NOM attacking same-sex families with tacky graphic

Number one on the Top Ten Chart of Tackiness is the above graphic by the National Organization for Marriage.

It's pathetic on so many levels. At least allow me to count off three:

1. It attacks same-sex families

2. It blames same-sex families for the single-parent homes and takes President Obama's words out of context. At no time has President Obama ever blamed same-sex households for fatherless homes. Jeremy Hooper said the following:

When President Obama uttered those words, he was referring to the very specific problems of dads who played a role in creating a family only to abdicate responsibility. That is an issue—one that we should solve. Same goes for when mothers step out on families that they should support. In an ideal climate, we could all agree on this.

 In a less politicized world, we could hope that all human beings would take responsibility for whatever family form they, by virtue of their own choices, created.
 
But in the aggressive world that NOM is forcing on us all? Gays are the scapegoat. Our families come at an expense. A penis and a vagina are innately better than a doubled set (regardless of any other qualities attached to the genitalia). Homes like mine are on par (or worse than) ones where a father walks out on his children. And of course our President cannot make a strong statement about

3. It underscores the simple fact that other than attacking same-sex households and attempting to inaccurately attach them to the problem of fatherless homes, the National Organization for Marriage has done NOTHING to address the problem or provide solutions. If anything, NOM is exploiting the problem of fatherless homes to attack same-sex families.

But one good thing does come out of NOM's graphic. It exposes just how low the organization will stoop to attack same-sex families and households.

Hat tip to Jeremy Hooper.

Why gay community will win the fight for marriage equality

I really believe that when it's said and done, the lgbt community will win the marriage equality fight. Marriage equality is about fairness, love, and equality. And let's face it, though our opposition is well-connected and has much money,  it will be their rhetoric in opposing our right to marry each other which will be part of their undoing. Especially when one compares their hyperbolic rhetoric to the reality:

Glenn T. Stanton of Focus on the Family: "This is a really pernicious lie of Satan to say that the gender part of humanity doesn’t really matter because the gender part of humanity is really denying the distinct God imaging in each of us as males and females. We need to understand that as Christians. That’s the biggest thing. The other is that, ‘you know kids don’t really need a mom and a dad they just need any configuration of loving adults who care for them,’ . . . As a good friend of mine says, ‘you know a lot of these people advocating for same-sex marriage, I’ve been in the marriage work for decades, I’ve never seen these people come to the stump to advocate for marriage, the only time they are for marriage is when it has same-sex in front of it.’ Think about that. These are not advocates of marriage; they’re advocates for redefining marriage."


Reality:

Jonathan Mintz, John Feinblatt and their daughters celebrate their wedding ceremony.

Mat Staver, The Liberty Counsel: "Basically marriage will be completely destroyed, families will be destroyed, children will be hurt by this and freedom of speech and freedom of religion, including in the pulpit itself, will absolutely be bulldozed over. This would open a floodgate of unimaginable proportions. That’s why with those kinds of consequences to have five of the nine justices ultimately have this kind of power in their hands, that’s not how this court and this country was established, to have five individuals to be able to have that kind of catastrophic, social re-engineering power in their hands, that’s just not something that was envisioned by the founders."



Reality:

72-year-old Byron and 86-year-old Phillipe, a couple who have been together for 51 years, poses at their wedding.

Gordon Klingenschmitt, anti-gay activist and "exorcist" - "Every kid deserves a mom and dad. We must defend traditional marriage. Sadly, Obama equates sin with holiness, confusing lust with love, thereby confusing the demonic with the Holy Spirit, when Satan can never be equal with God. There is one reason homosexual sodomy will never be "equal" to traditional marriage: Satan will never be equal to God."

 
 Reality:

Luz Heurtelo and Natassia Heurtelo before their wedding in Brooklyn.

I could say more, but is there any need? One side spins tales of revolution, destruction, and Satanic possession. And the other side simply shows basic love. Sure, I am preaching to the choir with this post but people forget that sometimes a choir needs practice and in this case, our choir needs to remember that we have beautiful voices which sound like angels when we sing together in harmony.

Lastly, we need to remember what  we are singing for.

Love, honey. The most powerful emotion in the universe.

Photos, captions courtesy of Buzzfeed.

Hat tip to Right Wing Watch for the religious right quotes.

Family Research Council angry at Obama for cleaning up its mess

FRC's Tony Perkins

As to be expected, the Family Research Council didn't care for President Obama's State of the Union address.

The organization particularly didn't care for the part where President Obama mentioned equal treatment for same-sex military couples. FRC especially didn't like the announcement before the SOTU speech that the Pentagon would be giving some benefits to these same-sex couples. And the brazen hypocrisy in which FRC engages in to criticize this will astound you:

 . . . Hours before his State of the Union address, the commander-in-chief gave his Pentagon the thumbs up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in new spending for homosexual partner perks. Starting August 31, the same-sex boyfriends and girlfriends of service members will be eligible for privileges that even cohabiting heterosexuals are not: military ID cards, access to military commissaries, gymnasiums, and movie theaters, participation in family support programs on bases and posts, and the chance to fly on Defense Department aircraft on the taxpayers' dime.

For a liberal movement so intent on policing discrimination, this policy is full of it! The U.S.government has decided that what you do in the bedroom qualifies you for federally-subsidized benefits (unless you happen to be heterosexual, like 96.6% of the U.S. population). Once again, it's exclusion in the name of "inclusion." Under this policy, Washington is officially in the business of incentivizing homosexual behavior in our military--an observation that appalls veterans like Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.).

"The President is eroding our military's apolitical stance and forcing conformity onto the rest of society by pushing his liberal social agenda through the Department of Defense. In a weak attempt to not violate the Defense of Marriage Act, the administration is using a play on words by saying 'same sex domestic partners' can have access to benefits instead of 'spouses.'"

What's more, Sen. Inhofe points out, America is on a "slippery slope" with this kind of preferential treatment. "Why would the DOD extend benefits to same-sex partners and then deny cohabiting heterosexual couples the same benefits? The Department of Defense is essentially creating a new class of beneficiary that will increase costs and demand for limited resources that are currently available for military families, active and reserve forces, and retirees.

Why indeed would the DOD extend benefits to same-sex partners and then deny cohabiting heterosexual couples the same benefits?

Maybe because the cohabiting heterosexual couples generally have the option to get married, whereas the same-sex couples do not have that same option in most cases.

Also while some states offer same-sex couples the option of marriage, there is that annoying little pesky law called DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which precludes the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

And here is the kicker. Anti-gay activist Robert Knight helped to craft DOMA while he was an employee of the Family Research Council.

In other words:

• FRC is claiming that the Obama Administration is discriminating against cohabiting heterosexual couples by offering same-sex couples benefits that cohabiting heterosexual couples cannot receive.

• However, the reason why these benefits had to be given is because by law, the federal government cannot recognize the marriages of same-sex couples no matter if these marriages are legal via state law.

• And the reason why the federal government cannot recognize these marriages is because of DOMA, a law which was partly crafted by an FRC employee.

It's not the Obama Administration which is practicing discrimination. If anything, the Obama Administration is cleaning up the mess that the FRC helped to become law.

The sad irony is that while FRC dismissively refers to same-sex couples as "boyfriends" and "girlfriends," it is because of efforts like groups like FRC that these couples aren't considered to be more than that by the federal government.

It's the equivalent of criticizing someone for being in a hole while omitting the fact that you are the one who put them there in the first place.

NOM's silly spokesperson attacks gay families again

Per usual, members of the religious right are attacking gay parenting (again). Jennifer Morse of NOM's Ruth Institute is talking to conservative host Michael Brown and proceeds to go on a ridiculous tangent about parenting in which she spouts very little facts. Her rambling starts at 2:00 of this clip:

 

Here are just a few things I noticed. I'm sure you can add more:

At 2:20 - Morse says that there needs to be more recruitment of adoptive parents coming from the mother/father dynamic. That's a good point which she brings up because as far as I know, NOM has NEVER undertaken any attempt or pushed any legislation to do this.

2:25 - Morse says that since American couples "go all over the world" to find children to adopt, including children of different races and handicaps so she does not believe that there is a shortage of homes to adopt children. Funny how she doesn't cite any statistics.

Fact: According to Adam Pertman, head of the Evan Donaldson Adoption Institute:

More than 104,000 children in the United States are waiting in foster care to be adopted by permanent, loving parents. These girls and boys, who are on average 8 years old, typically remain in temporary situations for over three years before being placed with "forever families."

Then Morse goes into a spiel which folks on her side the argument have done before and very few of us have called them out -  pitting heterosexual two-parent families against gay parents. She makes it seem that society is favoring gay parenting supposedly traditional heterosexual parenting, when in fact there has never been any competition regarding gay or heterosexual parents, except for in the talking points of folks like Morse.

She then claims that one cannot compare same-sex parenting to heterosexual parenting without going into detail as to why. Of course Morse is contradicted by many credible health organizations including the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers.

Everything else Morse says is purely blather and nonsense which has nothing to do with the reality of gays raising children.

And the religious right can't seem to figure out why they lose the vast majority of court cases involving gay adoption.

'No gays allowed' prom idea backfires on organizers' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

'Gay-free' prom idea backfires on supporters in Indiana town - MSNBC is now saying that idea of a "traditional" prom with no gays allowed has backfired on the organizers with the school and the church where they met coming out against their idea. I can remember a day when they would have been widely applauded. I do love change.  

BREAKING: French National Assembly Approves Marriage Equality And Same-Sex Adoption - That tremor you just felt? Members of the National Organization for Marriage suffering a spell of mass fainting. So much for THAT French Revolution the organization was pushing. At least Brian Brown got a free trip to France.  

We're Not Saying Gays Are Pedophiles, But… - Attack of the "yeah, but Christians."

 Pentagon to extend additional benefits to same-sex service members and their families - Sweet!

 Kenneth Faried, Denver Nuggets Star, Becomes First NBA Player To Join Gay Rights Sports Group - Good for him! I do love getting allies.  

Pedophilia Myth Tainted Cable News Coverage Of Boy Scouts' Anti-Gay Ban - Ugly madness

FRC- Obama wanted to force nursery schools to hire drag kings and drag queens

No matter how many times the Family Research Council claim that they are merely "defending" Christian values, the organization cannot hide that its stock and trade is bigotry and hysterical lies about the gay community. For example, check the following tidbit it sent out as a recent Washington Update (important part placed in bold):

 Just three weeks after a federal court ruled that the White House had overstepped its authority in certain "recess" appointments, the President isn't showing any signs of backing off his second-term power grab. During tomorrow's State of the Union speech, the President is expected to announce another round of "executive actions" on issues he doesn't feel Congress is moving quickly enough to address. Like his two dozen gun initiatives, these directives would help President Obama implement the more controversial parts of his agenda without the House and Senate's approval

. "It's a very dangerous road he's going down..." said Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). "Just because Congress doesn't act doesn't mean the President has a right to." Although the White House wouldn't comment on the details, officials have confirmed that his actions would include special right for homosexuals and cross-dressers in the workplace. With lawmakers in both parties unwilling to push Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the President is moving ahead on his own version, which would ban government contractors from "discriminating" on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama promised to put the "whole weight of [his] administration behind... a fully inclusive [ENDA]." His position, which would have ordered employers (like schools and day care centers) to hire transsexuals, drag queens, and drag kings, was considered "too radical" even for his own party. Now the President is considering the next best thing: demanding full conformity with his views for anyone working with or for the federal government. 

You will notice that the piece never said a word about "Christian values." Rather, it shrieks portents of doom about young children held as captive audiences in schools with "transsexuals?," "drag queens," and drag kings."

Exploiting the fear of parents regarding the safety of their children is the lowest thing any one person or organization can do.

But I guess with FRC, it's business as usual.

FRC recycles failed DADT predictions to attack gays in the Boy Scouts

Ever since the Boy Scouts hinted about a decision to do away with its "no gays allowed" policy, the Family Research Council has been working the talk shows and sending out emails with portents of doom of what will happen if this takes place.

 But as Carlos Maza from Equality Matters points out, there is something pathetically familiar about these talking points.

They were the same ones FRC used to against the DADT repeal. Unsuccessfully, I might add. What's more, now that DADT has been repealed since 2010, none of their predictions of doom have come true.

Maza points out three failed predictions. Allow me to spotlight one:

“Gays Will Increase The Rate Of Sexual Assault”

FRC on the Boy Scouts’ ban:

So what exactly is the incentive?... Is it safety? Because unless something changed in the last seven months, the Scouts are still dealing with the fallout of more than 2,000 cases of child molestation with the current policy in place! Can they honestly tell parents that entrusting little boys to men with same-sex attractions is somehow going to reduce the incidence of child sexual abuse?

FRC on DADT repeal:

The military already has a serious problem with sexual assault by homosexuals. If the current law against homosexuality in the military is overturned, the problem of same-sex sexual assault in the military is sure to increase.

For the other two, check out Maza's post. He ends it by saying:

In the case of DADT, not a single one of FRC’s doomsday predictions turned out to be anything more than baseless fear mongering – motivated by the group’s extreme anti-gay animus. FRC demonstrated that, when it comes to serious policy analysis, it doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.

So what’s changed?

Now that the Boy Scouts’ final decision on its gay ban has been postponed until May, it’s likely that media outlets will get another opportunity to cover the controversy. When they do, they should ask how groups like FRC have any credibility when it comes to predicting the consequences of repealing the ban.