George Will gets it wrong
It's bad enough that the lgbt community has to deal with the consistent spin from the anti-gay industry that we are trying to steal the liberty and freedom of Christians.
But when someone who is considered "mainstream" starts that type of spin, we have problems.
George Will is considered to be an intelligent columnist and an esteemed Washington insider. He has the respect of many of his jounalistic colleagues and is also the recipient of the Pulitzer Prize, probably the highest honor a journalist can receive.
So why, in his recent column, did he channel our friend and former Concerned Women for America employee Robert Knight.
Will talks about the recent case involving the city of Oakland vs. two Christian employees. I have talked about the case in past postings, but here is the gist:
Gay employees working for Oakland's government formed a group. In response, two Christian employees formed their own group. In the flyer advertising the Christian group, terms like "integrity" and "natural family" were used in ways that attacked gay employees.
The Christian group was told to revise the flyer. They refused and sued the city of Oakland.
Having lost their case in the 9th Circuit Court, the employees are now appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And that is the case. It sounds so simple that it involves gays and Christians, which means you have people coming out of the woodwork throwing out claims of a "gay agenda" trying to silence Christians.
Of course the anti-gay industry is trying to use this story in their litany of lies about the gay community.
Now they seem to have a friend with George Will.
In his column, he says:
Some African-American Christian women working for Oakland's government organized the Good News Employee Association, or GNEA, which they announced with a flier describing their group as "a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family Values."
The flier was distributed after other employees' groups, including those advocating gay rights, had advertised their political views and activities on the city's e-mail system and bulletin board. When the GNEA asked for equal opportunity to communicate by that system and that board, it was denied. Furthermore, the flier they posted was taken down and destroyed by city officials, who declared it "homophobic" and disruptive.
. . . The treatment of GNEA illustrates one technique by which America's growing ranks of self-appointed speech police expand their reach: They wait until groups they disagree with, such as GNEA, are provoked to respond to them in public debates, then they persecute them for annoying those to whom they are responding.
Will puts the same spin on this story that the anti-gay industry put on past situations like the David Parker and Repent America cases i.e. claiming that gays want to curtail the freedom of speech of Christians, but omitting the fact that the Christians in question acted in a way that went way beyond freedom of speech.
And what makes matters worse, he tries to tie the situation in with hate crimes legislation. One guess what position he took.
Will's address is georgewill@washpost.com
If you write him, please don't be rude or ugly. And please don't throw around tired phrases and words like "homophobic" and "bigot." Make your argument in a reasonable manner. The following is my letter:
For years, I have read your columns and many times disagreed with what you have said.
But there was always a respect for your opinion because you never gave the impression that you were feeding readers a line, so to speak.
Your recent column, Free Speech vs.Gay Rights, changes all of that.
You were derelict in your duty as a gatekeeper because you did not tell the entire facts of the case regarding the Good News Employee Association case in Oakland.
If you will forgive me for being so bold, I am of the opinion that you intentionally meant to deceive your readers.
Your first sentence, Marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values. That sentence is inflammatory, perhaps even a hate crime, can only be called for what it is; a damned lie.
This is from an article in the Oakland Tribune on Feb. 16, 2007:
Rederford and Christy sued, claiming their rights were violated by an Oakland anti-discrimination policy that promotes homosexuality and denounces Christian values. A federal judge dismissed the city as a defendant in March 2004, and in February 2005 granted summary judgment in favor of then-City Manager Robert Bobb and CEDA Deputy Executive Director Joyce Hicks. Senior Circuit Judge Betty Fletcher on Thursday asked Lively whether his clients realize they have "a rather low level of protection" on potentially incendiary or discriminatory language in the workplace, and should "keep away from words that'll rile people up."
"But shouldn't that go both ways?" Lively replied, noting his clients hadn't complained about the National Coming Out Day e-mail.
Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta noted that e-mail had invited readers to "a rally against hatred and bigotry -- is that disparaging to your clients?"
Circuit Judge Richard Clifton said he believes "there are eggshells on both sides" of this argument, yet he doesn't see what the e-mail had done to vilify Rederford and Christy while it's not hard to see how their flier vilified gays and lesbians. "It's hard to avoid the inference, 'We lack ethics, we lack integrity because these people are here.'"
Your explanation, The treatment of GNEA illustrates one technique by which America's growing ranks of self-appointed speech police expand their reach: They wait until groups they disagree with are provoked to respond to them in public debates, then they persecute them for annoying those to whom they are responding, is poorly reasoned and I feel intentionally vague.
The pro-gay group's flyers had no language attacking those who do not agree with homosexuality. Nor did the pro-gay group attack anyone opposing lgbt rights as having no integrity. Nor did they attack their families and accuse them of not being natural, unlike the flyer of GNEA that caused all of this ruckus.
So just how did the pro-gay group provoke Rederford and Christy?
And this case has nothing to do with the "gay agenda" or "hate crimes," but rather what actions an employer should take when employees feel that their religion allows them to demean the families of other employees not sharing their beliefs.
I would expect what you wrote to come from someone like Robert Knight, Brent Bozell, or Cliff Kincaid and not someone who is an esteemed Washington columnist and a Pulitzer Prize recipient.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
A Paul Cameron supporter emails me
I wasn't going to post today but something happened that I just couldn't pass up commenting on.
A person who is obviously a supporter of discredited researcher Paul Cameron contacted me today. He sent me two emails. The most interesting of the two is the second:
Ha, 'lies of paul cameron'. Another response to your comment on Box Turtle Bulliten, maybe you should actually read the study, instead of believing (or making up) unfounded and brief statements by 'gay' controlled organizations.
I don't know who this person is (I have my guesses) but I do want to address his or her claim.
Apparently according to him, Paul Cameron's research has been discredited due to "unfounded" statments by "gay controlled organizations."
Oh really?
Let's take a look at these "gay controlled organizations:"
“(Cameron) misrepresents my fi ndings and distorts them to advance his homophobic views. I make a very clear distinction in my writing between pedophilia and homosexuality, noting that adult males who sexually victimize young boys are either pedophilic or heterosexual, and
that in my research I have not found homosexual men turning away from adult partners to children . . . I consider this totally unprofessional behavior on the part of Dr. Cameron and I want to bring this to your attention. He disgraces his profession.” - A. Nicholas Groth, 1984
“Given what I now know, I believe there are fl aws with Paul Cameron’s study. One cannot extrapolate from his methodology and say that the average male homosexual life span is 43 years.”— former Secretary of Education and author of The Book of Virtues William Bennett, the New Republic, February 23, 1998
On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that “Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists” by the APA Board of Directors.In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that “Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism” and noted that “Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research.”
The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. Information on this action and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, “The Paul Cameron Case,” is to be published in Footnotes, and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they alert their members to Cameron’s frequent lecture and media appearances.
In 2005, the Boston Globe spotlighted Cameron in an article entitled Beliefs Drive Research Agenda of New Think Tanks. According to the article, when the Traditional Values Coalition was asked about Cameron, the organization responded by allegedly removing all references to Cameron from its web page. A spokesperson for the organization, Daniella Lopez, said the research had been placed on the web page by mistake.
Cameron and Cameron’s report on “life expectancy” in homosexuals vs heterosexuals is severely methodologically flawed. . . The authors should know, and as PhD’s they presumably do, that this report has little to do with science. It is hard to escape the idea that non-scientific motifs have driven the authors to make this report public. The methodological flaws are of such a grave nature that no decent peer-reviewed scientific journal should let it pass for publication. - Morten Frisch, Danish epidemiologist, April 2007
"We do not support the work of Paul Cameron nor desire to use flawed research"- Alan Chambers, Exodus International, April 26, 2007
I linked only the Alan Chambers comment but if anyone wants the links to other ones, email me.
My point is this: different people from different ideologies and backgrounds have all condemned Paul Cameron's "research."
The only conspiracy that exists is solely in the mind of Mr. Cameron and those guillible enough to support his lies.
I wasn't going to post today but something happened that I just couldn't pass up commenting on.
A person who is obviously a supporter of discredited researcher Paul Cameron contacted me today. He sent me two emails. The most interesting of the two is the second:
Ha, 'lies of paul cameron'. Another response to your comment on Box Turtle Bulliten, maybe you should actually read the study, instead of believing (or making up) unfounded and brief statements by 'gay' controlled organizations.
I don't know who this person is (I have my guesses) but I do want to address his or her claim.
Apparently according to him, Paul Cameron's research has been discredited due to "unfounded" statments by "gay controlled organizations."
Oh really?
Let's take a look at these "gay controlled organizations:"
“(Cameron) misrepresents my fi ndings and distorts them to advance his homophobic views. I make a very clear distinction in my writing between pedophilia and homosexuality, noting that adult males who sexually victimize young boys are either pedophilic or heterosexual, and
that in my research I have not found homosexual men turning away from adult partners to children . . . I consider this totally unprofessional behavior on the part of Dr. Cameron and I want to bring this to your attention. He disgraces his profession.” - A. Nicholas Groth, 1984
“Given what I now know, I believe there are fl aws with Paul Cameron’s study. One cannot extrapolate from his methodology and say that the average male homosexual life span is 43 years.”— former Secretary of Education and author of The Book of Virtues William Bennett, the New Republic, February 23, 1998
On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that “Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists” by the APA Board of Directors.In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that “Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism” and noted that “Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research.”
The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. Information on this action and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, “The Paul Cameron Case,” is to be published in Footnotes, and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they alert their members to Cameron’s frequent lecture and media appearances.
In 2005, the Boston Globe spotlighted Cameron in an article entitled Beliefs Drive Research Agenda of New Think Tanks. According to the article, when the Traditional Values Coalition was asked about Cameron, the organization responded by allegedly removing all references to Cameron from its web page. A spokesperson for the organization, Daniella Lopez, said the research had been placed on the web page by mistake.
Cameron and Cameron’s report on “life expectancy” in homosexuals vs heterosexuals is severely methodologically flawed. . . The authors should know, and as PhD’s they presumably do, that this report has little to do with science. It is hard to escape the idea that non-scientific motifs have driven the authors to make this report public. The methodological flaws are of such a grave nature that no decent peer-reviewed scientific journal should let it pass for publication. - Morten Frisch, Danish epidemiologist, April 2007
"We do not support the work of Paul Cameron nor desire to use flawed research"- Alan Chambers, Exodus International, April 26, 2007
I linked only the Alan Chambers comment but if anyone wants the links to other ones, email me.
My point is this: different people from different ideologies and backgrounds have all condemned Paul Cameron's "research."
The only conspiracy that exists is solely in the mind of Mr. Cameron and those guillible enough to support his lies.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Nothing too much to talk about today
This has been a busy week for me because my group, Palmetto Umoja, is helping to conduct South Carolina's second annual Black Pride.
That being the case, my postings have been a bit sparse and will probably continue to be for the remainder of the week.
But I encourage everyone who hasn't already to read yesterday's posting on Charlene Cothran. And also, this link that gives an excellent dissertation of her appearance on today's episode of The 700 Club.
It looks like the question I posed yesterday is being answered and it ain't good.
This has been a busy week for me because my group, Palmetto Umoja, is helping to conduct South Carolina's second annual Black Pride.
That being the case, my postings have been a bit sparse and will probably continue to be for the remainder of the week.
But I encourage everyone who hasn't already to read yesterday's posting on Charlene Cothran. And also, this link that gives an excellent dissertation of her appearance on today's episode of The 700 Club.
It looks like the question I posed yesterday is being answered and it ain't good.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Charlene Cothran
Today, I am going to talk about something I have avoided.
I avoided talking about this issue because I did not want it to seem that I am attacking someone for their personal choice.
But after my post two days ago about black ministers poisoning the African-American community against lgbts, I have been thinking.
There is a lot of unfortunate potential for ignorance in the black community about gays and lesbians. Black folks don't want to acknowledge that gay folks exist in their midst.
Therefore the community is susceptible to believe anyone claiming to be an expert on the "gay agenda." And yes, that includes Paul Cameron.
It also includes someone coming to them claiming to have "lived the gay lifestyle but got deliverance through Jesus."
Many black folks, due to the inability of the community to acknowledge lgbts of color, would actually believe those lies.
And a potential belief that lgbts can change our orientation would work to further dehumanize us in a community that has a problem acknowledging our existence, but one many of us look to for support and love.
It is for this reason that I want to talk a little about Charlene Cothran.
For those who do not know, she is the publisher of Venus Magazine, a publication that once dealt with gay issues from an African-American perspective.
However, Charlene now claims she is no longer gay. Subsequently, the magazine's focus has changed.
This also means that she is referred to by people like Peter LaBarbera as someone who has been "freed from homosexuality:"
Please be a part of the wonderful story of former lesbian Charlene’s Cothran’s rebirth in Christ by subscribing to her magazine VENUS - which has been transformed from a publication that celebrated “gays and lesbians” to one that tells that stories of people like herself who have overcome homosexuality with God’s help.
I have no problem with Cothran's personal decision, but I have a problem with her allowing herself to be used by the anti-gay industry. Especially when it looks like she is not even sure of her choices, as seen by this interview:
I think what many are saying, gay and straight, about your experience is that you are not saying, "I was a practicing lesbian, and now I love men because of Christ." You've said you are celibate. So, what about you now really makes you heterosexual?
Charlene: Nothing. You’ve spoken a piece of truth. Right now I am completely satisfied with my walk, which is me and God. My prayer wasn’t—Lord make me heterosexual. My prayer was not fix me, repair me and make me straight—that was not my prayer. My prayer was God make me whole in every sense of the word, make me whole mentally, make me whole spiritually, make me whole completely! Take this mean tongue out of me, you know; I had this mean spirit where I could just take a person down on a few short comments. That was just as dynamic a change as the gay thing…make me whole financially, you send me plenty of provisions, but why is it that I don’t prioritize things the way I should at this stage in my life? Make me whole in every area. I asked God for complete wholeness. He doesn’t come to save a piece of you.
Are you saying that you are not heterosexual?
Charlene: I am saying that I am celibate right now. I’m not saying there won’t ever be a man in my life. You’re asking me about where I am and that's all I can speak to. Today I am celibate. Again, I don’t say I will never have a man in my life, I’m not saying I will never be married to a man. Who knows what the Lord has in store for me. But…there is one thing I can say and one thing I will go on record and say—I will never be entangled with the bondage of lesbianism again. You can put me on record for that and I know that people are going to be turning over every stone, looking and magnifying and trying to find some dirt. I invite you to continue to look and see if you can find something on me. I will never be entangled with lesbianism again! Right now I’m celibate, now, where the Lord's going to move me, what opportunity he's going to place in my path for me from here on—I don't know.
Are you physically attracted to men?
Charlene: [pauses] I am physically attracted to the spirit of Christ right now. You're trying to take me down a road that I won't go down right now
Charlene's story is more intricate than what has been put out there. The spin has been that she has been "delivered" from homosexuality. But her story is a bit more complicated.
I have a personal opinion of Ms. Cothran's choice, but I will not voice it and I hope that what I am saying will not be considered to be a personal attack because my intent is not to demean her.
But the question has to be asked: will she talk truthfully about her decision publicly or will she go on a tangent about the "gay influence" in public schools?
Will she explain that she considers herself not heterosexual but celibate, or will we see her on press releases criticizing pro-gay laws or on posters gagged and falsely claiming that adding lgbts to hate crime laws will lead to her arrest for "telling her story."
Will Ms. Cothran work try to establish a dialogue about the intricacies of sexual orientation or will she be featured in public campaigns repeating lies about lgbts and promiscuity, child molestation, or life spans?
So my problem does not lie with Ms. Cothran's past choice, but her future choices.
There is a danger in my black community. There is a groundswell of people (i.e Harry Jackson, Ken Hutcherson, Wellington Boone) who think that since they believe homosexuality to be a sin, anything they do or say to hinder pro-gay visibility is a good thing, even if the words coming out of their mouths are lies.
The black community needs education on the lives of lgbts of color, not showcasers or attention grabbing demagogues. We have enough of those.
And I want to know just where does Ms. Cothran stand on this issue?
I don't ask that of myself. I ask that question in the name of the millions of lgbts of color who have to deal with the choices she makes.
Do the right thing, Ms. Cothran.
Today, I am going to talk about something I have avoided.
I avoided talking about this issue because I did not want it to seem that I am attacking someone for their personal choice.
But after my post two days ago about black ministers poisoning the African-American community against lgbts, I have been thinking.
There is a lot of unfortunate potential for ignorance in the black community about gays and lesbians. Black folks don't want to acknowledge that gay folks exist in their midst.
Therefore the community is susceptible to believe anyone claiming to be an expert on the "gay agenda." And yes, that includes Paul Cameron.
It also includes someone coming to them claiming to have "lived the gay lifestyle but got deliverance through Jesus."
Many black folks, due to the inability of the community to acknowledge lgbts of color, would actually believe those lies.
And a potential belief that lgbts can change our orientation would work to further dehumanize us in a community that has a problem acknowledging our existence, but one many of us look to for support and love.
It is for this reason that I want to talk a little about Charlene Cothran.
For those who do not know, she is the publisher of Venus Magazine, a publication that once dealt with gay issues from an African-American perspective.
However, Charlene now claims she is no longer gay. Subsequently, the magazine's focus has changed.
This also means that she is referred to by people like Peter LaBarbera as someone who has been "freed from homosexuality:"
Please be a part of the wonderful story of former lesbian Charlene’s Cothran’s rebirth in Christ by subscribing to her magazine VENUS - which has been transformed from a publication that celebrated “gays and lesbians” to one that tells that stories of people like herself who have overcome homosexuality with God’s help.
I have no problem with Cothran's personal decision, but I have a problem with her allowing herself to be used by the anti-gay industry. Especially when it looks like she is not even sure of her choices, as seen by this interview:
I think what many are saying, gay and straight, about your experience is that you are not saying, "I was a practicing lesbian, and now I love men because of Christ." You've said you are celibate. So, what about you now really makes you heterosexual?
Charlene: Nothing. You’ve spoken a piece of truth. Right now I am completely satisfied with my walk, which is me and God. My prayer wasn’t—Lord make me heterosexual. My prayer was not fix me, repair me and make me straight—that was not my prayer. My prayer was God make me whole in every sense of the word, make me whole mentally, make me whole spiritually, make me whole completely! Take this mean tongue out of me, you know; I had this mean spirit where I could just take a person down on a few short comments. That was just as dynamic a change as the gay thing…make me whole financially, you send me plenty of provisions, but why is it that I don’t prioritize things the way I should at this stage in my life? Make me whole in every area. I asked God for complete wholeness. He doesn’t come to save a piece of you.
Are you saying that you are not heterosexual?
Charlene: I am saying that I am celibate right now. I’m not saying there won’t ever be a man in my life. You’re asking me about where I am and that's all I can speak to. Today I am celibate. Again, I don’t say I will never have a man in my life, I’m not saying I will never be married to a man. Who knows what the Lord has in store for me. But…there is one thing I can say and one thing I will go on record and say—I will never be entangled with the bondage of lesbianism again. You can put me on record for that and I know that people are going to be turning over every stone, looking and magnifying and trying to find some dirt. I invite you to continue to look and see if you can find something on me. I will never be entangled with lesbianism again! Right now I’m celibate, now, where the Lord's going to move me, what opportunity he's going to place in my path for me from here on—I don't know.
Are you physically attracted to men?
Charlene: [pauses] I am physically attracted to the spirit of Christ right now. You're trying to take me down a road that I won't go down right now
Charlene's story is more intricate than what has been put out there. The spin has been that she has been "delivered" from homosexuality. But her story is a bit more complicated.
I have a personal opinion of Ms. Cothran's choice, but I will not voice it and I hope that what I am saying will not be considered to be a personal attack because my intent is not to demean her.
But the question has to be asked: will she talk truthfully about her decision publicly or will she go on a tangent about the "gay influence" in public schools?
Will she explain that she considers herself not heterosexual but celibate, or will we see her on press releases criticizing pro-gay laws or on posters gagged and falsely claiming that adding lgbts to hate crime laws will lead to her arrest for "telling her story."
Will Ms. Cothran work try to establish a dialogue about the intricacies of sexual orientation or will she be featured in public campaigns repeating lies about lgbts and promiscuity, child molestation, or life spans?
So my problem does not lie with Ms. Cothran's past choice, but her future choices.
There is a danger in my black community. There is a groundswell of people (i.e Harry Jackson, Ken Hutcherson, Wellington Boone) who think that since they believe homosexuality to be a sin, anything they do or say to hinder pro-gay visibility is a good thing, even if the words coming out of their mouths are lies.
The black community needs education on the lives of lgbts of color, not showcasers or attention grabbing demagogues. We have enough of those.
And I want to know just where does Ms. Cothran stand on this issue?
I don't ask that of myself. I ask that question in the name of the millions of lgbts of color who have to deal with the choices she makes.
Do the right thing, Ms. Cothran.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Brian Camenker knows the answer!
By now, everyone has heard of the recent decision by the Massachusetts Legislature not to put the issue of same sex marriage up to a vote for a constitutional amendment.
It was a great victory and one that has the anti-gay industry reeling.
But one member is sure he knows why lgbts won.
Brian Camenker is a very interesting person to say the least. He is the head of Mass Resistance, an organization dedicated to stopping the so-called "gay agenda" in Massachusetts.
I like to think of him as a statewide Peter LaBarbera. Camenker has a very sordid history in the state; one of his many endeavors involve taking pictures of pride parades and posting them on his web page, complete with interesting comments regarding the "sinfulness" of the person in the picture.
According to him:
VoteOnMarriage's campaign failed because the debate was boiled down to "letting the people vote" and ensuring "children have both a mother and a father." But it left out the important truth about homosexual "marriage": It's based on immoral and unhealthy sexual perversions. Morality and public health needed to be part of the debate.
That's right. According to Camenker, there should have been more talk about how nasty gay folks are, how we have short life spans, how we molest children at a high rate, how we practice blood sacrifices, etc. etc.
Paging Paul Cameron!
Apparently when the organization pushing for the vote appealed to what they thought was common sense, real common sense took hold and legislators realized that gay folks just want what everyone else wants: comfort, stability, and a right to protect our loved ones.
Ain't reality grand?
By now, everyone has heard of the recent decision by the Massachusetts Legislature not to put the issue of same sex marriage up to a vote for a constitutional amendment.
It was a great victory and one that has the anti-gay industry reeling.
But one member is sure he knows why lgbts won.
Brian Camenker is a very interesting person to say the least. He is the head of Mass Resistance, an organization dedicated to stopping the so-called "gay agenda" in Massachusetts.
I like to think of him as a statewide Peter LaBarbera. Camenker has a very sordid history in the state; one of his many endeavors involve taking pictures of pride parades and posting them on his web page, complete with interesting comments regarding the "sinfulness" of the person in the picture.
According to him:
VoteOnMarriage's campaign failed because the debate was boiled down to "letting the people vote" and ensuring "children have both a mother and a father." But it left out the important truth about homosexual "marriage": It's based on immoral and unhealthy sexual perversions. Morality and public health needed to be part of the debate.
That's right. According to Camenker, there should have been more talk about how nasty gay folks are, how we have short life spans, how we molest children at a high rate, how we practice blood sacrifices, etc. etc.
Paging Paul Cameron!
Apparently when the organization pushing for the vote appealed to what they thought was common sense, real common sense took hold and legislators realized that gay folks just want what everyone else wants: comfort, stability, and a right to protect our loved ones.
Ain't reality grand?
It's Monday so it's time for another one of Harry Jackson's lies
Yet again, black minister Harry Jackson writes another column falsely claiming that adding lgbts to hate crimes legislation will lead to ministers being jailed for speaking out against homosexuality.
But his column this week is also a little bit more whiny than usual.
It seems that USA Today published an article Friday about his claims regarding hate crimes legislation. And the publication actually dared to present both sides of the issue.
This led to a huge smackdown of Jackson's claim by Harry Knox from HRC's director of Religion and Faith Program:
(Harry) Jackson's argument "is a lie, and it should not be told in the name of the Gospel," he said.
Now I like that. No big production, no corny "let's win the hearts and minds of America," and no mincing of words.
And the words struck Jackson to the heart apparently, as witnessed by what he wrote.
But for a better deconstruction of Jackson's latest lies, go here.
But sad to say, Jackson is not alone.
On this site, I found this thing to my left. I won't even try to analyze it.
I will just say the eight commandment - Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Yet again, black minister Harry Jackson writes another column falsely claiming that adding lgbts to hate crimes legislation will lead to ministers being jailed for speaking out against homosexuality.
But his column this week is also a little bit more whiny than usual.
It seems that USA Today published an article Friday about his claims regarding hate crimes legislation. And the publication actually dared to present both sides of the issue.
This led to a huge smackdown of Jackson's claim by Harry Knox from HRC's director of Religion and Faith Program:
(Harry) Jackson's argument "is a lie, and it should not be told in the name of the Gospel," he said.
Now I like that. No big production, no corny "let's win the hearts and minds of America," and no mincing of words.
And the words struck Jackson to the heart apparently, as witnessed by what he wrote.
But for a better deconstruction of Jackson's latest lies, go here.
But sad to say, Jackson is not alone.On this site, I found this thing to my left. I won't even try to analyze it.
I will just say the eight commandment - Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Just who does she think she is?
From an online buddy comes something I just couldn't resist talking about.
Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition took it upon herself to try and correct a legend in the African-American civil rights movement.
Angry because U.S. Representative John Lewis commemorated the anniversary of the historic Loving vs. Virginia decision (that made interracial marriages legal in the United States) to push a resolution that speaks out in favor of same-sex marriages, Lafferty said the following:
“Rep. Lewis is a member of the Old Guard of civil rights activists who have sold out to the homosexual movement . . ."
Okay this bothers me on so many levels.
And before anyone even tries to claim victimhood status for Mrs. Lafferty, I would like to say that she has a right to say whatever she wants. I do not want to silence her.
But I want to call attention to that fact when every time one opens his or her mouth to comment on something, there are such things as discernment and credibility.
Or in other words, you can say what you want but if someone can spot how you look like a damned fool for what you said, pointing out your ignorance is not censorship.
Or to simplify it more, just who in the heck is Andrea Lafferty to criticize John Lewis on matters of civil rights.
John Lewis has given his time, energy, and much of his blood (I've seen pictures of him after he was beaten bloody) to ensure that African-Americans have basic human rights. From the founding of SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) to the Freedom Riders to the 1963 March on Washington and finally to the halls of Congress, Lewis is the very epitome of a tireless worker for good.
It is more to Lewis's credit that he recognizes the similarities that we all have when it comes to wanting basic rights and the means for self-determination.
Andrea Lafferty, on the other hand, has been involved in a group that relies on bad studies and outright lies to demonize the lgbt community.
The most suffering for the "cause of civil rights" she probably had to undergo was having a hair out of place when throwing out soundbites on a pseudo news show that generously lets her ramble without courtesy of a rebuttal guest.
Or breaking a nail while writing a column due to the excitement of listing salicious details of "homosexual encounters" in attempts to scare the potential reader.
Or maybe breaking a heel when she is walking the halls of Congress and "monitoring" committee meetings.
Her criticizing Lewis on the state of civil rights is like a b-movie actor criticizing Meryl Streep on her performing skills.
Lastly, Lafferty has the nerve the say the following:
Homosexuals have no shame when it comes to exploiting every noble social movement in our culture. These radical groups routinely come up with a new ‘holiday’ or special week in order to push their agenda upon the rest of us—and if you protest against this callous exploitation of important historical events, you’re labeled a homophobic bigot.
Okay Andrea, I won't label you as a homophobic bigot.
But I will label you as confused.
Just because your father, Lou Sheldon, got some black ministers teamed up against gay marriage does not give you any credibility to start attacking a black man whose very life has been dedicated to fighting injustice.
If you had any sense, you would hush your mouth, pay attention, and take good notes while Lewis is talking.
But speaking of those black ministers aligned with your father, if you want to have a good conversation about selling out, I suggest you confer with them.
From an online buddy comes something I just couldn't resist talking about.
Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition took it upon herself to try and correct a legend in the African-American civil rights movement.
Angry because U.S. Representative John Lewis commemorated the anniversary of the historic Loving vs. Virginia decision (that made interracial marriages legal in the United States) to push a resolution that speaks out in favor of same-sex marriages, Lafferty said the following:
“Rep. Lewis is a member of the Old Guard of civil rights activists who have sold out to the homosexual movement . . ."
Okay this bothers me on so many levels.
And before anyone even tries to claim victimhood status for Mrs. Lafferty, I would like to say that she has a right to say whatever she wants. I do not want to silence her.
But I want to call attention to that fact when every time one opens his or her mouth to comment on something, there are such things as discernment and credibility.
Or in other words, you can say what you want but if someone can spot how you look like a damned fool for what you said, pointing out your ignorance is not censorship.
Or to simplify it more, just who in the heck is Andrea Lafferty to criticize John Lewis on matters of civil rights.
John Lewis has given his time, energy, and much of his blood (I've seen pictures of him after he was beaten bloody) to ensure that African-Americans have basic human rights. From the founding of SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) to the Freedom Riders to the 1963 March on Washington and finally to the halls of Congress, Lewis is the very epitome of a tireless worker for good.
It is more to Lewis's credit that he recognizes the similarities that we all have when it comes to wanting basic rights and the means for self-determination.
Andrea Lafferty, on the other hand, has been involved in a group that relies on bad studies and outright lies to demonize the lgbt community.
The most suffering for the "cause of civil rights" she probably had to undergo was having a hair out of place when throwing out soundbites on a pseudo news show that generously lets her ramble without courtesy of a rebuttal guest.
Or breaking a nail while writing a column due to the excitement of listing salicious details of "homosexual encounters" in attempts to scare the potential reader.
Or maybe breaking a heel when she is walking the halls of Congress and "monitoring" committee meetings.
Her criticizing Lewis on the state of civil rights is like a b-movie actor criticizing Meryl Streep on her performing skills.
Lastly, Lafferty has the nerve the say the following:
Homosexuals have no shame when it comes to exploiting every noble social movement in our culture. These radical groups routinely come up with a new ‘holiday’ or special week in order to push their agenda upon the rest of us—and if you protest against this callous exploitation of important historical events, you’re labeled a homophobic bigot.
Okay Andrea, I won't label you as a homophobic bigot.
But I will label you as confused.
Just because your father, Lou Sheldon, got some black ministers teamed up against gay marriage does not give you any credibility to start attacking a black man whose very life has been dedicated to fighting injustice.
If you had any sense, you would hush your mouth, pay attention, and take good notes while Lewis is talking.
But speaking of those black ministers aligned with your father, if you want to have a good conversation about selling out, I suggest you confer with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)