The Liberty Counsel's ridiculous defense of Florida's gay adoption ban
Well that didn't take long.
I was waiting for a religious right group to answer back to yesterday's ruling in Miami,FL that the state prohibition on gay adoption was unconstitutional.
And leave it to the Liberty Counsel to push the talking points that will most likely been seen on The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes as well as World Net Daily, One News Now and everywhere else that the conservative/religious right echo chamber resonate. I am going to point out the parts I found "interesting":
Miami, FL – Today, an activist Miami State Court Judge ruled that a 1977 Florida law that bans homosexual adoption is unconstitutional. (First thing's first. Smear the judge for not ruling the way Liberty Counsel felt she should. According to the Liberty Counsel, she didn't rule objectively. Somebody put roots on her.)
Earlier this month voters in Arkansas passed a law which bans unmarried heterosexuals and homosexuals from adopting children. (Notice that turn of phrase. In legitimate articles, I have read this phrase to say "voters in Arkansas passed a law which bans unmarried couples, whether they be heterosexual or gay, from adopting children." The way the Liberty Counsel claims, it looks like the Arkansas law bans gays from adopting outright.)
In September, the Kentucky Court of Appeals strongly rebuked an activist lower family court for permitting a lesbian woman to illegally “adopt” her female companion’s child, in clear violation of both Kentucky law and the Kentucky Constitution. The higher court reaffirmed that in Kentucky, stepparent adoptions are only legal when the stepparent is married to a biological parent and that same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. (This is true. The Kentucky Court of Appeals did say that stepparent adoptions are allowed only when the stepmother or father is married to the biological parent. But that has nothing to do with the Florida case. The Florida case deals with Frank Gill, a man who wanted to adopt two foster childen he had been raising for four years.)
Most states ban homosexual adoption through legislation, regulation, or court precedent. These states ban adoption by homosexuals because the best interest of children is served by placing them in homes with a mom and a dad or where there is a likelihood of a mom and a dad. A homosexual home automatically excludes one gender, either the mom or the dad. Only a handful of states actually permit homosexual adoption. (The big lie!!! In most states, the orientation of the potential adoptive parent is not an issue i.e. the state does not ask about orientation. Florida was the only state that outright banned gay adoption. However some states may be moving the way of Arkansas and making it difficult for lgbt couples to adopt children. One guess which organization will be helping to nudge them along.)
There is a vague mention of "studies" that show that the best place for a child is in a home with a mother and father.
This talking point is faulty for two reasons - 1. How many of these "studies" measured heterosexual households to same-sex households? From what I understand, none did.
2. Also, the talking point does not address the fact that across the nation, there is a waiting list filled with children waiting to be adopted. The notion that "children do best in a home with a mother and a father" is an empty talking point because it does not address the fact that these "homes" are not present to adopt these children.
Also - I noticed how the Liberty Counsel omitted the George A. Rekers testimony, probably because it was embarrassing to their side. Rekers testified for the ban and said that he would look into banning adoption for Native Americans.
Expect the religious right to try and not mention Rekers's testimony. Don't let them get away with it.
Now everyone can get on with their holiday travels and the like. Have a happy Thanksgiving!
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Florida's ban on gay adoption declared unconstitutional!!!!!!!!!!
Well what do you expect when you have such "experts" like George A. Rekers against it.
The story is here.
I am just waiting for the anti-gay industry/religious right to try and spin this one.
Yes boys and girls, just try and say that gays and lesbians should not adopt children. Especially after that remark from Rekers about Native Americans:
(Rekers) said he would also consider banning Native Americans from adopting because research shows that they are also at much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse. ''They would tend to hang around each other,'' Rekers testified. ``So the children would be around a lot of other Native Americans who are . . . doing the same sorts of things.''
Monday, November 24, 2008
We need to clarify the lies about the Proposition 8 'protests'
I wrote this as a sort of itemization of claims by the religious right. The unfortunate thing is that we don't have a network of pundits or shows (i.e. Fox network) to set the story straight.
There have been claims that due to the Proposition 8 vote, the gay community has undergone a coordinated plan of violence against those who voted for the law.
Senator Mike Huckabee, former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, syndicated columnists such as Michelle Malkin and Thomas Sowell, and religious right organizations have referenced incidents that according to them, proves this assertion.
But all of these individuals are incorrect. The incidents in question have been either exaggerated or distorted.
Whatever the case may be, the incidents in question are isolated, and certainly are not indicative of the needs and desires of the gay community. However, for the sake of clarity, the complete story behind each incident must be given:
Distortion - For no particular reason other than their hatred, gays attacked a 69-year-old woman and ripped a styrofoam cross from her hand
Truth - The woman in question, Phyllis Burgess, is infamous in her area for invading gay events such pride festivals. While she has a right to attend, her behavior while at these events are clearly designed to draw attention and evoke a response. The incident in question had to do with her attending a silent protest over the passage of Proposition 8. People attending were asked to ignore her. However as television cameras appeared, she made it a point to push her way in the middle of the crowd, allegedly knocking over a disabled man. That only increased the volatility of the situation.
Source - Mike Tidmus
Distortion - A group invaded a Michigan church, pulled a fire alarm and disrupted services by taking over the pulpit, shouting obscenities in front of children, and engaging in all around nasty tactics.
Truth - According to area police, the church exaggerated the incident. No fire alarm was pulled. In addition, no one from the church told them about alleged events happening in the church.
Source - Michigan Messenger
Distortion: Members of the gay community mailed white powder to Mormon temples in Utah
Truth: It has not been determined who mailed the white powder (later to see shown as not dangerous) to the temples. While there may be reason to suspect, suspicion itself is not enough. Those who pushed this lie automatically blamed the gay community without proof.
Certainly the Proposition 8 vote was a highly emotional situation and no one is justifying any violence by anyone on either side of the issue.
But to exaggerate incidents and attempt to link them as a sort of plan by the gay community is incorrect. For the most part, the protests (especially in California) have been peaceful.
This is not the first time the religious right have taken unrelated incidents and tried to link them as some sort of “gay conspiracy to either hurt or silence Christians.”
In 2004, members of the group Repent America were arrested for during a pride parade in Pennsylvania. Religious right groups inaccurately claimed that they were arrested for “merely preaching the Gospel.” A federal court later found that members “insulted individual attendees, blocked access to vendors, and disobeyed direct orders from the police, who were trying to preserve order and keep the peace.” The police arrested the protesters only after “their presence disrupted public order.”
In 2005, parent David Parker was arrested at his son’s school in Massachusetts for trespassing. He and religious right groups inaccurately claimed that he was merely trying to shield his son from being “indoctrinated into homosexuality.” However Parker orchestrated the entire incident because he was upset over his son bringing home a book about differing families which contained only one family of a same sex nature.
In 2007, the religious right inaccurately claimed that the city of Oakland was discriminating against its Christian employees. However the case dealt with city officials merely telling a group of Christian employees to stop harassing a lesbian co-worker with the flyers of their religious organization.
It is clear that the religious right are scared of what positive impact an Obama Administration would have for the gay community. Therefore they are preparing distorted anecdotal evidence in an effort to hinder pro-gay legislation.
These specious tactics are unworthy of those who would call themselves Americans as well as Christians.
Note - I know I have omitted the incident in Castro but I am presently researching it via Mike Tidmus and Box Turtle Bulletin.
I wrote this as a sort of itemization of claims by the religious right. The unfortunate thing is that we don't have a network of pundits or shows (i.e. Fox network) to set the story straight.
There have been claims that due to the Proposition 8 vote, the gay community has undergone a coordinated plan of violence against those who voted for the law.
Senator Mike Huckabee, former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, syndicated columnists such as Michelle Malkin and Thomas Sowell, and religious right organizations have referenced incidents that according to them, proves this assertion.
But all of these individuals are incorrect. The incidents in question have been either exaggerated or distorted.
Whatever the case may be, the incidents in question are isolated, and certainly are not indicative of the needs and desires of the gay community. However, for the sake of clarity, the complete story behind each incident must be given:
Distortion - For no particular reason other than their hatred, gays attacked a 69-year-old woman and ripped a styrofoam cross from her hand
Truth - The woman in question, Phyllis Burgess, is infamous in her area for invading gay events such pride festivals. While she has a right to attend, her behavior while at these events are clearly designed to draw attention and evoke a response. The incident in question had to do with her attending a silent protest over the passage of Proposition 8. People attending were asked to ignore her. However as television cameras appeared, she made it a point to push her way in the middle of the crowd, allegedly knocking over a disabled man. That only increased the volatility of the situation.
Source - Mike Tidmus
Distortion - A group invaded a Michigan church, pulled a fire alarm and disrupted services by taking over the pulpit, shouting obscenities in front of children, and engaging in all around nasty tactics.
Truth - According to area police, the church exaggerated the incident. No fire alarm was pulled. In addition, no one from the church told them about alleged events happening in the church.
Source - Michigan Messenger
Distortion: Members of the gay community mailed white powder to Mormon temples in Utah
Truth: It has not been determined who mailed the white powder (later to see shown as not dangerous) to the temples. While there may be reason to suspect, suspicion itself is not enough. Those who pushed this lie automatically blamed the gay community without proof.
Certainly the Proposition 8 vote was a highly emotional situation and no one is justifying any violence by anyone on either side of the issue.
But to exaggerate incidents and attempt to link them as a sort of plan by the gay community is incorrect. For the most part, the protests (especially in California) have been peaceful.
This is not the first time the religious right have taken unrelated incidents and tried to link them as some sort of “gay conspiracy to either hurt or silence Christians.”
In 2004, members of the group Repent America were arrested for during a pride parade in Pennsylvania. Religious right groups inaccurately claimed that they were arrested for “merely preaching the Gospel.” A federal court later found that members “insulted individual attendees, blocked access to vendors, and disobeyed direct orders from the police, who were trying to preserve order and keep the peace.” The police arrested the protesters only after “their presence disrupted public order.”
In 2005, parent David Parker was arrested at his son’s school in Massachusetts for trespassing. He and religious right groups inaccurately claimed that he was merely trying to shield his son from being “indoctrinated into homosexuality.” However Parker orchestrated the entire incident because he was upset over his son bringing home a book about differing families which contained only one family of a same sex nature.
In 2007, the religious right inaccurately claimed that the city of Oakland was discriminating against its Christian employees. However the case dealt with city officials merely telling a group of Christian employees to stop harassing a lesbian co-worker with the flyers of their religious organization.
It is clear that the religious right are scared of what positive impact an Obama Administration would have for the gay community. Therefore they are preparing distorted anecdotal evidence in an effort to hinder pro-gay legislation.
These specious tactics are unworthy of those who would call themselves Americans as well as Christians.
Note - I know I have omitted the incident in Castro but I am presently researching it via Mike Tidmus and Box Turtle Bulletin.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
'Pro-family' phony would consider banning Native Americans from adopting children
George Rekers considers himself a pro-family expert. He is a retired professor at the University of South Carolina who taught neuropsychiatry and behavioral science.
He also was a member of the founding board of the Family Research Council. In addition, he travels from state to state giving "expert testimony" on the subject of gay adoption.
Rekers was an expert witness in a 2004 case involving gay adoption in Arkansas. The state had banned gays from adopting in 1999. In January 2005, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy White ruled against the state of Arkansas. Furthermore, he called Rekers's testimony "extremely suspect." He also accused Rekers of testifying solely for promoting his "own personal agenda."
Of course we all know what that decision led to - one of the ballot initiatives that got us all upset .
Last week, Rekers was in Florida testifying in a case of a gay man wishing to adopt a 4-year-old boy and his 8-year-old brother.
Florida is the only state that bans all gay people from adopting. This fall, a Circuit Court judge in Key West declared Florida's ban unconstitutional, although the decision is unlikely to hold much sway because it was not appealed to a higher court. Since the state is fighting the gay man's attempt to adopt the two boys, a decision by the judge here to declare the law unconstitutional would be of far greater consequence (paragraph gleaned from the Miami Herald).
That being the case, the state of Florida called Rekers as an "expert witness" on the subject.
According the Miami Herald:
Gay men and lesbians have two to four times the likelihood of suffering from major depression, anxiety or substance abuse, based on several national studies, Rekers testified. Gay men, he said, are four times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide.
Depressed people, Rekers said, ''are less consistent in their parenting, less positive [and] have higher rates of neglecting child needs.'' Gay people, he added, ``would have less capability of providing the kind of nurturing and secure emotional environment for children.''
. . . Rekers said he would, in fact, favor banning anyone from adopting who had more than 18 ''sex partners'' during a lifetime. ''I think that would be a very good social policy,'' he said in a deposition.
He said he would also consider banning Native Americans from adopting because research shows that they are also at much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse. ''They would tend to hang around each other,'' Rekers testified. ``So the children would be around a lot of other Native Americans who are . . . doing the same sorts of things.''
Of course Rekers omitted the fact that the studies in question never said that the lgbt orientation was the reason behind the depression, anxiety, and substance abuse, but rather the effects of having to deal with a homophobic society. And yes I could make a comment about his opinion of sexually active individuals.
I think it's more telling to focus on Rekers's bizarre assessment of the Native American community.
I see it as a huge Freudian slip not only on his part but on the part of those who have been touting the "pro-family" line all of these years.
What do you think?
UPDATE - Box Turtle Bulletin has added more details to this story. Apparently Rekers and the other "expert" who testified, Bob Schumm, are users of work from discredited researcher Paul Cameron.
This is exactly one of the points I was making in my entry, Message to the Religious Right:
. . . 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 . . .
George Rekers considers himself a pro-family expert. He is a retired professor at the University of South Carolina who taught neuropsychiatry and behavioral science.
He also was a member of the founding board of the Family Research Council. In addition, he travels from state to state giving "expert testimony" on the subject of gay adoption.
Rekers was an expert witness in a 2004 case involving gay adoption in Arkansas. The state had banned gays from adopting in 1999. In January 2005, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy White ruled against the state of Arkansas. Furthermore, he called Rekers's testimony "extremely suspect." He also accused Rekers of testifying solely for promoting his "own personal agenda."
Of course we all know what that decision led to - one of the ballot initiatives that got us all upset .
Last week, Rekers was in Florida testifying in a case of a gay man wishing to adopt a 4-year-old boy and his 8-year-old brother.
Florida is the only state that bans all gay people from adopting. This fall, a Circuit Court judge in Key West declared Florida's ban unconstitutional, although the decision is unlikely to hold much sway because it was not appealed to a higher court. Since the state is fighting the gay man's attempt to adopt the two boys, a decision by the judge here to declare the law unconstitutional would be of far greater consequence (paragraph gleaned from the Miami Herald).
That being the case, the state of Florida called Rekers as an "expert witness" on the subject.
According the Miami Herald:
Gay men and lesbians have two to four times the likelihood of suffering from major depression, anxiety or substance abuse, based on several national studies, Rekers testified. Gay men, he said, are four times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide.
Depressed people, Rekers said, ''are less consistent in their parenting, less positive [and] have higher rates of neglecting child needs.'' Gay people, he added, ``would have less capability of providing the kind of nurturing and secure emotional environment for children.''
. . . Rekers said he would, in fact, favor banning anyone from adopting who had more than 18 ''sex partners'' during a lifetime. ''I think that would be a very good social policy,'' he said in a deposition.
He said he would also consider banning Native Americans from adopting because research shows that they are also at much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse. ''They would tend to hang around each other,'' Rekers testified. ``So the children would be around a lot of other Native Americans who are . . . doing the same sorts of things.''
Of course Rekers omitted the fact that the studies in question never said that the lgbt orientation was the reason behind the depression, anxiety, and substance abuse, but rather the effects of having to deal with a homophobic society. And yes I could make a comment about his opinion of sexually active individuals.
I think it's more telling to focus on Rekers's bizarre assessment of the Native American community.
I see it as a huge Freudian slip not only on his part but on the part of those who have been touting the "pro-family" line all of these years.
What do you think?
UPDATE - Box Turtle Bulletin has added more details to this story. Apparently Rekers and the other "expert" who testified, Bob Schumm, are users of work from discredited researcher Paul Cameron.
This is exactly one of the points I was making in my entry, Message to the Religious Right:
. . . 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 . . .
Saturday, November 22, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)