The religious right lies again - This time about 'Bash Back'
The "gays are threatening Christians and rioting in the streets' lie that have come from the religious right since the Proposition 8 vote is slowly but surely coming apart.
First they claim that gays attacked a 69-year-old woman and ripped a cross from her hand. But more details (I wrote a post about it two days ago) make the story a bit more complex.
Then they claimed that gays mailed suspicious white powder to Mormon temples in Utah. This was a blatant lie because no one determined just WHO mailed the white powder. To automatically blame the gay community for this was wrong.
Now comes the truth behind the "Bash Back" story.
According to the religious right and their cohorts (like Michelle Malkin), a radical gay group, Bash Back, invaded a church in Michigan, pulled a fire alarm, and disrupted services:
“Worshippers at a Bible-teaching church in Lansing, Mich., were stunned Sunday when members of a pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash Back interrupted their service to fling propaganda and condoms around the sanctuary, drape a profane banner from the balcony and feature two lesbians making out at the pulpit.”
To be clear, Bash Back is a wildcat group having nothing to do with the lgbt rights movement in general. Having said that, the following is what police say really happened:
Officials from the Eaton County Sheriff’s Department and the Delta Township Fire Department are contradicting media reports about an anti-conservative protest held at a Lansing evangelical church last Sunday.
The protest — according to reports from the media, the church and the protesters — was held both inside and outside Mount Hope Church on Nov. 9, during which someone is alleged to have pulled a fire alarm inside the church.
However, a spokesman for the Delta Township Fire Department, which covers fire issues in the area, said today the department had not received any fire alarm calls nor did they respond to one in the area of the church on Sunday.
And what about those nasty acts inside the church:
Eaton County Sheriff’s Lt. Jeff Warder said that when two officers were called to the scene for “disorderly persons,” they found protesters on the public sidewalk.
“They were picketing,” Warder said. “The church security people came out, the pastor contacted the deputies and told us we want them off our property. We had to tell them they [the protesters] were on public property.”
After further discussion with protesters, it was determined some had parked in the church’s parking lot. Officers directed that the vehicles be removed from the lot, or the owners could face trespassing charges for retrieving them if police had to return. The protest broke up as a result of that, according to the sheriff.
Warder said that at no time did the church inform officers of the disruption inside the church and that no charges were filed. He also said that there was no criminal investigation and that the church had declined to file any formal complaints.
Mount Hope’s Williams declined to answer additional questions about the protest.
I will be placing the lie about this incident and others on my Anti-Gay Lies and Liars webpage. Next week, I intend to create a post detailing the lies behind these "evil gays are rioting" myths that the religious right are creating.
No doubt they are trying to create a talking point just in time for the Obama Administration in an attempt to derail any pro-gay legislation.
How convenient.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
Why do the religious right make the appropriate sound so nasty?
Thank you to all who read and spread my blog entry Message to the Religious Right to other blogs, their friends, and neighbors.
It was something that I felt needed to be said. I had no idea that it would have as much of an impact as it did.
But I am glad for it.
I do want to make something clear just in case I see my post as a religious right talking point (yeah I'm being presumptuous but never put anything past the religious right). In no way did I advocate violence of any kind in my post. I think I made it very clear when I said:
" . . .any display of violence on either side of the argument should never be tolerated."
And also when I talk about the religious right, I do not mean religious people in general. I do not mean Christians or anyone who thinks that homosexuality is a sin.
I respect these opinions. I may vigorously disagree but I respect them.
When I say the religious right, I mean the groups, organizations, and talking heads like the American Family Association, Americans for Truth (in name only), Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, the Traditional Values Coaltion, Lou Sheldon, Peter LaBarbera, Robert Knight, Janet Porter, Matt Barber, Tony Perkins etc.
I am talking about the groups and folks who claim to be "pro-family" but have a very limited definiton of family. I am talking about groups who seem to think that James Dobson sits on the right hand of God and America belongs to them solely.
That's who I mean by the religious right.
Now some of the comments I have received have been supportive, some have been rude and others have been very thought-provoking.
The most annoying I have received embraces that old standby argument of capitulation, "you don't tolerate my intolerance so that makes you intolerant."
Before yesterday, my biggest annoyance used to be the song "One Bad Apple" by the Osmonds. Just the chorus was enough to make me cry in agony.
That has been replaced by the nonsense of folks who put up straw man arguments of the gay community as hypocrites simply because we dare to challenge someone's idea that we have no right to family and happiness.
The fact of the matter is there are things we should all be intolerant of; lies, dehumanization, and making the unknown seem like boogeymen.
Like the following from my friend P. LaBarbera:
President-Elect Obama Lays Out Pro-Gay Agenda President-elect Barack Obama is committed to creating special rights for homosexuals and trampling on traditional marriage. He laid out his agenda on his Web site [http://www.change.gov/agenda/civil_rights_agenda]:
Expand hate-crimes legislation (which would create a new category of crime for actions said to be motivated by bias toward a person’s actual or perceived “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Sexual-orientation hate-crimes laws have been used to prosecute speech in the U.S. and abroad);
Support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (which would create special rights based on an employee’s actual or perceived sexual orientation and could force Christian employers to hire against their religious beliefs);
Oppose a federal marriage-protection amendment;
Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (which would open the door to forcing all 50 states to recognize same-sex “marriage”)
Expand gay adoption (which would leave vulnerable children without either a mom or a dad);
Repeal the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (which would jeopardize military readiness by allowing open homosexuality in the armed forces).
And here I thought Barack Obama was a man who was elected president and therefore is interested in helping folks. Peter makes him sound like Baron Samedi conjuring up zombies.
Why don't we see what President Obama really wants to do:
Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. Barack Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.
Fight Workplace Discrimination: Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. Obama also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
Expand Adoption Rights: Barack Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.
Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, Barack Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. Obama will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. Obama also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. He will continue to speak out on this issue as president.
Why does Peter have to use such spooky language? And better yet, what's wrong with Obama wanting to do these things?
Lastly, why can't the religious right use concrete evidence. I mean it. I want to hear a clear argument as to why these goals are bad.
And I don't mean phony talking points about the "uniqueness of families" or stupid comparisons between marriage and chocolate chip cookies. No fear stories about innocent boy scouts being led into the woods by leering scoutmasters. No anecdotes that are distorted and taken out of context. And above all, no phony studies.
Based on Peter's comments, I am sure the religious right will use the above examples in their attempts to stop Obama from implementing his plans.
And it will be more proof regarding their lack of a soul.
Thank you to all who read and spread my blog entry Message to the Religious Right to other blogs, their friends, and neighbors.
It was something that I felt needed to be said. I had no idea that it would have as much of an impact as it did.
But I am glad for it.
I do want to make something clear just in case I see my post as a religious right talking point (yeah I'm being presumptuous but never put anything past the religious right). In no way did I advocate violence of any kind in my post. I think I made it very clear when I said:
" . . .any display of violence on either side of the argument should never be tolerated."
And also when I talk about the religious right, I do not mean religious people in general. I do not mean Christians or anyone who thinks that homosexuality is a sin.
I respect these opinions. I may vigorously disagree but I respect them.
When I say the religious right, I mean the groups, organizations, and talking heads like the American Family Association, Americans for Truth (in name only), Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, the Traditional Values Coaltion, Lou Sheldon, Peter LaBarbera, Robert Knight, Janet Porter, Matt Barber, Tony Perkins etc.
I am talking about the groups and folks who claim to be "pro-family" but have a very limited definiton of family. I am talking about groups who seem to think that James Dobson sits on the right hand of God and America belongs to them solely.
That's who I mean by the religious right.
Now some of the comments I have received have been supportive, some have been rude and others have been very thought-provoking.
The most annoying I have received embraces that old standby argument of capitulation, "you don't tolerate my intolerance so that makes you intolerant."
Before yesterday, my biggest annoyance used to be the song "One Bad Apple" by the Osmonds. Just the chorus was enough to make me cry in agony.
That has been replaced by the nonsense of folks who put up straw man arguments of the gay community as hypocrites simply because we dare to challenge someone's idea that we have no right to family and happiness.
The fact of the matter is there are things we should all be intolerant of; lies, dehumanization, and making the unknown seem like boogeymen.
Like the following from my friend P. LaBarbera:
President-Elect Obama Lays Out Pro-Gay Agenda President-elect Barack Obama is committed to creating special rights for homosexuals and trampling on traditional marriage. He laid out his agenda on his Web site [http://www.change.gov/agenda/civil_rights_agenda]:
Expand hate-crimes legislation (which would create a new category of crime for actions said to be motivated by bias toward a person’s actual or perceived “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Sexual-orientation hate-crimes laws have been used to prosecute speech in the U.S. and abroad);
Support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (which would create special rights based on an employee’s actual or perceived sexual orientation and could force Christian employers to hire against their religious beliefs);
Oppose a federal marriage-protection amendment;
Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (which would open the door to forcing all 50 states to recognize same-sex “marriage”)
Expand gay adoption (which would leave vulnerable children without either a mom or a dad);
Repeal the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (which would jeopardize military readiness by allowing open homosexuality in the armed forces).
And here I thought Barack Obama was a man who was elected president and therefore is interested in helping folks. Peter makes him sound like Baron Samedi conjuring up zombies.
Why don't we see what President Obama really wants to do:
Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. Barack Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.
Fight Workplace Discrimination: Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. Obama also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
Expand Adoption Rights: Barack Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.
Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, Barack Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. Obama will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. Obama also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. He will continue to speak out on this issue as president.
Why does Peter have to use such spooky language? And better yet, what's wrong with Obama wanting to do these things?
Lastly, why can't the religious right use concrete evidence. I mean it. I want to hear a clear argument as to why these goals are bad.
And I don't mean phony talking points about the "uniqueness of families" or stupid comparisons between marriage and chocolate chip cookies. No fear stories about innocent boy scouts being led into the woods by leering scoutmasters. No anecdotes that are distorted and taken out of context. And above all, no phony studies.
Based on Peter's comments, I am sure the religious right will use the above examples in their attempts to stop Obama from implementing his plans.
And it will be more proof regarding their lack of a soul.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Remembering our fellow brothers and sisters
Today is Transgender Day of Remembrance.
Rather than dwelling on manufactured martyrs (see my post below), let's take this time to commemorate and honor the true victims of hatred.
You won't see Michele Malkin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, or the phonies at One News Now speak out about these folks.
So it's our job, as it should be.
Go here for more information.
Today is Transgender Day of Remembrance.
Rather than dwelling on manufactured martyrs (see my post below), let's take this time to commemorate and honor the true victims of hatred.
You won't see Michele Malkin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, or the phonies at One News Now speak out about these folks.
So it's our job, as it should be.
Go here for more information.
Not attacking that 69-year-old woman but there is more to the story
The story of Phyllis Burgess, the 69-year-old woman who had a confrontation with a crowd of anti-Proposition 8 folks is making its way through the blogsphere.
Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich referenced it in their television interviews and now Michelle Malkin is talking about it in her syndicated column:
In Palm Springs, a videographer filmed unhinged anti-Prop. 8 marchers who yanked a large cross from the hands of 69-year-old Phyllis Burgess and stomped on it.
That behavior was uncalled for but there is more to the story than a lot of people are willing to tell. I found the following on Mike Tidmus's site. He investigated the incident after seeing it on P. LaBarbera's site:
Peter LaBarbera, President of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, renown gay porn aficionado, and ersatz critic of the queer equality movement, recently posted an article about an incident at an otherwise peaceful, Palm Springs candlelight vigil on the Friday following the passage of Proposition 8.
From Americans for Truth about Homosexuality:
Dear Readers, here’s more evidence that homo-fascism is coming out of the closet following the triumph of Proposition 8, which simply restores the traditional definition of marriage in California. “Gay” activists now rail against ANY opposition to their agenda as “hateful.” Watch this video from Palm Springs, California — a notorious homosexual Mecca. Note the anchorman’s politically correct summation, as if the “hate” on the video really came from “both sides”! Beneath the video is more background on this latest “gay” outrage; note that a commercial precedes the online video news story.
Here’s the report on this incident in The Desert Sun:
A candlelight service to protest the state’s recently enacted gay marriage ban turned hostile Friday night when a woman carried a cross into the crowd.
The crowd chanted, “Go home!” “Nazi!” and “Shame on you!” as organizers pleaded with the crowd to ignore the woman.
“God has given me a message, a word for all of us and it’s fidelity,” said Phyllis Burgen, a Palm Springs supporter of the gay marriage ban.
“I have a right to be here.”
The crowd saw things differently, pressed in on Burgen, ripped the cross from her hands and stomped on it. In the rush, protesters pushed one another and Burgen, who said she would not press charges although she was bruised in the exchange.
LaBarbera has removed the beginning of the second paragraph from the article that reads:
But as Phyllis Burgen, a Palm Springs supporter of the gay marriage ban, walked through the gathering with her cross, the crowd chanted, “Go home!” “Nazi!” and “Shame on you!” as organizers pleaded with the crowd to ignore the woman.
LaBarbera also fails to provide a link to the source, MyDesert.com, which incorrectly identifies Phyllis Burgess as “Phyllis Burgen.” What else does LaBarbera omit? Key points from the article, including this:
As reported on mydesert.com, organizers had planned a quiet service with speeches from elected officials to rally support after a disappointing loss at the polls. In May, the California Supreme Court ruled the gay marriage ban overwhelmingly passed by voters in 2000 was unconstitutional.
The article ends with this paragraph:
At the close of the event, participants snuffed out their candles to symbolize the passage of the same-sex marriage ban extinguishing gay civil rights.
LaBarbera provides a video segment of the aftermath of the incident in which Phyllis Burgess is shouted down by attendees of the event that Ms Burgess had just interrupted.
LaBarbera fails to note that another local TV news crew was on the scene conducting a live interview when Burgess pushed her way through the crowd, plastic cross in hand, to get the attention of the film crew. That video, from KESQ TV can be seen here.
According to an eyewitness iReporter:
At City Hall a woman with a huge styrofoam cross appeared screaming about YES on 8 at the back of the crowd of NO on 8 supporters — their rally. She wanted to get to where the speakers were up front and I saw her knock a disabled man, a NO on 8 supporter to the ground, screaming, “Get out of my way!” People in the crowd around her tore away her cross and threw it to the ground and began pushing her.
If you study the video from KESQ, you’ll see Ms Burgess emerge, not from the sidelines, but directly through the middle of the crowd. You’ll also note that the news anchor recognizes Burgess, because this is not Burgess’ first visit to an anti-Prop-8 event. She showed up to protest five days earlier at the Palm Springs Gay Pride Parade.
KESQ describes that appearance:
There is always two sides to every debate. Among the thousands against Prop 8, there are a few supporters fighting back with yes signs.
“They don’t see the sanctity in male-on-male or female-on-female,” says Phyllis Burgess, Prop 8 supporter.
Those against the ballot issue didn’t take kindly to the protestors displays.
“I was amazed with the hatred,” says Burgess.
Amazed with the hatred, but eager to get on TV again, Burgess came back and butted into a candlelight service intended to heal the community’s grief and anger over the passage of Prop 8.
Phyllis Burgess declined to press charges on 7 November, even though Lt Dennis Graham of the police department spent 40 minutes trying to persuade her to file a complaint.
According to MyDesert.com, “the 69-year-old Palm Springs resident originally declined to press charges when asked by police and joked that she felt lucky — that at least she didn’t lose her wig in the tussle like Cloris Leachman did on ‘Dancing with the Stars.’”
Then suddenly four days later on 11 November, Phyllis Burgess was eager to press charges. What could have happened in the meantime to change her mind? Phone call from the Alliance Defense Fund? Thomas More Law Center? Liberty Counsel? We may never know.
Incomplete mischaracterizations of the incident, along with accusations of “homo-fascism”spread like wildfire across right wing blogs, online forums like FreeRepublic, and radical religious right news sources like WorldNetDaily and OneNewsNow.
What has subsequently not been widely reported is that, following an apology from one gay man, Phyllis Burgess has opted not to seek assault charges. She also acknowledged contacting officials prior to her controversial intrusion at the candlelight vigil, and Ms Burgess now says “she would support ’some sort of marriage’ for those in a committed relationship.”
Like I said, I do not condone attacking anyone, but there is more to the story than Malkin and her cohorts are willing to admit.
You see folks, this is how lying is done. Enhance one part of your yarn while omitting crucial details. It happened with the Repent America controversy, it happened with the David Parker controversy.
And it is happening again.
The story of Phyllis Burgess, the 69-year-old woman who had a confrontation with a crowd of anti-Proposition 8 folks is making its way through the blogsphere.
Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich referenced it in their television interviews and now Michelle Malkin is talking about it in her syndicated column:
In Palm Springs, a videographer filmed unhinged anti-Prop. 8 marchers who yanked a large cross from the hands of 69-year-old Phyllis Burgess and stomped on it.
That behavior was uncalled for but there is more to the story than a lot of people are willing to tell. I found the following on Mike Tidmus's site. He investigated the incident after seeing it on P. LaBarbera's site:
Peter LaBarbera, President of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, renown gay porn aficionado, and ersatz critic of the queer equality movement, recently posted an article about an incident at an otherwise peaceful, Palm Springs candlelight vigil on the Friday following the passage of Proposition 8.
From Americans for Truth about Homosexuality:
Dear Readers, here’s more evidence that homo-fascism is coming out of the closet following the triumph of Proposition 8, which simply restores the traditional definition of marriage in California. “Gay” activists now rail against ANY opposition to their agenda as “hateful.” Watch this video from Palm Springs, California — a notorious homosexual Mecca. Note the anchorman’s politically correct summation, as if the “hate” on the video really came from “both sides”! Beneath the video is more background on this latest “gay” outrage; note that a commercial precedes the online video news story.
Here’s the report on this incident in The Desert Sun:
A candlelight service to protest the state’s recently enacted gay marriage ban turned hostile Friday night when a woman carried a cross into the crowd.
The crowd chanted, “Go home!” “Nazi!” and “Shame on you!” as organizers pleaded with the crowd to ignore the woman.
“God has given me a message, a word for all of us and it’s fidelity,” said Phyllis Burgen, a Palm Springs supporter of the gay marriage ban.
“I have a right to be here.”
The crowd saw things differently, pressed in on Burgen, ripped the cross from her hands and stomped on it. In the rush, protesters pushed one another and Burgen, who said she would not press charges although she was bruised in the exchange.
LaBarbera has removed the beginning of the second paragraph from the article that reads:
But as Phyllis Burgen, a Palm Springs supporter of the gay marriage ban, walked through the gathering with her cross, the crowd chanted, “Go home!” “Nazi!” and “Shame on you!” as organizers pleaded with the crowd to ignore the woman.
LaBarbera also fails to provide a link to the source, MyDesert.com, which incorrectly identifies Phyllis Burgess as “Phyllis Burgen.” What else does LaBarbera omit? Key points from the article, including this:
As reported on mydesert.com, organizers had planned a quiet service with speeches from elected officials to rally support after a disappointing loss at the polls. In May, the California Supreme Court ruled the gay marriage ban overwhelmingly passed by voters in 2000 was unconstitutional.
The article ends with this paragraph:
At the close of the event, participants snuffed out their candles to symbolize the passage of the same-sex marriage ban extinguishing gay civil rights.
LaBarbera provides a video segment of the aftermath of the incident in which Phyllis Burgess is shouted down by attendees of the event that Ms Burgess had just interrupted.
LaBarbera fails to note that another local TV news crew was on the scene conducting a live interview when Burgess pushed her way through the crowd, plastic cross in hand, to get the attention of the film crew. That video, from KESQ TV can be seen here.
According to an eyewitness iReporter:
At City Hall a woman with a huge styrofoam cross appeared screaming about YES on 8 at the back of the crowd of NO on 8 supporters — their rally. She wanted to get to where the speakers were up front and I saw her knock a disabled man, a NO on 8 supporter to the ground, screaming, “Get out of my way!” People in the crowd around her tore away her cross and threw it to the ground and began pushing her.
If you study the video from KESQ, you’ll see Ms Burgess emerge, not from the sidelines, but directly through the middle of the crowd. You’ll also note that the news anchor recognizes Burgess, because this is not Burgess’ first visit to an anti-Prop-8 event. She showed up to protest five days earlier at the Palm Springs Gay Pride Parade.
KESQ describes that appearance:
There is always two sides to every debate. Among the thousands against Prop 8, there are a few supporters fighting back with yes signs.
“They don’t see the sanctity in male-on-male or female-on-female,” says Phyllis Burgess, Prop 8 supporter.
Those against the ballot issue didn’t take kindly to the protestors displays.
“I was amazed with the hatred,” says Burgess.
Amazed with the hatred, but eager to get on TV again, Burgess came back and butted into a candlelight service intended to heal the community’s grief and anger over the passage of Prop 8.
Phyllis Burgess declined to press charges on 7 November, even though Lt Dennis Graham of the police department spent 40 minutes trying to persuade her to file a complaint.
According to MyDesert.com, “the 69-year-old Palm Springs resident originally declined to press charges when asked by police and joked that she felt lucky — that at least she didn’t lose her wig in the tussle like Cloris Leachman did on ‘Dancing with the Stars.’”
Then suddenly four days later on 11 November, Phyllis Burgess was eager to press charges. What could have happened in the meantime to change her mind? Phone call from the Alliance Defense Fund? Thomas More Law Center? Liberty Counsel? We may never know.
Incomplete mischaracterizations of the incident, along with accusations of “homo-fascism”spread like wildfire across right wing blogs, online forums like FreeRepublic, and radical religious right news sources like WorldNetDaily and OneNewsNow.
What has subsequently not been widely reported is that, following an apology from one gay man, Phyllis Burgess has opted not to seek assault charges. She also acknowledged contacting officials prior to her controversial intrusion at the candlelight vigil, and Ms Burgess now says “she would support ’some sort of marriage’ for those in a committed relationship.”
Like I said, I do not condone attacking anyone, but there is more to the story than Malkin and her cohorts are willing to admit.
You see folks, this is how lying is done. Enhance one part of your yarn while omitting crucial details. It happened with the Repent America controversy, it happened with the David Parker controversy.
And it is happening again.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Are the religious right the black community's best friend? Hardly
The religious right seem to be caught between two narratives in trying to define the argument over Proposition 8.
To them, we are either rampaging invaders or, as Mike Huckabee tried to press on the View today, trying to steal the legacy of the African-American civil rights movement.
I think that as time goes on, we are going to hear more about gays trying to steal the legacy of the civil rights movement. And I hope we don't fall for the trap. The narrative needs to be about US, not about how our movement for dignity and self-determination compares with movements of the past.
The narrative needs to be about how we are deprived HERE and NOW.
I really don't think that some African-Americans will be convinced about the similarities between our movements. And that is okay for me.
As long as these folks understand that gays should be able to work, have the ability to create families, and be free from crimes done against us because of our orientation, it is okay with me.
I am not trying to shake anyone away from their historical plateau nor do I want a piece of their heritage. I just want my own.
But this rush to "defend" African-Americans by the religious right has got me thinking.
Just what has the religious right done for the African-American community?
My fellow black brothers and sisters who are so intent on protecting their heritage from the supposed onslaught of lgbts need to take a good look at those pretending to be their friends.
When has James Dobson, Peter LaBarbera, Lou Sheldon or any of them has done anything to speak out against racial disparities in education, health care, the criminal justice system, or any of the systematic things done to pull down the black community?
True, they harp on religious similarities, but have they ever kicked in any cash when it comes dealing with the above issues?
I would suggest that before anyone in my black community allows the religious right to become their defenders, they take a good look at these folks:
See how they give aid and comfort to Jesse Jackson obsessed minister Jesse Lee Peterson who once said about the victims of Hurricane Katrina:
"When 75 percent of New Orleans residents had left the city, it was primarily immoral, welfare-pampered blacks that stayed behind and waited for the government to bail them out. This, as we know, did not turn out good results. . . ."
See how they laud people like Alan Keyes who is presently working to disenfranchise the African-American community's choice as president via some silly lawsuit
Read how wannabe ally Peter LaBarbera called a racist Anti-Semite a "pro-family advocate."
Go to One News Now and read how this supposed Christian service speculated that blacks would riot if Obama did not win. As a matter of fact, count how many blatant anti-Obama articles the news services carries on a daily basis.
Read comment after comment of their supposed Christian readers:
I work in downtown Baltimore and lately have seen many people wearing t-shirts that read, "Obama 2008 Or Else!" Or else what? Riots? Disruptions? Terrorism American style? What if he is elected? Are we going to pay either way? Who is going to pay? Only white Americans or anyone who doesn't believe or embrace your views? I think that it is ridiculous that after all these years every single white American is being held responsible for the sins of slave traders and anyone else who wronged another because of race. My forefathers were abused and enslaved by Germans...does that make every ancestor of German descent evil in my eyes? No, nore should it. I hold people responsible for their own actions, not the actions of their ancestors. The world has gone mad!
I don't understand this. What ever happened to winning based upon your qualifications NOT the color of your skin? And if you lose, why do your supporters automatically use the RACE card as an excuse for acting rudely and violently against others? This should not be about race, this should be about the best candidate for the job winning. Obama should be telling these people to knock it off NOW and channel their energies in another direction for the GOOD of America. He is wrong for not controlling this NOW before the election occurs. If he wants to UNITE America like he says, this is a GREAT place to start. Put his money where his mouth is. You won't see him doing this since he doesn't want to "offend" his supporters! You don't see McCain's supporters making the same threat if McCain loses! Wake up America!
I find it unbelievable that the black community would support Obama to the point of being terrorists in our own nation. And I do not understand how they (blacks) can support a man whose ideologies slaps them right in the face. Barrack supports abortion; ergo Planned Parenthood of which their charter targeted eliminating or reducing the black population. Finally, I disagree with one commentor that a McCain presidency will destroy this country. It is in fact our continued spiral into the depths of immorality of pro-death and the anti-natural family faction that will destroy this country. And the candidate that most represents a continued spiral into this immoral goo is Barrack Obama.
Oh...okay...lets vote for Obama because there "might be" a race riot if he doesn't win. Sounds logic.
Are these groups and individuals going to be suddenly anointed as black people's best friends and defenders?
God, I hope not.
The religious right seem to be caught between two narratives in trying to define the argument over Proposition 8.
To them, we are either rampaging invaders or, as Mike Huckabee tried to press on the View today, trying to steal the legacy of the African-American civil rights movement.
I think that as time goes on, we are going to hear more about gays trying to steal the legacy of the civil rights movement. And I hope we don't fall for the trap. The narrative needs to be about US, not about how our movement for dignity and self-determination compares with movements of the past.
The narrative needs to be about how we are deprived HERE and NOW.
I really don't think that some African-Americans will be convinced about the similarities between our movements. And that is okay for me.
As long as these folks understand that gays should be able to work, have the ability to create families, and be free from crimes done against us because of our orientation, it is okay with me.
I am not trying to shake anyone away from their historical plateau nor do I want a piece of their heritage. I just want my own.
But this rush to "defend" African-Americans by the religious right has got me thinking.
Just what has the religious right done for the African-American community?
My fellow black brothers and sisters who are so intent on protecting their heritage from the supposed onslaught of lgbts need to take a good look at those pretending to be their friends.
When has James Dobson, Peter LaBarbera, Lou Sheldon or any of them has done anything to speak out against racial disparities in education, health care, the criminal justice system, or any of the systematic things done to pull down the black community?
True, they harp on religious similarities, but have they ever kicked in any cash when it comes dealing with the above issues?
I would suggest that before anyone in my black community allows the religious right to become their defenders, they take a good look at these folks:
See how they give aid and comfort to Jesse Jackson obsessed minister Jesse Lee Peterson who once said about the victims of Hurricane Katrina:
"When 75 percent of New Orleans residents had left the city, it was primarily immoral, welfare-pampered blacks that stayed behind and waited for the government to bail them out. This, as we know, did not turn out good results. . . ."
See how they laud people like Alan Keyes who is presently working to disenfranchise the African-American community's choice as president via some silly lawsuit
Read how wannabe ally Peter LaBarbera called a racist Anti-Semite a "pro-family advocate."
Go to One News Now and read how this supposed Christian service speculated that blacks would riot if Obama did not win. As a matter of fact, count how many blatant anti-Obama articles the news services carries on a daily basis.
Read comment after comment of their supposed Christian readers:
I work in downtown Baltimore and lately have seen many people wearing t-shirts that read, "Obama 2008 Or Else!" Or else what? Riots? Disruptions? Terrorism American style? What if he is elected? Are we going to pay either way? Who is going to pay? Only white Americans or anyone who doesn't believe or embrace your views? I think that it is ridiculous that after all these years every single white American is being held responsible for the sins of slave traders and anyone else who wronged another because of race. My forefathers were abused and enslaved by Germans...does that make every ancestor of German descent evil in my eyes? No, nore should it. I hold people responsible for their own actions, not the actions of their ancestors. The world has gone mad!
I don't understand this. What ever happened to winning based upon your qualifications NOT the color of your skin? And if you lose, why do your supporters automatically use the RACE card as an excuse for acting rudely and violently against others? This should not be about race, this should be about the best candidate for the job winning. Obama should be telling these people to knock it off NOW and channel their energies in another direction for the GOOD of America. He is wrong for not controlling this NOW before the election occurs. If he wants to UNITE America like he says, this is a GREAT place to start. Put his money where his mouth is. You won't see him doing this since he doesn't want to "offend" his supporters! You don't see McCain's supporters making the same threat if McCain loses! Wake up America!
I find it unbelievable that the black community would support Obama to the point of being terrorists in our own nation. And I do not understand how they (blacks) can support a man whose ideologies slaps them right in the face. Barrack supports abortion; ergo Planned Parenthood of which their charter targeted eliminating or reducing the black population. Finally, I disagree with one commentor that a McCain presidency will destroy this country. It is in fact our continued spiral into the depths of immorality of pro-death and the anti-natural family faction that will destroy this country. And the candidate that most represents a continued spiral into this immoral goo is Barrack Obama.
Oh...okay...lets vote for Obama because there "might be" a race riot if he doesn't win. Sounds logic.
Are these groups and individuals going to be suddenly anointed as black people's best friends and defenders?
God, I hope not.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Message to the religious right - this isn't just about marriage, it's about history
I keep hearing all of this nonsense about us lgbts attacking people, about us using intimidation and violence to oppress people, about us somehow being ugly aggressors.
Newt Gingrich (who wrote the book on deceptive messaging during his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives) actually accused us of being "secular fascists." Gingrich's attack on us seem to be the prevailing theme with those on the other side of the Proposition 8 argument.
And I think there needs to be some historical perspective on this matter.
True, Proposition 8 has galvanized our community. We have become a bit more politically engaged in our anger. That is a good thing. However, any display of violence on either side of the argument should never be tolerated.
Nor should letting the religious right frame the moment. I have a few questions to people like Newt Gingrich, Bill O’Reilly, Chuck Norris, Gary Bauer, Peter LaBarbera and the rest who are trying to push this "gay intimidation" image.
Where were you in the late 1970s when Anita Bryant accused us of trying to “recruit” children?
Where were you in 1983 when Paul Cameron accused gay men of stuffing gerbils up our rectums and castrating children? Or afterwards when he went from state to state pushing his phony research papers all designed to make us the boogiemen of American society?
Where were you when Jerry Falwell exploited the AIDS crisis to generate more money for the Moral Majority? Or when those dying of AIDS were cast out of their communities and excommunicated from their churches?
Where were you when Colorado passed that law in 1992 that basically said cities in the state had absolutely no right to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination?
Where were you when over the course of 20 years all of those phony “pro-family” groups told lies in front of federal and congressional state houses in attempts to beat back pro-gay laws or spread discredited research that gave “upstanding, moral” families the perfect excuse to put their gay sons and daughters out on the cold streets?
Where were you when organizations like Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, the Traditional Values Coalition, and Focus on the Family unconsciously gave reasoning for groups of roaming thugs to bash our heads in, chase us out in heavy traffic, beat us to bloody pulps with nail embedded boards, and hang us from fences on dark and lonely roads?
How is it that you can dare call us aggressive when for over 30 years, you have done everything in your power to make America hate and fear us?
How it is that you can dare infer that we don't have a right to get just a tad angry when for over 30 years, you have done everything in your power to make us hate and fear ourselves?
Every lie, every indignity, every attempt to dehumanize the lgbt community has brought us to this point. The Proposition 8 vote was the last straw in a chain of indignities that stretch as long as Jacob's ladder.
This ain’t just about marriage. Nor is this a single moment in time.
We are not the aggressors. We are learning to fight back.
When I was coming out, it wasn’t the fact that I was gay that bothered me more than the knowledge that so many had already written my life for me; told me who I was, what I liked, what I didn’t like, and even where I was going after I died. Worst of all, they had the nerve to tell me that I had absolutely no rights to the words "values," "family," "tradition," or "honor."
And you know what the saddest thing about this is? I was not alone.
Hundreds of thousands of lgbts went through the same experience. It was our "rite of passage." So while I may not have a media spin machine behind me and therefore very few will give a damn about what I say, while I may not be a member of a religious think tank who is presently working to use this moment to again dehumanize lgbts, and while I may not be considered as a "leading gay talking head," I am an American, a human being, and a child of God.
Therefore, I will never forget what has brought me to this point of outrage. And I will do my best to make sure that this country never forgets either. Lastly, I will do my best to make sure that YOU never forget.
And I think there needs to be some historical perspective on this matter.
True, Proposition 8 has galvanized our community. We have become a bit more politically engaged in our anger. That is a good thing. However, any display of violence on either side of the argument should never be tolerated.
Nor should letting the religious right frame the moment. I have a few questions to people like Newt Gingrich, Bill O’Reilly, Chuck Norris, Gary Bauer, Peter LaBarbera and the rest who are trying to push this "gay intimidation" image.
Where were you in the late 1970s when Anita Bryant accused us of trying to “recruit” children?
Where were you in 1983 when Paul Cameron accused gay men of stuffing gerbils up our rectums and castrating children? Or afterwards when he went from state to state pushing his phony research papers all designed to make us the boogiemen of American society?
Where were you when Jerry Falwell exploited the AIDS crisis to generate more money for the Moral Majority? Or when those dying of AIDS were cast out of their communities and excommunicated from their churches?
Where were you when Colorado passed that law in 1992 that basically said cities in the state had absolutely no right to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination?
Where were you when over the course of 20 years all of those phony “pro-family” groups told lies in front of federal and congressional state houses in attempts to beat back pro-gay laws or spread discredited research that gave “upstanding, moral” families the perfect excuse to put their gay sons and daughters out on the cold streets?
Where were you when organizations like Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, the Traditional Values Coalition, and Focus on the Family unconsciously gave reasoning for groups of roaming thugs to bash our heads in, chase us out in heavy traffic, beat us to bloody pulps with nail embedded boards, and hang us from fences on dark and lonely roads?
How is it that you can dare call us aggressive when for over 30 years, you have done everything in your power to make America hate and fear us?
How it is that you can dare infer that we don't have a right to get just a tad angry when for over 30 years, you have done everything in your power to make us hate and fear ourselves?
Every lie, every indignity, every attempt to dehumanize the lgbt community has brought us to this point. The Proposition 8 vote was the last straw in a chain of indignities that stretch as long as Jacob's ladder.
This ain’t just about marriage. Nor is this a single moment in time.
We are not the aggressors. We are learning to fight back.
When I was coming out, it wasn’t the fact that I was gay that bothered me more than the knowledge that so many had already written my life for me; told me who I was, what I liked, what I didn’t like, and even where I was going after I died. Worst of all, they had the nerve to tell me that I had absolutely no rights to the words "values," "family," "tradition," or "honor."
And you know what the saddest thing about this is? I was not alone.
Hundreds of thousands of lgbts went through the same experience. It was our "rite of passage." So while I may not have a media spin machine behind me and therefore very few will give a damn about what I say, while I may not be a member of a religious think tank who is presently working to use this moment to again dehumanize lgbts, and while I may not be considered as a "leading gay talking head," I am an American, a human being, and a child of God.
Therefore, I will never forget what has brought me to this point of outrage. And I will do my best to make sure that this country never forgets either. Lastly, I will do my best to make sure that YOU never forget.
Chuck Norris exposes his ignorance and the hypocrisy of the other side
Apparently we got actor Chuck Norris upset over our protests this weekend:
Of course, activists say they are merely utilizing their political freedoms and rights, but, the fact is, I see a lot of sore losers who are intolerant of any outcome but the one they desire. Some are acting like toddlers who throw a temper tantrum until they get their way. Are they fighting for their rights or at last showing true colors of intolerance against anyone who believes contrary to them?
That "they say they are tolerant but they are intolerant of my intolerance so that makes them intolerant" argument seems to be a popular one. It is one of the religious right's most effective.
But rather than roll my eyes from hearing that faulty argument yet another time, rather than make fun of Norris's acting career (which I won't because I loved Walker: Texas Ranger when Norris didn't get all preachy), I think it would be best to expose Mr. Norris's hypocrisy:
There have been many of us who have passionately opposed an Obama election, but you don't see us protesting in the streets, crying out unfair – rather we are submitting to a democratic process and now asking how we can support "our" president.
It is obvious that Mr. Norris doesn't pay attention to the publication in which his article appears, World Net Daily. Check out the headlines of the articles featured today in World Net Daily:
Communist Party strategist maps out Obama's agenda
Powerful unions, socialized medicine 1st crucial steps for long-term plans
'Constitutional crisis' looming over Obama's birth location
Alan Keyes lawsuit warns America may see 'usurper' in Oval Office
The enemy within (Editor's note - Yes this is another piece comparing Obama to Hitler)
Obama blockbuster: 'Audacity of Deceit' $4.95 today!
Save $21 on stunning blueprint for the new White House agenda
Obama camp: Lawsuits by citizens are 'garbage
'Legal challenges spring up across U.S., demand proof of eligibility for office
So much for supporting the new president. If Chuck Norris and his cohorts support Obama, then I'm secretly Paris Hilton undercover as a black gay man in order to write a Harvard thesis on racism and quantum physics.
Mr. Norris, do everyone a favor. Go back to making testosteroned driven television dramas and leave the deception to Peter, Matt, Janet, and company.
At least when they do it, they don't automatically come out looking like a horse's ass.
Apparently we got actor Chuck Norris upset over our protests this weekend:
Of course, activists say they are merely utilizing their political freedoms and rights, but, the fact is, I see a lot of sore losers who are intolerant of any outcome but the one they desire. Some are acting like toddlers who throw a temper tantrum until they get their way. Are they fighting for their rights or at last showing true colors of intolerance against anyone who believes contrary to them?
That "they say they are tolerant but they are intolerant of my intolerance so that makes them intolerant" argument seems to be a popular one. It is one of the religious right's most effective.
But rather than roll my eyes from hearing that faulty argument yet another time, rather than make fun of Norris's acting career (which I won't because I loved Walker: Texas Ranger when Norris didn't get all preachy), I think it would be best to expose Mr. Norris's hypocrisy:
There have been many of us who have passionately opposed an Obama election, but you don't see us protesting in the streets, crying out unfair – rather we are submitting to a democratic process and now asking how we can support "our" president.
It is obvious that Mr. Norris doesn't pay attention to the publication in which his article appears, World Net Daily. Check out the headlines of the articles featured today in World Net Daily:
Communist Party strategist maps out Obama's agenda
Powerful unions, socialized medicine 1st crucial steps for long-term plans
'Constitutional crisis' looming over Obama's birth location
Alan Keyes lawsuit warns America may see 'usurper' in Oval Office
The enemy within (Editor's note - Yes this is another piece comparing Obama to Hitler)
Obama blockbuster: 'Audacity of Deceit' $4.95 today!
Save $21 on stunning blueprint for the new White House agenda
Obama camp: Lawsuits by citizens are 'garbage
'Legal challenges spring up across U.S., demand proof of eligibility for office
So much for supporting the new president. If Chuck Norris and his cohorts support Obama, then I'm secretly Paris Hilton undercover as a black gay man in order to write a Harvard thesis on racism and quantum physics.
Mr. Norris, do everyone a favor. Go back to making testosteroned driven television dramas and leave the deception to Peter, Matt, Janet, and company.
At least when they do it, they don't automatically come out looking like a horse's ass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)