Possible appeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell attacked . . . by a former gay porn star

And now we have reached the realm of ridiculousness.

President Obama's pledge to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the policy that deals with gays in the military, has received much praise from some corners and much criticism from others.

But the criticism he received this week puts everything in Rod Serling territory.

From Fox Forum:

The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) would force the United States military to accept the future same-sex marriages of those serving. Activists would use this federal recognition of gay marriage in the military to challenge and force a repeal of state constitutional amendments, but wedding bells are not the only reason why gay advocates and military officials should not be heading to the altar.

A 2008 Military Times poll of members of the armed forces found that the troops were opposed to the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell by a margin of 2 to 1.

The queer thing about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is that President Bill Clinton mandated the policy after numerous campaign promises to the Clinton lesbian, gay and transgender constituency. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was designed to protect those who serve and participate in the LGBT lifestyle against unfair prosecution from their superiors.

Never mind that the Military Times poll was said to have been sloppy and biased (Participants in the survey were drawn from a volunteer pool of readers to the 'Military Times', instead of a random sampling of active duty personnel) because I am concerned with the author of this column - Matt Sanchez.

For the benefit of those who don't know, Sanchez served as a Marine reservist. He also used to be involved in gay porn under the names Pierre LaBranche and Rod Majors.

So from gay porn star to War Correspondent and Political Commentator. I guess anyone can achieve anything in America.

The entire thing confuses me. I liked it better when Elaine Donnelly was spinning tales black lesbians raping white service women.

As I understand it, Sanchez considers himself straight. That being the case, the evil side of me is just itching to make a bad joke.

What the hell:

Sanchez's very appearance more than proves that gays in the military isn't a bad idea. He is proof that all of us can put our sexual orientation aside when we have a job to do, whether that job be defending our country or sucking (shut your mouth)!

How anti-gay campaigns start

The Queer-Straight Alliance in East Chapel Hill High School (North Carolina) recently held an assembly that students were allegedly required to attend.

In doing so, they may have violated school policy:

The principal of East Chapel Hill High School said a gay-awareness club and its advisers violated school policy Wednesday by holding an assembly that hundreds of English students were required to attend.

Principal David Thaden said in an interview Thursday that he was unaware of the assembly, which was held several times during the day.

Thaden said he planned to talk with the teachers who work with the Queer-Straight Alliance and also the English teachers who brought their students to the assemblies.

Thaden said that any assembly involving material that is not part of the school curriculum must be approved by the administration, and this was not.

All of the details of this incident isn't known and for the record, only three parents complained. But if this does pan out the way it looks, simple reprimands are in order.

But from the comments under the article (some of which are proving the need for such an assembly), someone is already pushing for the Allied Defense Fund to be called in. And we know how they can exploit a situation like this.

How long will it be before One News Now or our friend Peter LaBarbera comes out with a one-sided article about the incident? How long will be before they inaccurately frame this incident as a "plot to indoctrinate children into the gay agenda?"

Or Bill O'Reilly to feature a biased news piece on the incident complete with his foaming at the mouth commentary and interruptions?

Or Michelle Malkin to write a nasty diatribe about the incident?

Or Focus on the Family, the American Family Association, the Liberty Counsel, or any of those other phony "pro-family" groups to start sending out press releases or making videos exploiting this incident in attempts to beat back gay-straight alliances nationwide.

I don't know what's worse: the possibility that this incident may be blown out of proportion or the knowledge that none of these folks would make a peep if the situation had to do with an lgbt child getting bashed.

Friday news briefs

Steele Elected RNC Chair - Who would have thought? Black is the new black. However, before anyone starts popping the champagne, please be aware that Steele isn't exactly a good guy. How long will it be before he possibly starts exploiting the divisions between the lgbt and African-American community?

They're organizing to protect DOMA already - John Aravosis is spot on when he says "This is indicative of the difference between conservatives and liberals: The right organizes years on an issue years in advance, the left organizes after we've lost." And, if I might add, they don't think that studying the tactics of the opposition is beneath them (the opposition in this case being us). If only some of us took the same frame of mind when it comes to them.

Anti-gay Arguments We Don’t Bother With (And Should): Part 2 - The continuation of the Box Turtle Bulletin series.

Lesbian couple wins court round - Ending the week on a happy note.

and now for something having to do with absolutely nothing . . .

Rainn Wilson auditions for PARANOID PARK - The only thing I know about Rainn Wilson is that he is a cast member of The Office. I don't know what Paranoid Park is. But this is strange, especially at 1:04. But I figure a little homoeroticism never hurt anyone.

Laurie Higgins - yet another phony expert

One of the most annoying things about the religious right is how they seem to anoint every Tom, Dick, and Harry as an "expert" on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Credentials such as degrees and such are not needed here. All you need is a so-called Christian mind and the temerity to lie in the name of God.

I've seen this sort of thing before with Linda Harvey of Mission America. Harvey, a former ad executive who supposedly accepted Jesus in her heart, took it upon herself for develop some sort of "risk management" test for high schools who dared to acknowledge the existence of lgbt students and teachers.

I'm glad to say that her nonsense was pretty much ignored.

Now comes another phony expert, Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute.

She is angry that two transgendered women are suing the state in order to change the sex on their birth certificates. And she takes it upon herself to diagnose these two women with a medical condition, despite the fact that she has no expertise to do so:

In the Jan. 28, 2009 edition of the Chicago Tribune, there is a story about the two sexual amputees who are suing the state over the refusal of the state to change the “gender” designation on their birth certificates from “male” to “female.” Several important points must be made. First, it’s utterly reprehensible that anyone in the medical community would be complicit in facilitating a psychological disorder by amputating healthy body parts. There is a condition known as either apotemnophilia or Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) that is characterized by the desire to amputate a healthy limb. It is useful for comparison in that it is thought by many to be closely related to Gender Identity Disorder (i.e., transsexualism), which society is increasingly accepting as a valid identity that emerges from biological influences and whose behavioral manifestations are morally legitimate.

Sexual amputees? You mean ugly language.

Higgins's unhinged commentary shines a light on just what direction the religious right will be going in order to exploit people's ignorance of the transgender community.

Oh these folks want to mutilate themselves. They want body parts sliced off.

What Higgins is doing is the old tactic of nauseating instead of educating. It's a cynical ploy and fits very well with the modus operandi of these supposed pro-family spokespeople.

The issues involving the transgender community have nothing to do with body mutilation. They are more complicated and frankly I think that there should be more education on who our transgendered brothers and sisters are.

That way, ignorant seeds, like those planted by Laurie Higgins, won't be allowed to sprout.

By the way, for more information about Higgins, including her unwarranted attacks on Illinois's Deerfield High School, go here.

Conflict resolution - it's a good thing

Joe Brummer has a new site .

Brummer, a good friend and supporter of mine from day one, has in the past brought an intelligent and calm perspective to this so-called cultural war.

Via his old site, Brummer consistently refuted religious right lies in a manner that gave the purveyors of these distortions respect but called them out for their dishonesty.

On his new site, Brummer wants to solely focus on conflict resolution and nonviolence training. Other services he provides are communication training, mediation, conflict coaching, facilitation, and web design.

I say more power to him, especially in this climate.

Stop misrepresenting the Lisa Miller/Janet Jenkins custody case

There has been a case going through the courts for the past couple of years regarding two lesbians and a child they agreed to raise.

Or rather, a lesbian, a "former" lesbian, and a child they agreed to raise.

This is how the religious right organization Liberty Counsel has described the case:

Activist judges in Vermont have declared that a legal stranger is a mommy to another woman's biological child. Now, a Vermont judge will decide whether to order the six year old little girl be stripped from the loving arms of the only mommy she has ever known - her biological mother, Lisa.

Lisa Miller left the homosexual lifestyle and became a Christian when Isabella was 17 months old. Janet Jenkins, who was Lisa's same-sex partner when Lisa gave birth to Isabella, then sought full custody of Isabella, claiming she was a parent even though she was not biologically related to Isabella and never sought to adopt her.

Not only did Vermont create new law from the bench to declare that Isabella has two mommies, but appellate courts in Virginia (the state where Isabella was born and has lived all but 13 months of her life) directed Virginia to fully recognize the Vermont orders giving Janet (who lives in Vermont) liberal unsupervised visitation. In doing so, the courts ignored Virginia's Marriage Amendment and marriage laws declaring all rights arising from same-sex relationships void and unenforceable.

However, like always with religious right groups, the Liberty Counsel omitted several things thereby distorting the case in pursuit of its own agenda.

In December 2008, Newsweek magazine featured a long article about the case. Here are some facts that the Liberty Counsel omitted:

Miller and Jenkins agreed to raise Isabella together.

Jenkins said the reason why she did not file for adoption was because she was told she didn't need to because they had the civil union (the two had married in a Vermont civil union before Isabella was born).

When the two broke up, Miller agreed to allow Jenkins to have visitation rights. Jenkins even paid child support. Miller allegedly began keeping Isabella away from Jenkins. Even now, she refuses to allow her to have unsupervised time with Isabella even though she has been ordered to.

The entire controversy is solely because Miller will not allow Jenkins to have unsupervised time with Isabella. Jenkins mainly won her case due to the Federal Kidnapping Prevention Law.

Miller has claimed she witnessed Isabella engage in disturbing behavior after vists with Jenkins. The claims were investigated by Virginia's Child Protective Services and were deemed "unfounded."

I hope that in the long run, things work out for little Isabella.

But in all honesty, how the Liberty Counsel is framing this case is extremely dishonest. These women agreed to raise the child together. And after they split up, they agreed on visitation, with Jenkins paying child support.

It seems that Miller decided that she didn't like what is going on and took it upon herself to void whatever agreement she and Jenkins had. My opinion is that Jenkins has a right to a say in the raising of her daughter.

The Liberty Counsel does no one justice in the way it attempts tug at emotions with inaccurate connotations of a crying child being ripped from the arms of her mother.

It's a shame that this "Christian group" feels the need to stoop so low. In a case where there should be no villains, the Liberty Counsel is doing its best to fill that role.

More on the Pink Swastika - showing my work

I was reminded by a commentator that if I make a comment that religious right work has been discredited, I should show my proof.

This is true. Yesterday, I said the Pink Swastika, a religious right tome claiming that gays influenced the Nazi Party in Germany, was discredited. However, I neglected to show proof.

Allow me to now:

From the Southern Poverty Law Center:

The Pink Swastika — whose cover has a swastika in place of the "x" in "homosexuality" in the book's subtitle — has been roundly discredited by legitimate historians and was thoroughly debunked in a 2005 Intelligence Report article. Stephen Feinstein, director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the University of Minnesota, said the book was "produced by a right-wing Christian cult and is as correct as flat earth theory."

From that 2005 Intelligence Report:

Written by fundamentalist activists Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika says that rather than being victimized by the Nazis, gay men in Hitler's inner circle actually helped mastermind the Holocaust.

"While we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in Nazism," write Lively and Abrams. "To the myth of the 'pink triangle' — the notion that all homosexuals in Nazi Germany were persecuted — we must respond with the reality of the 'pink swastika.'"

Historians agree that this "reality" is utterly false. But many anti-gay crusaders have used the "gay Nazi" myth as proof that gay people are immoral and destructive.

Wednesday news briefs

Attacks on faith are an opportunity, says Cameron - This is the actor Kirk Cameron, not my favorite phony researcher Paul Cameron. But this Cameron seems to have taken a tip from that Cameron. He claims that assaults on Christian faith is increasing in the public square, but he offer no proof of this.

If anything, it's that self-righteous claim of victimhood that's slowly but surely giving Christianity a bad name in this country. Pretty soon, when people hear the word "Christian," they aren't going to think of individuals who let their faith and love of God show in their daily lives . They aren't going to think of the Good Samaritan. And they are not going to think of Jesus.

They are going to think of a bunch of hypocrites whose talk of religious liberties only mean them and them only. They are going to think of a man like James Dobson in pictures where he holds the Bible like the hammer of Thor.

And they are going to think of intolerant boobs who use the government to hold back the rights of lgbts and ignore the needs of the homeless, hungry, and truly spiritually destitute while they themselves give aid and comfort to the forces of corruption (i.e. Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, and Charles Keating) in pursuit of some bullshit idea of conquest in the name of God.

Okay, enough of my soap box.

Iceland to appoint gay woman minister to PM post - And here we are supposed to be the first in things like this.

Big trouble for Obama nod - Not necessarily a gay issue, but to me, it's taking anti-Obamaism to the extreme.

Anti-Gay Arguments We Don’t Bother With (And Should): Part 1 - The beginning of an excellent series by Box Turtle Bulletin and should be required reading for all lgbts.

Dumbass anti-gay comment of the week:

"Certainly there would be a mass exodus of normal men from a homosexualized military," said Lively, "probably leading to the reinstatement of compulsory service. . . . And yes there would be severe morale problems for normal men forced to live as the objects of sexual interest of other men with whom they share close quarters. However, the much bigger, longer-term problem is the threat of a homosexual takeover of the military branches." - Scott Lively, 'Gays' in the Military: A Revival of The Pink Swastika?

Anti-Gay Harrassment leads to poor adult health (and in other news, the religious right really doesn't give a %@!)

From Box Turtle Bulletin comes this news:

The Urban Men’s Health Survey (UMHS) has revealed a lot of useful information in the decade since it was conducted. Much of it “dismaying,” in the words of Ron Stall, who worked on the survey at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and is now at the University of Pittsburgh. Stall was one of four researchers from the University of Pittsburgh (joined by a fifth researcher from Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis) who analyzed a subset of that data and concluded that “experience of homophobic attacks against young gay/bisexual male youth helps to explain heightened rates of serious health problems among adult gay men.”

The UMHS was a telephone interview of a probability sample of men who have sex with men (MSMs) living in four cities: San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. The survey was conducted between November 1996 and February 1998, with 2,881 UMHS participants being asked a wide-ranging battery of questions resulting in 855 variables. The results of that survey were fed into a database, which scores of researchers have been mining ever since for dozens of studies covering many different topics. Dr, Mark Friedman, who has previously investigated the link between anti-gay hostility and suicide among young gay males, led a team which poured over responses to key questions in that database to see if a link could be established between anti-gay hostility against young gay men and adverse health outcomes as adults.

This study confirms a common sense idea that a child who has his/her self esteem destroyed (via name-calling or any other type of harrassment) will most likely grow up to participate in negative behavior.

It's an idea that isn't necessarily bound to sexual orientation. In his classic novel, Native Son, African-American writer Richard Wright demonstrated, through the turbulent life and death of his protagonist Bigger Thomas, that when society works against building the self esteem of youth, it usually creates criminals and those who engage in negative behavior.

Not that members of the religious right care about Bigger Thomas, Richard Wright, or this study.

To them, any attempt to stop such harrassment is a part of the BIG GAY CONSPIRACY.

Yesterday, Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel railed against an educator for daring to stop homophobic language in her class.

Today, Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), is bitching about "No Name Calling Week," a week where students are encouraged to treat each other with respect regardless of their differences:

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), says while the event's name sounds innocent, it is a way of indoctrinating children so that they will support the homosexual agenda after they become adults. A PJI press release reveals the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, is a key sponsor of the program.

"They're promoting, all the way down to the first-grade level, children to read and be exposed to books and material that is pro-homosexual -- and it's all under the guise of opposing name-calling," he contends.

. . . "The alleged homosexual kids are not the only ones being bullied," the attorney points out. "There's [sic] kids of faith being called 'homophobic' and 'homophobe,' and yet those words and that name-calling is not under attack and is not being addressed by this alleged week of tolerance that's being pushed."

Dacus urges parents to be aware of what happens in their children's schools and to opt out their children out if necessary.

That's right parents - opt your kids out of this event so that they can name-call other students with impunity. And why stop there.

Why don't you sit down with your child and draw up a list of slurs that he/she can use.

After all, family togetherness is so Christian.

Really though, if there are any incidents of Christian children being called names, they should be addressed. Of course like so many other things when it comes to the religious right, I am sure that this is an anecdotal story with little evidence or one intentionally taken out of context.

In my day, those who pushed conspiracies where there were none were looked at with caution.

Nowadays, it seems that they are given platforms as "pro-family" activists.

Seriously though, a week that encourages children to show respect for differences (religious, sexual orientation, race, or otherwise) should be encouraged, period.

If you ask me, I think it should be a mandatory week for adults also.

Reminder - I am continuing my experiment of posting three times a day. So please be sure to check back here to see the new posts.

Blackmail and homosexuality in the Palmetto State

From Blogactive via Pam's House Blend:

Quite an interesting story out of South Carolina. It involves alleged police brutality, extortion, secret gay sex and at least one anti-gay Republican elected official.Fitsnews.com has the story. I have decided to link to this story for two reasons. First, the writer has been clear to report only on what he has confirmed with law enforcement sources, not political folks. Second, it does not mention the politician's name.

Of course, coercion and extortion are illegal. From Fitsnews.com:

Law enforcement officials are trying desperately to apprehend - and save the life of - an alleged blackmailer who supposedly met with a bloody rebuke at the hands of state law enforcement officers after attempting to extort $200,000 from a prominent S.C. Republican official, multiple sources have confirmed to FITS.

In addition to these sources, a senior agent at the S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) has confirmed details of the alleged extortion drama to FITS, and sources even closer to the top at SLED tell us that the agency has been in contact with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) requesting that they look into the matter.

Rumors of the alleged drama have been making their way through South Carolina political circles in hushed tones for several months now, first reaching our ears last November.We initially dismissed the accusations as too far-fetched to be true, however we began to dig deeper after sources at SLED confirmed details of the alleged incident to us.

If this story picks up and continues, things should get very interesting around here. And deservedly so. Between me and you, there have been rumors down here about certain in-the-closet officials for years.


The sky is going to fall - I actually agree with the religious right on something

RIVERSIDE, Calif. – A California appeals court has ruled that a Christian high school can expel students because of an alleged lesbian relationship.

The 4th District Court of Appeal in Riverside on Monday upheld California Lutheran High School's right as a private, religious organization to exclude students based on sexual orientation.
Two girls sued claiming they were discriminated against after they were expelled from the Wildomar school in 2005. A lower court said the school isn't bound by the same anti-discrimination laws as a business establishment.

John McKay, attorney for California Lutheran, says the school's goal is to educate based on Christian principles.

The attorney for the girls could not be immediately reached Tuesday.

If it's a private Christian school, then it should be allowed to pick and choose who attends. That is private and not paid for by taxpayers.

Of course the question is how long will it be before Matt Staver and company try to link this case to a "gay conspiracy to hurt Christians" despite the fact that some lgbts (me included) actually agree with them here.

Link to article here.

Something worth knowing about NARTH

NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality) is one of those religious right organizations masquerading as legitimate purveyors of science.

Amongst other things, it espouses reparative therapy, or the belief that homosexuality can be changed.

Recently Dr. Phil had the founder of NARTH, Joseph Nicolosi, on his show as a credible voice regarding gender identity.

Naturally a lot of us weren't exactly happy over this. Despite the fact that Nicolosi demonstrated his abject ignorance and was destroyed on the air by the mother of a transgendered child, the fact that he was deemed an expert didn't sit right with a lot of us.

And as far as I'm concerned, it still doesn't.

For the record, NARTH have been in a few controversies regarding the theories of its "experts."

In 2006, NARTH had two major controversies. In the first, psychiatrist Joseph Berger, MD, a member of their “Scientific Advisory Committee,” wrote a paper encouraging students to “ridicule” gender variant children.

In the second controversy, Gerald Schoenwolf, PhD, also a member of NARTH’s “Scientific Advisory Committee,” wrote a polemic on the group’s website that seemed to justify slavery.

(NARTH founder Joseph) Nicolosi is also known for his strange theories, such as encouraging his male clients to drink Gatorade and call friends “dude” to become more masculine. He also believes that “Non-homosexual men who experience defeat and failure may also experience homosexual fantasies or dreams.”

Schoenwolf, by the way, continues to be a member of NARTH's scientific committee.

And so does George Rekers.

You remember Dr. Rekers, don't you?

In 2004, he was an expert witness in a case involving gay adoption in Arkansas. The state had banned gays from adopting in 1999. In January 2005, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy White ruled against the state of Arkansas. Furthermore, he called Rekers' testimony "extremely suspect." He also accused Rekers of testifying solely for promoting his "own personal agenda."

In 2008, Rekers was also an expert witness in a case defending Florida's gay adoption ban. Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman ruled against the state. In her decision, she said "Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy."

Despite this, not only is Rekers currently a member of NARTH's scientific advisory committee, but he is also listed as one of the organization's officers.

Now some people may think I'm trying to "kill the messenger because I don't like his message," but that's a serious breach of logic.

Rekers has been discredited by two different judges in two different cases, but NARTH seems to think nothing of having him as not only an officer but a scientific advisory committee member.

What's next? The APA having a purveyor of lobotomies on its committees?

My links to Rekers are here.

Family Research Council teaches us how to stigmatize lgbts

In commenting on the recent controversy regarding Portland's gay mayor Sam Adams and an admitted affair with a young man, Family Research Council head Tony Perkins said the following:

Another openly gay politician is snared in a sex scandal with a teen. Portland's first openly gay mayor, Sam Adams --- who just took office earlier this month --- has now acknowledge he lied to cover up a sexual relationship he had with a young man he was "mentoring" in 2005.
This is reminiscent of former Congressman Mark Foley, who was caught hitting on male teens who served as pages on Capitol Hill.

While I know that not every homosexual person preys on youth, it sure seems that many of the sex scandals involving homosexual public figures disproportionately involve young, easily influenced and impressionable teens.

Talk about your generalizations, especially in light of a recent incident:

A former Regent University law school assistant dean has been indicted on 13 felony sexual assault charges involving two girls, according to court records.

The allegations against Stephen L. McPherson, 39, of Chesapeake include object sexual penetration, forcible sodomy, and taking indecent liberties with a child by a custodian.

The charges, reported to Chesapeake police in July 2007, stem from events between May 2000 and May 2002, according to the indictments handed up Tuesday by a Chesapeake grand jury. The girls' ages weren't available Friday.

Using Perkins's power of logic, I guess we need to keep children away from religious right-oriented universities.

That is other than the usual reason that they teach distortions in the name of God.



Mike Huckabee pushes one-sided drivel - Good As You takes him down

Last weekend, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee featured Liberty Counsel lawyer Matt Staver in a one-on-one propaganda smear of President Obama's Administration.

I am ashamed to admit this but I refused to watch the show because I knew it would be biased -it was on Fox and Staver seemed to be the only guest.

I figured no sense in pissing myself off over the weekend.

But another on-line friend watched the show.

I have to commend Jeremy from Good As You for his refutations of Staver's lies as well as his strong stomach and disposition to sit through the nonsense.

And it reiterates several points I like to make.

LGBTs have truth on our side in this so-called cultural war, but all of the truth in the world won't help us if we are not permitted to get our stories out to the public.

Here you have Huckabee with a show where he does not have to be fair or accurate. And his guests are pushing bad information.

Where are our shows?

Several things Jeremy says includes the following:

FACT (:12): Including LGBT people within the realm of normalcy is unifying, Mike. Not to you, maybe. But to those of us who have been long-stymied under the cruel thumb of persecution, the idea that LGBT people will be respected as part of the world's spectrum represents both "change" and "unity."

FACT (3:04): The "fluidity" of gender identity is a ridiculous straw (trans)man! An inclusive Employment Nondiscrimination Act would prevent public employers from casting aspersions on the basis of an employee or potential employees' identity. For this purposes, it doesn't matter how "fluid" that concept may be for a particular individual. What matters is that merit, and not gender identity, will be the basis for employment decisions!

FACT (6:15): The Ocean Grove, New Jersey pavilion was NOT a church! The pavilion was open to public usage, without any hesitation in the matrimonial process until gays and lesbians wanted to start using the building for same-sex civil unions. So it's not a religious matter -- it's about allowing the heterosexual public to use your facility, but not the homosexual public!

FACT (6:36): The primary photographer in the New Mexico case is actually a she, not a he. And she was fined for refusing to shoot a gay couple's civil union because her business is a public accommodation (registered with the state as an LLC), much like a restaurant or any other store. Rather than say she wasn't available or make up an excused, the photographer expressly stated that she would not photograph a same-sex ceremony. This led the New Mexico Human Rights Commission to act in the only way they could under fair application of the law: To determine that the public accommodation was being unfair to a certain segment of the local public. If the commission had determined differently, then that would have set a very dangerous precedent (i.e. Could allow this public business to deny other types of faiths, deny on the basis of race).
**It should also be noted that the photographer has every right to file a lawsuit and challenge the constitutionality of the commission's findings.

For a complete breakdown go here.

Okay, you got two gay guys running for the same office. Which one do you focus on?

Two men are running to succeed the anti-gay Robo-bathroom Mayor of Fort Lauderdale, Jim Naugle.

Apparently one has an alleged penchant for porn and bondage. Leave it to our friend, P. LaBarbera to say a few words about it:

“What makes Earl different from others?” Earl Rynerson asks on his campaign website. Well, for one, he’s sure to be the only candidate for mayor of Ft. Lauderdale whose credit card records show a connection to the International Masters Association, an organization created because “there was no one place where a Master or a slave could go and learn from the other members of his community.” Rynerson needs God to change him before he tries to change

OK, can we all agree that its fair to call a man with ties to a sadomasochistic “master-slave” group a “pervert,” or has that word been banished by the Gay Thought Police (GTP)? Good, then at the risk of offending the accomplished whiners at GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), here are some excerpts from a FOX News story about Earl Rynerson, one of two homosexual men running to succeed pro-family hero Jim Naugle as mayor of Ft. Lauderdale.

Now that homosexuality is “out of the closet” in such a big way, think about how much of their related perversions are also out in the open. Deviance begets deviance, and it’s all about the behavior (as opposed to that strategic euphemism: “orientation”). Note Rynerson’s lack of shame below.

Peter gleaned his commentary via an article about Rynerson that he also posts. I found that commentary about homosexuality and perversion very interesting because of the article's ending:

Rynerson isn’t the only candidate who was stirred by Naugle’s comments to run for office. Dean Trantalis, a former city commissioner and local gay activist, has also thrown his hat in the ring.

All of this build up about Rynerson and his alleged perverted habits and all of this commentary and linkage between homosexuality and bondage. And when another gay candidate is introduced who doesn't seem to have the same "interesting" background, LaBarbera says nothing about him.

Why should he? It would ruin the smear.

Peter, dearest - you simply must do better than that if you want to keep up with Matt Barber.

More on affair le Barber - Did he say homophobia is a made up term?

I was so busy trying to defend the actions of Wisconsin teacher Sarah Arnold from Matt Barber's ridiculous attack in my last post that I neglected to talk about the inanity of his comments:

"The term 'homophobia' is a made-up term, made up by homosexual activists, that has no scientific value, no clinical value whatsoever. It's merely a propaganda term."

Is he for real?

Well I guess the cat is out of bag.

All of those times lgbts have been beaten and murdered for our orientation,

All of the times that lgbts have been kicked out of our homes,

All of the times we have been accused of having a short life span, having too much sex, molesting children, stuff gerbils in our rectums, beating the hell out of each other because we had nothing better to do.

All of the times our lives and relationships have been devalued are the result of a huge plot from the Mothership coming from the planet Homosexual.

If Barber keeps this up, he will most likely do more to help our cause than we ever could.

Matt Barber attacks an educator for doing her job

Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel seems to be positioning himself as the go-to anti-gay spokesperson of the religious right.

I bet Peter LaBarbera would love that.

Several times, Barber has been throwing himself in the limelight to comment on things such as President Obama's embracing of lgbt rights and this recent situation in which he criticizes a Wisconsin English teacher's fight against homophobia:

According to LifeSiteNews.com, Sarah Arnold created the curriculum called "Exposing Hidden Homophobia" when she noticed what she calls "anti-gay undertone[s]" in student conversations. The regimen asked students to examine depictions of homosexuality in mass media, to view numerous homosexual-themed films, and read pro-homosexual books and novels. Arnold even issued questionnaires to the students that featured questions that are commonly asked of homosexuals but instead were given to heterosexuals, such as "When did you decide to become heterosexual?"

Nothing wrong with that, is there? Except of course in Barber's eyes:

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel says the program is really intended to indoctrinate children into thinking that homosexual behavior is okay. "The term 'homophobia' is a made-up term, made up by homosexual activists, that has no scientific value, no clinical value whatsoever," he contends. "It's merely a propaganda term."

Barber, who has absolutely no training or expertise in this sort of thing, seems to think that he can prognosticate why Ms. Arnold chose to create the course. It's a part of the big homosexual agenda conspiracy, he says.

God forbid she, as an educator, notices how her students are saying ugly things with anti-gay undertones.

God forbid she, as an educator, takes steps to divert a potential situation in which a child is being bullied.

And God forbid, she, as an educator, takes proactive steps to prevent a potential situation in which violence may be the outcome.

All that seems to matter to Barber is that students can't be permitted to say ugly anti-gay words without recourse.

Friends, Barber typifies the lunacy and hysteria of the religious right.

A little note to Barber and company - everything that is pro-gay need not be taken as an attack or an assault on you or your beliefs. We occupy this nation too and we have a right to take steps to ensure safety in our homes and in our schools.

We have a right to protect our children.

And if an educator wants to help us with this, then that educator should be given a medal, rather than be made the central figure in a conspiracy theory sprung from a bad X-Files episode.

BTW - here is a better article regarding the situation.

AFA on Facebook - big deal

I am trying something new - posting at least three times a day rather than once a day. There will still be huge posts (how can I keep away from my friends in the anti-gay industry) but there will also be small posts which will include my take on lgbt issues.

So the American Family Association has gone and joined Facebook.

I know some of us want to either laugh or wring our hands over the new development.

Neither action is necessary. I say let them have their facebook page with their 30,000+members (yes I know that's a lot of folks).

There are so many other lgbt friendly facebook pages with good information about our community and about the lies of the religous right.

Rather than gripe about the AFA, let's make it a point to join these pro-lgbt facebook pages. Some of which are:

Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters - You really didn't think I wasn't going to include my page, did you? Soon to be adding a discussion board.

Good As You

Truth Wins Out

I know this isn't all of the groups. Never fear because I will give a near to complete listing at a later date.

Remembering TVC's lies about hate crimes legislation

Last week, I emailed the Traditional Values Coalition about their usage of a Family Research Council study, Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse .

The problem with this study, amongst other things, is that FRC removed it from its webpage because of "outdated sources."

Despite this, the study remains on TVC's webpage as a part of its Homosexual Urban Legends portion (rest assured, there are plenty of distortions there including citations from Paul Cameron, which I will talk about at a later time).

Including a discredited study is just par for the course when it comes to TVC.

This organization thinks nothing of using the words "she-males" and "crossdressers" as verbal weapons against the lgbt community. So why should a little bad study be a big deal?

That being the case, with hate crimes legislation possibly returning to Congress, a small controversy that erupted two years ago is important to remember.

In 2007 when Congress was considering adding sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation, TVC sent out a bulletin claiming that this action will lead to pastors being arrested for preaching against homosexuality:

Republican Congressman Louis Gohmert of Texas moved to remove “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from the bill. It failed on a recorded vote of 19 to 13.

Congressman Mike Pence from Indiana offered the important amendment on Freedom of Religion. “Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the constitution.”

A number of Republicans spoke in support of it. But the Democrats Jerrold Nadler, Tammy Baldwin and Chairman John Conyers kept evading the issue.

Finally, Congressman Gohmert asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?”

Gohmert was attempting to clarify and emphasize that the legislation would have an effect on the constitutional right to religious freedom and thus the Pence amendment was needed to protect religious speech.

The Democrats continued to explain why they could not accept the amendment. Lundgren continuously shot down their answer. He said, “What is your answer? Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?”

And finally Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama spoke up and said, “Yes.”

However TVC distorted Gohmert's question. This is what he actually said (and it changes things considerably):

Mr. Gohmert: . . . And if I understood the gentleman's amendment—and I will put the question back to you—if a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation goes out and does an act of violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit that act, are you saying under your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced against the minister?

On its webpage, TVC now terses the exchange as such:

Furthermore, Representative Davis admitted during the markup that the legislation will not protect a pastor from prosecution under this bill. During the debate, Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) forced Representative Davis to admit that if a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation causes bodily injury to a person, that the sermon or teachings could be used in evidence against the minister.

In short, Rep. Davis has admitted that H.R. 1592 could be used to prosecute pastors for their sermons if they incite or are an “inducement” to violence. This threat applies to S. 1105.

For example, a pastor can be targeted for prosecution if his sermon somehow “induced” or “counseled” a member of his church to go out and commit bodily injury against a homosexual or a cross-dresser. Bodily injury can be something as simple as touching or brushing up against a homosexual protester. Under both H.R. 1592 and S. 1105, bodily injury is considered violence—and is prosecutable.

With enemies like this, it's going to be a looooong year.

Jeremy from Good As You has an excellent breakdown of what happened.

President Obama already helping the economy via One News Now

(strictly tongue in cheek, boys and girls)

WANTED - AFRICAN-AMERICAN WRITERS

African-American writers wanted in order to lend credibility to a white-owned major online publication's frequent attacking of the Obama Administration.

Potential employees will be called upon to criticize President Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, various black leaders, and homosexuals.

Must have the ability to invoke Martin Luther King Jr.'s name or the African-American civil rights movement when criticizing homosexuals. Mastery of nonsensical phrases such as "equating sin with skin" or "the road to Selma shouldn't lead to Sodom" is a plus.

Potential employees will be forbidden to write about poverty, educational inequalities, or HIV/AIDS in the black community as this publication does not deem such issues as important to the African-American community.

Potential employees will be forbidden to say the words "Hurricane Katrina" and "President Bush" in the same sentence or paragraph.

Potential employees will be forbidden to bring up the names Bayard Rustin, Countee Cullen, Barbara Jordan, Lorraine Hansberry, or any other name refuting the position that African-Americans and homosexuals are two eternally separate entities.

NO EXPERIENCE NECESSARY

Just a lack of personal integrity.

Send resume to One News Now care of the American Family Association.

No matter how many years go by or how you dress it up, hateful accusations remain the same

February 28, 1999

“If you look at the footage from Operation Rescue, um, vigils outside abortion clinics, you will see that the anti Operation Rescue demonstrators invariably have a pink triangle on and they are usually pretty big heavy set women who look like they’ve been over working October Fest for the last six years . . .”—Robert Knight, Reclaiming America For Christ Conference, “Homosexuality” panel


January 22, 2009

The twin evils of homosexuality and abortion share a common foundation: the elevation of self over transcendent truth and God’s revealed will for men and women. Homosexual activists have been in the forefront of “defending” abortion centers - Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth

Just one comment - True Christians don't need to stoop so low.

Matt Barber demonstrates religious right dogma - when in doubt, lie like hell

I knew it would happen.

The wolves are now chasing President Obama over his embracing of the lgbt community. Obama's adminstration posted a list of lgbt goals on the official White House webpage so now one of our favorite anti-gay spokespeople, Matt Barber, has gone apoplectic. Let's look at his ramblings, shall we?

Obama Begins Full Court Press on Extremist Homosexual Agenda within Minutes of Taking Oath of Office: Barber

Gotta love the semantics there. Not the usual tired phrase "gay agenda." Barber goes full tilt with "extremist homosexual agenda."

The title demonstrates that Barber doesn't want gay rights to be discussed with logic and reasoning. He just goes for the jugular.

And it gets better:

Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by Bill Clinton – the only line of defense keeping all 50 states from being forced to recognize so-called “same-sex marriages” from extremely liberal states like Massachusetts and Connecticut;

So I guess all of those statewide amendments the religious right pushed and continue to push were for naught. Don't tell that to the Mormons.

Passing constitutionally dubious and discriminatory “hate crimes” legislation, granting homosexuals and cross dressers special rights – denied other Americans – based on changeable sexual behaviors;

That entire sentence is a huge lie. Hate crimes legislation already exists in cases of race and religion and the legislation in general covers everyone. The argument here is whether or not to add sexual orientation to it. And that phrase about "cross dressers" was just wrong and designed to invoke fear. Well at least he didn't say "she-males." I guess he leaves that phrase for Lou Sheldon and the Traditional Values Coalition.

Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would force business owners (religious and otherwise) to abandon traditional values relative to sexual morality under penalty of law;

Another lie. Churches and other religious groups are exempt from ENDA. But notice how Barber phrases it - business owners (religious or otherwise). This means that Barber believes that even in the most mundane settings (i.e. a fast food restaurant), the business owner can say that he is a Christian and can therefore deny someone the opportunity to work solely based on their sexual orientation. That's simply not right. A business owner should not be able to discriminate in the case of sexual orientation just as he or she should not be able to discriminate in the case of race, gender, or religion (which ironically is an accurate changeable behavior).

Creating intentionally motherless and fatherless homes and sexually confusing untold thousands of children by expanding “gay adoption.”

Yet another lie. LGBT homes do not create motherless and fatherless homes. I think a quick view of the American foster care system will attest to that. And no studies say that lgbt homes create sexually confused youngsters (except for the studies that are carefully manipulated by Barber and company). Accurate studies actually say that lgbt homes are as loving and fulfilling for children as heterosexual homes. I guess Barber feels that children in lgbt foster homes should be taken out of the home even if they bond with the foster parents, such as the recent case in Florida. It's sad how these so-called pro-family groups and spokespeole have reduced the care of children into some type of competition. All homes that provide love and support to children should be accepted.

It's apparent that through his wailing, Barber is trying to designate himself as a credible religious right voice.

At least he has got the first rule of religious right organization dogma down pat - when in doubt, lie like hell.

Speaking of hats

Okay this isn't lgbt themed (tomorrow I get back to work) but it's fun nonetheless.

Stop picking at the hat Aretha wore at Obama's inauguration!!!

Truth be known, I think she was trying to be historical.

The type of hat she wore reminds me of the one gospel legend Mahalia Jackson wore during the 1963 March on Washington. Mahalia is seen sitting in the second picture. The woman standing up is long time civil rights activist Dorothy Height. And her hat is interesting too.

Obama gets inaugurated and the wolves come out

President Obama hasn't even begun to get used to being called by that name yet before the wolves strike. Check out this bit:

Obama & Chief Justice Flub Oath of Office

From the comments section of this piece, there are a lot of sour grapes. Some people need to see a psychiatrist about their anti-Obama obsession.

I guess we will hear long platitudes about how Obama can't speak without a teleprompter or how its symbolic of what his term of office will be from such places as Free Republic, Red State, One News Now, Michelle Malkin, and the usual people and places of right wing hysteria.

I don't care who flubbed the line. The fact that some people will most likely dwell on that portion of the inauguration says a lot about how the tone of discourse has been lowered in this country. This idea of picking an advantage, no matter how small or how petty is pathetic. Not only that, it is a slap in the face to the spirit of unity that we all should embrace at least for this one day.

McCain lost. Obama won. He is a full United States citizen who ran a brilliant campaign and won the office of the presidency fair and square.

I cringe to think that I can expect a lawsuit courtesy of World Net Daily, Janet Folger Porter, Alan Keyes, or some other fringe freak (I tried not name call but these people are getting on my nerves) claiming that since "Obama flubbed the oath, it renders him ineligible to serve as president."

Get over it people. Just get over it and enjoy the day.

One day before the inauguration - Happy MLK Day!!

My birthday yesterday was nice and quiet. I received no gifts but a lot of well wishing from online and personal friends.

Thank you all for your kind words.

As you can tell in the days leading up the Obama's inauguration, I have been flying on one wing i.e. not doing any serious posting.

So why should today be any different?

Seriously though, the following links are things I found very interesting:

HBO, Presidential Inaugural Committee still pointing fingers over invisible Robinson invocation - Geez is there someone on Obama's team who is attempting to sabotage his relationship with the lgbt community? First the Donnie McClurkin thing, then the Rick Warren thing, and now this.

Obama's people need to handle their business. They need to stop tripping over their feet when it comes to dealing with the lgbt community. Despite all of the mess, Obama seems to be doing well by the lgbt community in terms of picking us to serve in the White House. It's a nice start but I want to see more.

But Obama's people need to understand that the visual perception of things are important too. Regardless of how many lgbts Obama appoints to serve in the White House, he is going to catch hell if his people keep giving the inference that they are going to backdoor us in public.

Having said that, I really wish (and I know some folks are going to give it to me for this) that some my fellow lgbt bloggers would stop getting all apoplectic. There is a difference between noticing a problem and throwing in the chips at the first sign of a small roadblock.

And most of all, when you post comments and then feel the need to insult your one-time online friends simply because they disagree, then you have anger issues. Perhaps you need to sit down with some soft music and a pint of mocha fudge ice cream instead of portraying a low-budget online version of Jean-Paul Marat.

I certainly think we should be vocal when we are treated wrong, but I don't like how some of us get so strident that we turn on each other. It's not a vigorous disagreement when someone accuses you of selling out simply because you don't agree totally with their ideas.

Remember, it was that "you are either with us or against us" bullshit that screwed up Bush.

The Top 43 Appointees Who Helped Make Bush The Worst President Ever - That new Dixie Chick album is looking more and more like a best seller.

Inaugural Committee will rebroadcast Robinson on Mall - Just thought I would mention that. By no means am I saying that we need to lighten pressure when we are treated wrong. And I am NOT giving Obama's people any pass. If there are any screw ups here, we got problems.

Obama naysayers speak out - WAAAAAH! You didn't give Bush a chance. What bullshit. He was elected president twice. THAT was his chance and he screwed it up. But to serve notice - if we implode, it will be these jackals who will be picking our bones.

Obama 'clueless' to shut down Gitmo - Oh no! Obama shouldn't shut down 'Gitmo.' It wouldn't be the Christian thing to do, unlike torture.

Saturday Night Live: A Couple of Homies - In Superbowl 39, singer Janet Jackson accidentally shows a bit of her breast and the country went nuts. Now comedian Will Forte shows a full view of his ass (2:23 - and what a nice ass it is) and no one says a word.

My, we have come far!!

A message emailed to the Traditional Values Coalition

Dear Traditional Values Coalition,

I have noticed that on your webpage "Homosexual Urban Legends," you have a study, Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse by Timothy Dailey of the Family Research Council.

I should inform you that this study has been removed from the Family Research Council's webpage due to the fact that it contained "outdated" sources.

A quick check with them would confirm this. It would be in the best interest of your organization's integrity that you remove this study from your webpage also.

Thank you for your time,

Alvin McEwen
http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2009/01/family-research-council-still-using.html

I'm now taking bets on whether or not TVC will remove this material.

The Friday before the inauguration . . . and my birthday

As Bush leaves the White House and Obama gets ready to take over, the past eight years is presently rushing through my brain and I am left with one thought:

I bet the new Dixie Chicks album will go quadruple platinum.

Seriously though, it's not all fun and games as these links attest:

Investigation reveals Mormon church severely underreported its contributions in support of Prop 8 - a huuuge "no shit, Sherlock" moment here. Cue the religious right to pull the "Mormons are being persecuted because of their religion" card.

File This Under Knowing Your Concerned Women Enemies - Autumn Sandeen is on point here. One of the main reasons why this so-called cultural war has gone on so long is because of our inability to really study and analyze religious right organizations and not paint every Christian conservative as anti-gay. The problem here is the exploitation of fear and personal beliefs.

Warren praises Obama for inviting homosexual bishop - Based on the comments under this article, the religious right seems to be turning on Warren. Say what you will about Obama's choices, they do make for very enjoyable theater.

Lawsuits Filed Over Rule That Lets Health Workers Deny Care - Bush's goodbye kiss to America. This rule NEEDS to be stopped before it causes everyone some real harm.

Robinson's Participation in Inauguration Might Cause God to Destroy Washington DC - God didn't destroy America after the making of Soul Plane. We don't have a thing to worry about.

On Sunday, I turn a young and vibrant 38. Feel free to email me so I can give you the address where you can send the gifts of money and loose men.

Seriously, this is going to be a working weekend for me. I am hoping to have more posts on bad "research papers" of the religious right. I have several leads that I am hoping pan out.

Tune in here for more details.

Just a few news briefs before inauguration fever sets in . . .

Groups criticize survey supporting gay military ban - It turns out that a recent poll from Army Times magazine that supports a gay military ban is faulty. No kidding. Of course this revelation means nothing to our friends Elaine Donnelly, Peter LaBarbera, or the folks at One News Now.

Hate Crimes Legislation Induces Right Wing Paranoia - There they go again.

Short gain = more spousal benefits for same-sex couples - This piece typifies just how nasty and coldhearted some members of the religious right can be. They don't even want lgbts to have the right to leave spousal benefits to our partners on the event of death. I said some members because of the comments section. The nastiness of FRC's Peter Sprigg in this article causes the commentators to call him out. It's unbelievable.

Fact: Porter Gets Fringier By the Day - This is an old post, but it deserves more attention. Barack Obama is literally driving Janet Folger Porter bonkers. It's like a 21st century remake of The Story of Adele H.

And now - the worst commercials in the history of commercials - Look for gay themes in this if you want. Why am I including it? Because I want you to suffer through it like I did when I was a child.

The Family Research Council continues to use 'outdated' work

In December of last year, I emailed the Family Research Council inquiring about the quiet removal of several studies from its webpage. These studies were designed to prove the alleged "dangers of homosexuality."

They were:

"Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse"

"The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality,"

"Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk"

Tuesday night, I received an answer via email:

Dear Alvin,

Thank you for contacting Family Research Council.

The papers that you inquired about have been removed from our website indefinitely due to the fact that they have outdated sources. However, we have other resources on our website that contain similar information, such as the following:

Getting It Straight
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BK04A01

What's wrong with letting same-sex couples legally "marry?"
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01

Why Marriage Should Be Privileged in Public Policy
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS03D1

Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex 'Marriage'
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01

You think that would be the end of the story.

Hardly.

The Family Research Council seems to have taken the studies it claims to contain "outdated sources," polished them up, and are now pushing them as credible, up-to-date work.

However, many of these "new" resources contain the same information as the "outdated" studies, sometimes verbatim, including the same endnote citations.

Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples (still on the webpage) and the Negative Effects of Homosexuality (removed from the webpage) is a perfect example of this. Among other things, both contain the following:

- A citation of the book Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women by Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg as a correct generalization of lgbt sexual habits despite the fact that it was written in 1978 and was not meant by the authors to be a correct assessment of the lgbt community in general.

A passage from Homosexualities clearly says:

“. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”

- A citation of the book The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop by David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison despite the fact that the book was written 1984 and was not meant to be a correct assessment of the lgbt community in general.

A passage from The Male Couple says:

“We always have been very careful to explain that the very nature of our research sample, its size (156 couples), its narrow geographic location, and the natural selectiveness of the participants prevents the findings from being applicable and generalizable to the entire gay
male community.”


This is important because even if one were to ignore the obvious misusage of these books, their published dates (1978 and 1984 respectively) leads one to ask what exactly does the Family Research Council consider to be an "outdated source?"

And that isn't all I found.

As I said before, some of the studies now present on the Family Research Council's webpage (and thus considered to be accurate) contain some of the same information and citations present in the "outdated" studies.

Some of this information has gotten the Family Research Council in trouble a number of years ago.

Look at the study, Getting It Straight for example.

In chapter 4 - Is Homosexuality a Health Risk, there is this passage (pg. 88):

A study of 3,365 high school students published in Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found: “Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or not sure male students were 6.50 times more likely to report a suicide attempt than heterosexual male students. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or not sure female students were 2.02 times more likely to report a suicide attempt than their heterosexual female peers.”

Robert Garofalo, et al, “Sexual Orientation and Risk of Suicide Attempts among a Representative Sample of Youth,” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 153 (May 1999): 490.


In 1998, Garofalo complained that FRC and several other religious right groups was distorting his research. According to him, the groups omitted a crucial part of his findings (i.e. gay teens engage in negative behavior - suicide attempts - when faced with abuse from a homophobic society). Interestingly enough, when Garofalo complained, then FRC staff member Robert Knight questioned his credibility. (Boston doctor says ads distorted his work on gays, The Boston Globe, August 4, 1998 )

Then there is this passage in the same chapter on pg. 89:

A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy:

• “In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.”

In 2001, the researchers of this study complained that their work was being distorted by organizations like FRC.

Now wouldn't complaints by a study's author render it unusuable or a possible "outdated source?"

Apparently not to the Family Research Council.

Also:

Chapter 5 of Getting it Straight, Do Homosexual Parents Pose a Risk to Children, is interesting in that except for a few alterations (i.e. rearranging of text) it is identical to Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk - one of the studies FRC removed from its webpage claiming that it contained "outdated sources."

By that same token, chapter 6 of Getting It Straight, Is There a Link Between Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse? is a total rehash of Homosexuality and Child Abuse, yet another study that FRC removed from its page for having "outdated sources."

What's interesting about Homosexuality and Child Abuse is that a researcher cited in it, Nicholas Groth, sent a letter to FRC in 2002 complaining about how his work was being distorted to prove that gays molest children at a higher number that heterosexuals - something that his work found not to be true.

However, despite his complaint over five years ago, Groth's work is cited in Getting It Straight (pg. 123):

Another study found that “some authors now believe that boys may be sexually abused as commonly as girls (Groth, 1978; O’Brien, 1980).”

These are just a few of the things that I found. There so many other inaccuracies in these supposed credible studies. All of it makes one wonder just exactly is FRC's definition of an "outdated source."

And if I can take the question further - just what exactly is FRC's definition of truth and Christian principles?

It is ironic that while FRC head Tony Perkins pleads innocent ennui and criticizes lgbts for our supposed intolerance, his group engages in tactics that justify our position of anger.

Regardless of one's personal beliefs about homosexuality, no one should approve of FRC's deceptive tactics.

Hat tip to Emproph for sending me a link to FRC's "outdated" studies.

Glenn T. Stanton is no expert

Focus on the Family staff member Glen Stanton was on Dr. Phil today on a program about transgender children. At one point, Stanton was billed as an "expert."

Now in Dr. Phil's defense, he pretty much allowed Stanton and the other guest, Joseph Nicolosi to cut their own throats. They had no idea what they were talking about and it showed. Also Dr. Phil gave the legitimate medical professional the final word in a one-on-one conversation; something that was very appropriate.

So all in all, I thought the show went well.

But I think in terms of religious right spokespeople, the word "expert" is used too much.

I looked into Stanton's background and found the following:

Glenn T. Stanton is the research fellow for global family formation at Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs. He is also directing a major research project on international family formation trends at the Institute of Marriage and Family in Ottawa. He debates and lectures extensively on the issues of gender, sexuality, marriage and parenting at universities and churches around the country. He recently served the Bush administration as a consultant on increasing fatherhood involvement in the Head Start program.

. . . A graduate of the University of West Florida, Glenn earned a master’s degree in interdisciplinary humanities with an emphasis in philosophy, history and religion. He has also taught in each of these disciplines.

All impressive but there is nothing that constitutes him to speak expertly on the issue of homosexuality.

That bothers me.

Other things bother me about Stanton.

According to Box Turtle Bulletin, last year, Stanton claimed that there’s a “clear consensus” among anthropologists that “A family is a unit that draws from the two types of humanity, male and female.”

The University of California at Irvine’s Anthropology Chair Bill Maurer and Associate Professor Tom Boellstorff as well as the American Anthropological Association all vehemently disagreed with this claim.

I have no idea how Stanton felt he was credentialed to speak for the anthropological community. Whatever the case, the rebuke put Stanton in the company of so many other religious right spokespeople who have been called to the carpet because of their distortion of legitimate studies, including his boss James Dobson.

And then I am bothered by a piece Stanton wrote called Why Homosexuality Falls Short of the Ideal. This passage especially gave me pause:

HIV is the most notable infection associated with homosexual sex and other promiscuous behaviors, but it is important to realize that this is only part of the problem. Professor Thomas Schmidt, in his excellent study of homosexuality, Straight & Narrow?, explains, "Doctors who work with homosexual men are now trained to look regularly for at least 15 common afflictions apart from HIV/AIDS and we could double or triple the number by taking into account less common problems."

The problem with this is that Thomas Schmidt, who is not a medical physician or researcher but a theologian, freely used the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron in the book Stanton cited - Straight and Narrow? Compassion and clarity in the homosexual debate.

Proof of that is here:

6. About 80% of homosexual men engage in anal intercourse, and consequently suffer from a condition known to doctors as 'Gay Bowel syndrome'. This is a cocktail of physical trauma and a long list of infectious diseases. (Schmidt, p.108,109; F.R.I. report, "Medical Consequences...")

8. In the homosexual community as a whole, evidence of life-long faithful relationships is almost non-existent. One study showed 1%. (Schmidt, p.105-108; F.R.I. report "Same Sex Marriage")

22. While only a minority of homosexuals are paedophiles, male homosexual paedophilia is intensely active. Consequently approx. 80% of paedophilic victims are boys who are molested by adult males. (Schmidt, p.114; F.R.I. report. "Child Molestation and Homosexuality")

Editor's note - F.R.I. stands for Family Research Institute, the organization created and run by Paul Cameron.

What Stanton did is a clever trick propagated by religious right "experts" who are well aware of the flaws in Cameron's work - not citing Cameron directly but citing another person who originally cites Cameron.

Last year on this blog, I talked about how the Family Research Council has covertly removed the "studies" of its homosexuality expert Timothy Dailey from its webpage.

It seems that the same bit of chicanery may be going on with Focus on the Family and Glenn T. Stanton.

I first found Stanton's homosexuality paper on the webpage of the Palmetto Family Council. It said clearly that he was the author of the study.

However, on the Palmetto Family Council's new webpage, the study remains but Stanton's byline is gone.

In addition, I could not find the piece on the Focus on the Family webpage.

It just goes to show that one unfortunate aspects of this so-called cultural war is how anyone with a religious testimony and/or a phony organization with an official sounding name can suddenly be considered to know more about homosexuality than us who are lgbt.

From Linda Harvey to Janet Folger Porter to Timothy Dailey to Matt Barber to Peter LaBarbera to Glenn T. Stanton - the list goes on and on. and they are all phonies.

Let me clarify one fact. I don't have a problem with these folks entering the conversation on lgbts, gender identity or the like. I have a problem with their audacity and their lack of honesty. Often times, these individuals have no desire to be objective. They already have a preconceived religious beliefs which they manipulate science, facts, and common sense to adhere to.

They are not experts and they don't need to be called such.

The problem is that talk shows like Dr. Phil won't vet these people. They just book them on the show as "experts," which gives them undeserved credibility. And all under the guise of "seeing both sides of the issue."

In the long run, it's up to the lgbt community to make the noise and expose these charlatans.

We need to put a serious kibosh their lies by challenging their credentials, or lack of credentials, and their shoddy workmanship at every turn.

Ken Blackwell cures this brotha's Monday blaahs

Lord, it's so hard to keep up with all of the mess emanating from the religious right.

For the benefit of those who don't know, in addition to updating my two blogs, I have an 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. job. So sometimes I can't keep up with the news like so many other lgbt blogs. Subsequently when I post, I try to make it a doozy - i.e. either show something new and different or throw out a different dimension to exposing religious right lies.

Today, I was a little under the weather

I turn 38 this upcoming Sunday and I'm not looking forward to it. You can chalk it up to wondering if I have done something relevant with my life so far. I've had this notion many times before.

When I turned 30 and felt that I had not hit the nadir of relevance, I calmed my hysteria by noting that legendary actor Burt Lancaster didn't really start cooking until he reached 32 and that Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison didn't start writing until she was 35.

These days as I approach 40, I tell myself that Jerry Seinfeld didn't really hit it big until he was in his 40s.

I guess if I haven't done anything of relevance by the time I reach 50, I will be pulling Grandma Moses out of my hat.

Right now, I am trying to get together a serious column regarding ENDA, gays, African-Americans and the "privilege of oppression."

Sounds good, don't it?

But leave it to possible GOP National Committee Chairman Ken Blackwell to wake me up.

'Change' Ken Blackwell can believe in

The GOP may select Ken Blackwell to be the first African-American chairman of their National Committee. Something that we can blame on Obama no doubt.

Now I suppose we are going to be inundated with cross conversations between the lgbt community and the heterosexual African-American community on just what is a "civil right." This interview looks to be the possible first salvo.

Personally speaking, the entire conversation drives this black gay man to distraction. Every time lgbts and African-Americans get into this discussion, I feel like a child caught in the middle of a nasty custody battle. (Eat your heart out, Gloria Vanderbilt)

Now while I feel that the lgbt community in general can do more to help black gays and lesbians be more visible, I can't shake the notion that the entire argument puts my heterosexual black brothers and sisters in some of the most unlikely of positions.

Not only does the subject of homosexuality make the black community seem hypocritical (i.e. citing religious belief against homosexuality as a defense when some forms of popular African-American music embrace sexualized images of women and fornication - which you hardly ever hear Harry Jackson or Ken Hutcherson talk about) but it also causes the black community to forget its own history.

Take the notion pushed by some of my heterosexual black brothers and sisters that "gays have it easy because they can hide who they are."

Those who say that tend to forget a sad bit of African-American history.

It's not talked about much now but a while ago, there were some African-Americans who took advantage of their lighter skin tone in order to "pass" for white. They did this to escape the potential dead end life that racism subjected black America to.

Needless to say, those who could not pass weren't exactly happy with the actions of their lighter-skinned brothers and sister.

It was a controversial thing. Books were written about "passing," and vigorous conversations were had about the practice in meeting places such as barbershops and churches.

Hollywood even did several movies on the subject. The most famous had to be Imitation of Life, in which a light-skinned black woman ran away from home in order to pass for white.

Her mother gets so distraught that she dies of a broken heart, And this leads to the climactic, tear jerking ending in which the daughter interrupts the funeral, flings open the hearse and collapses on her mother's coffin in surfeit of hysterical tears.

You can see the scene here.

This leads to me to ask if passing caused so much trouble for African-Americans back then, then why in the hell would it be a good idea for the lgbt community right now?

Trying to be something you aren't isn't good for anyone, be they black, gay or black and gay. It's a practice that must never been encouraged.


News briefs:

Family advocacy group announces Pepsi boycott - brought to you by those who define boycotts by the lgbt community as acts of terror.

Right Wing Leftovers - Mike Huckabee says he is not "pro-sodomy." THANK YOU JESUS!!! I mean we don't just accept anybody.

DADT WITHOUT THE DA - In 1993, those who opposed gays in the military had Colin Powell, Congressman Sam Nunn, the phony studies of Paul Cameron, a host of public officials, and the full force of religious conservatives on their side. Now in 2008, all they have is a phony expert who gets destroyed every time she opens her mouth. I love America.

Always With The Bathroom; Always With The Misrepresentations - There are situations that can only be described as earring-yanking, wig snatching-off moments. What's happening now in Florida is at least 10 of them.

Violence is fine, just as long as no one gets naked

This isn't necessarily a gay issue but it illustrates the mindset of those who think that lgbts are the ruination of America:

The Chicago Shakespeare Theater's production of Macbeth left one audience member outraged over some surprising content.

Laurie Higgins, the director of the division of school advocacy at the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), is a fan of Shakespeare and the Chicago Shakespeare Theater. But while attending a recent production of Macbeth, she was shocked when the actress portraying Lady Macbeth performed scenes topless.

. . . The play also included simulated sex scenes -- with one of the actors fondling Lady Macbeth's bare breasts -- and one scene was set in a strip bar with scantily clad actresses in leather thongs.

Higgins is the "activist" who helped give Deerfield High School in Illinois so much uncalled for attention last year. She helped create a moral panic because the lgbt play Angels in America was being read in a senior honors English class.

Higgins and those who agreed with her point of view (including our friend Peter LaBarbera) incorrectly said that children were being "indoctrinated into homosexuality" and were "forced" to read the play.

LaBarbera even posted some of the more questionable play dialogue on his webpage in an attempt to induce further outrage.

Of course Higgins, LaBarbera, and others who tried to say that Deerfield was "under siege" by the lgbt community convienently omitted that Angels in America was not required reading (students had a choice between the play and The Plague by Albert Camus). They also failed to mention that students were required to get their parents' permission in order to read Angels in America.

So much for that moral panic. What makes this one interesting is the play itself.

Those who are familiar with Shakespeare know that Macbeth tells the tale of a loyal soldier whose ambition leads him to become king of Scotland through violent means.

The play is filled with images of witchcraft, violence, blood, and murder. One scene even has a child being killed in front of his mother.

But Higgins makes no mention of Macbeth's violence in the article.

Maybe she thinks that Macbeth's violence is fine, just as long as we don't get to see Lady Macbeth's breasts.

Perhaps Higgins would be placated if Lady Macbeth was given a sharp left hook instead.