Monday, February 14, 2011

Will the Family Research Council ever fulfill its promise and address SPLC's charges?

"We will be preparing a more detailed response to Cohen’s charge that FRC spreads “falsehoods” in our well-documented research, which does show that certain harms are associated with homosexual conduct." - Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council on December 22, 2010 in response to the charges from the Southern Poverty Law Center and SPLC president J. Richard Cohen that FRC uses propaganda and inaccurate science - i.e. studies taken out of context - to smear the lgbt community.

Dear Peter, I know that you are busy speaking in Rhode Island and Maryland against gay marriage - probably following the same modus operandi which got you into trouble with SPLC in the first place - but if you aren't too busy, do you think that either you, Tony Perkins, or anyone else from FRC can respond to SPLC's charges like you said you would?

It has been almost two months. SPLC specifically laid out the demonizing claims you make about the lgbt community including:

Homosexuals molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals,

Same-sex parents harm children, and

Homosexuals don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals.

No one wants to silence you despite of your claims to the contrary. In fact, we want to hear what you have to say about these charges.

So start talking. We await with baited breath.

Why is it taking so long for you to respond?

Bookmark and Share

Gay teacher reaches nice settlement with district and other Monday midday news briefs

Gay Teacher, District Reach $75K Settlement - A happy ending as far as I am concerned. But check out the comments under the article. Folks, when someone says he or she is an lgbt, it is NOT an automatic description of sexual intercourse. It's sad when folks have that mindset. The student asked why the teacher could not marry and the teacher was honest with him.

Fischer and the AFA Try To Weasel Out Of Their Latest Outrage - No you don't boys. Enjoy your medicine.

"Family" group sacrifices child security on the altar of anti-gay animus - And this surprises us because?

Sherrod Sues Breitbart For Damaged Reputation - Not necessarily an lgbt issue per se but SOCK IT TO HIM, SHIRLEY!

Bookmark and Share

Why don't the Family Research Council support actual family issues?

In the realm of much ado about nothing but it may mean something comes this item from the Family Research Council:

In a statement released this morning, Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) introduced legislation that will protect the integrity of parent relationships between mothers, fathers, and their children.  This comes in light of the State Department announcing that it would be changing the passport applications to be “gender neutral” by replacing “mother” and “father” with “Parent 1” and “Parent 2.”

H.R. 635, Rep. Forbes’s bill, would require that all federal agencies use the words “mother” and “father” when describing parents in official documents and forms.  Forbes said:
“Symbolism is important and this legislation seeks to preserve the sacred relationship mothers and fathers share with their children.  Referring to parents as “Parent 1” or “Parent 2” on official government documentation is a bureaucratic attempt to redefine traditional parent roles.  These subtle, but nonetheless significant, changes undermine the traditional American family relationships that have served as the bedrock of our nation since its inception.”
However, there is a question that remains.  Why is the Obama Administration forcing the need for such legislation?  After all, traditional family values should be accepted and encouraged in our society.

Notice the semantics here. The Obama Administration is "forcing the need for the legislation." And nowhere in FRC's writings is there an acknowledgment of same-sex households.

Personally I don't see the problem with the "Parent 1" and "Parent 2" label. It is merely a change to underscore the fact that not all families have the "mother/father" image. I refuse to use the word "traditional families" because the phrase is a nonsequitir, i.e. something obviously thought up in a boardroom as a way to allow organizations like FRC to avoid having to mention same-sex households while making themselves sound like heroes for defending so-called "traditional morality."

And FRC - and Forbes - underscores just how much they don't care about families at all in this useless fight.

In 2003 the Gay and Lesbian Task Force came out with a report showing that while organizations like the Family Research Council claim to support marriage and the family, their focus is not on issues that would protect the family:

The Family Research Council, a $10 million-a-year group that “shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family,” had 203 documents on its website containing the word “homosexual,” only 39 containing the word “divorce,” 37 with “poverty,” 26 with the words “domestic violence,” 18 with the words “health insurance,” and only two with the words “child support.”

Eight years later, I doubt things have changed.

Forbes's bill is nothing but useless symbolism. As for FRC, they don't care how many families are this close to the soup lines and  poor houses.

Just that those families fit the "mother /father" classification.

Bookmark and Share