill

Montana judges smack down parental rights

Disney elevates homosexual to studio chief

House member wants Jennings out - Special note here - They are pushing the "Harry Hay" distortion.

Kevin Jennings receives an 'apology' for inaccurate murder claim

Apparently my post on the new lie regarding Kevin Jennings - that he advocates murdering people if they call someone a 'faggot' attracted some attention from a few circles- most specifically from the site who wrote the original piece.

The piece came from the site Verum Serum. Via the original headline, it pushed the notion that Jennings did advocate murder. Jennings was actually saying that society is part the blame for school violence because it enhances gender stereotypes and extreme machismo in males.

After I posted my piece, one of the authors of the site accused me of not reading the entire post. The poster claimed the site was not accusing Jennings of murder, but rather unfairly blaming traditional gender roles for school violence. While I lodged disagreement with that assessment, I stuck with the main idea of my post - no matter what Verum Serum meant by what it wrote, opportunistic sites were using the post to claim that Jennings advocates murder.

Finally, one of the posters of Verum Serum sent me this reply:

. . . you're right that some blogs missed the point. Once we caught on to the error, we did try out best to address the confusion.

First we changed the headline of our post which apparently threw some people (with a note retaining the original because we don't "disappear things at VS"). Next, I personally followed backlinks to several blogs and left comments pointing out where necessary that they had misconstrued our meaning and asking for corrections.

We may not have spoken to everyone but our efforts did have an effect. One blogger apologized to me privately this afternoon and corrected a post. A second blogger wrote an entire apology on his own site to both us and Jennings for his misunderstanding. You can see it here.

My point is that this was not a smear or a lie. We were making a serious critique that we believed (and still do) was valid. When that accidentally got muddled beyond our blog, we did our best to correct it. We'll continue to do so. If you see it pop up anywhere, please let us know or direct them to this comment thread or to our site for clarification.

The headline has been changed with a full explanation, but the damage has been done.

For one thing, the Washington Times has already pushed the distortion in a poor attempt to smear Jennings.

And several other conservative blogs have already run with the original "Jennings advocates murder" claim, including Free Republic.

In all honesty, I have a problem Verum Serum's explanation.

The site claims that the original headline ("Killing Someone Who Calls You a Faggot is not Aberrant Behavior...") caused confusion. That may be but I tend to think that the headline was created specifically to cause confusion.

Mission accomplished, Verum Serum.

But still, it's nice that you have corrected yourself. Too bad you had to be caught to do it.

Related post:

New lie lodged against Kevin Jennings - he 'advocates' murder

New lie lodged against Kevin Jennings - he 'advocates' murder

Don't be fooled by the fact that we haven't heard anything new regarding the right's war on Obama appointee Kevin Jennings.

We probably haven't heard anything because those who oppose him are digging through the manure trying to find something that will stick when they throw it at him..

Such as this bit via the rightwing site Gateway Pundit:

Obama's Safe Schools Czar Wrote That Killing Someone Who Called You Names Was "Not Aberrant Behavior"

Verum Serum discovered this article by Obama's Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings in 1998:

We need to own up to the fact that our culture teaches boys that being “a man” is the most important thing in life, even if you have to kill someone to prove it. Killing someone who calls you a faggot is not aberrant behavior but merely the most extreme expression of a belief that is beaten (sometimes literally) into boys at an early age in this country: Be a man – don’t be a faggot.

As Suzanne Pharr so eloquently explained in her landmark work Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism, antigay bigotry is inextricably intertwined with the maintenance of “proper” gender roles by which little girls are supposed to be “sugar and spice and everything nice” and boys are supposed to be, well, quite the opposite. When boys take up guns to kill those who torment them with words like “faggot,” we shouldn’t be surprised. They’re just doing what we have taught them to do.

And on Free Republic is this piece:

Safe Schools Czar Absolves Murder for Anti-gay Slurs

Here we go again. Expect Hannity and company to jump on this.

Of course the claim that Jennings advocates murder is a distortion of what he actually said - and a rather bad one.

The piece in question, Be A Man, was originally published in September 29, 1998 in The Advocate magazine.

Jennings never advocated anything even resembling murder. He was actually saying in his piece that society contributes to violence in schools by pushing gender stereotypes.

At the beginning of the piece, he says the following:

When I was 8, my dad died unexpectedly of a heart attack. As the youngest of five siblings (four of us, boys), I looked to my brothers for guidance on how to act in this unsettling and unfamiliar territory. At dad's funeral I got the message. When I started crying, my brother Mike looked down and barked, "Stop crying. Be a man.
Don't be a faggot."

While astoundingly insensitive in his timing, my brother was simply passing down the code of masculinity he'd been taught. "Real men" don't show their feelings, and those men who do are faggots—which is the last thing any real man would want to be. It's a lesson I have spent nearly three decades trying to unlearn. Many important lessons—the kind that shape our lives—are learned long before college or grad school. Sadly, today's boys seem to be learning the same lesson—with far deadlier results. Consider these examples:

Then he proceeds to list examples of violent incidents that took place in America's high schools; incidents precipitated by someone being called a "faggot.

Then he says the following:

Why haven't you heard more about these incidents? Well, sadly, homophobic harassment in our schools is so commonplace that it is no longer news. But surely this seemingly novel phenomenon of youth taking up firearms in response should have made headlines. And here's the real kicker: None of the boys who perpetrated these attacks identifies as gay.

What's going on here? As we begin another school year close on the heels of one in which schoolyard shootings became a dreary staple of the nightly news, it's time to analyze why some young people are driven to kill. Obviously, we could prevent some killings if we restricted the ease with which anyone can get a firearm, but that would not get at the root cause of the problem. We need to own up to the fact that our culture teaches boys that being "a man" is the most important thing in life, even if you have to kill someone to prove it. Killing someone who calls you a faggot is not aberrant behavior but merely the most extreme expression of a belief that is beaten (sometimes literally) into boys at an early age in this country: Be a man—don't be a faggot.

From that perspective, it doesn't sound like Jennings is advocating violence, does it?

It's sad to watch how desperate people get when trying to destroy someone's reputation.

Harvey Milk gets his day and other Monday midday news briefs

Gov. Schwarzenegger signs gay rights bills - Harvey Milk gets his day!

HRC Building Vandalized - And the scuttlebutt is some of our people did it. What in the hell is wrong with some of us! This is not the way to take care of our problems. If you disagree with HRC, then handle it in some other manner!

Boehner: Hate Crimes Bill Is Offensive - The smell of nonsense is thick in here!

Memo to Pentagon: Can We Talk About "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or Not? - You gotta be kidding me!

I Don’t Wear Pajamas - About that anti-bloggers comment the White House supposedly said . . .

What the National Equality marchers didn't do says a lot about what they accomplished

I didn't attend yesterday's National Equality march because of personal feelings and family obligations. I did manage to catch it on the news channels and shows.

I also saw many of the pictures and read the stories from those participating.

And I noticed something that needs to be put on record.

Now I can say a lot of things about the marchers and what they did, but allow me to dwell on the things they didn't do:

They didn't lie about attendance numbers,

They didn't post any phony photographs,

They didn't carry offensive signs about the president's place of birth or racial heritage,

They didn't need to call themselves "patriots,"

They weren't led by an astroturfing groups, venomous think tank lackeys, phony news networks, or millionaire demagogues.

They weren't led by the nose with conspiracy theories involving Kenya, Acorn, or death panels,

And none of them were given to annoying weeping jags regarding about how "they wanted their country back."

These people who came to Washington yesterday were the true cross section of the country. They were mothers, fathers, and children who, while some may say that they had every reason to be rude and ugly (being denied your basic rights tends to bring the monster out in some people), came with reverence and respect.

And most of all, they came with the belief that sooner or later, America will fulfill its promise of equality for all, even if the President has to be prodded to push the country in that direction.

Not to totally put down the teabaggers, but one cannot escape the contrast between them and the participants of yesterday's National Equality March.

The teabaggers came to Washington demanding that the ill-conceived status quo be preserved. And they did it rather rudely.

Lgbts and their allies came to Washington in pursuit of what should have been theirs in the first place. And they did it with dignity.

When it's all said and done, which group best represents the true spirit of America?

Picture taken from National Equality March webpage.


Editor's note - Okay folks. Let's hold ourselves to the same standard that we hold President Obama. Let's take this momentum and do something with it.

Related posts:

My take on the President's speech to HRC

My take on the President's speech to HRC

Well Obama said his speech in front of HRC last night and the lgbt blogs are either propping it up or tearing it apart.

It was a good speech and I didn't expect too much from it but the nice words.

From day one of this "Why hasn't President Obama supported the lgbt community more" argument, I have spent a considerable amount of time sighing with exasperation.

The one thing I've learned from this entire situation (and it upsets me to say this) is that an empowered lgbt with no sense of direction is the most dangerous thing to the community. The mouth runs but the mind tends to be on strike.

I have no problem with the anger that some in the community are feeling. But I have a serious problem with the direction which the anger may lead us.

There is a thin line between demanding that President Obama follow through on this promises to the lgbt community and declaring him as an "enemy of the people."

Unfortunately many of us have crossed that line.

Do I want things to move swifter? Yes. Should the lgbt community give pressure to the President AND Congress? Yes.

Do I think that our biggest weakness in this entire thing are the people who have made this issue about President Obama vs. the lgbt community? Oh hell yes.

I think both sides have very good points but in weighing the casted opinions, I am little more put off by the words of some folks who take every perceived slight as some sort of license to rally people to take to the streets as some sort of solution.

I'm more put off by those who would, by way of hyperbole, imply that the President is an "oppressor" and that we should "abandon" him.

I'm put off by those who would take the guise of snobby patrons of a restaurant and view the President as a waiter who brought their drinks two minutes too late. These individuals kick aside the good the President has done for the lgbt community (it's not much by any stretch of the imagination but it's a good start - pay attention to that final word - "start") simply because they can't get everything they want at one time.

We seem to expect with a wave of a wand (or a pen), the President will take care of all of our needs. He will solve all of our problems in an expeditious nature.

It ain't going to happen like that.

In our anger at the President, we are losing perspective. Some of us may not like how he is moving on this issue but he has never been the enemy. The cause of lgbt equality has never been about him.

And that's why I ask those who spin the hyperbole at the drop of a hat where was this firm fire when dealing with religious right groups? How come we don't give the Family Research Council or the Traditional Values Coalition the same amount of hell that we are giving the President?

They give us grief every damn day. And whether we want to acknowledge them or not, they are the ones who are the true enemy in this matter.

While we wage war with the President for not taking the role of "daddy," while we engage in a circular firing squad, these groups will working to place future roadblocks in the way of lgbt equality; roadblocks that we will not address in an adequate manner.

Some in the lgbt community are suffering from a sort of "battered wife" syndrome. We are lashing out at our friends rather than our abusers. We wonder why our friends won't help us the way we want them to, but fail to realize that we are in control. No one can help us unless we help ourselves.

Despite the nice words, the lofty aspirations, the Obama Administration is a means to an end for the lgbt community. That's all. And rather than raising hell when we discover that the President does not have gossammer wings, a magic wand, or appears in a bubble in the sky that will slow descend to Earth, let's apply some good old fashioned pragmatism and cynicism to this situation.

He needs to be prodded, but not have stones thrown at him.

Kennedy needed to be prodded to support the 1950/60s civil rights movement and so did Johnson. Obama is no different when it comes to our issues..

That's how I view today's march. It is a way for the lgbt community to get empowered and gain the numbers who will lobby for our interests.

It's not about who helps us to get equality. It only matters that we get it.

Know Your LGBT History - Fortune and Men's Eyes

Fortune and Men's Eyes (1971) predates the HBO series OZ by several decades but it was nonetheless powerful.

It tells the story of Smitty, young man who enters prison for a six-month stretch and has to deal with the ins and outs of this rough world.

He becomes the victim of this prison life dichotomy and has to fight for survival.

I will be honest - I don't know that much about this movie. I do know that it was controversial for its time, particularly the following scene.

Despite the supposed "hotness" of the men involved, this is still a vile scene:



Past Know Your LGBT History postings:

Know your lgbt history - California Suite

Know your lgbt history - Taxi (Elaine's Strange Triangle)

Know your lgbt history - Come Back Charleston Blue

Know your lgbt history - James Bond goes gay

Know your lgbt history - Windows

Know your lgbt history - To Wong Foo and Priscilla

Know your lgbt history - Blazing Saddles

Know your lgbt history - Sanford and Son

Know your lgbt history - In Living Color

Know your lgbt history - Cleopatra Jones and her lesbian drug lords

Know your lgbt history - Norman, Is That You?

Know your lgbt history - The 'Exotic' Adrian Street

Know your lgbt history - The Choirboys

Know your lgbt history - Eddie Murphy

Know your lgbt history - The Killing of Sister George

Know your lgbt history - Hanna-Barbera cartoons pushes the 'gay agenda

'Know your lgbt history - Cruising

Know your lgbt history - Foxy Brown and Cleopatra Jones

Know your lgbt history - I Got Da Hook Up

Know your lgbt history - Fright Night

Know your lgbt history - Flowers of Evil

The Jeffersons and the transgender community

Citing Paul Cameron does make you a homophobe, Matt Barber

Editor's note - I haven't forgotten about the Know Your LGBT History segment. It will run either later tonight or tomorrow morning:

Much has been said and twisted the initial event that placed Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber in the anti-gay limelight.

The religious right are always quick to declare that the column which got Barber fired from AllState was one he wrote on "his own time."

Of course they never tell you that he used AllState equipment to write the piece nor the fact that he identified himself as an employee of AllState, thereby involving the company in his personal pursuits.

But what exactly was the column about?

Our other anti-gay friend, Peter LaBarbera, took the initiative to post "the column" on his webpage in anticipation of Barber giving an address to his Americans for Truth group later this month.

The piece, ‘Intolerance’ Will Not Be Tolerated, is the usual "homosexuality is evil and lgbts are plotting to push their lifestyle down everyone's throat" nonsense that I've come to expect from those pushing the religious right line.

And in that same spirit, it has some choice interesting statements:

There are those who hold to the theory that people who engage in homosexual behavior are “born that way” — that they’re merely acting upon intrinsic characteristics of their own, unique genetic make-up. They desperately cling to, and repeatedly cite various “studies” which seem to support the “born that way” theory. They entirely disregard the fact that to date, there has been no credible, empirical evidence to support the theory, nor has the “respectable” scientific community embraced even one study. In fact, the vast majority of studies have been debunked outright, and the associated “scientists” have been exposed as homosexual activists attempting to further an extremist agenda.

In his ridiculously vague style, Barber doesn't even give us one example of the so-called debunking.

Then there is this statement, the piece de resistance:

As a result of the concerted effort by liberals to mask the devastating effects of the gay lifestyle, many people are shocked to learn that the average life expectancy of a homosexual male is only about 45 years old - 30 years younger than that of a heterosexual male.

You recognize that citation? It's from Paul Cameron's "gay life span" study. You know, the same study discredited by so many others including former Reagan official William Bennett.

And we all know Paul Cameron, don't we? The man who said the following:

“If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get—and that is what homosexuality seems to be—then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men, and women on women if all you are looking for is an orgasm . . . Marital sex tends toward the boring end. Generally, it doesn’t deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does.” - Rolling Stone, March, 18, 1999

He is also the man who has been censured and dismissed from organizations such as the American Psychological Assocation, the American Sociological Association, the Canadian Psychological Association, etc., etc.

Apparently these scientific bodies don't abide by horrendous research techniques or methodology.

Too bad Barber don't have their scruples. He even had the nerve to channel another Cameron distortion:

The men frequently suffer from other sodomy related injuries, and are far more likely to be murdered (likely by another homosexual) than their heterosexual counterparts; this, due to the typically raucous and oft anonymous nature of the gay lifestyle.

And the irony of it all? This portion of his piece:

But it’s predictable — any time anyone dare expose the aforementioned truths about the homosexual lifestyle, or criticize the homosexual lobby for its radical anti-marriage, anti-family agenda, there’s an enormous backlash. It’s an age-old tactic geared toward silencing one’s critics. It consists primarily of the ad hominem attack — Homophobe! Hate-Monger! Bigot! Gay Basher! Neanderthal!

So according to Barber, it's perfectly alright to cite the discredited studies of a researcher who couldn't be believed even if his blood was replaced with truth serum, but to call truth about these studies is wrong.

How dare those lgbts cry foul and defend themselves against lies! Why that's worse than African-Americans protesting when white racists accused them of wanting to integrate so that black men could have access to white women.

Why that's worse than the Jewish people getting angry at Anti-Semitic slurs.

Matt, a personal note from me to you (I know that from time to time, you google your name to see who mentioned you online), when you cite discredited studies designed to denigrate lgbts, it does make you a homophobe.

If you disagree, I would love to hear your opinion on the matter.

No scalp for Hannity thus far and other Friday midday news briefs

No scalp for Sean Hannity thus far:



And in other news:

Maine Attorney General "Appalled By Yes On 1 Ads" - More bad news for the anti-gay marriage folks in Maine.

Parental Rights of Non-Legal Parent Upheld by Montana Supreme Court - BOOM!

Obama's Nobel Prize Inspires Conservative Outrage And Confusion - These folks are like Erica from "All My Children." Weren't they happy last week when the U.S. didn't get the Olympics? I thought that Obama's "international appeal" had taken a hit.

Supreme Court Refuses Two LGBT Cases - Apparently we won one. I can't make heads or tails of the other.

A Step in Faith - Here is an interesting story of an evangelical Christian supporting lgbt rights.

Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize! Millions are defeaned by the noise of exploding heads of birthers, teabaggers, etc.

This is HUGE news:

President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his nascent initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and replace unilateral American action with international diplomacy and cooperation.

Nobel observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama woke up to the news a little before 6 a.m. EDT. The White House had no immediate comment on the announcement, which took the administration by surprise.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation but recognized initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," said Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee.

It's a huge honor that only underscores the impact of Obama's election as president and his personal charisma.

Whether the award is too soon or not will be up for speculation for weeks. But some on the right aren't waiting that long.

And as expected, the Freepers are freaking out:

Basically won it for not being George Bush

He was in office for two weeks before the deadline closed for nominations and the man had done nothing....The Nobel prize committee did continue their fine tradition of choosing people who are anti Israel and anti American......so we can give them props for consistency......

I hope Zero’s universal healthcare pays to reattach my head after it explodes off my body

Question of the day: FOR WHAT????? Disarming the U.S. and surrendering will always get an American praised by the International Socialist Movements. And unfortunately, the Nobel Committee has been on that list for some time.

And some of the "chilluns" at Breitbart are reeling. The irony of the comments at Breitbart? Right above them, is an ad that allows you to get a free copy of Sarah Palin's book:

I think they need to rename this prize. Thoughts anyone? I submit "The Nobel Complete Jackass of the Year Prize."

OMG! A Nobel peace prize awarded to a megalomaniac and unbridled narcissist who has accomplished nothing other than dismantling American industry, banking, and health care while emboldening Americas enemies including Iran, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc. Seems about right for the Nobel committee.

What an ABSOLUTE F*#@ING joke!!! Win the Nobel Peace Prize for destroying the greatest nation on earth.

Congrats on the Clown Prize, Obozo.

Buffoonery....speechless, I'm absolutely speechless....

OMG did I die over night and wake up in hell!!!
WHAT THE F*@#

Does ACORN have a Chapter in Oslo?

All I can say is, I guess the Nobel Peace Prize means nothing anymore... Gore wins for his BS, and now Obama !!! Remember, Obama was in office for all of 2 wks before the end of the Nobel name submission deadline. Add that to the fact it is 5 politicians from the Norwegian Gvt that picks the winners, and it smell of stinky politics. I guess the world wide Muslim apology tour Obama did and still does sealed it for those on the committee. This is really a worthless award, as Obama has divided our Country more than ever before, made friends & supporters with every dictator & despot in the world, along with alienating our allies to the extent they don't know what kind of support the US has with them any more, and you can kind of see what I'm talking about. Obama has really brought a new low to the office...

Another piece of the AntiChrist puzzle falls into place ( the world will exalt and worship him)……………………Nobel nominations were closed as of the second day of Obama’s presidency, what exactly did he do in those two days to deserve a Nobel.……..Hummmmmmm……By peace, do they mean the streets of Chicago, or giving away our security to the Soviets, or sending in SEIU into town halls to intimidate the old people, or the clusterduck that Obama has created in Afghanistan by choking our troops to death, or maybe it is the fact that he has taken vicious murdering terrorist and giving them more rights than the citizens of this great country complete with Miranda. Think about it, if Al Gore can win a Nobel over Irena Sendlerowa who saved over 2,500 infants and children from the Nazi’s, then the name Nobel Peace Prize has little or nothing to do with peace. Congratulations Mr. President for your Nobel, it is all part of Gods plan, you will find that part in the last book of the Bible.

Will it be 'death of a thousand cuts' for Kevin Jennings?

This is 2000, in Iowa, at the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network -- it's an event there. It's audio of Obama's safe schools czar, Kevin Jennings. This is the guy that, the 15-year-old kid approached him, said, "I'm having a -- an older man is forcing his way on me, sex and so forth." And Jennings says, "That's fine, are you using a condom?" and urged the 15-year-old to further the relationship, and then said later, "I saw this kid come back to school and every day had a big smile on his face. I knew I'd done a good thing." That's Obama's safe schools czar" - Rush Limbaugh on Oct. 7th - a week after every aspect of his version of the situation has been discredited.

Bishop E.W. Jackson, president and founder of Staying True to America's National Destiny (STAND), has written a letter to President Obama calling for Jennings' resignation. Jackson says that Jennings, as head of GLSEN, was involved in a cover-up.

The incident, as Jackson explains, involved a 15-year-old boy named "Brewster" who allegedly met an older adult male at a bus stop, went home with the man, and had sexual relations with him. Brewster later told Jennings about the incident. Jackson explains what happened next. - American Family Association's One News Now pushing the same lie as Rush Limbaugh a day later

I can't imagine that President Obama lacked the sensitivity to think that somebody who had said the things that Mr. Jennings had said, had done the things that Mr. Jennings had done, had taken the sort of high-profile, in-your-face advocacy of things like NAMBLA and gay rights and queering elementary school curricula -- that the president of the United States would think this was a person that he ought to put in charge of safe schools, and yet he did. - former Bush Administration official Karl Rove, who offers no proof that Jennings is connected with NAMBLA while he pushes a sly coalition.

It's clear what is happening now.

When faced with the fact that their false claims against Jennings can't bring him down, the right merely increased the volume of the attacks.

It's the principle of the quantity of poor food during a famine. Who cares if it tastes terrible, as long as there is enough of it to satisfy.

By that same token, the mindset of the right seems to be "who cares if the information we push about Jennings is wrong, as long as there is so much of it that it brings him down."

This thing has never been about truth or accuracy. We all knew this.

It's about getting ratings or winning a round in a so-called culture war.

It's about undermining the Obama Administration and the cause of lgbt rights.

It's about throwing all sort of mess on the wall in hopes that some of it will stick and then trumpeting later in a sanctimonious fashion about how "there were too many questions about Jennings," or about how "the Obama Administration does a poor job in vetting officials."

I still think that Jennings will persevere (don't even think about resigning, Kevin), but I've lost the little bit of respect I've had for those who oppose him.

And I don't think that I am alone in this regard.

But I'm hoping that President Obama doesn't succumb to all of this nonsense.

He doesn't have that good of a reputation with the lgbt community. Now I've been willing to cut him some slack because the last person in President's chair screwed things up so badly that I can almost understand the "too many things on the President's plate" argument.

Please bear in mind that I said "almost."

However, if Obama should succumb in any way to these attacks on Jennings he will be sending a message to us all. To the right, he will be seen as a pushover. To the lgbt community, he will be seen as opportunist; willing to betray us "yet again."

How I will view him isn't fit for verbal or print comment.

Related posts:

Religious right continues to attack Kevin Jennings, lgbt community with proven lies

Who knew the American Family Association could moonwalk?

Join the Support Kevin Jennings Facebook group

Fox News corrects inaccurate Jennings article. Politico does the same

Smart answers to lies about Kevin Jennings - a list of talking points

New attack against Kevin Jennings - the 'NAMBLA' connection

Religious right owes Kevin Jennings an apology

New facts vindicate Kevin Jennings - the young man he counseled was of legal age

Let's not be so quick to blame Obama if Kevin Jennings is dismissed

Washington Times publishes ugly hit piece on Kevin Jennings

The new attack on Kevin Jennings - he said something ugly about God

The continuing attacks on Kevin Jennings - now Fox News gets involved

The possible attack on the President's lgbt appointees

The tea party idiots - will they go after the lgbt community next?

Traditional Values Coalition attacks Kevin Jennings and . . . Tom Cruise?

Support Sean's Last Wish and Kevin Jennings

The religious right thinks that character assasination is a Christian virtue

The war against Kevin Jennings - now it's getting pathetic

Attacks on Kevin Jennings sleazy, un-ChristianMore right wing lunacy on Kevin Jennings courtesy of Kevin McCullough

More attacks on GLSEN'S Kevin Jennings - Now the Family Research Council gets in the act

'Fistgate' and President Obama - religious right pushes a pitiful attempt of guilt by association

Marriage equality battles heat up, more lies on Kevin Jennings, and other Thursday midday news briefs

Protect Maine Equality gets kudo points here! They took an anti-gay marriage lie and are attacking it head on.



And in other news:

Those who passed the bar vs. those who hope to pass a bar - The situation in Maine heats up as more than 350 lawyers are calling out the anti-gay marriage folks for misleading campaign ads.

Protect Marriage Washington just keeps the hits coming - Meanwhile, the anti-gay mariage folks in Washington are lying their socks off!

Barney Frank: March is "Useless," Lobby Politicians at Home - This is Barney Frank's opinion. To tell the truth, I am more in the middle than I was when this entire thing began. But hopefully more on that later . . .

Thugs attack two transvestites... who turn out to be cage fighters wearing fancy dress - Words cannot describe this.

AC 360: Dan Choi takes on anti-gay automaton Elaine Donnelly - Elaine Donnelly gets destroyed again.

Group wants Obama pick's resignation - One News Now lies on Kevin Jennings by running the discredited "Jennings counseled an underaged child to have sex with an adult" story. The phony news service says the child was 15, a week after this was proven to be wrong. I've already registered my comments. Feel free to register yours, but be polite.

HRC's goal - silence Christians, normalize sin - In that same vein, remember One News Now as one of the only few places which takes Peter LaBarbera seriously.

Harry Connick, Jr. deals with a 'blackface' controversy

From Queertwocents.com:

Singer/actor, Harry Connick Jr. was asked to be a guest judge on the Aussie variety TV show Hey Hey It's Saturday and was shocked when a group of Jackson 5 impersonators, called the Jackson Jive, appeared on stage in complete blackface! Connick gave the group a zero rating for their performance and was booed by the audience, later, he gives everyone a good talking to about why blackface is so wrong. Believe it or not the group says it was meant to be a tribute to Michael Jackson! It reeks with racism from start to finish. On air, Connick says, "If I knew that was going to be a part of the show, I definitely wouldn't have done it." This incident has created controversy in Australia, especially on talk radio, where listeners feel that Connick was over-reacting!

The video is insulting, period. Interestingly enough, Shane said that someone sent him an email saying that what this group did was no different than Robert Downey Jr's portrayal of a black man in the movie Tropic Thunder.

In addition, some have pointed to Connick's portrayal of a black minister on MadTV and labeling him as a hypocrite.

I'm guessing that soon people like Larry Elder or Thomas Sowell will come out of the woodwork publicly disagreeing with what Connick did.

Things like this only underscores people's ignorance. Certainly, white actors have portrayed people of a different ethnic origin. And black actors have also. I remember a certain skit on Saturday Night Live when Eddie Murphy portrayed a white man.

But these actors (including Downey, Connick, and Murphy) used appropriate theatrical makeup. They didn't take what look liked shoe polish and slathered it on their faces. Nor were their performances ignorant caricatures of people from a different race.


What Connick did was right and highly appropriate. And he should be commended for it.

Religious right continues to attack Kevin Jennings, lgbt community with proven lies

I'm happy to report that in two day's time, over 300 people have signed up for the Support Kevin Jennings Facebook Group and I know more people are coming.

And this is good news because the religious right won't stop gunning for Jennings. The following is from the Family Research Council's webpage. I gleaned it today:

Over the last two weeks, press outlets like FoxNews.com, Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs have picked up the Jennings story, and the Washington Times ran an editorial demanding an answer regarding Jennings's appointment.

Of course, one of the most shocking pieces of news about Jennings is a story he's told himself (in different ways at different times) about a 15 year old student who came to him and confessed that he was having sex with older men in a bus station restroom. Instead of reporting the high-risk behavior to the boy's parents, school administrators or the police, Jennings's only response was, "I hope you knew to use a condom."

So even after it's been confirmed by the young man in the center of the controversy that he did not have sex and even if he did, he was 16-years-old at the time (the legal age of consent in Massachusetts, the state where the situation took place), the Family Research Council insists on running the claim that "Jennings counseled an underaged child to have sex with an adult."

And the situation gets better, or stranger for lack of a better description

Our friend, the Las Vegas lounge pugilist, Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel, wrote a column about Jennings. With a title like Commies, Fascists and Perverts, Oh My!, you know it's going to be a hot mess.

Barber made sure to touch on the lies regarding Jennings, "fistgate," Harry Hay, etc.

Then he has the nerve to push an old religious right lie:

Multiple studies have established, for instance, that homosexual conduct, especially among males, is considerably more hazardous to one’s health than a lifetime of chain smoking.

One such study – conducted by pro-“gay” researchers in Canada – was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997. (see the study here: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/3/657.pdf)

While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual’s life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of “gays” by an astounding “8 to 20 years” – more than twice that of smoking.

“[U]nder even the most liberal assumptions,” concluded the researchers, “gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. … [L]ife expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.”

There are two things wrong with Barber's citation.

First of all, the 1997 study had NOTHING to do with comparing homosexuality to cigarette smoking. It never said anything about cigarette smoking.

The idea that "homosexuality is more dangerous than cigarette smoking" is a distortion originally generated by the discredited Paul Cameron.

Secondly, regarding the 1997 study, in 2001, the researchers of the study wrote a letter to the International Journal of Epidemiology complaining about how the study was being distorted by people like Barber. It reads in part:

In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871. In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.

It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure.5 Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man's risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used.

In summary, the aim of our work was to assist health planners with the means of estimating the impact of HIV infection on groups, like gay and bisexual men, not necessarily captured by vital statistics data and not to hinder the rights of these groups worldwide. Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.

And Barber is fully aware of this letter. In a 2008 column, he tried to blow it off:

Not surprisingly, that same homosexual lobby and its codependent enablers in the mainstream media moved quickly to sweep the IJE study under the rug. Under tremendous pressure, the researchers who conducted the study even jumped into the political damage control fray issuing a statement which read, "[W]e do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group."

Barber doesn't go into detail about just what was exactly done to exert pressure on the researchers.

I personally think he told a huge fib. But it's interesting how he continues to distort the 1997 even after he is aware that the researchers complained.

At this point, I'm at a loss for words about the religious right. No matter how low I think they have stooped, they always suprise me by stooping lower.

What is Tony Perkins' connection with white supremacists and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Tony Perkins and White Supremacy - This ought to over well with Harry Jackson and Ken Hutcherson.

Disney's Rich Ross: Hollywood's first openly gay studio chairman - We've officially taken over Disney (hehehehe)- for those not aware, that was strictly tongue-in-cheek. You have to be careful with religious right innuendo seekers lurking around.

Video: Louie Louie, oh no -- me gotta go (vomit) - I miss the good old days when if you were caught distorting an issue, you stopped telling the distortion (Who am I kidding? Those days never existed.)

French gay soccer team snubbed by Muslim team - I have a simple cynical feeling about this sort of thing gleaned from rooting for the bad guys in professional wrestling. I say to the Muslim team - "oh well, you lose."

Mike Huckabee, Congressional leaders 'pal around' with hate group

Former Arkansas Governor and Fox talk show host Mike Huckabee with Mass Resistance's Brian Camenker at the recent right wing "Take Back America" conference . Mass Resistance, you will remember, is a hate group as officially designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

It's important to remember that the Southern Poverty Law Center does not designate organizations as anti-gay group simply because they speak against homosexuality. According to the SPLC webpage:

Anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification.

In Brian Camenker and Mass Resistance's case, this would include:

Manufacturing a phony panic about "schools teaching children about homosexuality,"

Claiming in 2005 on Comedy Central's Daily Show that if given time, he would be able to connect gay marriage in Massachusetts to the "reduction" of the quality of life in the state, a spike in homelessness rates, or and a lowering the quality of the air in the state, or

Making a claim in 2006 that "gays were trying to get legislation passed to allow sex with animals" in Massachusetts.

But Mike Huckabee doesn't seem to have a problem with Mass Resistance. According to Camenker, Huckabee receives the group's emails.

And it would seem that neither does Congressional leaders Steve King, Michelle Bachman, Tom Price, Tom McClintock, Todd Aiken, or Trent Franks have a problem with schmoozing with an anti-gay hate group, as seen by the rest of the pictures on Mass Resistance's webpage.

But in Huckabee's case, it's a safe bet to say that if he gets anywhere near the White House, the lgbt community will be up "shit creek."

Related posts:

Conference Recap: Far Right Leaders Vow to 'Take Back America' from 'Evil' Obama and Democrats


Brian Camenker, Matt Barber create anti-gay hot mess

The anti-gays are encouraged to get more militant and disgusting

Mike Huckabee and Congressional leaders to attend conference with hate group