Analyzing and refuting the inaccuracies lodged against the lgbt community by religious conservative organizations. Lies in the name of God are still lies.
No doubt everyone has heard of Kim Kardashian's divorce announcement.
Right after one asks just who is Kim Kardashian, one should ask what the National Organization for Marriage say about it or will it say anything at all. From NOM Exposed:
The National Organization for Marriage should be putting out a statement today, right? After a $10 million wedding, TV personality Kim Kardashian and New Jersey Net Kris Humphries are ending their two-month marriage. The starlet apparently cites ‘irreconcilable differences.’ Wow. She dated this guy for a while and it took two months of marriage to figure that out? That’s the ‘sanctity of marriage’ for you!”
My guess is that NOM will be conveniently silent on the Kardashian affair, choosing to devote time to continuing to needle NY Senators for their part in passing marriage equality in the state, like so:
Earlier this month when Minnesota Archbishop John Nienstedt sent out a letter urging every Catholic church in the state to create ad-hoc committees which would work to pass a constitutional amendment against marriage equality, he caused a deserved uproar regarding the idea that a tax-exempt entity would take such an aggressive role in a political issue.
However, there is another issue in this situation which needs more attention:
According to Nienstedt’s letter, the church captains will be organized by the Minnesota Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the Catholic church, which will in turn report to the Minnesota for Marriage coalition for statewide efforts. Minnesota for Marriage is made up of the Minnesota Family Council, MCC and the National Organization for Marriage.
We all know the exploits of the National Organization for Marriage - how the group moves from state to state scaring up the populace against marriage equality via lies and scare tactics such as claiming that gays are "corrupting" children while fighting state laws demanding that it reveal its donors.
Tom Prichard, the MFC’s president, maintained that LGBT youth commit suicide because they live an “unhealthy lifestyle” and that anti-bullying programs are ways to have children “indoctrinated in homosexuality.” Prichard also criticized Gay Straight Alliances, saying “it’s sad and harmful for kids to celebrate homosexuality when in fact it’s not a healthy lifestyle;” he went on to claim that Matthew Shepard’s murder wasn’t a hate crime and that his “death served an important ideological purpose for homosexual activists.”
Earlier this year, MFC was called out for having materials on its webpage which accused gays of pedophilia, bestiality, and the consuming of bodily wastes. Prichard later actually defended the inaccurate data. However after much outcry, the materials were removed from the webpage without any comment.
The Minnesota Family Council is scum. It is a group devoted to demonizing and stigmatizing the gay community through junk science and ugly propaganda.
Yet it is the same group which Archbishop Nienstedt sees no problem in teaming up with in order to stop marriage equality in Minnesota.
There is a great deal more at stake than talk of tax-exempt status. The question has to be is Nienstedt ready to barter the integrity of his Catholic diocese in order to stop marriage equality?
Could it be that Nienstedt is so concerned with the verses of the Bible which supposedly speak against homosexuality that he is abandoning the ones which speak against lying and bearing false witness?
The National Organization has a mantra which it likes to repeat. It goes like this:
"When the people lend their voice to the issue of marriage by voting, they will stand up for traditional marriage every time."
At first glance, NOM does have a point. The track record is on their side because when people have voted in referendums on the subject of marriage equality, they have rejected it.
However, as the old saying goes, the devil is always in the details. The end result is all that matters, not what shaded, dirty, and underhanded things it took to get the end result.
And in the case of NOM, this is definitely true. Question One, a documentary about how NOM aided in defeating marriage equality in Maine in 2009, thoroughly points that out:
[Marc] Mutty, who took leave from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine to help lead the campaign to overturn the Legislature’s 2009 law legalizing same-sex marriage, granted the filmmakers nearly unrestricted access in the “Yes on 1″ war room.
Mutty, featured prominently in a production shot over the three months leading up to the election, is interviewed during the campaign and at home. He appears as a reluctant participant in the campaign. He expresses discomfort with the tactics deployed by Schubert Flint, a California public relations firm hired by the National Organization for Marriage.
Mutty, who said he had to step outside of himself to run the campaign, is shown telling volunteers that their message need not convince people they were right about the issue.
“All we have to do is create doubt,” he said.
And how do they create doubt? Simply by claiming that marriage equality is damaging to the family, especially the children:
However, Mutty grows increasingly troubled by Schubert Flint television ads stating that gay marriage will lead to homosexuality being taught in public schools.
“We all use a lot of hyperbole and I think that’s always dangerous,” Mutty said. “You know, we say things like ‘Teachers will be forced to (teach same-sex marriage in schools)! Well, that’s not completely accurate and we all know it, you know?”
In other words - and these are words which need to be repeated consistently and continuously - when people vote against marriage equality, it's not because they are standing up for traditional marriage. It's usually because organizations like NOM make them fear that gays are trying to corrupt their children.
It's nothing new or original. And it's certainly not noble. It's the same homophobic game Anita Bryant played in 70s when she led the charge against gay rights in Florida - i.e. if gays get equality, they are going to want your children next.
If you aren't convinced by my words, allow the following montage of NOM flyers to prove my point:
The only thing about "traditional" about NOM's tactics is how those without an clear cut argument always stoop to lies and fear mongering.
. . . if we are going to win, we are going to have to become even better about knowing groups like NOM better than they know their own efforts. And I don't mean just know them in an anecdotal, "Yeah, yeah, they talk about school books -- now can we go have a cocktail?" sort of way: I mean we must truly KNOW what the organized marriage opposition movement is doing in this country to stop or chip away at our existing rights, as well as UNDERSTAND how and why they are doing it.
For today's Know Your LGBT History post, I've selected The Jackal (1997).
The Jackal is a remake of a 1973 movie entitled The Day of the Jackal. Both movies are about an unnamed assassin paid gobs of money to kill a high ranking official. In the original movie, the assassin's target was French president Charles de Gaulle. In the remake, it was the First Lady.
What makes both movies so interesting is how the assassin covers his identity, moving from person to person and murdering whomever to keep said identity secret.
In both movies, he takes up with a gay man, making sure to dispose of the man when he no longer needs him.
The remake is viciously direct when it comes to this. The Jackal, played by BruceWillis, takes up with a gay man in order to hide out. There is a small hint that the two had sex, seeing that the gay man thinks that they are beginning a relationship.
Of course that ludicrous notion dies out in a scene so ridiculous that you can't get mad at what happens.
One could almost look at it as a parody of the many times in the movies where they create a gay character, only to kill him off:
Next week - Something nice and foreign that's just begging for an American remake. I would have posted it this week but I had forgotten about it until this post was half written. I'm not telling you what it is. Tune it next Friday.
LGBT: Domestic Violence Became Even Greater Problem Last Year- BEFORE the religious right distorts this news - and they will - read the entire post. Domestic violence is not indicative of gay relationships any more than it is indicative of heterosexual relationships.
Earlier this month, Minnesota Archbishop John Nienstedt sent out word to every church in his diocese to start ad hoc committees in order to push for the state's constitutional amendment against gay marriage. At the time, I wrote that he was going too far in devoting the Catholic Church's tax-exempt resources to an arena - i.e. politics - which may put his integrity and that of the church's in question.
According to a recent issue of the Minnesota Independent, I am not the only one who seems to have a problem with Nienstedt's push:
One lay Catholic who works for a church-affiliated organization, who asked not to be identified for fear of losing their job, told the Minnesota Independent that the organized campaign in support of the marriage amendment was “offensive, divisive and against the image of Christ we see in the Gospels.”
“But honestly after the sex abuse scandal and the cover-ups made by the hierarchy, nothing they do shocks me anymore,” the source said. ”After watching the Catholic Church use funds to pay for their lawyers, pay off victims and now shove through this amendment, I’ve decided to withhold my tithe from the church. I do not want to provide them more money to defend themselves or lobby against me and those I love. Instead, I will give that money directly to services in Minnesota that provide food and housing for the poorest among us.”
The puzzlement that Nienstedt would devote resources to the amendment fight was a constant theme in the article:
Scott Alessi, writing for U.S. Catholic, which is published by a Roman-Catholic community of priests and brothers called the Claretian Missionaries, said Niensted’s decision was “unusual.”
“Nienstedt has made clear that for priests in his archdiocese, fighting to ensure that the state defines marriage in the same way as the church is today’s top priority,” Alessi wrote.
Alessi wondered if anti-gay marriage amendment was the most appropriate use of resources: ”If an archbishop can call upon all his pastors to form grassroots committees, appoint parish leaders, and organize a large-scale effort, is this the issue on which to do it? What if every parish developed an unemployment committee dedicated to helping out of work people in the parish community find jobs?”
The answer to why Nienstedt made this "unusual push" lies in a document which he signed two years ago - The Manhattan Declaration. The Manhattan Declaration was signed by over one hundred and twenty-five members of the religious right and leaders from the Catholic church and it says that signees will not abide by any laws which support abortion or marriage equality.
The National Organization for Marriage finally admitted that it did wrong in the recent photo-stealing scandal. However, the way NOM admitted wrongdoing was in an underhanded way which totally backfired yet again.
However according to Hooper, this photo is yet another misdirection:
Even though the text clearly identifies the "we" as a "collation of Granite State Citizens," what you see is the NYC march that NOM held on the very day same-sex couples began marrying in the city and state. That same rally at which the majority of marchers were bussed in from other places.
So instead of a comment admitting wrongdoing, NOM tries to cover up its lies by making yet another easy-to-detect error.
Damn. I am sooo jealous of the fun Jeremy is having right now.
For all of those "people" who will defend teachers who attack gay students and same-sex families, for all of those "people" who will engage in an extreme media blitz to obscure a situation involving a student possibly harassing a gay teacher, this video is a reminder on who the real victims are. When you defend things which fosters ignorance, situations like this are expected to occur. Where is this young man's defense fund?:
More information about this situation on Towleroad.
Earlier this week, I wrote about how the "Florida Family Association" was complaining about how MTV was supposedly "promoting homosexuality" by airing a public service announcement from the Trevor Project during one of its shows, Degrassi. The Trevor Project is an organization devoted to preventing suicide amongst lgbtq youth.
There was specific anger towards Target because it is a main advertiser during Degrassi.
Now it seems that the American Family Association has now undertaken a campaign against Target via its group One Million Moms.
The Trevor Helpline promotion aired during the "Beat It" episode of Teen Nick's Degrassi series when teen Riley, the openly gay football captain and starting quarterback, declined reparative therapy for his homosexuality. Not only is Teen Nick now featuring a show that encourages the nation's youth to embrace alternate lifestyles, but the family retail chain Target Corporation is helping through sponsorship. Upon discovering that Target Corporation is one of the main advertisers during the shameful and inappropriate program Degrassi, OMM is disappointed and the retail chain needs to be held accountable. At least three Target advertisements appeared during each episode of Degrassi this past weekend. They are openly recruiting teens and children to become 'gay' on a program that also promotes the transgender and homosexual lifestyle.
The idea that the AFA's campaign is vile and disgustingly homophobic is a given. What gets me is the group the organization is using to promote it. No doubt by pushing this campaign via astroturfed One Million Moms, AFA is pushing the implication that mothers are concerned by the so-called promotion of homosexuality.
Seems to me that any true mother would be more concerned with keeping her child from committing suicide, no matter if that child is gay or heterosexual.
The National Organization for Marriage has YET to comment on getting caught stealing photos from Obama rallies to misrepresent its number of supporters, but others are commenting.
Today, the Human Rights Campaign made a statement:
HRC to NOM: Fess Up About Stolen Photo
Anti-LGBT organization manipulates crowd photo to create illusion of support
WASHINGTON – Today Joe Solmonese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign – the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization – sent a letter to the so-called National Organization for Marriage (NOM) calling out the group’s deceitful tactics in New Hampshire. NOM is using a photograph from an Obama campaign event in Ohio to mislead New Hampshire voters into believing they have more supporters than they actually do. The news was broken by Jeremy Hooper on his Good as You blog; Hooper is also a contributor to HRC’s NOM Exposed.
The photo debacle comes on the heels of news from the nonpartisan University of New Hampshire Survey Center who recently released a poll showing 62% of Granite Staters oppose repealing the popular same-sex marriage law.
Read Solmonese’s letter to NOM President Brian Brown below:
Dear Mr. Brown:
Your organization has sunk to a new level of deception by manipulating photographs from an Obama campaign event in Ohio to trick Granite Staters into believing support for the National Organization for Marriage is much greater than it really is. And while I know that NOM has never been above misleading the public to further its cause, this new phoniness is an example of just how far you will go to make people believe your pursuit – the denial of equal treatment under the law — is supported by New Hampshire voters and Americans in general.
There’s no mistaking the facts: 62 percent of Granite Staters oppose repealing marriage equality. In addition, polls reflect that a majority of Americans support marriage equality nationwide. And it’s no secret that support is growing as Americans from all walks of life come to the understanding that all that gay and lesbian families seek is to have our love and commitment recognized and legally protected. Yet NOM futilely and painstakingly attempts to convince otherwise.
The fact that you had to “steal a crowd” from someone else’s event to create the illusion that people support your cause is evidence that you and your cohorts are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel. Americans want the truth. And the truth is voters in New Hampshire want the legislature to leave the popular marriage law alone and focus on the economy and budget matters.
Sincerely,
Joe Solmonese
Meanwhile Clarknt67, a blogger at Daily Kos, has come out with a list detailing the fact that photos aren't the only items NOM has pilfered:
Gosh for such God-fearing Christian people, those folks over at National Organization for Marriage sure seem to have a problem following the 8th Commandment.
To a blog from from its ally in the Prop 8 trial (FamilyScholars.org, the "pro-family" blog for the Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for American Values):
Meanwhile NOM has yet to comment on being caught red-handed. A little tip, NOM. Ignoring the fact that you were caught in unscrupulous, underhanded, and totally immoral behavior won't make it go away.
The National Organization for Marriage constantly tries to pass itself off as an organization created to solely protect the "so-called" special institution of marriage.
The mantra of "Don't mess with marriage" has been heard constantly in its talking points and when its spokespeople - Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher - are interviewed concerning the organization's goals and such.
Gallagher herself has said that she thinks its unfortunate how sometimes people misinterpret the things she says as a condemnation of "gay parenting skills."
Don't believe Brown, Gallagher, or anyone from NOM when they come with that spin. It's not necessarily the things that Brown or Gallagher may say about same-sex families, but how they present the issue and allow their supporters to ruminate over it.
Case in point, a recent post on the group's blog featured a piece on a from the UK Daily Mail over two gay couples fighting over custody of two children.
It's an ugly situation but would NOM have given a damn about it if the couples involved where heterosexual? Of course not.
But here is the tricky part. NOM doesn't make a comment on the situation. The organization merely posted the article verbatim. It merely allowed its responders to comment - making sure of course to moderate comments. Here are just some:
Of course the players in this travesty, the so-called adults, have never given a moment's thought to the best interests of the children. They seem incapable of doing so, being children themselves. They are totally caught up in their own narcissistic desires. The judge is understandably frustrated.Children are not pets.
. . . this begs the question, "What is a human?" It is rational animal whose existence requires the unity of male and female whose sexual powers are ordered toward such a union. When a heterosexual couples adopts a child, it tries to replicate, as close as possible, what has been lost: a mother and a father. Gays simply cannot do this. To pretend that they can do this is to lie to oneself. Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable. What's more, only if there is a natural family--that which by its orderliness produces the children that you want to adopt--can you even mimic it. But as you move further away from a memory of the natural family, and it because more difficult to morally plagiarize from it, you are literally without guidance on what to do. Hence, we have this case in the UK. People playing with counterfeit money for so long they forget how the real thing feels like. And who gets harmed? Those who were supposed to receive a different inheritance.
SOME true marriages harm kids. ALL same-sex "marriages" harm kids.
This shows the evil of homosexuality. Part of the evil is their utter disdain for children.
NOM will probably say that posting this UK article is not the same as generalizing about same-sex couples, but the comments of its responders speak for themselves. The organization gave them red meat and like rabid wolves, they chewed on it like it was their last meal.
The Family Research Council has smeared every aspect of lgbtq life, so of course the organization has to go after same-sex families.
In an absolutely ridiculous attempt, FRC attacked a recent study, All Children Matter, which looked at the inequalities children in same-sex households face. To help with the smear, FRC used an old distorted claim:
The report says "unequal treatment and social stigma" harm these kids, while stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that the destruction of the natural family is the greater threat. Still, some may argue that providing legal "protections" to kids of homosexual parents (by legalizing same-sex "marriage") wouldn't hurt anyone else. Yet scholar Stanley Kurtz has pointed out that in the Netherlands, "a remarkable and long-lasting spike in its out-of-wedlock birthrate" resulted from recognition of homosexual partnerships and same-sex "marriage," because "once marriage stops being about binding mothers and fathers together for the sake of their children, the need to get married gradually disappears." We can't afford to let that happen here.
But here is the facts about Kurtz's claim that FRC didn't mention.
In 2004, Kurtz, who was affiliated with the Hoover Institute (a right-wing think tank) at the time had written a theory that said when gay marriage was introduced in the Netherlands, it destroyed marriage in general by leading to more out-of-wedlock births.
However, during testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee later that year, Kurtz admitted he had no proof that same-sex marriage led to out of wedlock births in the Netherlands. When pressed by Rep. Jerome Nadler (D-NY), Kurtz admitted that he was merely making a systematic argument.
In other words, he took two events and said that one (same-sex marriage) led to the other (out of wedlock births) without providing any evidence of such.
To tell the truth, I am rather disappointed in this latest FRC lie. Usually the organization provides more care in the propaganda it uses against the gay community.
Photo: A mutant strain of NOM misrepresentation (Part 2) - So AFTER getting caught stealing a photo from an Obama rally, what does the National Organization for Marriage do? Why steal another photo from another Obama rally of course. Of course those of us who know NOM shouldn't be surprised at its dirty tricks, but it doesn't hurt to keep a tab on the organization's unscrupulous activities.
No mainstream or legitimate medical organization has ever said that gays are harmful to children. In fact, several groups - the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America - say just the opposite.
Remember what I said in my last post about NOM's audacity? Forget that. The following not only crosses the threshold for audacity but wins the award in perpetuity. Check out the following photo:
Jeremy Hooper from Goodasyou.org (who deals with NOM's lies at a level that even closer than me - I admire his strength and strong stomach) instantly suspected it to be a fake.
And he was right:
From Hooper:
Yes, that's right: They lifted a Reuters photo. From another state. From more than three years ago. Featuring a man who stands against NOM's agenda in most every way possible.
In the long run, it doesn't matter how many victories NOM receives - even though the organization is going to eventually lose this fight against lgbtq equality - the organization has shown itself to be totally devoid of integrity and morality.
Seems to me that anyone looking to this organization to protect marriage or anything they perceive to be "good" and "noble" is barking up the wrong tree.
Today, the National Organization for Marriage really decided to raise the bar for unashamed audacity. The organization is now demanding that Obama's Justice Department pay for Speaker of the House John Boehner's defense of DOMA ( the Defense of Marriage Act):
In response to Democratic Rep. Mike Honda of California's calls for hearings on the cost of the House's defense of DOMA, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released this statement:
"John Boehner and the House are stepping in to do the job that President Obama refused to do: defend a law passed by bipartisan majorities. The cost of hiring lawyers to defend DOMA should be deducted from the budget of the Justice Department," said Brian Brown, President of NOM. "The $1.5 million cost of defending DOMA represent less than one-one hundredth of one percent of the Justice Department's huge $28 billion budget. President Obama's defection of duty is responsible for incurring this cost; he should trim some fat and find the money to pay for it."
The Obama Administration decided not to defend DOMA because it felt that the law could not be defended. Speaker of the House John Boehner decided to take up the slack . . . and stepped into a hornet's nest. He is now set to spend over $1 million on the defense of DOMA. The amount of the defense was earlier set at $500,000 but apparently the lawyer handling the case, Paul Clement, quickly went through this amount.
Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that the defense of DOMA was rooted in chicanery and junk science:
3. Clement is also citing - in a second hand fashion - junk science from discredited researchers. In his defense of DOMA, Clement cites the work of Case Western Reserve University law professor George W. Dent, Jr. But Dent's work - which Clement uses - cited both Paul Cameron and George Rekers, two discredited researchers. Cameron has been censured or rebuked by several organizations for his bad methodology in his studies. He has published work which claimed, among other nauseating false things, that gays stuff gerbils up their rectums. (Editor's note- the piece Cameron cited to make this claim - The Straight Dope - actually said that this claim was not true. Cameron dishonestly "flipped the script" to make it seem that The Straight Dope was affirming this claim.) Rekers lost a lot of credibility for last year's scandal when he was caught coming from a European vacation with a "rentboy."
It is for these reasons that Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA) demanded a hearing on how money is being spent on the defense of DOMA.
Even if no one ignored that Boehner's defense of DOMA is rooted in bad techniques and junk science - which I noticed NOM did ignore - the audacity of the organization here is astounding.
NOM just lost a court case in which it sought to sought to hide donors in CA who contributed to the successful effort to pass Proposition 8.
Perhaps NOM shouldn't worry who is paying for the defense of DOMA and focus on releasing its donors as it has been ordered to by law and the courts.
My favorite phony news service, One News Now, is giving a Florida religious right group, the Florida Family Association, room to gripe about what it calls a "gay promotion targeted at children:"
MTV's channel "Teen Nick" has begun airing a promotional announcement for The Trevor Helpline, "a free and confidential service that's open for gay and questioning youth. Be proud of who you are." The organization's website has a constant link called "Things to consider when coming out" and is currently promoting "Gay History Month."
Upon discovering that Target Corporation is the main advertiser during Degrassi, the Florida Family Association -- which describes that program as "shameful" -- prepared an e-mail for the public to send to the CEO and other officials of the retail chain.
They are openly recruiting teens and children to become 'gay' on a program that also promotes the transgender and homosexual lifestyle," laments David Caton, executive director of the pro-family group.
And he wonders how the helpline helps a child or teenager who may be a bit confused about his or her sexuality, since in openly promotes that "if you call this helpline, you are not persuaded to walk away from the lifestyle. You are persuaded to be proud and embrace it." Caton contends that is "irresponsible" on the part of a network that caters to young people, and on the part of Target.
What's irresponsible is letting Caton run his mouth. The hotline he is griping about is a part of the Trevor Project, which is an organization devoted to preventing suicide amongst lgbtq youth.
But apparently suicide amongst lgbtq youth doesn't seem to be a problem to Caton. He seems to think that telling a lgbtq youth to simply change "his or her orientation" will keep them from being bullied at school or isolated at home.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the real sad story of how Christianity has been corrupted in this country. By himself, Caton is an unfeeling, uncaring buffoon. But he is not by himself.
Caton is a part of a much-moneyed interwoven system of wannabe Christians who seem to ignore the sick and the hungry in lieu devoted solely on the nonexistent gay menace.
It seems to be a zero sum game to these supposed Christians in which they are willing to sacrifice anything, including the safety and well-being of lgbtq children.
When I first saw this on Joe Jervis's site, I told him that I simply had to steal it. Sometimes comic strips and editorial cartoons nail plain truth so succinctly:
The 1975 made-for-television movie Cage Without A Key is a juvenile prison picture with a twist.
Susan Dey portrays a young woman who is thrown into reform school after being tricked into committing a robbery. Of course the story is about her trials and tribulations in reform school, complete with the requisite evil prison lesbians. However one character did stand out.
Vastly underrated actress Jonelle Allen (this woman should have gotten more roles because she was awesome) portrays Tommy, another prisoner who is also a lesbian, but becomes Dey's friend and savior.
Media researcher Steven Capsuto cites the character of Tommy as probably the earliest well-developed gay teen character on television, as well as the first well-developed non-white gay character.
And of course you know that means, don't you? Allen's character is not long for this world. In fact, she dies saving Dey in the middle of a brawl at the end of the film as the following scene shows (starting at 10:10):
15 Inspiring LGBT Religious Leaders - These faith leaders need to be commended for proving that the lgbtq identity and religious faith are NOT necessarily in separate camps.
To hear some members of the religious right talk, any progress of lgbtq equality is the result of a nefarious plan to supposedly "indoctrinate" folks.
However as the following snippet of an Associated Press article proves, there are no evil plans, just the steady flow of progress:
The number of gays and lesbians adopting children has nearly tripled in the last decade despite discriminatory rules in many states, according to an analysis of recent population trends.
"It's a stratospheric increase. It's like going from zero to 60," said Miami attorney Elizabeth Schwartz, who has coordinated more than 100 adoptions for gay and lesbian families in the last year. "I think many really dreamed of doing this but it wasn't something they ever thought would become a reality."
About 21,740 same-sex couples had adopted children in 2009, up from 6,477 in 2000, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. About 32,571 adopted children were living with same-sex couples in 2009, up from 8,310 in 2000. The figures are an analysis of newly released Census Bureau estimates.
The New York-based Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute released a report Thursday culminating a four-year project surveying 158 gay and lesbian parents and their experience with the adoption process. Their researchers found the highest number of homosexuals adopted children from Massachusetts, California, New York and Texas.
Several states specifically prohibit same-sex couples from adopting jointly, while others have a patchwork of discriminatory policies that make it difficult for gays and lesbians to adopt either as individuals or as couples. But some states have eased restrictions on gay families.
No doubt the religious right will step gingerly around this issue. "Same-sex households are untested social experiments," they will say. "The true effects of these households have not been seen."
It's all a bunch of poppycock.
The point is clear. These families illustrate the point that when it comes to same-sex household and the gay community in general, we are not talking about hypothetics or abstract concepts.
Same-sex households encompass real people with real families - just like every other normal American family. And whether folks like it or not - be it a teacher who attacks a gay display at her place of employment or marriage clerks who refuse to do their elected duties - there is going to have to be some acknowledgement AND respect of these families.
All of the talking points in the world aren't going to change that.
More details are emerging from today's court case in California in which the National Organization for Marriage and the other organizations forming the group ProtectMarriage.com lost the bid to keep its donor identities secret.
And there is one detail which stands out. In its attempt to keep its donor list secret, ProtectMarriage.com compared itself to the NAACP during the height of the Civil Rights Movement.
Joe La Rue, a lawyer for the group (Protect Marriage.com), said in oral arguments today that those donors would remain exposed to harassment "so long as these names are perpetually kept on the state's website."
. . . California law requires the disclosure of the identity of anyone who contributes $100 or more to a campaign. ProtectMarriage.com said the $100 limit was too low, and it claimed it qualified for an exception to disclosure laws once granted by the U.S. Supreme Court to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Socialist Workers Party.
The article goes on to say that the judge presiding over the case, U.S. District Judge Morris England, Jr. was very skeptical about this:
The Socialist Workers Party involved relatively few people, he said, and belonging to the NAACP in the early 1950s "could cause you to be killed." In contrast, he said, Proposition 8 proponents not only enjoyed the support of millions of people, but prevailed in the election.
England's skepticism probably had to do with the evidence which was given to him as "proof" of harassment:
The judge read from a batch of declarations in which people claimed yard signs were stolen, that they received harassing phone calls, or, in one case, that people protested outside someone's business. "That's the extent of what happened," he said.
The article goes on to say even in the face of England's skepticism, ProtectMarriage.com's lawyer continued to push the comparison, even bringing up segregation and "Jim Crow" laws.
So in the world of NOM, someone protesting your business or stealing your yard sign is the equivalent of getting shot to death in your front yard (Medgar Evers) or being beaten half bloody (Fannie Lou Hamer).
The irony of NOM's defense is stark when one takes into account how in New York, Maryland, and North Carolina, the organization used black pastors to claim the gay community is trying to "piggyback" on the struggles of African-Americans during the Civil Rights Movement.
It definitely proves that in this fight over marriage equality, there is exploitation of the Civil Rights Movement and the African-American community in general.
Supporters of the 2008 ballot measure that outlawed same-sex marriage in California have lost a lawsuit that sought to block their past and future campaign finance records from public view.
A federal judge in Sacramento on Thursday ruled against ProtectMarriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage, saying the two groups failed to prove they should be exempted from the state's campaign disclosure laws.
Mollie Lee, a lawyer in the San Francisco City Attorney's office, says U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. ruled from the bench after a brief hearing and plans to issue a written opinion later.
The two groups, which sponsored and helped finance the gay marriage ban known as Proposition 8, filed the lawsuit in January 2009, claiming their donors were harassed after their names appeared on the Secretary of State's web site.
This loss come days after NOM lost a court case in Washington State. In that particular case, NOM sought not to disclose the names of 137,500 people who two years ago signed Referendum 71 petitions to bring the state’s domestic-partnership law to a vote.
NOM may try to push the idea that people who support their efforts are being harassed but according to the courts, that theory is bupkis.
Why is NOM fighting so hard not to disclose its backers?
I wish someone would put the question to Brian Brown or the rest of that bunch.
Thank you Blabbeando for the tip.
The religious right have been very measured about Spirit Day. Other than the following stupid comment from Brian Raum of the Alliance Defense Fund, they have been silent:
"We should not turn a blind eye to the physical and mental harms that people engaged in homosexual conduct bring upon themselves by chalking those harms up to 'stigma, discrimination, and victimization'—demanding more health studies and changes to the medical system—rather than dare ask people to reconsider the path they are traveling down. Instead, we tell them 'it gets better' when, in fact, it does not."
If you visit Facebook today, or Twitter, or Tumblr, there's a good chance you'll be seeing purple.
October 20th is Spirit Day -- a celebration begun one year ago by a teenager named Brittany McMillan to honor the memory of young people who have taken their lives after being bullied.
It has become a day when people all over the world wear purple to show support for LGBT people and speak out against the bullying of LGBT teens.
In 2010, millions participated.
This year, the White House is going purple on Facebook, as well. You can also join the celebration by making your social networking icon purple, or just adding a statement of support.
And October 20th is also a day to remember that it does get better.
And of course, the page contains a message from President Obama, Vice President Biden, and the White House staff. It's an old message but VERY appropriate:
Fox News, Keith Ablow Misinform About Transgender Child - It's like I've been saying. Sooner or later Fox News will turn its guns of misinformation fully on the gay community. Can you picture a future where the network conducts a one-sided interview with Peter Sprig on his junk science studies or pushing the phony idea that Paul Cameron is a "victim" of the gay community? This is merely cocktail canape right now.
PFOX caught in yet another spinjob; also, grass still green - When I first saw this, I was about to go into ORBIT! Thank you Jeremy Hooper for showing PFOX's claim to be a lie. Giving FRC's Peter Sprigg "special thanks" for serving on a school board is like giving a wolf an award for quickly killing a lamb before eating it.
I've come to the conclusion that the "former ad executive who found Jesus" Linda Harvey is the homophobic version of the Designing Women character Suzanne Sugarbaker, but light on the charm and extra heavy on the crazy.
How do you feel about open homosexuals tending to your child in a health care setting? Do you think these folks provide good role modeling at a time when your child is very vulnerable? I was thinking about this recently when I heard that Children’s Hospital in Columbus has a homosexual employees group called NCHARGE, which stands for Nationwide Children’s Hospital’s Advocates Representing Gay Employees. The meeting minutes of this groups reveal that they participated in last June’s gay pride parade, that they participated in a health expo on adolescent health this summer and that they’re concerned about same-sex partner benefits. They’re also planning to be identified with rainbow lapel pins.
But let’s say your eleven year-old has broken her leg rather badly and needs to be in the hospital a few days, which would you prefer: a nurse who’s proud of her lesbianism, who has rainbow identifiers on her work clothing, or a nurse who does not?
I would like to suggest that parents think long and hard about this. If you want your children to admire people who proclaim a homosexual lifestyle, they’re involvement with your child during a hospital stay is sure to be an influence. And let me be clear that folks involved in these behaviors can be certainly competent workers but they are tacking on to their workplace identity one that is highly offensive to many people and can be erroneously influential to children who won’t, or shouldn’t, see the whole picture of how this behavior really manifests itself.
Here’s what parents can do: select your pediatrician very carefully, first of all. There are a few homosexual doctors treating kids, there are far more nurses, LPNs, technicians and other health care workers in these lifestyles so you may want to consider writing a letter that you file with your pediatrician that should your child ever be hospitalized, you do not want your child to be treated or cared for by one of these members of the Children’s Hospital gay employees group except in the case of an emergency situation. But for routine in-hospital care where contact with your child would be required, your values should be respected.
Harvey confuses the hell out of me. A while back, she claimed that gay people don't exist. So if there are no gay people, then there can be no gay doctors. And if there are no gay doctors, then parents are "worrying" needlessly, aren't they?
I know you all want to say rude things about Harvey, but don't. As for me, I've long stopped getting upset at Harvey's comments.
I now look at her as our friend. Nay, she is one of our best ally in fighting the religious right.
You see, there are people like Tony Perkins, Brian Brown, Maggie Gallagher, and Peter Sprigg who formulate the deceptive idea gays are aggressive bullies and that we aren't the targets of some folks attempting to push us back in the closet.
They come with junk science, half-baked anecdotes, and carefully phrased talking points designed to obscure the truth.
But Harvey lets her homophobic "freak flag fly." Forget the talking points, Harvey just flat don't like us and is not afraid to say it.
She is the true face of the religious right and thus the face we need to remind people of when they come with their phony stories of "bullying gays" or "religious persecution."
Harvey voices what a lot of them actually think. As more Americans see and hear of people like Harvey, they will get a correct indication of what the gay community has to deal with day after day after day.
So at least try to suppress your desires to call Harvey every name in the book. Try not to get too angry at her nonsensical claims.
