AFA teams up with Ugandan anti-gay bill supporter against pro-lgbt legislation

Just when I thought I had seen it all from the American Family Association's One News Now, the phony news service finds new ways to astound me with its lack of judgment and good taste.

Children in California are already required to learn about the social contributions of African-Americans, women, Asians, Native Americans, and a host of other groups. And a new bill will include lgbts to that list.

The bill would also prohibit prevent school officials to make negative comments about lgbts, which is nothing out of the unusual because schools are already prohibited from adopting classroom material which reflect negatively on anyone's race, sex, color, creed, disability, national origin or ancestry.

However, as we've seen with Obama's anti-bullying initiative, some from the religious right feel that lgbts shouldn't be respected like other groups. In this case, One News Now pushed a one-sided hatchet job against the California bill, which isn't a surprise.

It's who the publication decided to quote as its only source for the story which is a shock:

Dr. Scott Lively, president of Defend the Family International, tells OneNewsNow that now is the time for Christians to voice their concern.

"And politics is a part of every church, it's part of every family -- and frankly, the reason we're suffering the consequences that we are is because the church has abdicated its responsibilities to be stewards of civil society."

The bill would mandate that teachers, textbooks, and materials present a positive image of the LGBT lifestyle.

"This isn't about tolerance. This isn't even about acceptance," Lively emphasizes. "This is about celebration and even goes further than that -- the next step after that is forced acceptance; you're coerced into being pro-gay."

This is the same Scott Lively who went to Uganda in 2009 and spread a mess of lies about lgbts. These lies created a aura of persecution which led to the vicious murder of gay activist David Kato, not to mention that dreadful "Kill the gays" bill which may be debated on as recent as this week.

This is the same Scott Lively who in the past has:

helped write a highly discredited book which claimed that the Nazi Party was the creation of the gays in Germany,

tried to sanitize the discredited junk science of Paul Cameron, 

blamed lgbts in America and Europe for Uganda's ugly homophobic bill rather than the lies he and others spread there, and 

advocated "criminalizing homosexuality"as far back as 2007. In a piece entitled Letter to the Russian People, Lively had this to say:

My philosophy is to leave homosexuals alone if they keep their lifestyle private, and not to force them into therapy if they don't want it. However, homosexuality is destructive to individuals and to society and it should never publicly promoted. The easiest way to discourage gay pride parades and other homosexual advocacy is to make such activity illegal in the interest of public health and morality.

So this man is the person whom One News Now felt is a reliable source that a pro-lgbt bill in California is a danger?

It certainly tells a lot about the supposed Christian mindset of One News Now, doesn't it? Especially in light of the fact that the publication didn't even make mention of Lively's "work" in Uganda.

Seems to me that One News Now just made the case for the California bill. If Lively opposes it, then it must be a good thing.

Related posts:

Scott Lively's homophobia in living and repulsive color

Did Scott Lively's homophobic 'nuclear bomb' cause a death in Uganda?

Homophobe tries to play Joan of Arc when he really should try out for Lady MacBeth

Family Research Council doesn't want lgbt students protected from bullying

Count the anti-gay hate group Family Research Council as another religious right entity speaking against President Obama's anti-bullying initiative:

Tom McClusky, vice president of Government Affairs at the Christian Conservative group Family Research Council (FRC), has attacked President Barack Obama's anti-bullying campaign as an attempt to force anti-gay students “in the closet.”

. . . “It's ironic that when the President was trying to push this bullying program that he cited that he was once bullied as a child, because that's exactly what his policies are leading to, is bullying by the federal government and by a homosexual agenda that seeks to make children hide their Christianity and their religion in the closet and to silence those who would speak out against what they don't believe,” McClusky said.

In reality, the President's initiative doesn't exclude anyone but it does pay special attention to the bullying of lgbt students. And this is because:

Young LGBT people may be more at-risk for bullying. Compared to their heterosexual peers, some LGBT kids, teens and young adults are at increased risk for bullying, teasing, harassment, physical assault, and suicide-related behaviors.

Over a ten-year period more than 7,000 LGBT middle and high school students (aged 13-21), were surveyed. The results were published in The 2009 National School Climate Survey. The survey found that in the preceding year, because of their sexual orientation:

• Eight in ten LGBT students had been verbally harassed at school
• Four in ten had been physically harassed at school
• Six in ten felt unsafe at school
• One in five had been the victim of a physical assault at school

Unfortunately, these types of experiences with violence also occur outside of school and may continue into young adulthood.

Young LGBT people may be more at-risk for sexual discrimination and bias. Young LGBT individuals may be bullied as a part of sexual/gender discrimination and bias by their schoolmates, ethnic or religious groups or by other societal concerns related to sexual orientation and gender identity.

In McClusky's beleagured whinings, he didn't cite an iota of proof that "Christian students" will be ignored by Obama's initiative. Nor does he cite any statistics regarding the "bullying of Christian students" which is comparable to statistics regarding the bullying of lgbt students.

In fact, he doesn't cite any statistics at all.

So in other words, McClusky's claim is just hot air and the only problem that FRC has with the President's anti-bullying initiative is that it includes lgbt students.

It's sad enough when any students - especially lgbt students - are being bullied. It's even worse when a so-called Christian group wants us to ignore the problem.

Related posts:

Homophobic writer makes case for Obama's anti-bullying campaign

Focus on the Family's love for anti-gay bullies

Homophobic writer makes case for Obama's anti-bullying campaign

The basic lack of integrity from some on the right who would attack President Obama's anti-bullying initiative was seen again last week.

According to Media Matters, Robert Knight, a veteran expert in smearing the lgbt community, wrote a column about Obama's initiative in which he cited the concerns of one Laurie Higgins, a member of the SPLC-declared hate group the Illinois Family Institute:

The government, under the auspices of three federal agencies, has created a website dedicated to ending bullying. Paraphrasing Mrs. Higgins, here's the site's underlying philosophy: 1) Homosexual behavior is equivalent to race, 2) any kind of sex is morally positive, and 3) expressing any conservative moral beliefs leads to bullying. What a neat formula for suppressing dissent.

Let's ignore for a brief moment the fact that nothing in the President's initiative has anything to do with sexual intercourse and let's ignore Knight's silly need to define the lgbt community in accordance to his fevered imagination regarding what exactly is "homosexual behavior."

It's that third point which catches my eye - "expressing any conservative moral beliefs leads to bullying."

One has to wonder what exactly does Knight feel is an "expression of any conservative moral beliefs."

Are they something like this:

"Homosexuals say they don't want the children, but boy they put a lot of energy into going after them."

Or this:

“If you look at the footage from Operation Rescue, um, vigils outside abortion clinics, you will see that the anti Operation Rescue demonstrators invariably have a pink triangle on and they are usually pretty big heavy set women who look like they’ve been over working October Fest for the last six years . . .”

Or this:

"You can’t fool nature. The rectum was not made for sexual activity.” Then, impishly, he adds, “it is an exit ramp, not an entry ramp.”

These are past comments by Robert Knight and they illustrate a point I've made before. If you look at the past statements and comments of the vast majority of those raising "concerns" about the President's anti-bullying initiatives, you would find that they've said things about the lgbt community in the past which goes well beyond that of "expressing a moral belief" In fact, these statements sound as if they are voiced by grade school and high school bullies.

We saw an example of this last week with Focus on the Family interviewing the Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber about Obama's anti-bullying initiative in spite of the fact that Barber's past actions and comments against the lgbt community totally wrecks his credibility to speak on the issue - particularly the tasteless tweets he made about gays and lesbians serving openly in the military

So the big question here is not whether President Obama's anti-bullying initiative is unfair to those who have a moral objection to homosexuality.

The question - which should be put to Knight and those like him - is are they trying to protect the bullies?

Know Your LGBT History - Dynasty

Dynasty will be remembered as one of the campiest soap operas on television. The story of a Colorado tycoon Blake Carrington (John Forsythe), his family, and his diabolical ex-wife (Joan Collins) remains a popular staple in the minds of many.

Dynasty also  featured one of the first gay men to ever appear on a prime-time drama. Steven Carrington (first played by Al Corley and then Jack Coleman) was the son of Blake Carrington. His homosexuality was an interesting plot device on so many occasions. His father accidentally killed his lover in season one and thus had to stand trial. This led to the introduction of the villianess of the drama, Blake's ex-wife Alexis.

And then Steven married a woman, had a child, had plastic surgery, fought his father for custody of the child, got married to another woman, got custody of his child, reconciled with his father, got into relationship with another man which ended when this guy was killed during a wedding massacre, saved his father, walked out on his family, came back and had a happy relationship with another man.

Whew. Well to tell the truth, Steven's trials and tribulations didn't interest me. The one thing I did find interesting though was how Steven's sexual orientation created a shift. Alexis, usually the villain in the soap opera, supported him, while Blake - the hero - had serious problems accepting him.

The scene above is from the Dynasty reunion miniseries when Blake finally, finally accepts Steven.

Past Know Your LGBT History Postings:

NOM playing Hispanic community against lgbts in Rhode Island and other Friday midday news briefs

NOM dividing us as a people: Rhode Island Hispanic Church edition - Fresh from exploiting the fears of African-Americans in Maryland, now the National Organization for Marriage is doing the same to the Hispanic community in Rhode Island.

Slim majority back gay marriage, Post-ABC poll says - Speaking of which, the president of NOM, Brian Brown, is angry at this poll and is trying to "game the referee."

Barber & Staver: Sex Ed Is Poisoning The Minds of Young People - Of course they have to attack openly gay Obama appointee Kevin Jennings.

Committee passes NV bill adding transgender people to hate crime protection - Good news out of Nevada.

Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill Slated for Debate - Ugh, I say. Ugh.

More than half of Americans support gay marriage according to poll

In news which I know will cause the religious right some consternation, it would seem that the nation is warming up to gay marriage:

More than half of Americans say it should be legal for gays and lesbians to marry, a first in nearly a decade of polls by ABC News and The Washington Post.

This milestone result caps a dramatic, long-term shift in public attitudes. From a low of 32 percent in a 2004 survey of registered voters, support for gay marriage has grown to 53 percent today. Forty-four percent are opposed, down 18 points from that 2004 survey.

The issue remains divisive; as many adults "strongly" oppose gay marriage as strongly support it, and opposition rises to more than 2-1 among Republicans and conservatives and 3-1 among evangelical white Protestants, a core conservative group. But opposition to gay marriage has weakened in these groups from its levels a few years ago, and support has grown sharply among others – notably, among Catholics, political moderates, people in their 30s and 40s and men. 

And here is something which will really send the religious right into orbit:

The poll has an insufficient sample size to evaluate individual racial minority groups reliably. However, support for gay marriage is essentially identical among whites, 53 percent, and nonwhites, 54 percent. That's up by 13 points among whites – and by 20 among nonwhites.

Support is up by a striking 23 points among white Catholics, often a swing group and one that's been ready, in many cases, to disregard church positions on political or social issues.

However, I still remain cynical. Like I said last night:

  . . . we know the religious right works - some overly generous funds from anonymous sources, a couple of hundreds of thousands of glossy pamphlets blanketing a few states talking about how children will turn gay because of marriage equality, a few greased palms to various black ministers who will be more than eager to decry about the "highjacking of the civil rights movement" (you really don't think these ministers are raising hell out because of personal righteous indignation, do you), a few hundred thousand emails filled with homophobic talking points, a few visits to Fox News and then the tide turns.


In other words, we'll see how this poll holds up.

Is article about DOMA a case of positive overhyping?

According to Talking Points Memo, the issue of overturning DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) is a positive for Democrats due to the fact that it's no longer a wedge issue:

In the wake of President Obama's decision to drop support for portions of the Defense of Marriage Act, gay rights advocates have been unabashed in claiming that beyond the merits of their underlying argument they now have the political advantage as well. Not only does public opinion polling suggest they're right, but the reaction of gay rights opponents does, too.

On Wednesday, House and Senate Democrats held separate press conferences announcing the introduction of legislation to repeal DOMA. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), one of the sponsors of the House bill, was asked whether Democrats were politicizing gay rights as a wedge issue against the GOP, as Majority Leader Eric Cantor alleged last month.

"What do I say to the idea that this is a wedge issue? I say 'Hallelujah,'" Frank told reporters. "The fact that we've now evolved to the point where the Republicans are complaining about the fact that we introduced this bill because it causes them political problems is a great sign of progress. It used to be the other way around."

Frank noted that the original 1996 DOMA was used by Congress in part to put President Clinton in a tough political spot ahead of his re-election race against Bob Dole. Many political observers credited Republican efforts to ban gay marriage on the state and federal level with helping secure President Bush's re-election in 2004 as well. In his memoirs last year, Rove wrote that a 2003 Massachusetts court decision legalizing gay marriage "did affect the 2004 election by motivating culturally conservative Democrats and independents who might otherwise have voted Democratic to abandon Kerry over his wobbly views on marriage."

In his statement on President Obama's decision to abandon DOMA, Cantor revealed how much the tables have turned, calling the move "a clear political exercise by the Administration." A recent poll commissioned by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, found a majority of Americans opposed DOMA and backed Obama's position. Other polls have found support for legalizing gay marriage entirely trending rapidly towards a majority -- a recent Pew survey found 46% of respondents opposed to allowing gay marriage versus 45% who back the idea.

"The wedge has lost its edge," Republican strategist Mark McKinnon, who worked on Bush's 2004 campaign, told The New York Times last month. 

Pardon me for being a bit cynical but we know the religious right works - some overly generous funds from anonymous sources, a couple of hundreds of thousands of glossy pamphlets blanketing a few states talking about how children will turn gay because of marriage equality, a few greased palms to various black ministers who will be more than eager to decry about the "highjacking of the civil rights movement" (you really don't think these ministers were raising hell out because of personal righteous indignation, did you), a few hundred thousand emails filled with homophobic talking points, a few visits to Fox News and BOOM:

The media will be talking about how DOMA has been resurrected as a "wedge issue."