Phony civil rights activist attacks Michelle Obama's speech

Alveda King

Michelle Obama turned out the Democratic National Convention last night.

Unfortunately, the negative effect is that her awesome speech brings out fakes out of the woodwork, including the head fake, Alveda King.

For the benefit of those who do not know, Alveda King is the niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As such, she deems herself as a civil rights activist and supports conservative causes.

There is nothing wrong with that. But what is wrong is how she attempts to connect herself with Dr. King and to portray herself as his inheritor of the civil rights movement. Check out the collage she once presented on her blog:

I guess to Alveda, neither Coretta Scott King nor MLK's children count.

On several occasions, she has made some offensive and eyebrow-raising comments.

Such as the time she insulted Dr. King's late wife, Coretta, two years ago by claiming that she knew Dr. King's heart better than Coretta because she possessed MLK's DNA while Coretta didn't.

And then there was that fiendish lie she told this year about Bayard Rustin, the openly gay black man who coordinated the 1963 March on Washington. She claimed that Rustin tried to manipulate Dr. King into supporting gay rights. When I pressed her to provide evidence during a phone interview, she presented a flimsy explanation and then hung up on me.

So naturally, Alveda is exploiting the First Lady's speech to gain some face time for herself:

The First Lady of America took the grandstand last night in a rousing speech. As the emails flooded into my cache, with the pros and cons, I wrote back to one sincere young lady: "She looked beautiful and proves that she's nearly as much a consummate skilled politician as her husband. She almost makes you forget that her husband supports killing babies and destroying natural marriage. Almost..."

In comparison to Mrs. Romney's sincere and impassioned speech in support of her husband last week, Mrs. Obama's speech was more glittering and glamorous. She skillfully moved through the controversial issues of abortion and homosexual marriage by drawing comparisons between the two leading candidates without ever mentioning her husband's opponent's name during the subtle attack on his candidacy.

Unfortunately, it goes on like this. Personally, I don't care what Alveda says because she has proven herself to be a phony who is reaping the benefits of her uncle's name.

But what I want to know is who in the world would waste their time sending her emails about the First Lady's speech?

Could that be another lie? I wouldn't be surprised. After all, Alveda's entire career as an activist has been a lie.

'LGBT inclusive speeches in record number at Democratic National Convention' and other Monday midday news briefs

DNC Treasurer Andrew Tobias, one of the openly gay speakers from last night. 

 Speeches with LGBT content #DNC2012 - 11 speeches last night at the Democratic Convention with LGBT inclusive content! Sweet! It took a looooong time for this day to come and I am so glad to see it. I want more of it. And it's something for the folks at GoProud to remember. How many speeches with positive LGBT content did they see at the Republican Convention?  

GLSEN Releases New School Climate Report: 82 Percent Of LGBT Students Still Encounter Verbal Harassment - Let's not get too happy. We've got a lot of work to do for our children.

 Christian Post runs article lauding Paul Cameron’s fraudulent claims - A hot mess. Amongst other things, Paul Cameron believes that gay men stuff gerbils up their rectums. It's mess like that which gives Christianity a bad name.  

Opponents of same-sex unions are using a controversial study to push a discriminatory new amendment - Why do you think the Regnerus study was created? 

Oh lawdy lawd! Obama is going to force us all to have gay marriages!

Former Family Research Council head Gary Bauer and his organization (the name of the organization matters less than Bauer) demonstrates how irrelevant they are in this election by putting out the following HILARIOUSLY bad commercial:

Concerned Women for America rehashes old lies about alleged 'homosexual promiscuity'

The religious right group Concerned Women for America has a long and infamous history of spinning awful lies about the so-called promiscuity of gay men.

In the late 80s, its founder, Beverly LaHaye endorsed a comic book entitled Homosexuality: Legitimate and Alternate Deathstyle.

The comic looked something like this:

And it featured such propaganda as the following:

Nowadays, no bigot would come out with something so blatantly hateful and even if he or she did, Concerned Women for American would have the good sense not to endorse it this time.

As it is, CWA's attack on the gay community is a bit more sophisticated. According to Think Progress:

The Concerned Women for America-affiliated Center for Marriage Policy has released a new “report” alleging that marriage equality is responsible for “the most serious avoidable health problems of our time.” Equating homosexuality with promiscuity, the report blames bisexuals for being a “broad gateway” to infecting unsuspecting heterosexual Americans with HIV and other diseases. It then compares that supposed health crisis to smoking.

I took a look at this so-called "new report, Homosexual Promiscuity: Breeding a national health problem, and found some very questionable things.

For one thing, it's not a new report, but a report which rehashes old inaccurate information about the lgbtq community. Very few of the links to this report come from reputable sources. Instead, they come from second-hand religious right sources. The following paragraph accentuates my point:

Gay men have between 4 and 100 times more sex partners than heterosexual men.  Lesbians are 4.5 times more likely to have over 50 sex partners in their lifetime compared with heterosexual women. 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men.  Only 10% of homosexual relationships are monogamous after five years.

If you read the links you would see that one source used by CWA is The Health Risks of Gay Sex by John R. Diggs. I've talked about the plethora of inaccuracies in Diggs' paper and I don't mind repeating them:

Twice, John R. Diggs includes the study done by Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg in their book, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, as indicative of the entire gay population. In one passage, he even refers to it as “a far ranging study of homosexual men . . .” But Bell and Weinberg never said that their findings were indicative of all gay men. They actually said “. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator willever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”

Diggs cites a Canadian study twice in order to claim that gays have a shorter lifespan than heterosexuals. But his citation of the study is a mischaracterization. In 2001, the six original researchers (Robert S. Hogg, Stefan A. Strathdee, Kevin J.P. Craib, Michael V. O’Shaughnessy, Julion Montaner, and Martin T. Schechter) who conducted that study have gone on record saying that religious conservatives (like Diggs) was distorting their work.

In another section entitled Physical Health, Diggs claims that gays are victims of “gay bowel syndrome.” Gay Bowel Syndrome is an obsolete medical term and even the CDC does not use it. In fact, if one was to look at the endnotes of Diggs’ study, he would find that two of the sources he quoted concerning “gay bowel syndrome” were from articles in published in 1976 and 1983, which is consistent with the years that the term existed. One last source was a letter to the editor printed in 1994 but Diggs does not make it clear as to the circumstances surrounding it.

Diggs uses convenience sample studies, like those conducted in STD clinics, claiming that they are indicative of the gay population at large.

Diggs claims that there are five distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual populations including levels of promiscuity, physical health, mental health, lifespan, and monogamy. However, he spends very little time comparing the two dynamics (heterosexual and homosexual populations.) He uses all of his time castigating gay populations.

Diggs uses an out of date book, The Gay Report (published in 1979) to claim that gays are engaging in deviant sexual practices. Only once does he attempt to tie the alleged deviant practices of gays in 1979 to present day; and to do so, he cites two events that took place regarding bondage workshops. However, there is a strong indication that heterosexuals took part in these events as well as gays. Diggs ignores this dynamic.

Another source used by CWA is from a website entitled Facts About Youth. Facts About Youth is the brainchild of a minor organization called American College of Pediatricians. All you need to know about ACP is that it is a sham organization designed to give a degree of credibility to the most foul religious right lies about the gay community, such as:

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

So basically in the case of CWA, we are talking about broken down old lies placed in a new package.

But they are still broken down old lies.

'Religious right spokesman - media who cites SPLC has blood on their hands' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Barber: Media Who Cite SPLC Will Have Blood on Their Hands - What a sleazeball! Seems to me that if FRC and folks like Matt Barber didn't lie on gays in the first place, this entire thing would have been avoided. Sorry Matt but THIS media person will cite SPLC and won't be feeling like Lady Macbeth any time soon:



 In other news:

 Ohio Mother Loses Custody Of Child Due To Marriage Inequality Amendment - This is just WRONG!  

Read: Democrats embrace the freedom to marry - A damn sweet and historical moment. 

 Nine preachers arrested at Southern Decadence - Oh sweet irony! You are too kind!

 NCLR Files Federal Lawsuit Against Indianapolis Public Schools For Failing to Protect Gay Student  - Sock it to them! If you can't protect our children, then they SHOULD sue! 

NOM pushing distorted video of Brown/Savage debate

In the middle of one of his infamously long-winded monologues, National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown tried to change history with regards to how his debate went with Dan Savage:

Meanwhile, I have to thank Frank Schubert, NOM's National Political Director, for his account of my debate with Dan Savage, which Frank called "The Smackdown in Seattle!"

The debate lasted just over an hour. Some of you have already watched it in its entirety. But I realize that not everyone has the time in their busy schedule to watch the full debate, so I went through the video and picked out about ten minutes of highlights. Please take a few minutes to watch.

What you will see is a passionate, reasoned, articulate defense of marriage, and a presentation of the profound public good it serves. You will see Brian demolish Dan Savage's arguments that the bible cannot be believed when it comes to marriage. You will see Brian make a case about the inherent nature of marriage, and how that nature cannot be altered. It is what it is and it cannot be redefined. Gay "marriage" can never exist, Brian explains, because marriage is intrinsically the union of one man and one woman.

For those who don't know, Frank Schubert is the NOM strategist behind pushing the inaccurate idea that marriage equality will harm children. That hyperbolic belief has been the key to victories against marriage equality in places like California and Maine.

Schubert pushes this lie even though he has a lesbian sister who is raising a child with her partner. So that gives you an impression of his integrity or lack thereof.

You will also notice that Schubert claimed to have edited the video of the Savage/Brown debate to its "highlights." Schubert's video of highlights is comprised of showing Brown in the most positive light while making it seem that Savage said absolutely nothing:



I guess when you can lie that gays want to harm children, you can lie about anything else.

Related post - NOM's Brian Brown becomes accidental ally for marriage equality through a slip of the tongue 

Equality Forum gives sneak peek of LGBT History Month honorees

October is LGBT History Month. The following is a sneak peek at those who have been chosen for spotlights, including a controversial pick. Can you guess who it is? Visit www.lgbthistorymonth.com for more information.

Why gays and lesbians should pity Bryan Fischer while denouncing him

Bryan Fischer

Last week, gay activist Michelangelo Signorile conducted an interview with homophobic firebrand Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association.

Fischer is infamous for negative comments about the gay community and anyone else who doesn't fit his idea of normalcy.

One portion of the interview came across as sad to me and I will tell you why after featuring it:

Regarding his frequently railing against gay men and making unsubstantiated connections to pedophilia, Fischer bristled when it was pointed out to him that every major medical and mental health group, such as the American Psychological Association, rejects such a connection.

“I disagree with the assessment that there’s no solid social science research behind the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia,” he countered, without referring to any studies specifically on homosexuality and pedophilia. “I believe the research is strong. I believe it is impeccable.”

Fischer then began to quote from this year's controversial Mark Regnerus study on gay-parenting, which was recently determined to be severely flawed in an audit by the very journal that published it. When that was pointed out him, he scoffed that “political pressure” caused the journal to criticize the study.

“That’s a homosexual act,” he said in describing a male pedophile molesting a male child, though studies have refuted any connection between homosexuality and pedophilia and social scientists note that most pedophiles do not have an adult sexual orientation and will often choose either gender in children they molest. “Because it’s a sexual act with someone of the same gender -- there’s no escaping that.”

Asked why he demonizes male homosexuality as dangerous because gay men are at high risk for HIV but rarely mentions lesbians, who are perhaps the lowest risk group for HIV infection (and thus it would negate his claims that homosexuality is medically risky and dangerous), Fisher claimed "lesbian behavior” is associated with medical risks too.

“Well, if you look at the Gay and Lesbian Medial Association web site,” he said. “This is the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association -- not an arm of the [Family Research Council] or [the American Family Association] or the vast right-wing conspiracy -- they identify ten specific medical risks for women who are engaged in lesbian behavior. And one of them is breast cancer and gynecological cancer. And this is the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association -- that’s not me saying that. That’s the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association saying that.”

But as renowned breast cancer specialist Dr. Susan Love has pointed out, "This has nothing to do with being a lesbian per se. Rather, it stems from the idea that lesbians are more likely to have some of the known risk factors for breast cancer: late first pregnancy or no pregnancy and obesity." When it was explained to Fischer that a possible higher incidence in breast cancer among lesbians may have to do with the fact that some studies suggest a higher incidence of breast cancer among women who do not breast feed, and that many lesbians do not have children (and thus straight women who don’t have children or don't breast feed might have an equally higher incidence of breast cancer), Fischer dismisses the fact that a possible higher incidence would have nothing to do with sexual orientation itself.

“Right, but nevertheless, the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association says, ‘Look, here are the risks, medical risks among lesbians that are higher than the general population,'" he repeated. "So I’m willing to take their word for it.”

The irony of Fischer citing the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association to cite anything regarding the gay and lesbian community is enormous.

As it is, he is not the first member of the religious right to cite the GMLA as an inaccurate way to demonize the lgbt orientation.

Two years ago, the Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg used the organization's work to attack the gay community even to the point of deliberately omitting parts of that work which placed the blame on homophobia for negative health behavior in the gay community.

While Fischer isn't as egregiously deceptive as Sprigg, he is just as stubborn. He claims that he is willing to take the GMLA's word on lesbian health, but I doubt he would take the following observations from GMLA  about the lesbian population as truth:

Depression/Anxiety
Lesbians may experience chronic stress from discrimination. This stress is worse for women who need to hide their orientation as well as for lesbians who have lost important emotional support because of their orientation. Living with this stress can cause depression and anxiety.

Substance Use
Lesbians may use drugs more often than heterosexual women. This can be due to stress from homophobia, sexism, and/or discrimination. Lesbians need support to find healthy ways to cope and reduce stress.

If confronted with these facts, how long would it take for Fischer to denounce the GLMA? Probably within seconds. And that's why we should pity Fischer.

He's not an intelligent person. Bryan Fischer is just a silly old man with a radio show, an extreme bastardization of the Andy Warhol saying that in the future, everyone will be famous for 15 minutes.

Fischer is stubborn even to the point of putting his fingers in his ears and making loud noises when confronted with the the truth about his inaccurate claims. He's a regular Grandpa Simpson on crack.

Of course this isn't to say that we should totally ignore Fischer. It's to say that Fischer doesn't deserve the anger he elicits from the gay community. What he deserves is mockery, pity, and whenever necessary, scapegoating.

Instead of blowing our tops at him, the gay community would be wise to point him out as one of the real faces of the religious right; a face of fear, bigotry, and lies which cannot be covered up by a plastic mask of religious piety.

Chuck Norris: 'Vote or Obama will GET YOU!'

I'm feeling extremely snarky tonight because of my desire to dropkick some sorry twink who claimed that "not many people are interested in the work that I do," i.e. my blog.

But to have slugged him would have been counterproductive and would have broken my nails, so I am going to take it out on my old friend, Chuck Norris.

I gave Chuck Norris hell earlier this year because of a lying column he wrote which defended foreign countries that persecute gays.

This video he made with his second wife,Gena O'Kelley, belongs in the comedy section of youtube.

In it, the two are talking sounding the old, broken down, overused claim of "our country is at a tipping point and will be destroyed if we don't make the right choices."

Now the two doesn't go into detail about what freedoms will be taken away, nor do they implicitly accuse Obama of being the one who will take the freedoms away.

But you just know what they are implying.

There is more hysteria in this video than in a Friday cliffhanger of Young and the Restless:

Wayne Besen has a fiery debate with anti-gay activist

Truth Wins Out's Wayne Besen recently had a debate on the David Pakman show with anti-gay activist Michael Brown.

I think Wayne did rather well. The debate was over skype and his nervousness showed, but he definitely came with his A-game.

Brown, per usual, came with his "aw shucks" facade:

KNOW Your LGBT History - William 'Billy' Haines and Jimmy Shields

We all know about the openly gay actors of today like Neil Patrick Harris, Jim Parsons, Chris Colfer, etc.

But what about the openly gay actors who came before them? Yes, there were some openly gay actors - AND directors - in Hollywood at a time in which the lgbtq community wasn't as out of the closet as we are now.

Today, I want to focus on William "Billy" Haines, who gave up his career instead of staying in the closet, and the love of his life, Jimmy Shields:

Charles William "Billy" Haines was an American film actor and interior designer. He was a star of the silent era until the 1930s, when Haines' career was cut short by MGM Studios due to his refusal to deny his homosexuality. Haines never returned to film and instead started a successful interior design business with his life partner and was supported by friends in Hollywood.

Haines and his partner, Jimmy Shields, began a successful dual career as interior designers and antique dealers. Among their early clients were friends such as Joan Crawford, Gloria Swanson, Carole Lombard, Marion Davies and George Cukor. Their lives were disrupted in 1936 when members of the Ku Klux Klan dragged the two men from their home and beat them, because a neighbor had accused the two of propositioning his son. Crawford, along with other stars such as Claudette Colbert, George Burns, Gracie Allen, Kay Francis, and Charles Boyer urged the men to report this to the police. Marion Davies asked her lover William Randolph Hearst to use his influence to ensure the neighbors were prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but ultimately Haines and Shields chose not to report the incident.

The couple finally settled into the Hollywood community in Brentwood, and their business prospered until their retirement in the early 1970s, except for a brief interruption when Haines served in World War II. Their long list of clients included Betsy Bloomingdale, Ronald and Nancy Reagan when Reagan was governor of California, and Walter and Leonore Annenberg with their 240-acre (0.97 km2) estate "Sunnylands."

Haines and Shields remained together until Haines' death. Joan Crawford described them as "the happiest married couple in Hollywood."

Haines died from lung cancer in Santa Monica, California at the age of 73, a week short of his 74th birthday, which was on the new year of 1974. Soon afterward, Shields, who suffered from what many believe to be Alzheimer's Disease, put on Haines' pajamas, took an overdose of pills, and crawled into their bed to die. They were interred side by side in Woodlawn Memorial Cemetery.

It's been said that Shields left a short suicide note. It read:

"It's no good without Billy."

So the next time someone tells you about how gays and lesbians don't believe in the concept of  love, remember Billy and Jimmy.


Past Know Your LGBT History posts:

Religous right - the 49ers are wrong for helping bullied gay children

 Editor's note - The midday news briefs will be preempted because I have a doctor's appointment. I'm going to see if I can get some of those meds that Clint Eastwood was obviously on last night.

Recently, the San Francisco 49ers made a video speaking out against the bullying of gay teens.

You just KNEW someone from the religious right was going to speak negatively about it:

Larry Jacobs, managing director of the World Congress of Families, tells OneNewsNow why he has a problem with this.

"The problem with the 'It Gets Better' campaign is that it, again, is special rights -- singling out a particular group that is no more harmed than any other groups, and really singling them out for special attention and special rights, special things that should also be shared with lots of other people that are being bullied," he contends. "It really is, again, another example of money and resources being given to a special class, a group of people, and discriminating against many others who are being bullied."

Jacobs seems to want folks to engage in a game of pitting categories of bullied youths against one another.  I refuse to be defensive. In making the video, the 49ers weren't placing gay teens above any other bullied group.

That's like saying when you give money to fight breast cancer, you are saying that people suffering from other forms of cancer don't matter. It's an argument that doesn't wash.

The way I see it is this -  the bullying of children for any reason is a problem and whatever anyone can do to combat this problem - however large or small - should  be applauded, encouraged, and complimented.

That being said, if Jacobs feels that attention should be paid to other victims of bullying, then perhaps he get his organization to do something on their behalf.

That is if he can pull himself away from attacking the 49ers and bullied gay youth.

BTW here is the video that Jacobs is speaking of:

Hate group spokesman claims gays are responsible for Hurricane Issac

Don't be shocked by this courtesy of Right-Wing Watch:

American Family Association's Buster Wilson, who is the general manager of their radio network, is blaming Hurricane Isaac on the city of New Orleans for hosting Southern Decadence, the annual LGBT festival. Wilson joins other pastors in linking the festival to natural disasters which hit New Orleans in the past:

It shouldn't suprise anyone that the American Family Association has been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

'Anti-gay group to feature Victoria Jackson in women's conference' and other Thursday midday news briefs

Liberty Counsel's Celebrity Headliner: Victoria Jackson - The anti-gay Liberty Counsel will hold a women's conference featuring this woman:



 

It shows you what the Liberty Counsel truly thinks of women.

In other news: 

 FRC now praying for SPLC, critics' repentance - The Family Research Council prays, not for forgiveness for bearing false witness against the gay community, but for those who call the group out on its lies.  

Anti-Gay Republican Platform Was Retaliation For Log Cabin Republicans’ Presence - Not surprising. When you challenge lies, the liars always retaliate.  

STUDY: Hearing ‘That’s So Gay’ Causes Negative Health Effects - Negative health effects that religious right will no doubt exploit while omitting where they spring from.

How the Family Research Council distorts social science to defend DOMA

Editor's note - With the talk in the media about the Family Research Council's "hate group" designation, it is important that the gay community makes the case as to how FRC distorts social science to create anti-gay propaganda. With that in mind, I am repeating a post from a year ago because it is still relevant. The information is still on the FRC webpage.

On its Defend DOMA web page, the Family Research Council has a link, Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same Sex Marriage which supposedly speaks against gay marriage but contains a number of misdirections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But keep in mind the phrase by FRC when criticizing studies involving same-sex households -  most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems.

If these studies is biased and have no credibility, then why do FRC have no problem citing them when attacking same-sex households:

Judith Stacey-- a sociologist and an advocate for same-sex civil marriage--reviewed the literature on child outcomes and found the following: "lesbian parenting may free daughters and sons from a broad but uneven range of traditional gender prescriptions." Her conclusion here is based on studies that show that sons of lesbians are less masculine and that daughters of lesbians are more masculine.

She also found that a "significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers ... reported having a homoerotic relationship." Stacey also observes that children of lesbians are more likely to report homoerotic attractions.

Her review must be viewed judiciously, given the methodological flaws detailed by Professor Nock in the literature as a whole. Nevertheless, theses studies give some credence to conservative concerns about the effects of homosexual parenting.

FRC's audacity is incredible here. The organization is saying "Stacey is biased for same-sex marriage, so we cannot totally believe what she says. However, we will believe the part which puts gay marriage in a negative light."

The gymnastics behind this logic is astounding, especially when one takes into account that this is a distortion of Stacey's study. She has gone on record on more than one occasion complaining about how organizations like FRC cherry-pick her work.  

And on that same note, FRC also cited the work of Yale Child Study Center psychiatrist Kyle Pruett to make the case against gay marriage in the piece, even though Pruett has also complained  about how his work was being "cherry picked"  by religious right groups and spokespeople.

FRC is equally dishonest when it makes the claim that gay men will not be faithful in marriages.

One recent study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians in civil unions, reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity.

According to its footnotes, FRC received this information from two sources. One was:

Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon, Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology, 2003.

Of course this leads one to ask if this study looked at civil unions in Vermont during the first year, then are the more recent updates.

The second source is more intriguing:

David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, The Male Couple (Prentice Hall, 1984) 252.

Gay marriage wasn't legal in 1984.

The spin from the Family Research Council and those who support them, as they trot out this mess, is that they are defending Christian beliefs and morality.

That's an incorrect spin.

The Family Research Council is using lies and distortions to defend what they call Christian beliefs. And I make that distinction because true Christian beliefs don't need to be defended through the spreading of propaganda and the distortion of legitimate science.

Jesus said that "I am the way, the truth, and the light." He did not say "feel free to lie with impunity as long as you are doing it in defense of my kingdom."

When FRC and other so-called pro-family groups engage in these tactics, they hurt the integrity of Christianity. They are sending a message that underneath it all, Christianity is a lie.

They send the message that Christian is fiction, because it if it were real, those who practice it wouldn't need to play such games as manipulating science or scaring heterosexuals into thinking that lgbts are seeking to take away their children.

Organizations like FRC probably have the lgbt community beat on so many levels such as planning, organization, and monetary resources.

But when it come to truth, when it come to basic honesty, the Family Research Council and all of the other groups who wrap themselves up in the flag of morality are sorely lacking.

And those are the value which they should consider central to their message. But they don't. Instead, they reduce Christianity from a religion of hope and love to a cynical way of gaining political power.

Bottom line - the way things are going, Jesus may have to come back, die on the cross, raise Himself from the dead an immeasurable amount times to stem the damage that FRC and other like-minded groups do in His name.

*There is a huge irony in the fact that FRC used both Steven Nock's 2001 testimony and Judith Stacey's work to demonize same-sex families because Stacey published a scathing affadavit  which criticized Nock's testimony. In part it reads:

Professor Nock is a survey researcher and demographer, which represents a specific methodology and a sub-field of inquiry within sociological research. When Professor Nock provides his lengthy description of research methodology, he adopts the extreme, untenable position that the genre of large-scale survey research that he generally conducts is the only acceptable research method in all of the social science disciplines and subfields.

Professor Nock inappropriately applies this model of research, which is only one model within his own particular sub-field of sociology – demography – to an entirely different discipline, child development, which is a branch of developmental psychology. This is a research specialty and sub-discipline in which Professor Nock has no expertise. The body of research with which he takes issue in his affidavit was conducted primarily, if not exclusively, by psychologists with expertise in the field of child development. None of the studies that Professor Nock is evaluating were conducted by sociologists or by demographers.

Why GoProud sells out the gay community

Many of us gay activist don't particularly care for the gay Republican organization GoProud.

Many of us, me included, view it as a fake group of posers wanting attention while ignoring the real problems in the gay community; a collection of vapid folks from the most fevered imaginations of Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber and willing to kiss Tony Perkins' butt if it will get them some attention.

But for those who will accuse those of us who despise GoProud of being prejudiced against them simply for being Republican, check out this quote from The Washington Post. It comes from one of their supporters who attended their annual "Homocon" nonsense. "Homocon" is when GoProud members together and invites a conservative who will attack them for not knowing their place.

“I understand I’m going to be subject to certain limitations,” said Robert Stevens, sporting a Romney/Ryan button late Tuesday night. “I understand I won’t have equal rights. But I also want to be filthy rich, and I think the Republican ticket can get me there.”

In other words - treat me like a second-class citizen. Demonize me and tell folks lies about me molesting children. Spread stories accusing me of wanting to "convert" children and destroy society. Make it difficult for me to have a normal life complete with a loving family.

Just as long as you make sure I get lots of money.

If GoProud took steps to attempt to change the homophobia of the Republican Party, I would at least respect them. Instead the leaders go on and on about the "gay left."

A little advice, guys. The "gay left" aren't the ones giving you hell.

Check out the faces attached to the asses you attempting hard to kiss.

'NOM's diaper pastor vs. President Obama' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

NOM’s new ad pimps NC anti-gay pastor Wooden urging blacks to vote against Obama - Personally, for all the talk SOME PEOPLE say about African-Americans being homophobic, I don't see this working. 

Let me put it another way.

Patrick Wooden, the "diaper pastor:"
 

vs. President Obama:
 

No contest. African-Americans are not monolithic and don't count on us staying home this election day. And if you think that we will turn on marriage equality (particularly when health care is in the balance), then let me have a little of what you are smoking.

 In other news:

 Preserve Marriage Washington’s Missing Campaign Finance Numbers - Speaking of NOM, looks like the group is hiding money again.

 Five Minnesota Anti-Gay Activists' Greatest Hits #glaadCAP - GLAAD highlights the worse of the five Minnesota anti-gay activists. Get your barf bag handy.

 California Assembly Advances Bill Limiting Ex-Gay Therapy To Minors - The religious right is sure to go batshit over this one. Good. 

Keeping the Family Research Council's 'hate group's status in the public eye

Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center recently appeared on The O'Reilly Factor to discuss SPLC's labeling of the Family Research Council as a hate group.

Naturally, O'Reilly defended FRC, but I think Potok handled himself well here:



Folks wanting to gag at O'Reilly's blatant nonsense should suppress their urge to hurl. Remember this - as long as we are at least discussing what the Family Research Council does, then it's a good thing. If the organization is expecting a public outcry of pity over its "hate group" status, then it guessed wrong.

The only bad thing would be for SPLC to retreat on its position.

And that's not about to happen soon.

Family Research Council makes BIG mistake in cherry-picking my words

Dear  Family Research Council,

I was rather touched when I found out that you devoted a column on your site to me. I was really touched by you mentioning me in the headline - Homosexual Activist: “Hate Group” Charge Doesn’t Require “Hate."

I was floored by the acknowledgement of my work to unmask your lies when you said the following:

One homosexual blogger (and regular critic of FRC) did a detailed critique of the FRC Issue Brief.

But what I was especially honored by was the way you cherry-picked a sentence out of my post to take my words out of context.

After all, you have spent so many years distorting and cherry-picking other work that if you hadn't done the same to me, I would have felt left out. I am honored to now be in the company of such luminaries as Robert Garafalo.

Remember him? In 1998,  you distorted his work to make a false claim about supposed negative behaviors amongst gay youth. When told of his complaint, a former employee of yours, Robert Knight, called Garafalo a "thrall of political correctness."

I wouldn't be bringing that up except for the fact that over a decade later, you all are still distorting his work in a piece which continues to be on the FRC site (Getting It Straight, pg. 88).

But I digress. The sentence you cherry-picked from my work - “Now whether or not FRC hates gays is irrelevant.” - was in answer to an annoying ramble your writer went on, spouting the usual talking points on how the Family Research Council does not hate the gay community, but apparently you hate the supposedly negative behavior of homosexuality and that your attacks on the gay community is out of love.

I have one question.

How is it that you assessed that homosexuality is a so-called negative behavior? No one on your staff has ever done any studies on the matter. To my knowledge, there are no researchers, scientists, or physicians of any type on the FRC staff. All you employ are spokes models, scandal-plagued retirees and ethically-challenged pastors.

On what ground do you stand on to claim that there is a link between homosexuality and pedophilia when the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America, all say that the homosexuality and pedophilia are not linked?

How is it can you call homosexuality a dangerous lifestyle when medical professionals have pointed out that it is the homophobia which gays have to deal with which causes things like drug abuse and depression (and that is something you should know because more than once, you have cherry-picked work from these sources).

But again, I digress. Let's talk about hatred. My point in that post which you so incredibly got inaccurate was in the long run, your motivation for lying and demonizing the gay is more irrelevant than the fact that you offer very little defense of your lies.

Writer finds heavy anti-gay animosity while undercover at NOM conference

Carlos Maza went undercover at a NOM conference.

Carlos Maza of  site Equality Matters (i.e. Media Matters) did something incredible.

He went undercover at a National Organization for Marriage conference which, was according to him, was "meant to prepare college students to defend "natural marriage" on their campuses by introducing them to a number of prominent anti-gay speakers and activists."

Maza said he wanted to see whether or not NOM's plans for halting marriage equality was not built on an idea of animosity towards the gay community. He also wanted to see what NOM officials were saying about the gay community when the media was not present.

Since its founding in 2007, NOM has loudly proclaimed that its "battle is not with an orientation"; that, despite opposing gay marriage, the organization isn't motivated by animosity towards gay and lesbian people. This distinction - "we're not anti-gay, just anti-gay marriage" - has allowed NOM to differentiate itself from organizations that have been labeled "hate groups" for peddling known falsehoods about LGBT people. But, I wanted to see it for myself. Attending ITAF would give me an opportunity to find out what NOM was really saying about LGBT people when it wasn't mincing words for mainstream media outlets.

To say that what Maza found wasn't pretty is a severe understatement. According to Maza, the organization is heavily pushing the idea that gay relationships are unstable:

The first seminar of the morning was given by Bill Duncan, director of the anti-equality Marriage Law Foundation. His talk - "Marriage and the Law" - attempted to establish a legal case for barring same-sex couples from marrying. The speech was basically a rehashing of NOM's list of pre-approved marriage talking points; marriage is about procreation, marriage equality would redefine the institution of marriage for everyone, mothers and fathers aren't optional, etc. It was also a perfect example of the kind of 'protect marriage' rhetoric NOM prefers to use when it's in the public eye. Duncan's comments were anti- equality, sure, but none of what he said was particularly anti-gay.  

Next up was Dr. Jenet Erickson, an assistant professor at BYU's School of Family Life. Her seminar, titled "Marriage: The Indispensable Social Institution," focused on the relationship between marriage and parenting by attempting to make the case that married, heterosexual couples offer the best environment for raising children. She called same-sex relationships "inherently unstable," suggesting that gay partners eventually get bored of each other as a result of having the same gender.

At the end of her speech, Erickson was asked how she would counter stories of well-adjusted children raised by same-sex parents. She responded by asserting that the majority of same-sex couples are "dysfunctional" and "erratic," citing a widely discredited gay parenting study conducted by UT Austin associate professor Mark Regnerus