Hate Crimes Act Distortions

The anti-gay industry is spooked by the possibility of a federal hate crimes law that will include the gay and lesbian community.

They have already began telling lies and I am sure that their efforts will culminate in a huge effort to either kill the legislation in Congress or get President Bush to veto it should it get to his desk.

The anti-gay industry is going to repeat their lies about how lgbts want to put Christians in jail for speaking out against homosexuality and how we also want to "recruit" children.

To combat these distortions, we must know and expose their tactics as quickly and as frequently as possible.

In that spirit, I am going to post something I found online. The following has to do with how the Family Research Council lied in its attempts to kill the 1999 Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Trust me when I say that the following tactics will be used again by the anti-gay industry. That is if they aren't already being used:

BEARING FALSE WITNESS: THE FRC'S SIX BIG LIES ABOUT THE HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT

The Family Research Council, in an effort to shift public focus away from the tragedy of hate crimes in America, has issued an "action alert" to its members in which it fabricates six myths about the Hate Crimes PreventionAct of 1999. These myths -- and a short refutation -- are as follows:

FRC lie 1: "Hate crimes legislation could severely restrict Americans' freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of religion. This legislation would give the government the power to interpret and classify certain speech, thought, theology, and moral belief as unlawful or contributing to crime. Will pastors, priests, rabbis, and other religious leaders who preach and teach against homosexual conduct be prosecuted for inciting a hate crime?"

The truth: The Hate Crimes Prevention Act would only prohibit acts of violence, not speech. The Act would notinfringe upon anyone's First Amendment rights. In this manner, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act would operate justlike the current hate crimes statute, which does not punish protected speech because it requires that any coveredincident include criminal acts involving force. The changes to the statute proposed by the Hate Crimes Prevention Act would only apply to cases involving death or bodily injury; in other words, they would only come into play when violent crimes have been committed -- not in matters involving speech protected by the First Amendment.

FRC lie 2: "President Clinton stated that he would include words perceived as inciting an act of violence - without proof of direct correlation - as evidence of a hate crime."

The truth: Again, the legislation does not target speech.Organizations such as the FRC would remain free to condemn homosexuality. Only when a crime victim is targetedfor a violent act because of his or her sexual orientation, gender or disability status could the law be applied.

FRC lie 3: "Talk radio, religious broadcasting and television programs could be subject to censorship."

The truth: The Hate Crimes Prevention Act would not restrict the media. Again, it would come into play only whensomeone commits a violent crime on the basis of someone else's race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or disability.

FRC lie 4: "Hate crimes legislation could give priority to homosexuals as being more protected victims than other victims of crime."

The truth: The Hate Crimes Prevention Act does not create a category of "more protected victims." It simply addresses the fact that state and local authorities sometimes cannot or will not prosecute violent crimes committed against gays and lesbians. Under current law, the federal government is often unable to intervene in these cases. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act would permit federal authorities to bring the perpetrators of these horrible crimes to justice.

FRC lie 5: "Hate crimes legislation, accompanied by the President's 'tolerance education' crusade, will hinder parents who seek to protect their children from a lifestyle that is unhealthy and which they recognize to be morally and spiritually wrong."

The truth: The Hate Crimes Prevention Act would not interfere with the rights of parents to teach their children according to their own sets of values. The Act would merely prohibit acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or disability. It would not preclude parents from teaching their own values to their children.

FRC lie 6: "Students could be forced to learn homosexual diversity training in public schools."

The truth: This legislation has nothing to do with school curriculum.

Tuesday musings . . . .

I see that some bloggers still can't let go of the fact that David Parker lost his case.

I can't help but feeling a little concerned as to how many of these so-called people of faith are allowing themselves to be taken in by the anti-gay industry propaganda machines. Many blogs that I have read are claiming that all sorts of calamities will happen, including:

Elementary school children will be taught homosexuality, including having tests complete with connect-the-dots,

High schoolers will be forced to memorize parts from Mildred Pierce, All About Eve, and (gasp) songs from Cher albums,

Whitney Houston may go back to Bobby Brown,

Britney Spears will win an Oscar,

Ann Coulter will win a Pulitzer Prize - Okay that last one scares even me!

As you can tell, I am in a light mood today. But I really shouldn't be because I have yet another reason to despise the gay community.

Today I went to the local library to look up a bit of information for my book. To find what I was looking for, I had to go to the third floor, via an escalator. It wouldn't be too bad except for the fact that I have a bad case of vertigo and whoever built my public library obviously liked those movies with single bridges overlapping huge valleys of land.

Let's just say that I dug my nails in the handles of the escalator so hard that I went through the rubber and hit metal.

And when it was over, I had to sit down for 10 minutes.

Not to worry though because I did find what I was looking for. The ironic thing is that it will probably add up to at least two or three sentences in my book. But they are an important two or three sentences.

It will be another example in my book of how the anti-gay industry cherry picks information in order to harm our community.

And speaking of my book, I hope to send it to the publisher on Monday. Not exactly March 1, but my index is a killer. I want to make sure that I include all of my sources.

When I send it off, I hope to list the chapters by name on this blog. Keep your fingers crossed!

Clarification thanks to Joe Brummer

Yesterday, I mentioned that I did not know that much about the American College of Pediatricians (the group that wrote a junk science study trashing gay parenting. See yesterday's blog entry.) Thanks to my friend Joe Brummer, I know a little about this group:

The American Collage of Pediatricians are a small group of conservative, religious pediatricians whose research is not rigorously tested and reviewed by peers.

The Boston Globe writes:

“Created as counterpoints to large, well-established medical organizations whose work is subject to rigorous review and who assert no political agenda, the tiny think tanks with names often mimicking those of established medical authorities have sought to dispute the notion of a medical consensus on social issues such as gay rights, the right to die, abortion, and birth control.”

“The tiny American College of Pediatricians has a single employee, yet it has been quoted as a counterpoint to the 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics."

This goes beyond anti-gay distortions. We are dealing with organizations who, when they don't like the conclusions of certain studies, create their own scientific bodies with political agendas.

I am curious as to just how many people of faith have been fooled by this chicanery. It's very scary when propaganda machines are masquerading as credible and objective scientific bodies.


Maybe a solution to this problem

Wayne Besen has done it again and I have to give him his props:

Truth Wins Out unveiled a new campaign today encouraging scientists to report right wing distortions of their research on the website www.RespectMyResearch.org.

Truth Wins Out will also join the gay right's group SoulForce today in a media conference call featuring a panel of experts who will discuss how groups, such as Focus on the Family, manipulate social science to help justify discrimination.

"This website is a powerful response to the brazen and outrageous manner in which the far right has hijacked science to support their discriminatory aims," said Truth Wins Out's Executive Director Wayne Besen. "Our goal is to make it easier for legitimate researchers to fight back and demand their work be respected and not co-opted for an extreme political agenda."

This is something that should have been done a long time ago. I personally think that all major gay rights groups should make exposing anti-gay industry distortions a goal in the future. We can't win hearts and minds when we are being blocked by lies.

So I am a 'sodomy advocate" now? Unbelievable nonsense

Apparently I am getting a little infamous. A blogger wrote an entry about me.

It began when I posted a comment to his blog in response to his entry about the David Parker situation.

This is what he said:

Recently a sodomite advocate with a screen name of Black Tsunami (AKA A. McEwen) sent a comment to the latest entry on this blog.I went to his blog, called "Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters" and saw that he has lost all contact with reality.

Look at what his description says:

For two years, I have studied "so-called" pro family "research" regarding the gay community and have found a disturbing pattern of deception. In 2007, my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters will be published, detailing all of my findings. The purpose of this blog is to give updates of my work and to show some of my findings.McEwen wants to see deception to document in his book? Here's some for him!

So what was the deception he had for me? Why nothing. He then goes on a tangent about the same-sex marriage situation in Wisconsin.

Which confuses me because my post was about the David Parker case.

I would like to think that he looked at my blog and couldn't refute anything on it.

When some people go on a tangent, it's always better to sit back and let them go. On some occasions, it can be funny.

Just want to point something else out about the Parker case

I have been online looking through the blogs and many of them are reporting the David Parker case verbatim via World Net Daily with the headline:

Judge orders 'gay' agenda taught to Christian students

World Net Daily is not exactly a pro-gay, objective, or fair online newspaper.

It is things like this that make it so difficult to fight the lies of the anti-gay industry. They have so many people either wrapped up in their own egos as "true Christians" or scared because of their claims of a "gay conspiracy" that these folks are becoming like zombies; repeating all of their lies verbatim and without the courtesy of dissent.

The worst thing is that so many of these blogs are by people who consider themselves as Christian, even quoting the Bible.

I guess to some, the ends justify the means even in the Body of Christ.

It is so sad.

Headless Monsters Galore!!!

Leave it to my friend Peter LaBarbera to give me something to write about today. On his web page is a report by the American College of Pediatricians that criticizes gay parenting.

Now I don't know who encompasses this group but I will find out in the future. I do know that if they write position papers like the one criticizing gay parenting, then they are a bunch of quacks.

When I read it, I laughed out loud because I noticed several distortions. The piece, Homosexual Parenting, Is It Time for a Change follows two anti-gay industry tactics - 1. distort a legitimate study to prove something negative about the lgbt community, 2. repeat that distortion on several fronts.

In relation to the second principle, I found several of these claims in other anti-gay industry studies about the gay and lesbian community. I cover these lies in detail in my upcoming book. I am now going to show just a few of the distorted studies and then give the proof of the matter. In some cases, I am revealing parts of my book that many are not aware of:

Distortion 1: The report distorts the following studies to claim that gays and lesbians have a high rate of domestic violence in their households:

Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, “Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications,” Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.

Truth - The original study was conducted in 1985 at a Michigan Women’s Music Festival. According to a reviewer of the study, Suzana Rose, Ph.D., of the 1099 lesbians participants, most were white and between the ages of 20-45. She also said: "Questions concerning perpetrating abuse need to distinguish between actions taken in self-defense and actions initiated by the aggressor. This point was not assessed here. Findings are limited by the selective recruiting of participants."

D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14.

Truth - Patrick Letellier went on record in 2001 declaring that his book was being misused and cherry picked

Lettie L. Lockhart et al., “Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492.

Truth - The Journal of Interpersonal Violence offers the most up-to-date information on domestic violence, rape, child sexual abuse and other violent crimes. . . Focusing on both victims and perpetrators, the journal examines theoretical links between all types of interpersonal violence, exploring the similarities and differences between these types of crimes.

In other words, the Journal of Interpersonal Violence tracks domestic violence, as well as other violent crimes. Of course those surveyed in it had been recipients of violence, verbal or otherwise, because this is what the journal is designed to track. The study in it about lesbians cannot be used to represent the entire lesbian community.

Distortion 2: The report distorts a 1997 study to make a claim that gay men have a short life span:

Robert S. Hogg et al., “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.

Truth - But in 2001, all of the six researchers wrote a letter to the International Journal of Epidemiology claiming that the anti-gay industry was distorting their work. They said they were speaking of a hypothetical situation that could take place if there were not better safe sex practices put in place in a particular place.

Distortion 3 : The report distorts a Netherlands study by Maria Xiridou:

Maria Xiridoui, et al., “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1029-1038. [Note: one of the findings of this recent study is that those classified as being in “steady relationships” reported an average of 8 casual partners a year in addition to their partner (p. 1032)]

Truth - There are so many errors in how this was used but the biggest error is the fact that the study had no questions about children in same-sex households. To use it to measure children in same-sex households is wrong.

In this post, I did not include references because I don't want to reveal too much. But TRUST me, I talk about these studies used by the anti-gay industry in MUCH detail. And I have proof of all my claims.

Finally, I would like to thank Peter because he has strengthened my resolve. While I was in church today, I was going over in my head all the things that had to be completed before I send my manuscript off to the publisher. It overwhelmed me.

But not anymore. I am determined to get this book done and finished, now more than ever so that everyone can see how Peter and his cohorts lie about lgbt lives.

David Parker ruling reveals something very interesting . . .

When not working to finish my book, I have been trolling through various blogs and web pages to gather information about the David Parker case.

Yesterday, a federal judge threw out Parker's lawsuit against his son's elementary school for "daring" to mention same-sex households.

Of course all of the pro-Parker sites have been screaming bloody murder and calling the ruling a travesty. They have also been distorting the case. Check out two various headlines:

MASS. FORCE FEEDING of HOMO AGENDA

Judge orders 'gay' agenda taught to Christian children

But that's not the only questionable thing I found today. I looked on the webpage of Mass Resistance, the group behind Parker's lawsuit and various other anti-gay industry endeavors in Massachusetts. Naturally, the group isn't exactly happy over the ruling. It even gives an "analysis" of the ruling. By "analysis," the group means ways to whine about how evil the ruling is.

I found this interesting comment on the page. It may not mean anything, but you be the judge:

(Federal Judge Mark) Wolf also makes the point that must NOT be allowed to opt out! He echoes the homosexual movement's propaganda, that allowing religious freedom would send a bad "message" to children whose parents engage in homosexual behavior, so therefore schools must teach homosexuality in a positive light to EVERY student:

An exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students. Cf. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 494 (1954).2 It might also undermine the defendants' efforts to educate the remaining other students to understand and respect differences in sexual orientation. [p. 7]

Wolf claims that the flawed and badly argued Brown decision is now the "law" of the United States. Did Congress pass this? No, it didn't. It's merely a ruling in a case. This ruling is full of use of "case law" from obscure decisions, as if it were real law:

Brown not only remains the law of the First Circuit, it has also been found to be persuasive in every other circuit that has discussed it in defining the scope of a parent's right to raise his or her children. [p. 18]

Is it just me or did this anti-gay industry group just claim that the Supreme Court decision in the case of Brown vs. the Board of Education (the case that led to the desegregation of American public schools) is "flawed" and "badly argued?"

Just food for thought.

So many things to be happy and upset about on this Friday . . .

Shirley Q. Liquor is not funny

I began the day highly pissed.

Or as the late comedia Robin Harris would say, "pissed off to the highest level of pissivity." And it wasn't the anti-gay industry that got me angry. It was my own community.

GLAAD gets a lot of flack for their stances. Some of it may be deserved, but I have to give the group credit for standing up for lgbts.

One stance they took seems to have gotten some gays upset. The group spoke out against comedian Charles Knipp.

Knipp, or as he is known, Shirley Q. Liquor, has an act where he puts on blackface and pretends to be a welfare mother with 19 children. Subsequently, many lgbts of color have protested clubs where he performs and he is beginning to lose bookings. GLAAD recently spoke out against him.

An editorial today in the New York Blade asked what in the world is GLAAD doing in this fight:

We commend GLAAD for condemning racism, but we question whether the organization’s goal is best attained by joining this particular fight.

It sounds like to me that the Blade feels that GLAAD shouldn't be in this fight because Knipp isn't insulting gays.

But yes he is. The editorial said glossed over the fact that many lgbts of color find him offensive. The editorial also made it a point to say that RuPaul (described as an icon) thought his act was funny.

I hope you all can see why I was upset. I have heard Knipp's act and as a black gay man, I am insulted. And I am not alone in this mindset. Many lgbts of color don't find Knipp to be funny. A white man in black face disrespecting black women with children (this includes lesbians because lesbians of color have children) is not satire. He is perpetuating the same type of nonsense that has kept black folks, Jewish people and gay people in bondage.

Just like some black heterosexuals want lgbts of color to ignore our homosexual orientation, some lgbts want us to ignore the fact that we are black. The New York Blade's stance on this issue just goes to prove how so many in the gay community can't seem to get with the fact that not all of us are club hopping, skinny white men with fashionable clothing. Some of us are fat, some of us are skinny, some of us are black, some of us are white, some of us are young, some of us are old.

But all of us deserve dignity and if we can't get it from within our own community, then lgbts in America has bigger problems than the anti-gay industry.

My 'friend' writes another letter

I received another comment from the guy I wrote about last night. This was about the anti-gay lecture series in Charlotte. He continues to assert that the lecture series is a dialogue. He also asked me:

Is everyone a gay basher who respectfully questions the homosexual movement?

Let me expand on what I told him because it illustrates how the so many people of faith are taken in by the anti-gay industry.

I don't think opposition to homosexuality makes one a bigot. I respect people who don't agree with or understand homosexuality. The commentator's question is flawed because the lecture series is not about "respectfully questioning the homosexual movement" nor is it about establishing a dialogue. I showed the press release and an article that quoted one of the organizers of the lecture series. The language in those two news items clearly showed that establishing a dialogue was the last thing the organizers in the lecture series want to do, right next to "respectfully questioning the homosexual movement."

And just because they are talking out of both sides of their mouths doesn't mean that I have to listen.


David Parker loses

This item brought my glee factor up. A year ago, David Parker caused a controversy in Massachusetts. His son brought home a "diversity bookbag" that contained a book showing a same-sex family.

Parker got upset and demanded that his son be taken out of class when someone mentioned a same-sex family situation, even if it happens spontaneously. The school tried to assure Parker that "learning about homosexuality" was not a part of the kindergarten curriculum. The school also told Parker that the state opt-out policy was not relevant because talking about different families didn't constitute a talk of human sexuality.

Parker persisted until he got himself arrested. He and the anti-gay industry tried to frame the case as a parent just trying to raise his child according to his values.

Parker's actions led to a lawsuit. Today, the federal judge threw it out.

Of course the anti-gay industry is going to try to frame the issue as schools teaching kindergarteners about homosexuality. According to some of their web pages, they have already begun.

Just par for the course.

By the way, I go into detail about the David Parker situation in my upcoming book.

It's all about presentation and language

I very rarely get comments opposing my blog so I was surprised when I got this one today:

You write: "These lectures are not about establishing a dialogue. These lectures are about scaring people, people who are ready and willing to be scared..."

Have you been to the lectures? I think you should come to at least one of the lectures before you make such a statement... These lectures are ALL about dialogue! And so far we have had some good ones... Come tonight (thursday) at 7 or tomorrow (Friday) at 7 :)

The commentator was talking about a post I wrote on February 14th about a group of Charlotte church leaders getting together for a lecture series about the Human Rights Campaign.

Now in all honesty, he did have me at a miniscule point. I hadn't been to any of the lectures, but I have a good reason to believe that they are not about establishing a dialogue due to the press release issued about them:

Charlotte Church Leaders to Discuss the Radical Agenda of Homosexual Activists at Weeklong Lecture Series

News Conference: Thursday, February 15, at 10:00 AM in front of the Booth Playhouse at the corner of Trade and Tryon

Contact: Kris Bennett, Coalition of Conscience, 704-782-3760CHARLOTTE, Feb. 14 /Standard Newswire/ -- Three years ago, the Human Rights Campaign, the world's largest homosexual advocacy organization, moved its annual Carolina's dinner to Charlotte. While local gay activists have applauded the HRC's presence in Charlotte, not everyone is pleased with this development.

Dr. Michael L. Brown, director of the Coalition of Conscience and a nationally known Christian leader and best-selling author, is convinced that now is the time to speak up."We have no desire to enter in a rhetorical battle with the HRC. We simply want to raise public awareness about who the HRC really is and what the HRC really stands for, demonstrating that they cannot legitimately be called the 'Human Rights' Campaign."

Does this sound like an attempt to establish a dialogue? Hardly. Seems to me if you are trying to establish a dialogue, you would approach the party you want to dialogue with rather than issuing a vitriolic press release.

Also, in new issue of One News Now (the publication taking the place of Agape Press) is the following article:

The director of a pro-family group says it's time for Christians in America to stop being complacent when it comes to threats posed by homosexual activists, and stop tolerating what he calls the "moral freefall" taking place in the U.S.

Michael Brown is director of the Coalition of Conscience, a network of churches, pastors, and business leaders who work for moral and cultural change through the gospel. He says homosexual activists are gearing up for a major assault on pro-family values this year.

"It's already happened in limited form here in America," says Brown. "[As Christians] we're to simply speak what the Bible speaks is true, without attacking people or calling for violence against people or without being bigoted hatemongers -- simply speaking the truth of the Word." But he cautions that one could "potentially go to jail for that."

While he acknowledges that Christians should be willing to risk everything for their faith, Brown says they do not have to be silent about efforts to silence believers' voices. "There's no reason for us to tolerate what's happening in society -- except that we have preached a man-serving, complacent gospel for so many years," says the Coalition leader. That, he contends, has resulted in self-centered believers, a barely existent call to commitment and sacrifice in the Church, and an attitude that says "we just don't believe things are going to get any worse."

Brown is hosting a weeklong series of lectures in Charlotte, North Carolina, about the true agenda of homosexual activists. The Coalition of Conscience is based in Charlotte.

Again I ask the question, does that sound like an attempt to establish a dialogue?

I stand by my comments in the February 14th post. The lecture series in Charleston is not about establishing a dialogue. It's about gay bashing.

And I find that comment from Mr. Brown about being thought of as a bigot as very ironic as well as Freudian.

A word to the wise, Mr. Brown, if you don't want gay people to think of you as a bigot, then you shouldn't make phony claims about gay people.

Seven days . . . .

My post is going to be short today mainly because of my work on my book, hence the title.

In seven days, I will finally go to press. After over two years of research, I will send my book to the publisher. And what I hope to be one of the definitive books on the lies of the anti-gay industry will be in motion to be published.

For years, I have wanted to see something like this; a book that analyzes the deceptions of the religious right as they pertain to the gay and lesbian community.

This book will not be a fast food, cookie cutter deciphering of homophobia. We know that when people like James Dobson and Peter LaBarbera speak against our community, they are masking their homophobia behind slick language and propaganda techniques.

I intend to prove it.

There is nothing (except for two brief comments) in this book about Mr. God Hates Fags Fred Phelps. He is too easy a target. His stridency makes him p0werless.

The ones who give us trouble are people like a concerned mother who hears about a gay/straight alliance forming in her child's school. She has a personal fear and disagreement about homosexuality, so she looks up data about it.

And she goes to the Focus on the Family web page or the Family Research Council web page or the Traditional Values Coalition web page. It doesn't matter where she goes because in all of these locations she will find "scientific proof" for her opposition to the gay/straight club forming in her child's school. The fact that what she will find is junk science is not known to her.

She will take what she finds and use it to rally other parents against the gay/straight alliance. She will stand in front the school board and repeat the lies she has read. She will solicit the advice and help of the anti-gay industry groups whose web pages she got her information from.

Calling this woman homophobic is wrong. Saying and proving that she and so many others like her are misinformed will be what wins this battle for us.

I really hope that my upcoming book will be the first step in this process.

Are we finally catching on?

I'm not one for direct action campaigns. I respect the need for them but I don't like to participate in them.

And I don't believe they should be undertaken if the only goal is to "get attention." Trying to get attention without any idea as to what will be done with the attention is wrong. Too many times, I think that my lgbt brothers and sisters invest too much time and effort in direct action campaigns, enjoying the transitory empowerment. In the long run, direct action campaigns can be counterproductive if there is no cohesive plan as to what is to be done when one gets the attention.

What's the use of shutting down a business or getting arrested if all you get are outrageous pictures or given 30 second soundbites that no one pays attention to because they are too transfixed by the wildness of your actions.

Having said all of that, I would like to commend SoulForce for their recent actions at Focus on the Family headquarters. It was exactly what a direct action campaign should be. Two members of the group were arrested for not leaving the headquarters and demanding that Focus on the Family stop giving out misleading information regarding gay families.

I liked the fact that the two women didn't do anything outrageous that would take attention away from the reason why they were at Focus on Family headquarters. They were focused on why they were there.

I especially liked this part of the article:

Dobson and other Focus spokespeople frequently discredit LGBT parenting with references to "more than 10,000 studies that have showed that children do best when they have a mom and a dad."

Last year the American Psychological Association said that such claims rely on "studies that simply do not address gay and lesbian parents and their children." The APA also said that "no credible evidence shows that children raised by lesbian or gay parents differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents."

My question is why hasn't this fact been trumpeted by our side from day one? I may be wrong in saying this, but reading the article today was the first time I ever saw our press going into detail about the anti-gay industry distortion of gay families.

And I want to see more of it. I want to see it everywhere. I want to see it posted on as many blogs as possible. I want lgbts to be encouraged to write letters to the editor about the distortion. I want it to be a cover story in The Advocate.

I love you Ellen Degeneres, but this is more important. Tammy Lynn, you are my girl, but you have been on too many covers.

Is my community finally focused on what we need to bring attention to? I certainly hope so.

Talk about beating a dead horse

It's been one day and some certain individual is trying to use the Tim Hardaway story for his own purposes.

That's right, our friend, Peter LaBarbera had something to say and of course none of it was good.

Now he said that Hardaway's comments were wrong, then he threw in a "nice" caveat:

And Hardaway does have a point about homosexuals in the locker room: we don’t let men shower and dress in women’s locker rooms, so shouldn’t men who define themselves as sexually attracted to other men be relegated to an alternative space? Ditto for lesbians: parents of athletic daughters should be concerned about lesbian coaches and girls with in the girls’ locker room.

Peter didn't say he hated gay people, but he threw out stereotypes and lies, just like Hardaway did.

I would venture to say that LaBarbera's comments are worse than that of Hardaway's. Hardaway's comments were blatantly mean spirited and homophobic. LaBarbera is articulate and pretends to be concerned with the well-being of children.

It is comments like LaBarbera's that play excellently in front of a bunch of homo-ingorant Christians. If Hardaway spoke to them, they would call him out for his nastiness. LaBarbera gives them justification for their ignorance without them having to face the fact that what they believe is ignorance.

And then comes LaBarbera's coup de grace. He mentions the Pam Spaulding incident. A commentator made a threat to him on her blog. When Pam found out, she deleted the post and got banned the commentator.

One would think the situation would be over.

Of course the matter won't die as long as Peter and another friend of ours, Matt Barber from Concerned Women for America, can squeeze just a little bit of traction from it:

Here’s the problem: the same media and liberals who rush to condemn Hardaway’s comments look the other way when homosexual activists like Pam Spaulding (who runs the “Pam’s House Blend” blog) spew abject hatred against Christians or anyone who speaks out against homosexual behavior. As my friend and former AFTAH Corporate Outreach Director Matt Barber describes in a column below, you don’t have to search very hard on Spaulding’s website to find evidence of her anti-Christian bigotry and hate-mongering.

Pam has never spouted hatred against Christians. Pam has never said she hated Christians and Pam has never advocated hurting Christians.

No doubt by Peter's definition, I hate Christians and I spout hatred towards them.

The problem here is people like Peter who seem to think that their religion makes them infalliable to criticism.

When you spout such nonsense against gays and lesbians, we have a right to make noise. When you do other things like freely cite discredited researcher Paul Cameron, we have a right to make noise. When you continuously lie and exploit people's fears and ignorance of the gay and lesbian community, we have a right to make noise.

And bear in mind, I didn't say threats. I said noise.

Peter, you have it twisted. You claim to be of God and that is a matter of opinion. But one thing is not a matter of opinion:

You are not God and you are not infalliable.

Good grief, Tim Hardaway!

By now, I am sure everyone has heard of the nonsense that came from ex-basketball player Tim Hardaway regarding gay people:

"You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people," he said while a guest on Sports Talk 790 The Ticket. "I'm homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."

Sir bigmouth's comments are going to be dissected over and over again so I won't talk about them too much.

Rather, I am going to roll my eyes and batten down my hatches. Here we go again with yet another reason for the gay and African-American community to go to war. When the shock of what Hardaway said goes away, someone is going to analyze his comments and actually try to find some good in them.

No doubt, someone like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck will talk about how Hardaway's comments were a bastardized version of how strict the African-American community is regarding homosexuality. In short, his comments were nasty but they reflect a positive degree of morality.

The cynic in me kind of hopes this does happen. Maybe those two will give Senator Barrack Obama a break and stop trying to attack his "lack of blackness" for a change.

Then there is enterprising ignorance in the gay community. Don't get me wrong because I love my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. However, in situations like this, many gays and lesbians will go for the easy, visceral parts of this controversy and not even attempt to hold their tongues before fully analyzing the situation.

In other words, I can be sure to hear all sorts of comments of "how can a black man put down gay people like white racists put down black people" until the cows come home, so to speak.

Want to know what I see in the Tim Hardaway situation?

Yet another reason why lgbt African-Americans will be put in the middle of a controversy between the white gay and lesbian and heterosexual African-American community. Both are going to be pulling us but neither will be acknowledging us.

So I am angry at Tim Hardaway having such an ugly idea of gay people. But I don't get too angry at him.

I have a feeling that I am going to have to save some of my anger for other parties: a little bit for the African-American community which creates circumstances for Hardaway's comments to be allowable and a little bit of anger for the gay and lesbian community whom I know will not use this opportunity to see how us lgbts of color are caught in two worlds of dual invisibility. This is because many of them will be exploiting their time to have "righteous indignation."

I swear, if something like this happens again, I am going to hide under my bed with a baseball bat.

Self-righteous indulgent tripe coming out of Charlotte

Part of the reason why the anti-gay industry is so successful in duping Christians in this country is because of the egos of the Christians themselves.

Case in point, this upcoming event out of Charlotte:

Charlotte Church Leaders to Discuss the Radical Agenda of Homosexual Activists at Weeklong Lecture Series

News Conference: Thursday, February 15, at 10:00 AM in front of the Booth Playhouse at the corner of Trade and Tryon

Contact: Kris Bennett, Coalition of Conscience, 704-782-3760

CHARLOTTE, Feb. 14 /Standard Newswire/ -- Three years ago, the Human Rights Campaign, the world's largest homosexual advocacy organization, moved its annual Carolina's dinner to Charlotte. While local gay activists have applauded the HRC's presence in Charlotte, not everyone is pleased with this development. Dr. Michael L. Brown, director of the Coalition of Conscience and a nationally known Christian leader and best-selling author, is convinced that now is the time to speak up.

"We have no desire to enter in a rhetorical battle with the HRC. We simply want to raise public awareness about who the HRC really is and what the HRC really stands for, demonstrating that they cannot legitimately be called the 'Human Rights' Campaign."

Translation: A series of lectures where they will no doubt invite anti-gay industry spokespeople who will scare ignorant Christians about the so-called agenda of HRC and the gay and lesbian community at large.

Or: a group of lectures for people who are so wrapped up in their idea of what Christianity is that they have negative preconceived notions about gays and lesbians, preconceived notions that can be eradicated if they took the time to establish a dialogue with the gay and lesbian community in their midst rather than sit on their behinds and have their fears and egos stroked.

Am I making too much out of this? I don't think so. I am willing to guess that the only thing the Christians coming to these lectures know is that homosexuality is wrong, according to their beliefs. This is fine. They have that right to believe this.

However, since they think that homosexuality is wrong, they set themselves up to believe any negative thing about the gay and lesbian community.

How long will it be before the dreaded headless monster (i.e. the constantly refuted but repeated as truth notion) about the "gay life span" come up in these lectures?

Or how about the other headless monster that gays molest children at a high rate? I am sure that one will come up also.

Or maybe the misuse of the Netherlands study (that was compiled before same sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands) to make the case against marriage equality.

Or if the lectures really get good, I am sure the Paul Cameronesque lies about feces and gerbiling will come up too.

These lectures are not about establishing a dialogue. These lectures are about scaring people, people who are ready and willing to be scared:

"The HRC is not fighting for equal rights for all people. Instead, it wants to impose its agenda on others, including how we define marriage, how we run our businesses, how we teach our children, and even how we interpret the Bible. We feel that now is the right time to air our differences with the HRC in a rational and respectful manner. I am hopeful that they will respond to us in the same spirit with which we exercise our human right to differ with them."

After all, how can you establish a dialogue with a group of people who seem to want you to kiss their wannabe holy asses?

Yet another headless monster!!!!!!!!!!

I am off this week! Yaaaaay! So now it's time for serious work. I have to finish my manuscript before March 1.

But in my last post, I neglected to mention something. You may remember I was talking about how Peter LaBarbera took an unfortunate incident of a commentator threating him on Pam Spaulding's web page to recreate the execution of Joan of Arc with him as the star.

His supporting player in the drama, a blogger named George Archibald, took Pam to task, claiming that she attacks Christians. He listed several people she criticizes, including:

ALAN E. SEARS, president, CEO and general counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, who Spaulding’s Web site describes as “a foul, fundie legal group that is sponsoring The Day of Truth, to be held on April 27th, as a ‘counter the promotion of the homosexual agenda and express an opposing viewpoint from a Christian perspective."’ What ADF is countering is The Day of Silence, a project of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and the United States Student Association.

So how does the Allied Defense Fund and its Day of Truth combat the Day of Silence? By spreading lies about the gay community, of course. This time, the anti-gay industry wants school children to log on the Allied Defense Fund site and repeat the "headless monsters" they find there. The following is from my upcoming book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters:

Case in point is the handout, The Ten Biggest Myths of Homosexual Behavior:
The handout claims that "homosexual behavior is at much higher risk for many sexually transmitted diseases, including not just HIV, but also syphilis, gonorrhea, human papilloma virus (HPV), hepatitis, chlamydia, and a whole group of infections called ‘gay bowel syndrome.’ But as shown in chapter one, "gay bowel syndrome" is an obsolete medical term that medical practitioners do not use.

The handout also makes the following claim:"The Centers for Disease Control have found that 60 percent of new cases of HIV infection are men who have had sex with men, and also that the number of homosexual men who admittedly neglect to use condoms is rising. Homosexual victims of AIDS, they found, had an average 1,100 sexual partners in their lifetimes. They estimated that 30 percent of 20-year-old homosexual men will be HIV positive or dead before they reach their thirtieth birthday." This claim is a blatant lie. CDC spokespeople have said that agency does not collect statistics on the life span of gay men. The claim is a Paul Cameronesque lie.

Just a little food for thought as to how the anti-gay industry continues to lie. One more point: please notice that the Allied Defense Fund claim that gays catch HPV at a high rate. The Allied Defense Fund is affiliated with the same right wing groups who don't want the HPV vaccine to be mandatory for school children.

Talk about your contradictions.

Oh Give Me A Break Peter and George! Stop Picking on Pam!

Apparently Peter LaBarbera and the so-called Americans for Truth About Homosexuality never met a situation they didn't try to milk for all it's worth.

This week, there was an unfortunate situation on Pam Spaulding's web page in which a commentator threatened Peter LaBarbera. Pam was alerted about it and took the post down. She also made it clear that posts like that are way over the line and should not be allowed. She was not aware of the post until it was brought to her attention, by the way.

You think the situation would be over? Come on! You know how Peter is. Today he is continuing to talk about it, even linking to another blog by someone by the name of George Archibald. Archibald says this about Pam:

She has a right to be an announced practising lesbian, but she does not have a right to be hateful against Christians and heterosexuals, which is evident throughout her Web site.
She links to Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay Lesbian Straight Educators Network (GLSEN) that pushes for acceptance of homosexuality in elementary, middle and high schools across our country.

Then on her Web site, Pamela Spaulding has a link called AmTALIBAN – meaning American Taliban – where she attacks by name 20 leaders of American Christian groups and makes spiteful, sexist, and hateful statements about their religious and cultural beliefs.

Now Archibald gets hypocritical because of what he says later in his blog:

Well, you get the tone of the crazies in this homosexual attack against heterosexuals and leaders of conservative Christian groups.

People like Pamela Spaulding, Kevin Jennings, and other homosexual activists want condoms given to everyone as part of their effort to promote gay sex. But maybe they all need diapers, as they obviously are intolerant and wetting themselves a lot over the fact that Americans mostly are actually a heterosexual religious culture that firmly rejects intolerance and promiscuity.

So calling Pam Spaulding a "crazie" isn't attacking her? Hardly.

That seems to be the new game the anti-gay industry is playing: whining that their "beliefs" are being attacked when they are called on their lies and hypocrisies. Catholic League for Religous and Civil Rights President William Donohue this week caused many problems with Sen. John Edwards using that same tactic. I still wait for his apology for his Anti-Semitic comments.

And the Family Research Council is getting in the act. This group is led by the same man, Tony Perkins, who thought it was okay to associate with the racist Ku Klux Klan and Council of Conservative Citizens.

I always wondered why there were no images of black people on the FRC site. Maybe now I know.

Now I am not one for making attacks. I like to use logic to make my case, and then go for the jugular. But in all honesty, I refuse to feel sorry for Peter LaBarbera or any of these "phony Christians (that's right, I said it). A man who has a web page that has a link called "Victims of Homosexual Murderers" does not get my sympathy.

I find it ironic that people who make it their life's work to use junk science and propaganda about gay people are now whining because they aren't getting a free pass for their nonsense.

Peter really should have not been threatened, but if you create a storm and then get caught in it, who should you blame other than yourself?

The anti-gay industry seems to want to play the victim now. I don't think so. I might remind them of just how ugly they were when President Bush won re-election in 2004. Their cocky bragging about how they "won the election" was disgusting. And as equally disgusting was the ways in which they attempted to move against the gay community, from plotting new ways to take away our rights to Paul Cameron thinking that it was okay to announce new lies about our life span and so-called propensity for dangerous behavior.

Don't even think about it, boys. You started this. And the vast majority of us who are trying to tell the truth about the lgbt community and how you have demonized us are not stooping to threats to get our point across.

We are the ones who you should be concerned about. Of course it really doesn't matter because we aren't going to stop until everyone knows how you lie.

Deal with that!

The kids are alright

An article today says that gay teens are coming out at earlier ages:

Gay teenagers are "coming out" earlier than ever, and many feel better about themselves than earlier generations of gays, youth leaders and researchers say. The change is happening in the wake of opinion polls that show growing acceptance of gays, more supportive adults and positive gay role models in popular media.

This means that slowly but surely we are winning this war. But what happens next is up to us elders. What we are dealing with is probably the first generation of the gay community who will define what it means to be lgbt rather than having society define it for them.

It is important that we give them as much support as possible. Exposing the anti-gay industry is only part of what needs to be done.

We also should make sure they have positive role models to look up to. The "Queer As Folk" mentality ain't gonna cut it anymore. In the past, we had to hide who we were and pick up habits that, while they meant our transitory survival, were mentally and spiritually destructive in the long run.

"Cruising," basing the value of our lives on our possessions and clique of friends, and masking our human emotions under guarded cynicism is no longer an option.

Not just for ourselves but for those who will take our place, we have to take stock assessing ourselves as a community, embracing our diversity, and looking beyond materialistic ideas of beauty and success. How us older ones carry ourselves will serve as a blueprint for those who come after us.

Let's give them a reason to be proud of being an lgbt.

100 posts later . . . no rest for the 'wicked'

First thing's first. A couple of you alerted me to an error I made on the last post regarding the Ted Haggard situation.

The guy speaking for Exodus International is Alan Chambers, not Alan Sears. A correction has been made.

Of course I should also point out that Alan Sears is with the Allied Defense Fund, another anti-gay industry group. It's so hard to keep up with those folks.

Also, there has been a bad situation brewing at Pam's House Blend. Apparently a commentor threatened our friend Peter LaBarbera, as well as posted his address.

As soon as Pam was alerted to this, she deleted the comment and made it clear that violence will not be tolerated in the fight to expose the lies of the anti-gay industry.

I would like to reiterate that point. When I say we must be aggressive in our fight for equality and the right to self-determination, I mean with our brains and our mouths, not with our fists and certainly not with guns. Despite what the anti-gay industry says about us, we are a people whose lives and loves should be celebrated. We are kings and queens and therefore should never have to stoop to the lowest common denominator to have our voices heard.

Now in the category of "there he goes again," but in a good way, Wayne Besen has a video from Dr. Kyle Pruett saying just how exactly did James Dobson misuse his work to make the case aganst gay parenting in a recent issue of Time magazine. Check it out.

In the category of "there she goes again," but in a bad way, Janet Folger is on WorldNetDaily whining about how Christians are going to be persecuted.

Her example of this is the recent Repent America situation. Of course Folger bypasses the truth that a judge threw out the lawsuit by Repent America. The group claimed its first amendment rights were violated when the group was arrested for disturbing a Pride festival in 2004.

Instead, Ms. Folger is attacking the heart strings by focusing on the fact that two of the Repent America members are elderly grandmothers.

Nice try, Janet but you really should ply your fear tactics on somewhere else. The fact that these two women were arrested is their own faults. They had no business trying to disrupt the festival. Sorry if I sound heartless but it is apparent that they was old enough to know better.

To quote the judge who threw the case out:

“There is no constitutional right to drown out the speech of another person.”

And for that matter, Ms. Folger should know better. The Repent America members were not "witnessing." They were being rude and disruptive and got what they deserved.

End of story.

What the hell was that I just saw on the Anderson Cooper Show

Okay, I believe in civil discussions but what I just saw on the Anderson Cooper Show was not just civil, it was a damn garden party. Some guy, a pro-gay advocate (yaaahhh!) was debating Exodus International head Alan Chambers on whether or not Ted Haggard was believable in his claim that he was no longer gay.

The young man talking for our side was articulate and knew his facts. But he was too nice. I personally felf that the discussion was not geared towards what it should have been.

Sears got off the subject of Haggard and used the "I was not happy with being gay and I should have the right to change my life" argument. That was all well and good.

That young man arguing our point should have said, "well that's nice but why does the ex-gay movement make it a point to speak out against pro-gay laws and ordinances."

This is where the debate should have been. The fact that this question was not asked just goes to prove yet again how we are always using the playbook of the anti-gay industry. We allow them to set the tone of the argument and we follow them like hungry puppies, unable or unwilling to flip the script and put them on the defensive.

I hardly ever hear the fact that supposed "ex-gays" like Stephen Bennett, Michael Johnston, Alan Chambers, and Melissa Fryrear are willing pawns in the war against the gay community. At the same time they say that they should be willing to make a choice about their lives, they work to make life harder for us who are happy with our lgbt orientation.

When will their subterfuge be made public? Probably not until we get past our garden party mode.


Wasting time in Paris eating Snicker bars

I am going to be honest here. I understand why some of us are upset over the Snickers bar commercial that aired during Superbowl Sunday, but it really isn't worth all of the controversy.

I saw the commercial. It was stupid. End of story.

For that matter, I really don't care what Paris Hilton says. Granted, her comments were rude and apparently hateful but for God' s sake, other than being rich, her biggest claim to fame is making a porno. If anything, the porno relaxed my concerns that she was anorexic. Paris is a very healthy looking woman with her clothes off.

Meanwhile in the real world . . .

I found yet another web page that posted Paul Cameron's research as gospel truth,

Ted Haggard claims to be completely straight. From struggling with homosexuality all of his life to being completely gay-free. Despite all that has been said and done, my heart goes out to Mr. Haggard and his family. I'm also moving out of the way because when and if he suffers another fall, it's gonna hurt.

In Texas, so-called "pro-family" groups are angry at former ally Governor Rick Perry because he made the HPV vaccine mandatory for young girls. Apparently according to them, inoculating young girls from getting cancer encourages promiscuity. A very interesting part of this story that no one is talking about is why so-called "pro-family" groups oppose making HPV vaccine mandatory. The reasons go deeper than trying to discourage promiscuity. In several columns in the past, spokespeople of so-called "pro-family" groups have said:

"Gay marriage will encourage children to experiment with homosexuality. This will put more kids at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, ‘gay bowel syndrome,’ human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases."

This vaccine takes away an arsenal from their anti-gay lies.

Let's focus on the things that do matter in our fight for equality and self determination.

Me and 'gay bowel syndrome'

Yeah, I know that everyone is talking about last night's Snickers commercial and I have certain opinions on it too.

But forgive me if I focus on something else.

I am moving back the deadline for turning in my manuscript to my publisher until March 1. One reason is a good one. The other reason is interesting.

The good reason being that for the first time in two years, I will be able to take a vacation from my job. Long story, fast ending - I have a week to tie up loose ends and compile my book's index. The vacation begins next week, so naturally I am happy about that.

Now for the very interesting reason and thus the title of my post. Ever since I began my book, I have been trying to find concrete proof that the term "gay bowel syndrome" does not exist. The good news is that in legitimate media sources, I have found very little on it. This is the most complete thing I found:

According to the "Free Online Dictionary and Thesaurus," http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com:

"Gay bowel syndrome was a term first used in 1976 prior to the discovery of AIDS, to describe a series of parasitic disorders caused by oral/anal contact and allegedly related to gay male sexual activity. The term was abandoned by the medical community in the 1980s because the problems that attributed to it were not specific to homosexuals, not confined to just the bowels, nor did it meet the medical definition of a syndrome."

The bad news - a: the term is practically everywhere on anti-gay industry sites and b: my digging in credible medical sources sometimes found me accidentally glancing at interesting, albeit, disgusting images of the human body.

Yet another thing to "thank" the anti-gay industry for.

I also found where the term was stricken from a medical textbook in 2001. But I want to really nail down the fact that the "gay bowel syndrome" is obsolete. In other words, I want more proof . Therefore, in the final weeks before I turn my manuscript in to my publisher, I have to gird my stomach from nausea and keep looking until I find what I need.

So you will forgive me for not focusing on the Snickers commercial. I have a feeling that I won't want food for a while.

Hate crimes legislation and Dire Consequences

It gets frustrating to seek the depths that the anti-gay industry will stoop to in its quest to demonize the gay community and deny us any protection under law.

Case in point: Americans for Truth About Homosexuality's latest batch of lies about hate crimes legislation.

The piece claims that adding homosexuality to hate crimes legislation will ultimately lead to a curtailing of some Chrisitians' first amendment right to free speech.

This is a lie.

Even sadder than the fact that we need hate crimes legislation at all is the constant distortion tactics used by members of the anti-gay industry when they speak out against it.

Hate crimes protection already exists for certain groups but you never hear the religious right whining about it. They only sound the alarm when someone thinks of adding the gay community the groups protected by hate crimes legislation.

Then they use what I like to call the Dire Consequences tactic in order to scare Christians. The anti-gay industry constantly raises the notion that creating laws protecting the interests of gays and lesbians will lead to negative consequences, but they hardly ever provide actual proof as to the validity of these charges

In this particular case, Peter LaBarbera uses incidents that took place in foreign countries to make the claim that hate crimes legislation for the gay community will eventually lead to Christians going to jail for speaking out against homosexuality.

Hate crimes legislation do not cover speech. They cover motivation behind violent crimes. Christians who declare in that homosexuality is a sin are in no danger of going to jail if homosexuality is added in hate crimes legislation.

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality is clearly trying to motivate their troops based on fear - a most un-Christian tactic.