World AIDS Day - Good and Bad
(Editor's note - I redid this blog post because I wasn't satisfied with how it was written. It was a busy day and plus, I hate Mondays.)
I just came back from a very moving World AIDS Day ceremony at the South Carolina State House.
This state has unfortunately bore a huge brunt of the AIDS virus and I commend everyone who fight every day to stop this disease.
While there are good things about this day and how the community comes together, there are also bad things.
You know that I speak of our friend Peter LaBarbera and his friend, the phony "gay expert" Linda Harvey.
This is the nonsense LaBarbera has on his page:
SHUT DOWN THESE PERVERSION CENTERS? With 300,000 men dead from AIDS due to homosexual sex, why are homosexual bathhouses and sex clubs flourishing in the United States? At left is an ad in a homosexual newspaper for the Crew Club, a Washington, D.C.-based bathhouse where men go to commit anonymous sodomies with other men (our editorial comment is in red). It’s time for American AIDS policy to stop indulging and encouraging male homosexual behavior, which is one of the main risk factors of HIV/AIDS.
Of course this comes with a huge picture of a gay steamroom ad.
I guess I should be happy that LaBarbera has toned it down and not shown any explicit sex.
And he accompanies that drivel with a piece by Harvey about HIV:
December 1 marks the annual observance of “World AIDS Day.” While we should rightfully mourn the passing of so many victims, let’s get real about what can be done to prevent future death and disability, not to mention the expenditure of billions of dollars.
In short, we need to recognize that HIV/AIDS is largely a male homosexual disease in the U.S., and it is highly preventable.
Okay let's stop there. First of all, Harvey is NOT an expert of anything. She is a former ad executive who feels that God is telling her to stop homosexuality.
George A. Rekers is more of an expert than she is and that is only because he has degrees (if not knowledge) .
And then there is that problem of stigmatization:
It’s time for American AIDS policy to stop indulging and encouraging male homosexual behavior, which is one of the main risk factors of HIV/AIDS.
Notice that LaBarbera doesn't say a word about unsafe sex, but "male homosexual behavior."
LGBT behavior does not cause HIV/AIDS. Unsafe sex does, which means you can catch it regardless of whether you are gay or straight.
Harvey claims that according to the CDC, gay men are the highest at risk group to catch HIV.
Well what she is doing is contributing to the problem.
When HIV/AIDS first came into prominence in the 80s, a lot of gay men took good prevention advice as yet another attempt to stigmatize the gay community. And why? Because of people like Anita Bryant, Jerry Falwell and the rest who constantly dehumanized them in different ways.
Because of how they were persecuted on their jobs, in their families, and neighborhoods for being gay.
So how in the world can LaBarbera and Harvey actually try to claim credibility when they are contributing to this dehumanization and stigma? On her webpage, Harvey repeats every Paul Cameronesque lie about gay men from the short life span to the alleged high level of pedophilia.
And if anti-gay activism is ever included in a museum, LaBarbera should have his own wing.
If LaBarbera and Harvey are serious about fighting HIV/AIDS, might I suggest they look at themselves and their behavior.
Perhaps Harvey should eliminate some of the wild things she has said about gays molesting children from her webpage. Perhaps LaBarbera should start by not taking pictures at street fairs, but actually trying to meet gay families. Perhaps he should eliminate that section of his webpage called "Victims of Homosexual Murderers."
Maybe a total reorganization of his webpage would be in order.
Maybe LaBarbera and Harvey should try to help and stop the problem instead of contributing to it for a change.
Gay Adoption and a Sign of the Apocalypse - Town Hall feature pro-gay column
When I saw this column in the conservative Town Hall yesterday, I looked outside my door. I wanted to see what the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse looked like:
Gay Adoption: The Real Agenda
Don't be alarmed. It's a pro-gay article through and through:
The Florida ban is simple and stark. It says, in effect, that a child may not be adopted by gays even when the adoption is in the best interest of the child . That's the main reason the court overturned it: It violates the rights of children and "causes harm to the children it is meant to protect."
Those who want to keep gays from adopting think that's a small price to pay for blocking the "homosexual agenda." But then, they're not the ones who will be paying it.
Granted, the Freepers are going nuts over this (and not in a good way), but that's okay.
Anything that makes them angry must be a good thing.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Florida paid a pretty penny for discredited work against gay adoption
Editor's note - May, 5, 2010 - In light of recent developments regarding Rekers and a male escort, it has come out that he (and a colleague- Walter Schum) were actually paid $87,000 to testify against gay adoption.
According to court records, the state of Florida paid former University of South Carolina professor George A. Rekers a $60,000 retainer to testify for the gay adoption ban.
Ironically, according to the same court documents, it is clear that Rekers’ testimony didn’t help the state’s case.
Court documents said:
Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy.
Despite all of this, organizations on the right maligned Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman for her decision, calling her an “activist judge.”
Matt Staver of the Liberty Counsel said:
"This judge is merely an ideological activist, and ideological activists have no reason to don a black robe and sit behind a bench and pontificate. This judge's decision should be overturned, and moreover, this judge should be voted out of office.”
Moreover, comments on right-wing sites such as One News Now and Free Republic questioned not only Lederman’s objectivity, but her sexual orientation in lurid terms.
The American Civil Liberties Union, in an excerpt of proposed findings to the court, criticized the state of Florida for using Rekers as an expert witness even after he had been discredited in a similar Arkansas case involving gay adoption.
In 2005, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy White ruled that the state did not have justifiable grounds to keep gays from adopting children.
The Arkansas court specifically said that “Dr. Rekers’ willingness to prioritize his personal beliefs over his functions as an expert provider of fact rendered his testimony extremely suspect and little, if any, assistance to the court” and "Dr. Rekers' personal agenda caused him to have inconsistent testimony on several issues."
That ruling led to a ballot initiative that was passed in November barring unmarried heterosexual and gay couples from adopting children.
Rekers would later sue the state of Arkansas for $200,00 for his testimony but settled out of court for $60,000.
About Rekers's testimony, the ACLU said, "The fact that the State resorted to hiring Dr. Rekers - and paying him a $60,000 retainer - despite the fact that he had already been severly discredited by another court in a similar case suggests an absence of credible experts who would testify in support of the prohibition against adoption by gay people."
What happened in Florida is nothing new. For years the religious right/anti-gay industry have brought in phony experts to push for anti-gay laws or stop the passage of pro-gay laws. If Lederman’s criticisms of Rekers sound familiar to you, then you obviously have read opinions about Paul Cameron. The two are almost interchangeable in their lies about the gay community.
According to a 1994 OutFront magazine article, the then Colorado Attorney General Gail Norton paid Paul Cameron over $15,000 in an effort to defend the state’s newly passed law outlawing gay rights ordinances. When Norton learned of Cameron’s dubious reputation, she did not use him or his “research.”
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the law in the same year.
According to court records, the state of Florida paid former University of South Carolina professor George A. Rekers a $60,000 retainer to testify for the gay adoption ban.
Ironically, according to the same court documents, it is clear that Rekers’ testimony didn’t help the state’s case.
Court documents said:
Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy.
Despite all of this, organizations on the right maligned Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman for her decision, calling her an “activist judge.”
Matt Staver of the Liberty Counsel said:
"This judge is merely an ideological activist, and ideological activists have no reason to don a black robe and sit behind a bench and pontificate. This judge's decision should be overturned, and moreover, this judge should be voted out of office.”
Moreover, comments on right-wing sites such as One News Now and Free Republic questioned not only Lederman’s objectivity, but her sexual orientation in lurid terms.
The American Civil Liberties Union, in an excerpt of proposed findings to the court, criticized the state of Florida for using Rekers as an expert witness even after he had been discredited in a similar Arkansas case involving gay adoption.
In 2005, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy White ruled that the state did not have justifiable grounds to keep gays from adopting children.
The Arkansas court specifically said that “Dr. Rekers’ willingness to prioritize his personal beliefs over his functions as an expert provider of fact rendered his testimony extremely suspect and little, if any, assistance to the court” and "Dr. Rekers' personal agenda caused him to have inconsistent testimony on several issues."
That ruling led to a ballot initiative that was passed in November barring unmarried heterosexual and gay couples from adopting children.
Rekers would later sue the state of Arkansas for $200,00 for his testimony but settled out of court for $60,000.
About Rekers's testimony, the ACLU said, "The fact that the State resorted to hiring Dr. Rekers - and paying him a $60,000 retainer - despite the fact that he had already been severly discredited by another court in a similar case suggests an absence of credible experts who would testify in support of the prohibition against adoption by gay people."
What happened in Florida is nothing new. For years the religious right/anti-gay industry have brought in phony experts to push for anti-gay laws or stop the passage of pro-gay laws. If Lederman’s criticisms of Rekers sound familiar to you, then you obviously have read opinions about Paul Cameron. The two are almost interchangeable in their lies about the gay community.
According to a 1994 OutFront magazine article, the then Colorado Attorney General Gail Norton paid Paul Cameron over $15,000 in an effort to defend the state’s newly passed law outlawing gay rights ordinances. When Norton learned of Cameron’s dubious reputation, she did not use him or his “research.”
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the law in the same year.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
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!
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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)