Wednesday, December 05, 2012

WE are to blame for hate group leader's success

You remember this commercial that MSNBC would not run:

According to Equality Matters, it got worse in terms of Perkins' invitation on news programs:

During their coverage of the 2012 GOP primary, cable news networks regularly called upon Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC), to provide commentary on behalf of social conservatives. Perkins made 56 appearances on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC over the course of the primary, but never once was identified as the leader of an anti-gay hate group.

Analysis: Cable News Networks Regularly Hosted Perkins To Discuss GOP Primary

Tony Perkins Made 56 Television Appearances Over The Course Of The GOP Primary. According to an Equality Matters analysis, during the period between the first Republican presidential debate on May 5, 2011 and the Republican nomination in August, Tony Perkins appeared on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC a total of 56 times to discuss the GOP primary:

The Equality Matters report is an indictment of a lazy, overpaid media.

In spite of all he and FRC has said and done to demean the gay community, Perkins is seen as an expert/analyst on news programs. And no one seems to be interested in debating him about the rhetoric put forth by his organization to demean our community.

But I can't help but thinking that it's our fault.  We aren't pressing hard enough. We have several magazines, prominent journalists, and even television network, but none of those entities has even done one expose on not just the hate pushed by FRC and other religious right groups but the shoddy way they create their homophobic memes.

In the past, we didn't have the means, so we had to work with what we had, i.e. street politics created by a community united by word of mouth.

Now, we have the means to take these groups on and we just won't do it.

Let me rephrase that. Those who have some power in our community won't do it.

Those of us considered nonexistent, i.e. bloggers like myself, do it every day.

And with that, allow me to segue into announcing an upcoming project sure to place the much deserved onus on organizations like FRC.

I am in the process of creating an free online booklet/brochure which offers an old interpretation on the lies of the religious right, but with a new spin designed to create controversy and a bit of righteous indignation, which I hope will be used - not in a negative fashion - put positively to ask questions and demand answers from not only Perkins and the FRC but also from the media who is supposed to represent us.

Provisionally, it is titled How They See Us: Unmasking the Religious Right War on Gay America.

It will be short but to the point.

And when you see it, you will remember it.

I will keep you all posted.

'Will Obama select a gay man to serve in his cabinet?' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Hate group spokesman not happy with World AIDS Day coverage

Peter Sprigg
Editor's note - It's a two post morning. So after you read this one, pan down to read about the cluelessness of an anti-gay bigot.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council has a huge problem with the World AIDS Day coverage of last week:

December 1 is “World AIDS Day,” so both of Washington’s newspapers—the liberal Washington Post and the conservative Washington Times—featured stories on the worldwide AIDS epidemic. The Post report focused on the promise of the latest generation of antiretroviral therapy. The Times article dealt with the efforts to expand circumcision of men, in the wake of scientific findings that this, too, can help reduce spread of the disease. But what was missing? In both articles, there was not a word about men who have sex with men (MSM). And in neither article did the word “condom” appear a single time. In the United States, men who have sex with men continue to be the group at highest risk for infection with HIV (overseas, heterosexual transmission is relatively more common). Yet the idea of fighting AIDS by discouraging the sexual conduct most likely to transmit it is completely taboo.

For the record, AIDS is a scourge which goes beyond the gay community.

But Sprigg is inaccurate with his attack on the Post and the Times. And that's because he only focused on one article in both publications.

The Washington Post featured several articles talking about prevention in the days leading up to and after World AIDS Day. And several of these articles focused on the problems faced by gays dealing with the disease.

What Sprigg says about condoms is irrelevant because later in his article, he creates a straw man argument:

And at one time, condoms were considered to be THE answer to the AIDS epidemic. If we could just get men to use a condom every time, for every act of sexual intercourse (vaginal, oral, or anal), then we would beat the disease. This has proved easier said than done. 

No one at any time has ever said that condoms was the answer to the AIDS epidemic. Condoms was and is considered as one solution, but not the only solution. 

It sounds like to me that Sprigg is creating a false meme that "political correctness is keeping people from fully talking about AIDS in terms of the dangers of catching it." Basically Sprigg sounds like he is disappointed that neither publication used World AIDS Day as an opportunity to stigmatize gay men.

And that is Sprigg's problem.

World AIDS Day is an occasion in which we reflect on how this awful disease has hurt the world and what we can do to stop it.

It's not about finger pointing. It's about basic human kindness and compassion.

The clueless bigotry of 'Porno' Pete LaBarbera

Peter LaBarbera
Sometimes those who engage in homophobia are totally oblivious to their actions.

Case in point, 'Porno' Pete LaBarbera of the Americans for Truth. This is what he said while criticizing megachurch pastor Rick Warren. Apparently LaBarbera is a bit miffed that Warren regrets how he helped Prop 8 in California to win at the ballot box:

“The homosexual activist never agonizes and says, ‘Wow, I don’t think I should talk beyond my group of homosexual activists,’” LaBarbera explained. “They’re pontificating all the time. They’re telling us what to think. They’re telling us that we’re bigots if we are against homosexuality, or even if we’re against same-sex ‘marriage’ now, they call you a bigot or a hatemonger or a homophobe.”

For the record, I don't consider folks who a religious view against homosexuality as bigots.

But I do consider you a bigot if you create and post the following picture of openly gay Congressman Barney Frank as a TSA agent:

Or if you post a huge photo of a sexually transmitted disease (in this case, anal warts) on your homepage in order to demonize the gay community at large (Editor's note - you can see the link here, but remember that you have been warned).

Or if  you attend subcultural events such as leather festivals and take pictures of gays allegedly indulging in all sorts of lurid behaviors while ignoring the heterosexuals also in attendance.

Face it, Petey. You are a bigot for a very good reason.