'Porno Peter' LaBarbera arrested in Canada for trespassing at university

LaBarbera

Well this is a trip.

After being detained in Canada for possible breaking of the country's anti-hate speech laws and then released and allowed to give a speech to an anti-abortion group, anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera was arrested yesterday:



According to Saskatchewan News, LaBarbera and another man, Bill Whatcott was taken into custody because they refused to leave the Univerity of Regina:

Peter LaBarbera, the controversial head of an American lobby group that has been labelled a hate group by the South Poverty Law Center, and Bill Whatcott, an abortion activist who has a history of legal troubles in Saskatchewan, were taken into custody by the Regina Police Service.

News Talk Radio's Kevin Martel observed police officers tell the two to leave the school's campus or risk being arrested; after some discussion the men refused to move and were arrested for trespassing. Police later changed the charges to mischief as the two were being processed Monday evening.

 LaBarbera and Whatcott were in Weyburn over the weekend to speak at a pro-life conference. They were at the school attempting to hand out anti-abortion and anti-gay pamphlets, flanked by large placards depicting aborted fetuses.

LaBarbera, as I stated before, was already in the midst of controversy when he was detained by Canadian officials after arriving in that country and initially barred entry. Officials were concerned that he was violating Canada's law against the spread of misinformation and hate speech about protected groups.

However, he was allowed to enter the country where he gave a speech Saturday to an anti-abortion group. Strangely enough however, his presence revealed a serious rift in Canada's anti-abortion movement.

In light of what has happened today, that seems to be irrelevant.

Because of his actions today, LaBarbera has given the Canadian government more than enough justification to not to make the same mistake twice and allow him entry again into the country.

At least let's hope that this will be the case.

Poor Family Research Council can't come up with any new arguments against marriage equality

FRC's Tony Perkins

One would think that in the face of the consistent number of victories the lgbt community have been winning when it comes to marriage equality, anti-gay groups would at least make an attempt to come up with new, albeit still bogus, talking points.

Guess again.

According to the Family Research Council, the piece Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage, is trending on its webpage.This is not a new piece. It came out in 2011. And I would know this because I took extreme delight in calling out the numerous deceptions and evasions in the piece.

So I guess today's post can be considered as a revisit and a reminder of how empty FRC's arguments against marriage equality actually are:

In Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage, Family Research Council is basing the argument against gay marriage on the claim that "children need both a mother and a father."

FRC makes the claim that lesbians household "raising children without a father" is wrong because according to them:

Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls.

And gay households "raising children without a mother" is wrong because:

fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family.

However, very little (if any at all) of the literature/studies FRC cites to make these conclusions have anything to do with same-sex households.

How Matt Barber's anti-gay BarbWire is proving the case for lgbt equality, acceptance

Matt Barber, creator of BarbWire

I want to devote today's midday news briefs to make a special announcement:

It's safe to say that  Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association has been partly supplanted as our resident go-to anti-gay activist when we want to dispel the anti-gay right's claim that they don't hate the lgbt community and their homophobic actions are the result of  "concern and love."

Granted, we can always count on Fischer to say something outrageous which moves the needle forward towards lgbt equality. But if we want maximum jet propulsion, let's point to Matt Barber and his publication, BarbWire.

Barber, who no doubt considers himself as Barbara Streisand of the anti-gay industry in that he writes columns, is a dean at the extremely conservative Liberty Counsel university,  and published one ridiculous book on his anti-gay activism, seems to have outdone himself with the founding of online publication, Barbwire.

According to Barber, he began the publication - which speaks in extreme terms against the lgbt community - because supposedly he is at "war with Satan." Based upon the articles published by BarbWire, Barber seems to really believe this junk:

BarbWire: Obama, Pro-Gay Rights Christians Are 'Servants Of Satan'  

BarbWire: 'Al-'Gay'Da' And 'Lezbollah' Terrorists Brought Down Mozilla CEO
 
Barber: World Vision Has Clearly Fallen Under Satan's Deception  

Right-Wing Pundits Call Gay Rights Advocates 'Rainbowshirts,' 'Terrorists' And 'The New Nazis'  

BarbWire Blames Gays For Child Rapist’s Light Sentence 

 BarbWire: 'Gay-KK' Will 'Lynch' Christians BarbWire: 'Don't Negotiate With Queer Terrorists'  

BarbWire: Gay Rights 'Has Its Roots In Hell,' Championed By 'Godless Human Minions Of Satan'

BarbWire: 'Homo-Maniacal' Gays Will Put Christians In Cattle Cars 

 
I personally say Barber is half baked and three fries short of a Happy Meal. Others may call him a genius because there is a segment of the population which eats up BarbWire's intense homophobia like pigs at a trough.

Whatever the case may be, I appreciate Barber's oblivious candor.

Those who call Barber a genius for exploiting the ignorance of a segment of the population forget that when some people carry themselves like pigs at a trough, there is always another segment - usually larger than the former - who get quite disgusted at what they see.

In other words, in a backdrop of a world where we are seeing more acceptance (not enough, mind you) of lgbt people and families and a basic understanding of our issues because we are becoming more out and vocal , the last thing the anti-gay right needs is hyperbolic screechings of "Nazis" and "Satan." This screeching only serves to prove our point that those who oppose our equality aren't operating from a religious point-of-view, but one of hatred and fear.

Of course, I doubt that any of this will register to Barber and his minions at BarbWire. Therefore, like Crash Test Dummies, they will continue to bang into the wall of homophobia; a wall they freely created.

Have fun guys. I will be around to point out your ignorance and hatred every time you bang into that wall.

Hat tip to Right Wing Watch for its information on BarbWire.

Arguments opposing marriage equality, interracial marriage are VERY similar

No matter how many times the opponents of marriage equality say that their opposition is not similar to that of interracial marriage, reality always smacks them in the face

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

As the judge listened to the attorney explain the state’s interest in barring the couple from marrying, he had a question: Are you saying there is scientific evidence that shows some children will be harmed by such marriages? 

The question posed to R.D. McIlwaine III, assistant attorney general of Virginia, came from U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren on April 10, 1967.

The case, of course, was Loving v. Virginia, which ended bans on interracial marriage.

On Thursday, 47 years to the day after Warren posed his question, 10th Circuit Judge Jerome A. Holmes, who is black, brought the Loving case squarely into the same-sex marriage debate as he asked the attorney representing Utah, how is a line drawn on gender any different from one that divided races when it comes to the right to marry?

“You have a man who wants to marry another man, the only thing that bars him from getting married is sex, gender,” Holmes said. “So why is that any different than Loving when you are drawing a line that is based on a protected classification?”

Attorney Gene C. Schaerr has argued in court filings that a decision affirming U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby’s Dec. 20 ruling that the state’s ban is unconstitutional would be a “judicial wrecking ball” rather than “the Loving of our age.”

Schaerr told Holmes last week in Denver, that the difference was that the Loving decision didn’t “intrude into the state of Virginia’s definitional authority over marriage. The exclusion of mixed-race couples was a regulatory exclusion.” And it left intact man-woman marriage, he said.

“The whole presumption in Loving was talking about man-woman marriage,” he said, which is “fundamental to procreating and maintaining the human race.”

But from its inception, the Loving case was framed not around gender but race, and in language and principles that parallel those used today in the same-sex marriage debate: procreation, what’s best for children, what’s natural and traditional and what’s in keeping with God’s will.

Doesn't that last paragraph sound familiar to you? For the rest of this article, read Experts: Gay marriage opponents echo mixed-race arguments.