Sex education and other things . . .

Thanksgiving is over and the Christmas season is here. I am happy to report that Operation Save America's boycott of Wal-Mart was a big bust. From what I understand, they only boycotted in a few places and many were not responsive to their message.

They didn't even bother to boycott at any Wal-Mart in South Carolina, which I am kinda upset about. This state seems to always miss the fun.

Now the Christmas season is here, which means it is time for the phony "War on Christmas," brought to you by the anti-gay industry in yet another attempt to spin a conspiracy theory that "nameless, Godless hordes" are attempting to take the "Christ" out of Christmas.

For a good perspective on what utter nonsense this is, I turn to my friend Joe Brummer - (http://joebrummer.com/WordPress/)

Now in Maryland, there is a situation that has been taking place for a long time regarding objections to sex education. The Washington Blade gives a good cover to this story - (http://www.washblade.com/2006/11-24/news/localnews/curriculum.cfm)

But to make a long story short, it is basically the same problem when it comes to sex education and homosexuality. Anti-gay industry groups do everything they can to see that homosexual orientation is either not covered in sex education classes or covered in a way that they see fit, which generally is:

homosexuality is a "dangerous lifestyle" that should be avoided because gay men have lots of anal sex and it causes them to get diseases, take drugs, and engage in all sorts of evil behavior.

In this particular case, anti-gay industry members have helped some form a group called Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum.

CRC is yet another group attempting to force their negative view of the gay community on others. A good look at their resource page tells the entire story - (http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/resources_related_links.shtml)

The grubby hands of our friend Peter LaBarbera and other assorted so-called "pro family" groups are there. Some of their links are filled with errors. For example:

A. 15 Good Reasons to Oppose ‘Sexual Orientation’ (Homosexuality) Codes in Schools.

This piece, linked from the CRC webpage is from our friend Peter LaBarbera. Even the title is a distortion. No school operates a "sexual orientation" code. I am not even certain that this phrase even exists. From the onset, it is plainly seen that LaBarbera is engaging in propaganda and fear tactics. This is further demonstrated when one reads the piece.

His first point is a distortion:
"Homosexual behavior is wrong (and illegal in some states) . . ."

The first problem with this is that LaBarbera has not established what exactly is "homosexual behavior." Secondly, he is incorrect about the legality of it. Clearly LaBarbera is leading the reader to think that "homosexual behavior" is a description involving solely sexual behavior. His piece was written in 2002 (before Lawrence vs. Texas) made sodomy laws illegal. But even if somehow Lawrence vs. Texas had ruled the other way, his assertion of homosexual behavior being illegal is incorrect. Most of the sodomy laws had to do with sexual acts, heterosexual or homosexual, and not whom the acts were being committed with.

LaBabera continues his distortions with point two:
"Homosexual actions are unhealthy - especially for males. Like smoking, alcohol, and drug abuse, they should be discouraged. Dangerous behavior that shortens a person’s life should never be promoted to impressionable students."

Again, LaBarbera does not give a description of what exactly are "homosexual actions," leading the reader to think that "homosexual actions" can only be defined by sexual behavior by two people of the same gender. Also, his second point regarding "homosexual actions" shortening a person’s lifespan is an out and out distortion. No legitimate researcher has ever said that homosexuality shortens someone’s lifespan. The Centers for Disease Control has gone on record saying that they have never conducted studies saying that homosexuality "shortens" someone’s lifespan. - The Washington Blade, June 17, 2005

The only two sources LaBarbera and his groups can cite comes from a distorted Oxford study (http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499) and a discredited researcher by the name of Paul Cameron (remember him). Among other things, Cameron had his membership in the American Psychological Association taken away because he was found guilty of distorting the work of other researchers.

The rest of LaBarbera’s piece is just pure propaganda. He throws out incredibly bizarre hypothetical situations but does not quantify them with proof as to whether or not they will ever take place.

This is the caliber of "responsible curriculum" that CRC wants to force on Maryland.

Boycott dropped?

The word of the day is that the American Family Association has dropped their boycott of Wal-Mart. Apparently Wal-Mart has made some sort of promise to the AFA.

However, it is obvious that Wal-mart's promise to AFA to "avoid unrestricted donations that might be used for causes Wal-Mart did not endorse" is just a ridiculous conglomeration of words that really doesn't change the store's position. (http://www.localnewswatch.com/benton/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=28303)

That lovingly radical group, Operation Save America is obviously still not happy. (http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/384701564.html)

Take a tip, Operation Save America. Obviously AFA realized that it was biting off more than it could chew and is trying to exit this situation gracefully.

It's not working but still, it's nice to watch.

God and Us

I wish all of my readers all of the joy and happiness this Thanksgiving season.

I also want to give you all food for thought.

One of the most dangerous lies that is spread by the anti-gay industry is the idea that God disapproves of our community.

Supposedly we are an abomination and a stench in His nostrils.

What nonsense.

It took me years to reach my point of clarity regarding my God and my sexual orientation. I know the Biblical verses by heart that supposedly condemns homosexuality and I know what has been said publicly.

I, like so many of us, have gone through the wringer wondering whether or not God hates me. I have wondered many times that if God hates homosexuals, then why did he make me one.

It all stopped one day when I did something I should have done from the start.

I simply asked him.

Part of the problem with religion, particularly Christianity in the United States, is that it is conducted like a typing class.

In typing class, the location of the alphabet keys are drilled into your head until you could reach them without looking at them.

Like typing class, Christianity is done the same way.

We follow a set of rituals until they are drilled in our head. We are told not to question what we are being taught. But how can you have answers to questions without asking?

I think we lose perspective when it comes to who we are supposed to ask. The pastor of your church don’t have the answers. God does.

It is He who we should ask.

I think that when we let others, be it the pastor of a church, a family member, or a televangelist, tell us what God thinks, we are just setting ourselves up for a fall.

My homosexuality taught me to have a closer relationship with God. Dealing with my sexual orientation forced me to close out all other voices who was telling me what God felt about me because only He could give me the correct answer.

And he told me that I am His creation and delightful in His sight.

So when someone throws the Good Book at you, do what I did.

Consult the original author.

Gay Penguins and evolution

It's been a madhouse around here as I work to complete my book. Apparently I am going to have to copy edit myself as the nearest copy editor will charge me up to $200, which wouldn't be a problem except that I have no budget.

Also, this is Thanksgiving week, so all minds are geared to traveling and such. However, I did notice something interesting about a recent incident.

In Illinois, some parents aren't happy about a library book that centers on two male penguins taking care of an egg and the offspring that comes from it. To make them even more angry, school officials are reluctant to remove the book from the shelves. (http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?navpath=/channels/families&date=2006/11/20/2)

Apparently the book is talking about a natural occurence in the animal kingdom and the parents are all geared up to think its "dirty gay sex." Bear in mind, the penguins aren't having sex or anything like that; they are just taking care of an abandoned egg.

What is so interesting about this are the comments I have read regarding the article. I went on Huffington Post and read a few of them. Of course there are some whining about "homosexual indoctrination" and the like.

But the comments that impressed me were from gays who are raising children and felt that there is nothing wrong with book or their families. I liked the way they stood up for themselves with dignity and resolve.

It got me thinking because I remember a time when gays raising families was not talked about or even considered. I remember a time when realizing that you were gay meant whatever dreams you had of raising a family would eliminated from your life's goals.

And you know what? I am pretty damned proud of my people. We are evolving. Many of us are no longer falling for the lie that if you are gay, your life is over or that you are doomed to a selfish hedonistic existence.

Many of us are not falling for the illusion that if you are gay, then you are disqualified from the normal basic functions of humanity; those being civility, love, dignity, and a desire to make a positive impact on the world

Of course we have a long way to go and people like Lou Sheldon and Peter LaBarbera won't make it easy for us, but we are strong and resilient.

And most of all, we have God on our side.

So I guess I am saying that in this Thanksgiving season, I am not only proud of being gay, but I am also proud of my lgbt brothers and sisters.

And I can't wait to see what the future holds for us.

Reaping benefits of helping yourself

I spoke to my publisher today and my book is on deck for sometime in May/June 2007.

This entire progress has been tiring and I have gone through many "changes" so to speak. As this two-year odyssey of writing and publishing my first book comes to an end, I am been having a few epiphanies. These epiphanies are also because of the recent passage of the anti-marriage equality amendment in my state of South Carolina, something I fought to prevent.

While I have been writing this book, I have received some support from those who understand why a book like this is important.

Unfortunately, there have also been some who cannot understand why the gay community needs to chart and record the distortions of the anti-gay industry. This is the set of people I like to call "old school."

When I say "old school," I mean those activists who think that anything that causes attention to our cause is a good thing. They seem to be stuck in past, where tactics of direct action was appropriate. During those times, loudly bringing attention to our causes was needed.

But now is the time for pragmatism and planning, building our base, and giving our community spiritual and psychological boosts against the slings and arrows of ignorance some throw against us.

It is also time that we distinguish between the purveyors of anti-gay propaganda and those who fall for their lies. We should confront people like Lou Sheldon and organizations like Focus on the Family with dignity and control of our image. Our fight is not against those who think that homosexuality is a sin, but with those who exploit those beliefs.

With that in mind, the following is a draft of the back cover of my upcoming book. Feel free to tell me what you think:

Why do the Traditional Values Coalition continue to use studies against the gay community that it has acknowledged as being incorrect?

Why did Robert Knight, James Kennedy, and other religious conservatives cite a Netherlands study to make the case against same sex marriage even though the study had nothing to do with marriage at all?

Why do religious conservative pundits continue to claim that gay men have short line spans, even though their claim has been refuted several times, including by the originators of a study they continue to cite?

Why have several researchers and professors gone on record claiming that religious conservatives either distort their original work or take their findings out of context?

Why do religious conservative groups continue to cite the work of Paul Cameron, even though he has been censured and rebuked by several legitimate organizations including the American Psychological Association?

In their attempts to prove the worst about the gay community, so-called “pro-family” groups have created a house of pseudo-scientific studies made up of distortions, lies, and legitimate studies taken out of context.

These studies are then pushed by fake experts and Ph.D.s and repeated by conservative columnists and ignorant people of faith all willing to sacrifice their integrity on the altar of an alleged higher calling.

For the very first time, a book analyzes these deceptive tactics of Concerned Women for America, the Traditional Values Coalition, the American Family Association, and other so-called “pro family” groups as they not only demonize the American gay community but exploit the beliefs of people of faith.

Support Wal-Mart

No, I am not getting a cut of proceeds from advising you all to support Wal-Mart.

I have a more practical reason to ask you this.

Apparently some anti-gay organizations are all up in arms because the store has not only "dared" to support the gay community but is also selling items that cater to the gay community (http://www.savewalmart.com/):

"On August 21, 2006, the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce” (NGLCC) announced a “partnership” with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Wal-Mart is now a corporate member” of the NGLCC.

Wal-Mart gave a one time $25,000 gift to join the NGLCC.

A Wal-Mart vice-president will serve as an advisor to NGLCC.

Wal-Mart will now sponsor (pay for) some programs of the NGLCC."

Oh the horror!

All Wal-Mart is doing is catering to a segment of the buying public. And we, the gay community, are a segment of the buying public.

But according to groups like Operation Save America:

"Wal-Mart is being blackmailed by the abortion industry and the radical homosexual agenda. That’s right! After being lambasted for years by the anti-family, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, radical left, Wal-Mart is caving in. This former “family friendly store” is bowing to, and being extorted by, the demands of those who hate God, marriage, family, children, and America!"

There they go again with the conspiracy theory and the dire consequences technique (see yesterday's post.)

I am all for people not shopping at Wal-Mart because they disagree with the store's policy but that is not the case here. This boycott is not to improve worker conditions or store conditions, but to make Wal-mart adhere to their moral code.

Apparently these groups (and our friend Peter LaBarbera has a small hand in the circus) have picked November 24th, the day that Christmas shopping really starts, to put their campaign in full blast.

What their campaign means is more lies. In other words, if it even seems like Wal-Mart is not making as much money over the Christmas shopping season as the store has predicted, these groups are going to take credit for it.

I personally think that our community should go out of our way to support Wal-Mart if the store is truly going to bat for us. And not just Wal-Mart. If anyone or any store is willing to take a hit for us, then we should show some level of support.

As luck would have it, my mother's birthday is on November 24th. Thanks to Operation Save America and our friend Peter LaBarbera, she will be receiving something besides a cash gift of $50.

She will be receiving a nice set of gifts from Wal-Mart.

Six Distortion Techniques of the Anti-Gay Industry

Over a two year period, I looked over various research papers, studies, and claims that the anti-gay industry has written pertaining to the gay community. I found a disturbing pattern of deception that can be broken down to six distortion techniques.

Let me preface my claim by saying when I make mention of "the anti-gay industry," I am not talking about Christians and other people of faith in general. The anti-gay industry are the organizations and groups who claimed to stand for "traditional values" or "morality," such as Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, the Traditional Values Coalition, etc.

I am also referring to people like James Dobson, Lou Sheldon, Peter LaBarbera, DL Foster, or any person who seek to exploit the religious beliefs of people of faith for their own personal agendas.

I refer to them cynically as an "industry" because their very existence relies on fears, lies, and stereotypes about the gay community. And fears, lies, and stereotypes are not indicative or any group or persons who claim to stand for morality and values. I have gone into detail about these propaganda techniques in other writings and will continue to do such in my upcoming book.

At least two of these techniques are present in almost every "religious right" claim or study about the gay community.

Distortion Technique 1 - Using nonrepresentative or out of date studies to make generalizations or distorting legitimate to give misleading conclusions
Anti-gay industry studies often rely on convenience samples (individuals who are easy to reach for the research being done) in order to stigmatize the entire gay community. Many of these studies consist of gays in STD clinics or foreign research, such as those from the Netherlands. So-called "pro family" groups often push the incorrect idea that the Netherlands is the most gay-tolerant place in the world and subsequently, if they could take studies from that area and show that "promoting homosexuality" there has caused problems, and then it would demonstrate that homosexuality on the whole is a bad concept. Lastly, the anti-gay industry routinely manipulate the findings of certain studies to reach a conclusion that had nothing to do with the studies’ original objective.

Distortion Technique 2 - Repetition
In addition to distorting legitimate studies, so-called "pro family" groups are also aided by the constant repetition of these distortions. Once they find something that can be construed as a negative fact about the gay community, it is repeated over and over again. These "facts" are often repeated in front of legislative bodies or on media interviews. One of the most dangerous avenues that these lies can channel is being cited by well-meaning people of faith or by television program commentators as proof of the so-called dangers of homosexuality.

Distortion technique 3 - Conspiracy Theory
The anti-gay industry have on many occasions accused the gay community of being the masterminds of a huge plot to overturn "American values." In the absence of concrete proof, they create theories linked together by the strings of paranoia. So-called "pro family" groups claim to speak for and to people of faith. Unfortunately many of these people of faith are not familiar with the gay community. All the anti-gay industry has to do is pull up a "questionable" quote from at least one gay or lesbian leader to exploit this ignorance and they easily have these people of faith convinced that an "agenda" is afoot.

Distortion Technique 4 - Dire Consequences
One of the most effective tactics of the anti-gay industry is to claim that pro-gay laws will lead to dire consequences. They say that laws created to protect gays would either a: cause homosexuality to be "forced" on everyone, particularly children or b: cause those who supposedly speak out against homosexuality to be jailed. Possible coercion by an "aggressive homosexual lobby" is a constant theme in anti-gay industry data.

The "dire consequences" argument is an old fear tactic that was used in other battles. Just as white racists claimed that any elimination of Jim Crow laws would lead to mixed couples and "mongrelization," the anti-gay industry claim that any law or ordinance that protect gays and lesbians from discrimination or give them any form of visibility is a capitulation that would lead America down a pathway to destruction.

Distortion Technique 5 - Phony Experts
The anti-gay industry generally don’t recruit third, unbiased parties in their fact gathering. They create their own experts on the subject of homosexuality. And these phony experts, usually in-house employees or some with affiliations to so-called "pro family" groups, already have anti-gay biases. Certainly everything they say and do will put homosexuality in a bad light, whether deserved or not, because that is what they are getting paid for. These so-called experts (i.e. Timothy Dailey, Robert Knight, Peter LaBarbera, etc.) have no training or background in what they claim to have expert opinions in. It seems that their titles are dependent on how well they look in the media, or how adept they can apply spin.

Distortion Technique 6 - Dehumanizing Semantics
In order for their arguments to gain more power, the anti-gay industry seeks to strip gays and lesbians of their humanity in the eyes of the public. To them, it is not enough to declare that homosexuality is against God’s will. These organizations manufacture illusions of cabals and invisible enemies; nameless and faceless gay legions out to "destroy" American values and morals.

To further this incorrect notion, members of the anti-gay industry often use sound bites that are repeated until they become part of the verbal lexicon. They skillfully employ phrases that covertly push the idea that gays are outside of the mainstream. This serves to dehumanize their opposition. The following phrases have been used over and over again to describe the actions of the gay community and those viewed as their supporters:

"promoting homosexuality"
"marketing homosexuality"
"endorsing homosexuality"
"teaching homosexuality"
"homosexual activists"
"radical gay agenda"
"activist judges"
"forcing their agenda on us"
"pro homosexual"
"sodomy advocates"
"sodomy lobby"
"sexual anarchists"
"special rights"
"homosexual behavior"
"legitimizing their lifestyle"
"lifestyle"
"deadly lifestyle"
"death style"
"counterfeit marriage"

I invite anyone to look at any study, quote, or research paper by any member of the anti-gay industry. See if any of these distortion techniques are present.

The Top Three Headless Monsters

The anti-gay industry operates from the Biblical standpoint of homosexuality is a sin. However, knowing that moral reasonings are sometimes not the sole reason to make laws that would deny the gay community common rights (such as being able to work freely, buy homes, etc.), they push forth the theory that homosexuality is a "dangerous and empty lifestyle" that robs families of their vitality. Working from this stance, these groups propagandize current events, rely on bad studies, and cherry pick portions of legitimate studies in order to prove this point.

I have talked many times about "headless monsters" or stereotypes about the gay community that have been proven wrong, but still continue to be pushed as truth by people like James Dobson, Peter LaBarbera, Andrea Lafferty, and Lou Sheldon.

Let's talk about the top three "headless monsters." I have mentioned them in other posts, but they bear repeating.

Headless Monster #1 - Gay men account for a higher percentage of child molestation cases.

Truth - This idea comes from an incorrect notion that if a man molests a boy, then the man must be gay. No legitimate study has ever said that gay men account for a high percentage of child molestations. In fact, several studies have proven that the majority of men who molest boys have no attraction to adult males. The American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America, all say that the homosexuality and pedophilia are not linked.

Headless Monster #2 - Gay men have a short life span

Truth - This lie comes from two sources. The first source is the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron. Cameron has been censured and rebuked by many researchers due to his tendency to distort his colleagues' work. In 1984, he was kicked out the American Psychological Association for that very offense. - http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html

The second source comes from a distortion of a 1997 Canadian study. In 2001, the researchers of the original study went on record claiming that "religious right" groups were distorting their work - http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499

Headless Monster #3 - Gays account for a large number of sexually transmitted diseases and many of these diseases are unknown to the heterosexual population. They make up "gay bowel syndrome." Gays also have a problem with depression

Truth - First of all, there is no such thing as "gay bowel syndrome." Many of these diseases are present in the heterosexual population. The Center for Disease Control does not even recognize the term.

In some cases, gays are susceptible to a high number of sexually transmitted diseases and do have problems with depression. But in cases such as the Robert Garafalo study(Boston doctor says ads distorted his work on gays, The Boston Globe, August 4, 1998) and the article, Health Care Screening for Men Who Have Sex with Men, it has been proven that it is society's negative reaction to homosexuality that fuels much of this behavior, not the orientations of the gay men themselves.

Tomorrow, I will talk about the six distortion techniques used by the anti-gay industry to demonize the gay community.

Back in stride, up for the downstroke

I took a much needed break from posting after Wednesday. I apologize for not previously announcing it.

The battle over marriage equality in my state of South Carolina took more out of me than I cared to admit. It also allowed me to self-examine my role in the movement for gay equality.

And I did not like what I saw.

I have been involved in many organizations and endeavors in South Carolina but I have been unable to put my full potential behind a lot of the efforts we have attempted in this state. Mainly because many of these efforts were not what I wanted to do.

To put it plainly, I am of the opinion that we need to be more aggressive in exposing how the anti-gay industry lies about us. We need to put them on the spot, so the speak, about their "studies" and "research papers."

Unfortunately, some of my colleagues don't see the need in this. They tend to be more reactive than proactive, more symbolic than substantial. Some of my colleagues want to "win the hearts and minds" of those who oppose us.

The problem with this line of thinking is that a: you tend to put yourself in a position in which you are begging for "acceptance."

and b: you are under the incorrect assumption that all gays and lesbians are of the same mind.

To speak more to the second point, all of us are not of the same mind. Many of us do feel that we don't deserve our fair share of the American Dream and why is that?

Because of what we see and hear everyday from people like Lou Sheldon and Peter LaBarbera. I speak from personal experience. In college, I heard many of the negatives about being gay and there was no one there to speak with authority to say that the things I heard were lies. It put me in a bad funk that took me years to overcome.

Sadly, those lies continue to be repeated and other than a few places (i.e. Wayne Besen, Box Turtle Bulletin, Joe Brummer, and others) there are few places where we can go in which someone is saying "Lou Sheldon is lying on you," or "James Dobson is not telling the truth about your lives." Our leadership rarely focuses on making the anti-gay industry explain their attempts at propaganda.

And because of this, we are wasting a very good opportunity to turn this battle for gay equality in our favor. The thought on America's mind should not be "are gays and lesbians deserving of rights" but "why are these so-called traditional values organizations telling lies."

I intend to change that. To wit, I am rededicating myself to the exposure of the anti-gay industry. It shall be the focus that I will put more effort in achieving.

Drained and bloody

It was a good day Tuesday for the gay community, despite some losses.

In my state of South Carolina, we lost the amendment vote by a margin of 78 percent but I am not upset. A little spiritually drained, but not upset. It was probably the first time that gays in this state actually organized ourselves on a political basis. And 200,000 votes isn't bad.

So what happens next?

We continue to do what we need to do. Progress is always slow so patience an extreme virtue for people trying to change the world for the better.

Or in the words of Lucy Liu: "you really didn't think it would be that easy, did you?"

As for me, it will be business as usual and I continue to post on this blog and work on getting my book completed.

I appreciate everyone who have supported me this far and I will continue to work to expose the lies of the anti-gay industry.

South Carolina, Amendment 1 and Me
or
The Supression of Black Gay Voices

As many of you know, South Carolina is faced with one of those dreary "marriage amendments." The organization I am affiliated with, the South Carolina Equality Coalition, has been steadily fighting this amendment on many fronts.

One front is on the editorial pages of the state's newspapers. I wrote a column about how the amendment affects me. It was not printed. Now one of the editors, a black minister, wrote a column in which he said while the amendment would clutter the state's constitution, it should be passed to send a message about the "sin of homosexuality."

I am not claiming intentional suppression of my opinion. I am just pointing out the fact that in these amendment fights, it has been so difficult for those of us who are black and gay to get our voices heard. Subsequently, these amendment fights have pitted the African-American and gay communities against each other regarding comparisons of the African-American civil rights movement and the gay civil rights movement.

Meanwhile, those who are like me will have our voices suppressed and our opinions unheard. People will pass over our lives like they are not important.

If anything, we are the inheritors, the children if you will, of the African-American and gay civil rights movements. We are the fusion of the two maligned groups.

And while the parents squabble, the children are being ignored.

But thank God I have a blog because I can post what I wrote:

My favorite childhood memories are of family picnics, holidays and days at the beach. There was bound to be a mishap during these outings, like being rained on at Lake Murray or accidentally setting our neighbor’s yard on fire during the Fourth of July. Over the years, memories of these misfortunes faded away, but the love and support of my large family did not.

As I grew into a young man, I began to wish that I could build a family of my own. But in 1990, I ran into an obstacle while I was attending college at Winthrop.

I realized I was gay. As a 19-year-old at the crest of facing the real world, this realization was an extra burden. To make matters worse, no one talked much about gay men and lesbians back then, much less about them raising families. Subsequently, it took me time (and many tears and sleepless nights) to realize that there was nothing wrong with being gay and having a family.
But apparently, my perfectly normal desire to raise a family has mixed up some people’s concept of what makes a family.

At least that is what some of my fellow South Carolinians might think.

On November 7th, our state will be deciding on a constitutional amendment that addresses the very definition of family.

As a lifelong South Carolinian and a native son of Columbia, allow me to share what the amendment means to me and to my understanding of family. Raised in a black, Christian church, the importance of family was instilled in me from the day I was born. In my life I have seen that the desire to start a family and have it protected by your community is a normal part of the human condition. No one, gay or straight, should have to apologize for feeling that way, especially my fellow gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender South Carolinians who are already members of loving families and productive communities across our state.
Unfortunately, anti-gay forces are attacking our families. Those who push this Family Discrimination Amendment preface their justifications with the caveat that they do not hate gay people.

I actually believe them.

Their attempts do not spring out of hatred but rather a misguided sense of entitlement. They feel they must dictate to South Carolinians what makes a family, that they have the patent on what constitutes a "real family" and to heck with the rest of us who do not fit their "standards."

Let me register my vehement opposition to this ignorant, prejudiced and narrow-minded ideology.

Families are not about one strict and unbending definition. A family is about creating beauty and success regardless of its makeup—from single mothers working two jobs to grandmothers raising their grandchildren. My definition of family may have changed since I was a boy, but the importance of family to me has not.

Amendment 1 does not just attack gay families, it attacks all families.

Though it may seem that the fight over this Amendment will end negatively for South Carolina’s families, I remain optimistic that its opponents have used this opportunity to talk with other South Carolinians about a more complete and realistic definition of family. I am filled with the hope that the gay community can convince fellow South Carolinians to look at us as ordinary people and leave the allotting of spaces in Heaven to our God.

After all, hope is another condition present in every human being.

And gay folks are just as human as anyone else.

Using a tragedy in a Machiavellian sense

First of all, I apologize for not posting for the past two days.

As I have said before in a past post, South Carolina has been embroiled in a serious fight concerning one of those bothersome "we need to protect marriage" amendments. Subsequently, much of my time has been devoted to getting the word out.

Despite the fact that no one has given my community any chance of beating the amendment back, we have made excellent ground. Gays in South Carolina are more organized and more aligned togther than any other time ever in the history of this state.

But then I also believe in miracles and upsets and I have my fingers crossed.

On a more serious note, a recent trial has demonstrated how the anti-gay industry will continue to manipulate public events in order to demonize the gay community.

The trial involves a 22-year-old man who raped and brutally murdered an older woman, Mary Stachowicz.

Here is the part that tweaks the ears of Peter LaBarbera and other so-called "pro family" experts: The man is claiming he did it because the woman made fun of him for being gay and tried to "change" his orientation.

Now this is a defense allegation and it is purely sketchy. It is also worth mentioning that Ms. Stachowicz was robbed.

But the interesting thing about the entire trial is how the anti-gay industry reports it as compared to the legitimate news media:

Prosecutor Says (Homosexual) 'Monster' Nicholas Gutierrez also Raped Chicago Catholic Mother, Mary Stachowicz, as Trial Begins - (http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/638121334.html)

Woman's death at hands of 'gay' her fault, says lawyer
Trial begins over death of Christian who questioned homosexual lifestyle choice - (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52711)

Man Raped and Murdered Woman because she Vocally Opposed Gay Lifestyle says Defense Lawyer - (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06110202.html)

Now a look at a legitimate newspaper does include the detail that the defense is using a "she wouldn't leave him alone because he was gay" defense but one added this:

Raymond Scacchitti, 42, testified in the trial of Nicholas Gutierrez, 23, charged in the Nov. 13, 2002, slaying of Mary Stachowicz, 51.The two men, who also worked at the F.J. Sikorski Funeral Home, lived in an apartment above the business where Stachowicz's body was found in a crawl space. Scacchitti said Stachowicz knew he and Gutierrez were gay and never questioned them about their lifestyle." - (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0610290301oct29,1,4088569,print.story?coll=chi-newslocalchicago-hed)

This is just an allegation from a witness in the trial but I noticed how none of the so-called "pro family" sites included the above detail.

Now no one really knows why Ms. Stachowicz was murdered and frankly, I personally don't care. It should not have happened. My heart and prayers go out to her and her family.

But I cannot stand to see how the anti-gay industry is exploiting her death. They are comparing her case to that of Matthew Shepard in an attempt to prove a bias against Christians:

"Mary Stachowicz will never be remembered the way Matthew Shepard is, thus showing how politically corrupt the whole concept of hate crime legislation really is." - Catholic League President William Donohue

Mr. Donohue and the rest have already attempted to attack the gay community for the crime. I noticed how in many of their articles and press releases, the charge of "media bias" and "no comments from pro-gay groups" are tossed around.

Apparently they can't wait until the trial is over to manipulate the facts.

Batten down the hatches! Another "manufactured marytr"

Yesterday, I talked about how the anti-gay industry took the case of the firing of a anti-gay amendment supporter and tried to make it a case of gays "silencing the opposition."

Well possibly here comes another one. I say possibly because we don't know all of the facts in the case.

The Associated Press is reporting that a student attending Missouri State University is suing the school because allegedly she was brought in front of an ethics committee for refusing to write and sign letters to the Missouri state legislature to approve gay adoption and foster parenting. (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/49318.aspx)

Now details are sketchy but we all know that won't stop James Dobson, Agape Press, Donald Wildmon or any other members of the anti-gay industry.

Even as you read this, they are creating letters, press releases, and talking points about the incident. I expect a full article in Agape Press featuring the student in a Joan of Arc mode.

I also fully expect so-called "pro family" and conservative columnists (i.e. Matt Barber, Peter LaBarbera, Bill O'Reilly, Kevin McCullough, etc.) to write all sorts of drivel that will be featured in places such as Town Hall and World Net Daily.

I wish they would wait for the full story. Officials at the school have declined comments until they get the full story.

Now if the situation happened like the young woman is claiming then by all means give her recompensement.

But the anti-gay industry is notorious for taking an incident (a misunderstanding or a bit of singular bad behavior by someone overzealous) and try to frame it as a plot to hurt Christians.

I am going to follow this situation and keep you all posted. Until then, watch and count how many times the anti-gay industry will milk the incident.

Agape Press - a study of a slick contradiction

The October 20th edition of anti-gay Agape Press features an article on a Virginia food plant employee who was allegedly fired for supporting one of those "marriage amendments" via a written message on his truck (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/202006a.asp):

Luis Padilla was reportedly terminated from his employment at a Cargill Foods plant in Harrisonburg because of a written message on the rear window of his pickup truck that read: "Please, vote for marriage on Nov. 7." That is the day when voters in Virginia will be considering a proposed amendment to the state constitution protecting traditional marriage.

According to the Daily-News Record in Harrisonburg, Padilla -- who worked in Cargill's human resources office -- was dismissed for insubordination when he refused to remove the message, which company officials could be considered harassment. He apparently had removed the sign when first requested, then later posted it again and parked his truck outside the company parking lot. The newspaper report indicates the former Cargill employee was trying to reach an accommodation with the company about the message when he was fired.

Now apparently, Mr. Padilla has been hired back and will be compensated for the three weeks he was out from work (http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=5606139&nav=S6aK).

Of course, Agape Press will push Mr. Padilla as yet another "manufactured martyr" in its war against the gay community. The article contained all sorts of platitudes about "those who want tolerance can't show tolerance" and the like without even considering the fact that this may have been an incident of a overzealous employer. No gay representative was even quoted in the article, even though it pretty much accused the Virginia's gay community of getting Mr. Padilla fired.

Personally, I am glad Mr. Padilla got his job back. He clearly was not harassing anyone with his message, therefore he should have a right to state his opinions. Like it or not, not everyone feels that gays have the right to have their relationships protected.

But four days later, Agape Press featured this article, AFA: Online Queries Reveal Wal-Mart's Promotion of Homosexuality (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/242006c.asp) :

. . .the American Family Association (AFA), one of the groups that has called on Christian consumers to spend their dollars elsewhere as a sign of their displeasure with Wal-Mart's pro-homosexual leanings, says the nation's largest retailer is not just working with the homosexual agenda of the NGLCC, it is promoting it. As proof, AFA offers up examples of books available for purchase through Wal-Mart's online bookstore -- books the pro-family group contends support or defend homosexuality. . .

(AFA 's Randy) Sharp also notes that Wal-Mart is now considering same-sex "partner" benefits, bolstering AFA's notion that the retailer has moved from neutrality to actively promoting the homosexual lifestyle. "Through their services, through their benefits, through their products -- all of these things lead to only one analysis," says the special projects director, "and that is that Wal-Mart is supportive of homosexual marriage in America."

One more fact you should know: Agape Press is owned and distributed by the American Family Association.

So in other words, according to the American Family Association, it is terrible that a man is fired for expressing potentially anti-gay beliefs but a company that caters to its gay customers and establishes benefits for its gay employees is even worse.

That is just plain wrong.

If Mr. Padilla has a right to state his opinion about homosexuality then Wal-Mart should have that same right to seek out gay money and protect its gay employees.

Why does the American Family Association think that Mr. Padilla should have his rights but Wal-Mart shouldn't have the same rights?

Hypocrisy is NOT a Christian value.

Gays hate God? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

World Net Daily columnist Kevin McCullough has an interesting theory about gays and marriage equality.

Apparently we gays hate God.

In a recent column( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52633), he draws an incredibly interesting (albeit irrational and sex driven) theory about why we gays are pushing for marriage equality:

"No longer satisfied with practicing the unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek in private bedrooms, they wish to be able to do so in public. They are also suffering from such immense guilt over their sexual behaviors, because they know inherently that the actions they perform are in fact unhealthy, that they will go to any means necessary to try and shut down the voices in their heads that tell them it is wrong.

They wrongfully believe that the guilty voice within them is an echo of a prudish state that seeks to limit their freedoms. They wrongfully believe that the judgment they feel is emanating from "Bible thumpers." And what they fail to admit is that the voice that condemns them the loudest is never a human voice – but in fact the voice of their own conscience informed by the truth of the God who created them."

And basically Kevin wraps it up by saying:

"Radical homosexual activists hate marriage because fundamentally they hate God, and the guilt of both drives them to extremes."

World Net Daily isn't exactly a gay positive publication (and that is the understatement of the decade for those of us who have seen it) and Mr. McCullough is not exactly a gay positive individual. On occasion, he has said some unsubstantiated things about the gay community. And he has never backed any of it up with proof:

"The "alphas" in homosexual relationships, be they men or women, are many times recruiting younger partners. A vast percentage of those who enter the homosexual life do so after having been sexually initiated by an older person of their sex – be it consensual or not – it usually has the feel of enticement or seduction." - The ‘Gay’ Truth, May 30, 2003

Also, his activities attacking the gay community go further. In an earlier post, I made reference to a situation regarding David Parker's war with his son's elementary school in Massachusetts.

Parker created a media event last year because he was upset that his son brought home a b0ok showing a same-sex couple. Parker escalated the situation until he was arrested. A year later, Parker's son was involved in a fight at school with a friend over a cafeteria seat. School officials were quick to stop the situation and notified the Parkers and the parents of the other child.

But almost a month later, a press release was sent out claiming that Parker's son was attacked by a gang of students because of his father's fight against the school.

McCullough was one of the initial spreaders of this story (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50669).

Now the school was quick to refute the claim about the fight involving Parker's son (http://www.lexingtoncares.org/ChildsAltercationUnrelated.html).

But no one, McCullough included, who claimed that Parker's son was attacked because of his father's anti-gay stance apologized or addressed the lie they told.

That is the caliber of "Christian" McCullough is.

I am sorry if I sound mean but McCullough's claim about gays hating God disturbs me. It makes me angry because it was God who led me to know that I am perfect in His sight as a gay man. If it had not been for Him leading me and guiding me through my coming out process, I would not be here today.

McCullough's nasty claim is an anathema to me. His arrogance reminds me of a childhood friend who, when I got the best of him in sports, would tell me that his loss didn't matter because he was a Christian and was going to heaven while I was going to hell.

Mr. McCullough, some of us in the gay community may distance ourselves from religion because of people like you attempting to bogart the throne of God like you are a bouncer at some celestial nightclub, but we never distance ourselves from God nor his love of us.

Despite attempts to legislate our lives, you will never legislate our faith. God loves us for the gay, lesbians, bisexual, or transgender creations that we are.

And we love God.

Links to spiritual gay groups:

www.operationrebirth.com

http://www.soulforce.org/

http://www.gaychristian.net/

http://www.christiangay.com/

http://www.whosoever.org/

Headless Monster citing #1

I haven't done this in a while and luckily for me, I ran into two headless monsters.

Let me explain further.

A headless monster a belief that has been refuted over and over again, but is still pushed as fact, usually by someone who has a vested interest in telling lies.

You can kill the head but the monster still lives because it is being propped up.

Headless monsters are key to the anti-gay industry's exploitation of people of faith about the lives of gays.

Two recent events prove my point.

The first involves a state representative in Kentucky (Joseph Fischer) who claims that gays choose their orientation (http://news.kypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061025/NEWS02/610250347/1014):


Fischer claims to have done research on the subject via looking at an ex-gay webpage, NARTH.

The point of view of NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) is not backed up by any legitimate medical group.

Even more than that, I took a look at its webpage and googled a certain name whom many of us all know and love: Paul Cameron.

Cameron, who was kicked out the American Psychological Association for intentionally misrepresenting his colleagues' work (amongst his other dubious honors) is referenced twice on studies that appear on NARTH's webpage.

Here - http://www.narth.com/docs/conversiontherapy.html

and here - http://www.narth.com/docs/olson.html

NARTH uses the work of a discredited researcher without any comments about the controversy surrounding his work. Can anyone believe anything the organization puts out?

Or better yet, if a group of pediatricians discredit a colleague for possibly exposing his patients to potential danger, would Rep. Fischer continue to take his child to that pediatrician?

Headless Monster citing #2

I had to go all the way to Australia for this one.

A doctor, Richard Fitzgibbons was interviewed as to the supposed dangers of the "homosexual lifestyle" and how schools are not telling children about this (http://www.mercatornet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=398)

The piece is filled with errors. For example:

"M. Xiridou in 2003 reported that a long-term relationship among those he studied was 18 months, and overall they had an average of 18 to 26 partners per year. Consequently, due to AIDS and other diseases sexually active homosexual and bisexual males can lose up to 20 years of life expectancy."

First of all, M. Xiridou is a woman: Maria Xiridou. The fact that Mr. Fitzgibbons did not know this demonstrates how he was only interested in mainpulating the information rather than finding out facts.

I cover Dr. Xiridou's study in my upcoming book because it is one of many that the anti-gay industry distorts to demonize the gay community. Her study wasn't even looking at gay relationships. It was solely based in the city of Amsterdam and its purpose was:

"To access the relative contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam and to determine the effect of increasing sexually risky behaviours among both types of partnerships in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART)."

Now according to Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin(http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,003.htm):

"Dr. Xiridou and her colleagues based their research article on the Amsterdam Cohort Studies of HIV infection and AIDS among homosexually active men. These studies began in 1984, and had several different protocols in their lifetime:

Oct 1984-1985: Gay men aged 18-65 with at least two sexual partners in the previous six months. In other words, monogamous partners were explicitly excluded.

April 1985-Feb 1988: Study enrollment was continued, except HIV-negative men were now excluded. Only HIV-positive men were added.

Feb 1988 – Dec 1988: The study was re-opened to HIV-negative men.

Various additional enrollments continued from through 1998. Especially notable was a special recruitment campaign for men under the age of thirty beginning in 1995. After 1996, all men above the age of thirty were dropped from the study. Their data was excluded from subsequent analyses.

Nobody outside of Amsterdam was accepted into the study except for AIDS patients who attended clinics in Amsterdam for treatment. This makes the study almost exclusively an urban one.

So, what do we have? We have a study population that was heavily weighted with HIV/AIDS patients, excluded monogamous participants, was predominantly urban, and under the age of thirty. While this population was good for the purposes of the study, it was in no way representative of Amsterdam’s gay men, let alone gay men anywhere else."

Now the part of Mr. Fitzgibbons's quote Consequently, due to AIDS and other diseases sexually active homosexual and bisexual males can lose up to 20 years of life expectancy, is a flat out lie.

He makes it seem that Dr. Xiridou found this out through her study but she never said anything of the type.

Mr. Fitzgibbons is distorting a 1997 study by six Candian researchers. These six researchers went on record in 2001 saying that their work was being distorted by members of the anti-gay industry (http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499).

Next, Mr. Fitzgibbons says the following:

"Dr John Diggs has assembled overwhelming medical evidence on the serious health risks of the lifestyle in his article, 'The Risks of Gay Sex'. And yet young people are not being informed about this."

I think I have covered just a few of the fallacies in Diggs's study in an earlier post but they bear repeating. I cover him in my upcoming book also:

Diggs, on two occasions, includes the study done by Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg in their book, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, as indicative of the entire gay population. In one passage, he even refers to it as "a far ranging study of homosexual men . . ." But Bell and Weinberg never said that their findings were indicative of all gay men. They actually said ". . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlike that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals."

Diggs cites a Canadian study twice in order to claim that gays have a shorter lifespan than heterosexuals. But his citation of the study is a mischaracterization. In 2001, the six original researchers (Robert S. Hogg, Stefan A. Strathdee, Kevin J.P. Craib, Michael V. O’Shaughnessy, Julion Montaner, and Martin T. Schechter) who conducted that study have gone on record saying that religious conservatives (like Diggs) were distorting their work. By the way, it is the same one Fitzgibbons references.

In another section entitled Physical Health, Diggs claims that gays are victims of "gay bowel syndrome." The term is an obsolete medical term. exist and even the CDC does not use it. In fact, if one was to look at the endnotes of Diggs’ study, he would find that two of the sources he quoted concerning "gay bowel syndrome" were from articles in published in 1976 and 1983, which is consistent with the years that the term existed. One last source was a letter to the editor printed in 1994 but Diggs does not make it clear as to what were the circumstances surrounding it.

Richard Fitzgibbons is described as a major contributor to Homosexuality and Hope, published by the Catholic Medical Association of the United States. Apparently it is one of those "you don't have to be gay" books. If Mr. Fitzgibbons wants to give gays hope, then he should stop distorting their lives.

What's with the code words?

Someone tell me what in the world are the so-called prominent television journalists getting paid for these days? They obviously aren't doing their jobs. According to the site http://www.newshounds.us/:

" (Sean) Hannity smugly finished his interview by telling (Bill) Hemmer that he had given some quotes to Cheney from Nancy Pelosi. He said that Cheney shrugged, and smiled, and said those were San Francisco values not mid America values."

And check out Chris Matthews (http://mediamatters.org/items/200610240010)

"Do you think -- does she (Nancy Pelosi) look like if she gets a full -- a full spread on TV, like 60 Minutes, a program like that, she'll probably get more on 20/20, shows like that? Do you think she's looking too San Francisco?"

And now you have a correspondent from CNN, Candy Crowley, asking Democratic House of Representative candidate Heath Shuler:

"Are you a Nancy Pelosi Democrat?" (http://mediamatters.org/items/200610250003)

In an earlier post, I said that it seems that our so-called news gatherers are taking on Republican talking points about Rep. Nancy Pelosi before she even has the opportunity to become Speaker of the House. They seem to be trying to undermine her before she even takes the job.

It reminds me of when Ronald Reagan was running for president in the 1980 election. He made up a story about a "welfare queen" ripping off the government (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm).

The story, of course, was a lie designed to exploit people's ignorance about welfare. But more than that, Reagan's lie conjured up the racist image of lazy fat black women in house dresses who sat around getting pregnant in between watching their "stories" and collecting welfare checks.

That image was effective.

Now, over 20 years later, we have journalists, gatekeepers if you will, taking a page from Reagan's book. What the hell are "San Francisco values" anyway?

Apparently they are supposed to mean "anything goes," which means free love, polygamy, socialism, and yes, homosexuality.

Just like Reagan used racist connotations to get elected in 1980, so-called objective journalists are using homophobic terms to smear Rep. Nancy Pelosi in 2006.

Now I don't know if Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker of the House after November 7 and if she does, I don't know whether or not she will be effective.

But I do know what true journalism is and none of our overpaid, simple minded people smiling on camera spouting soundbites and polemic statements fit the bill.

We should expect and demand more from those who claim to tell us the facts without bias.

I have said it once, and I will say it again:

I dare anyone to tell me that this is purely coincidental.

Is Michael Reagan for real?

Are we in Mississippi circa the 1960s?

I ask that question because of a column I read today by conservative Michael Reagan entitled Conservatives don't hate gays, just agenda (http://www.baxterbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061021/OPINION01/610210329/1014/OPINION).

Mr. Reagan is commenting in blogger Michael Rogers and his outing of in-the-closet Congressmen in the wake of the Mark Foley scandal.

Mr. Reagan's piece is the usual load of nonsense about "the gay agenda" and such but he does something I found very interesting.

These comments are from the column:

I know a lot of gays who live in California. Most of them are not supportive of gay marriage. Most gays are not supportive of the radical gay issue of punishing the Boy Scouts because they won't allow homosexuals to be scoutmasters . . .

Liberals take it as an article of faith that conservatives hate gays. That's absolutely untrue. What we don't support is the radical gay agenda. We are utterly opposed to gay marriage, homosexual scoutmasters or promoting the gay lifestyle in our schools.
And, as I said, most gays agree with me and not with Rogers on these issues.

Now I am a gay man, but I am also a black man. Therefore, I am very sensitive and extremely cognizant about several things when it comes to issues of race and the like.

The thing that strikes me about Reagan's column is how he sounds like the racists in the 1960s. You know who I am talking about. The ones who would say things like:

"Our niggras were alright until them Yankees up north and that N A A C P and the rest of them outside agitators got 'em all riled up."

It seems that the phrase "radical gay agenda" has replaced "outside agitators" but the connotation is still the same.

I wrote Mr. Reagan a letter expressing those very concerns. I don't think he will write me back. But if he does, I am anticipating that he will talk about how dare I compare the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s to today's gay rights movement. How dare I say the two are similar.

But Mr. Reagan, how can the movements not be similar when the ignorance of their opposers are pretty much the same?

Senator obviously "pinch hitting" for anti-gay industry

The Washington Blade is reporting that Senator Tom Coburn is investigating how some agencies fighting the AIDS crisis is spending money going to conferences.

His legislative assistant "conveniently" sent out an email about how "Paul Kawata, executive director of the National Minority AIDS Council, a Washington, D.C., group that organized the Florida AIDS conference, stayed in a penthouse suite at Hollywood’s Westin Diplomat Hotel that included a large screen TV, a luxury spa and a grand piano."

Now Mr. Kawata has gone on record saying that the room was free of charge "along with 25 free meeting rooms, as a “perk” for booking 950 guest rooms at the hotel, 11 months ago, for a conference that drew 3,000 attendees."

The entire article is here - http://www.washblade.com/print.cfm?content_id=9300

But I have harped on the hotel room with the grand piano because I know that is the item that members of the anti-gay industry will probably harp on if and when they use what Senator Coburn is doing for their own benefit.

Senator Coburn seems to be hinting that HIV/AIDS prevention organizations are wasting taxpayer money.

But more than that, he is giving Dobson, Sheldon, and company more fodder to feed upon.

Senator Coburn has never been a friend to the gay community but he is in the hip pocket of Dobson and company. I am willing to bet that by next week, an headline in Agape Press (and press releases by various so-called "pro family" groups) will feature a spot on the hotel room with the luxury piano. What's more, the article will probably not be objective but quote some phony "pro family" activist who will whine about the money spent on HIV/AIDS prevention and education in leiu of diseases that allegedly more of a body count.

You see, this is all a game. And Senator Coburn just threw the anti-gay industry a forward pass.

A challenge to Peter LaBarbera and anyone else

Something terrible happened recently in Great Britain.

An 11-year-old child was murdered by a 14-year-old. And the story is that the murder happened because the 11-year-old refused the 14 year old’s sexual advances.

First off, it was a terrible thing to have happened and we need to pray for all parties involved.

Unfortunately our friend Peter LaBarbera is yet again salivating over the prospect of "catching a homosexual in an act of violence."

On his webpage, Peter makes sure to mention the awful tale but with the headline - Eleven-year-old stabbed 16 times after rejecting homosexual advance.

It seems to Peter that the possibility that a gay person was involved trumps the crime itself.

Which leads me to the challenge that I know he won’t take.

It’s really meant to be rhetorical and it’s a challenge to him and anyone else interested.

A couple of years ago, I ran across a flyer that said:

Don't have sex with blacks!
Avoid AIDS!

The flyer was put out by a white racist group and showed the picture of a black man who had been passing the disease AIDS to his heterosexual sexual partners.

The flyer also contained the names of two other black men who had been convicted of this crime.

The flyer went on to say "These black sexual predators lied about being HIV positive and had sex with dozens of white women . . . Don't be the next victim."

Here is the question for you, Peter.

Do you think that there is a difference between what that racist group claimed about black men and what you claim about gay men?

The art of undermining

Today's blog entry is a departure from the norm because of recent events I want to call everyone's attention to:

"If politics were fair, Democrats would be in as much trouble as Republicans. And they'd be just as vulnerable. They've been obstructionist, anti-tax-cut, soft on terrorism, and generally obnoxious. On top of that, Pelosi is the most unpopular national politician in America. But in the sixth year of the Bush presidency, with a GOP-run Congress, Democrats aren't the issue. Republicans are." - "journalist" Fred Barnes, Oct. 23rd edition of the Weekly Standard

"I think it's interesting, Matt, that both sides agree on the stakes. It is Iraq. It is whether we support the president's policy in Iraq or not. It is whether we want Nancy Pelosi to be the first woman speaker of the House or not. My own view is that iconic fact of that woman sitting behind the president during a State of the Union address is an enormous change in our culture. A lot of professional women and men women will say, 'Great.' A lot of the more conservative people will say, 'Wait a minute, this woman's from San Francisco, she's a liberal.'" - "journalist" Chris Matthews, The Today Show, Sept. 5th

"Let's talk about this possibility -- it seems likely now, in almost all cards that the Democrats will get control of the House, which will bring us two years of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is not a popular figure or respected figure nationally. Her behavior will be more visible than ever, more conspicuous than ever. What effect does that have on the possibility of Hillary Clinton being nominated or even elected in 2008? I think it is a very good question. I suspect the effect would not be terrifically positive." - "journalist" Brit Hume, Fox News, Oct. 15th

"Ordinarily, a party's leadership structure is set by the caucus in advance, and all members are expected go along with the decision. In the eight years Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, has been speaker, he's never had a protest vote cast against him. Mrs. Pelosi, whose voting record is considerably more liberal than many of her fellow Democrats, has never enjoyed that luxury. In last year's election for speaker, one Democrat opposed her for the top post. Four Democrats opposed her in 2003, with three of them simply voting "present" as a protest. Such protest votes are a sign of dissension within a party. But in the upcoming Congress -- where Democrats could hold the majority by just one or two seats -- any members who vote for someone other than Mrs. Pelosi or simply decide not to vote could trigger parliamentary mayhem. " - Pelosi no shoo-in for job as speaker, The Washington Times, Oct. 20, 2006

Does anyone see a pattern here? An echo chamber is forming.

Obviously, in getting ready for a possible change in leadership on Nov. 7, some "journalists" are undermining Rep. Nancy Pelosi's credibility to serve as U.S. of Representatives Speaker of the House before she even has the opportunity to take over the duties.

This is how Al Gore lost in 2000.

Journalists, instead of doing research, took Republican talking points against Gore (i.e Al Gore has a problem with lying because he claims to have invented the internet) and repeated them on talk shows and news commentaries, creating an echo chamber that ultimately helped Bush.

Gore's loss demonstrated just how dangerous lazy journalists are.

Now I am afraid that the same thing is happening with Pelosi.

Just who are these people who claim that Pelosi is unpopular? Do any polls verify this?

No and as proof of this, check out this link- http://mediamatters.org/items/200610150005

One thing this does prove - misrepresentation is not a hallmark that belongs solely to the anti-gay industry.