Religious right trying to get troops to undermine DADT repeal

You know the religious right just won't let the DADT repeal die without a fight. The queen of irrelevancy, Elaine Donnelly is trying a new tactic:

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, says she has already heard from a number of service members who are upset that the lame-duck session of the 111th Congress passed a bill to repeal the 1993 law banning homosexuals from military service. President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen must still certify that the new law will not adversely affect troop morale and unit cohesion.

It is unfortunate, says Donnelly, that military personnel are not permitted to speak freely about the issue. Consequently, she has created a special area on her website for service members to express their concerns about the new policy.

"There is a location on the site called 'Confidential Contact.' Anyone can go there," she explains. "There is a place there to indicate military service. We never repeat names and we can convey messages on behalf of anyone on active duty service to anyone in Congress. They can also directly write their own member of Congress, but there are some issues that are bigger than individuals.

And I will bet a steak dinner on what happens next. Donnelly's site will get several (anonymous of course) comments magically mirroring religious right talking points regarding why DADT shouldn't be repealed.

I bet we will even hear nonsense from some "unknown" military men and women about how they are being "sexually harassed" by gay and lesbian troops and how their commanding are either looking the other way or siding with gay and lesbian troops.

Or even worse, they will claim that the commanding officers are the gay and lesbians doing the harassing.

And all of this will lead to a "coincidental" hearing about the so-called hidden dangers of getting rid of DADT.

Which of course will lead to a vote by House Republicans to somehow stop or slow down the implementation of DADT's repeal.

It's a variation of the "get rid of Planned Parenthood" plan - tacky but effective.

A rabid homophobe steps away from 'retirement' and other Monday midday news briefs

Scott Lively Warns of “Outbreak of Homosexuality” In Moldova, Part of a “Secret Plan By the Homosexual Powers of the EU” - A bloodsucking homophobic snake never retires, no matter how many times he claims to.

Santorum: Obama Will "Eviscerate" Freedom By Supporting Gay Rights - So much santorum dripping from one person has to be unhealthy.

Gay Legislators Having Impact In Marriage Debates - Some good news for a change.

Boehner launches effort to defend gay-marriage ban - Surprising NO ONE. But I am intrigued to learn just how will Boehner and company try to defend this monstrosity.

The truth about African-American voters and gay marriage

 A recent piece in The Root breaks down - or rather - tears apart assumptions about the African-American community and the subject of gay marriage:

According to The Root:

A report indicates that black voters who don't support same-sex marriage will vote for candidates who do. This spells opportunity for white LGBT activists, if they're willing to take heed.

Basically the article seems to be saying that it's not that the black community does or doesn't support gay marriage, it's just that it's not on the top of the list of concerns to many black voters:

Focused far more on job creation, health care and education than on gay marriage, black voters aren't supporting conservative candidates simply because they oppose LGBT rights. Instead, they are voting for progressive pro-LGBT candidates -- despite disagreeing with their pro-LGBT platforms.


"The truth is, we just don't see blacks voting against a candidate based on [his or her] support of gay marriage," says Patrick Egan, assistant professor of politics and public policy at New York University. "We actually don't see this becoming an important issue for voters of any race."

Lastly, the article gives a little advice to those pressing for gay marriage - something which many lgbts of color have been saying for the longest - don't take the black voter for granted because of assumptions. Include black voices in your messaging:

As in Maine's successful 2009 marriage-equality repeal, national white LGBT leaders will undoubtedly "parachute" into Maryland to help direct the ballot battle. But this time, black voters -- and leaders -- must take central roles in defining the battle's narrative.

This was the case in the successful 2010 campaign to secure marriage equality in Washington, D.C.; pro-LGBT black voices and faces must now be front and center if a similar campaign comes to Maryland. And white LGBT leaders will have to step aside and let this happen.

"One of the reasons the D.C. campaign was so successful is that black voters -- including religious voters -- saw folks like themselves supporting marriage equality," explains Lanae Erickson, deputy director of the Culture Initiative at the Third Way. "Just as important: Many [white] LGBT leaders went out of their way to ensure that these [black] activists were heard."

Maggie Gallagher addresses NOM's claim about gay marriage and children

In my last post, I talked about National Organization for Marriage's Maggie Gallagher attempt at covering her tracks in regards to claims of racism she lodged against those angry at Maryland legislator Sam Arora.

Gallagher had initially implied that the anger of the lgbt community over Arora's shift from supporting gay marriage was due to racism. However, this was not the case. Lgbt anger at Arora dealt with his backtracking on gay marriage even after he campaigned for and supported the issue.

In the midst of her efforts to wipe away her initial claim, Gallagher emailed me. I took that opportunity to ask her for a response on another matter regarding NOM's claim that gay marriage was being "taught" to kindergartners in Massachusetts because of that state's law allowing gay marriage.

The Pulitizer-Prize winning site PolitiFact had called NOM out in February after investigating and finding this claim to be false. However, NOM continued to push the claim, even to the point of sending out mailers last week in Maryland saying the following:

Massachusetts public schools teach kid as young as kindergartners about gay marriage. Parents have no legal right to object!

This was the initial claim - word for word - which PolitiFact said was false.

Gallagher's response to me was as follows:

Contact Brian Brown for NOM's response.

But personally I think deciding the two instances Politifacts says were offered (I don't know the details only what PolitiFActs claims happened) were insufficient might justify a finding of "unproven" but hardly shows it is "false."

Moreover in the court cases surrounding these incidents, all the major gay marriage groups argued that in fact parents have no right to prevent their children from being exposed to gay marriage in public schools.

We have never claimed the law will require teaching about gay marriage. We have only said that once it is the law, it will be taught in public schools.

In fact don't you think it ought to be?

Now in all honesty, there should be some fairness to Gallagher there. She is the Chairman of the Board at NOM, and not the operational CEO.

But still her answer to my response leaves a lot to be desired. It does appear to be misleading.

Arora controversy has National Organization for Marriage scrambling for cover

The situation with Maryland delegate Sam Arora which nearly derailed gay marriage in Maryland is fastly blowing up in the face of the National Organization for Marriage, the organization trying to prevent gay marriage from taking place.

Arora is the Maryland legislator first supported the gay marriage bill. He campaigned on it, raised money because of it, and engaged in discussions with lgbt families in terms of why this bill is important.

And for while he decided, even after all of this and publicly giving his support to the bill, to change his mind and vote against it.

Arora faced a serious firestorm from voters who felt betrayed, angry, and hurt at his shift. Because of this, he changed his mind again and said he will vote for the bill, while emphasizing that the question of gay marriage in Maryland should be the subject of a referendum.

Into this controversy stepped Maggie Gallagher, head of NOM, via a post on the organization's blog during Arora's initial change:

First, if Sam Arora is wavering under this media firestorm, he must be hearing from hundreds of constituents who do not want him to vote for gay marriage.

Secondly, as someone married to an Indian-American, I find it interesting that the gay marriage machine appears to be re-focusing its attacks from Black Democrats who oppose gay marriage to an easier target: Indian-Americans.

Tiffany Alston appears now to be off the hook regardless of how she votes.

Supporters of the Maryland gay marriage bill seized on Gallagher's comment, claiming that she was unfairly accusing those angry Arora of being racists. And they had a point. Nowhere in her post did Gallagher address the simple fact that the ire at Arora was solely because of his backtracking of an issue which played such a central part in his election.

Know Your LGBT History - Black Shampoo

To paraphrase Jane Fonda, there are a lot of things to say about the happenings of this week. But this isn't the time to say them.

What it's time for another segment of my Know Your LGBT History posts.

I apologize for today's post because it's as bad as last week's. However, again I reiterate how important it is for the lgbt community to understand how far we have come concerning images of ourselves on television and movies.

Today's post is about a little-seen blaxploitation movie entitled Black Shampoo (1976). Like many other blaxploitation movies (i.e. Blackenstein, Dr. Black and Mr. Hyde, Blacula) Black Shampoo is supposed to be a black version of a more widely seen movie.

In this case, it is Warren Beatty's movie Shampoo.

However this version has less to do with angst and relationships and more to do with violence and the glorification of the stereotype of the "big black buck."

John Daniels (who never had a starring role after this one because his acting was abominable) stars as the owner of a hair salon whose touch makes women so crazy that he generally ends up doing more than their hair, if you get my drift.

The conflict comes when he is trying to rescue his receptionist from the mob.

For the purposes of this blog, let's focus on one of his assistants, Artie. Artie is a stereotypical gay man - weak, flighty, and subject to all sort of abuse.

Naturally he also a living version of "Chekov's gun," in that you just know that he is only in the movie for something awful to happen to him. And it does at 1:14 of this trailer.

My gosh, we have come a looooong way:



Past Know Your LGBT History Postings:

Religious right group stoops to tacky images and other Friday midday news briefs

CWA: Obama the "Despot" is Discriminating Against Americans by Not Defending DOMA - It's so hard to take the religious right group Concerned Women for America seriously when they push drivel like this with pictures like the following:

And in other news:

Liz Hurley to play bisexual villainess in Wonder Woman reboot - That ought to be interesting.

Clashes Pit Parents vs. Gay-Friendly Curriculums in Schools - Cause lgbts don't have children attending America's schools. Yes that was sarcasm.

Harding University Attempts To Silence Gay Students’ Voices - Hot mess happenings at Harding University.

Gingrich Secured $200,000 For Iowa Judge Recall Campaign - These were the judges who overruled Iowa's law against gay marriage. I wonder how Gringrich would have felt if those judges supported adultery. Probably would have thrown them a fundraiser.