South Carolina lgbts, allies will speak against discriminatory bill

Legislators and social justice organizations will speak against the discriminatory amendment that was added to H-3543 at a press conference on Tuesday, May 19, at 11:45am in the upstairs lobby of the State House.

The original bill, which addressed violence between "dating partners" in grades 6-12, was amended on second reading to limit its application to "heterosexual dating relationship(s)".

"This well-intentioned bill has been subverted by legislators more concerned with scoring points in the culture war than in protecting the well being of this state's children," said Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter.

Rep. Cobb-Hunter and Rep. Ken Kennedy will be joined at the press conference by Harriet Hancock of Columbia's chapter of Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and representatives of other Midlands social justice organizations.

The event is being organized by the SC Progressive Network, a coalition of organizations promoting equal protection under the law. For more on the Network, see www.scpronet.com or call 803-808-3384.

John P Dawkins Midlands Coordinator
S.C. Progressive Network
803.467.1981
http://www.scpronet.com/
www.myspace.com/scpronet

I intend to be there tomorrow in the thick of everything and I will be covering it for this site and posting an entry on Pam's House Blend. It just amazes me that the SC legislators can't seem to get it together regarding the stimulus package but can't wait to leapfrog over each other in an attempt to score anti-gay points in this so-called culture war.

Monday midday news briefs

First an announcement: Due to a suprisingly degree of popularity with Friday evening's post, Know your lgbt history - Flowers of Evil, I will now be featuring a Know your lgbt history segment every Friday evening.

In these entries, I will be posting clips from past movies and television shows in order to gauge discussion on how the lgbt community was represented in the media.

With these clips will be a little bit of history behind said movies and television shows.

This Friday, I will be featuring a popular horror movie of the 1980s that had huge gay subtext in one of the scenes. It led to one of my biggest crushes as a teenager.

I hope you all enjoy my new venture.

Now onto news briefs:

Cynthia Nixon Engaged to Girlfriend - while I'm generally not one for celebrity driven news, this is something that should be shared. Congratulations to Nixon and her partner.

Lesbian Mom Nominated for U.S. Attorney - President Obama has been catching a lot of flack on lgbt issues such as Don't Ask, Don't Tell. While this won't negate the appropriate degree of anger over his backtracking, it's still an awesome development.

NC: openly gay candidate announces run for Charlotte City Council - I wonder if he has a partner. I'm still looking to date an elected official. I've got the fur coat and hat already picked out.

Studies: Gay marriage pays big - Hell, I could have told you that!

SCOTUS Round-Up - This issue will have serious positive repercussions for the lgbt community.

Matt Barber repeats the lie about Matthew Shepard

Gay columnist Andrew Sullivan does not agree with hate crimes legislation.

Sullivan's criticism of hate crimes legislation is not surprising. He is a conservative who from time to time criticizes the so-called leftwing intelligensia of the gay rights movement.

Sullivan's criticisms shouldn't be viewed as some out of the ordinary event because the lgbt community is not monolithic. However in the eyes of the religious right and their supporters, where conspiracy theories about the lgbt community are rampant, anything that gives the impression that a gay person is "rebelling" against the so-called lgbt group think is treated like Arlen Spector defecting from the Republican party. Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber (and One News Now) is treating Sullivan's comments like some incredible revelation:

A surprising revelation from a homosexual activist over the purpose of the "hate crimes" bill is drawing kudos from at least one pro-family spokesman.

The activist is Andrew Sullivan, one of the movers and shakers in the international homosexual movement. "The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that," Sullivan writes on his blog, "and Matthew Shepard's murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time."

. . . "He is to be commended for his candor," says (Matt) Barber. "He has admitted publicly now that the hate crimes bill...is, among other things, simply a money-making scheme drummed up by the organized homosexualist lobby."

S. 909 is called the Matthew Shepard Act to honor a young homosexual man who was tortured and killed in 1998 not because of his sexual orientation, but during the course of a robbery. As Barber notes, the murder has been used as a money-raiser, too.

"Andrew Sullivan points this irony out and points out how ridiculous it is that they are using [Shepard's] name, exploiting this poor young man's horrible death to try to push a money-making scheme...a social ponzi scheme," says Barber.

For the record, while Sullivan speaks out against hate crimes legislation, at no time did he give an impression that the lgbt community is falsely exploiting Matthew Shepard's murder.

While I find it funny that the religious right are designating who our leaders are, I am also offended by this constant repeition of the inaccurate talking point that Shepard's murder was not due to his sexual orientation. It has been proven consistently time and time again that Shepard's killers targeted him because he was gay.

Barber and company continue to refer a highly criticized episode of ABC's 20/20 that merely speculated other motivations behind Shepard's murder. The episode changed nothing because it proved nothing.

It's ironic that Barber accuses the lgbt community of exploiting Shepard's death when he's clearly the one doing the exploiting.

Editor's note - The constant repeating an inaccuracy about gays and lesbians even after the meme is exposed as a lie is distorton technique two of the six distortion techniques I've outlined as to how the religious right stigmatizes the lgbt community.

Know your lgbt history - Flowers of Evil

Last Saturday, I posted a classic episode of The Jeffersons that presented what I thought to be a positive look at the transgender community.

I received such a positive response from it that I've decided that, from time to time, I will post clips of past movies and television episodes to give a feel as to how lgbts were and are represented in the media.

Today, I am posting something less positive.

In the 1970s, actress Angie Dickinson starred in the successful Police Woman television series. This particular episode, Flowers of Evil, was so controversial that it was only shown once due to protests by the lgbt community.

It dealt with Dickinson getting to the bottom of a case in which three lesbians running a retirement home were stealing money from their residents, drugging them, and then gruesomely murdering them.

As this minisode (an abridged version of a television episode)shows, there is a lot to be desired from this particular episode:



Trust me when I say that the full episode is much worse, specifically the stereotypical portrayals of the three villains:

The Bitch (Gladys) - The ringleader of the trio. Beautiful and sleek enough to supposedly "fool" men about her sexual orientation. She is the one who commits the only murder shown in the episode and it's not a nice scene. Her sadism is matched only by her lust; a quality that leads Dickinson to successfully go undercover at the retirement home.

The Butch (Mame) - Coarse, crude, and detached to a fault. She enjoys watching Gladys commit the murder.

The Femme (Janet) - The supposed "true woman" of the trio and as such, the one with a conscience and the "weak link." While Gladys strangles the victim and Mame watches, Janet stands outside in the rain crying in guilt. She can be prodded with kind words or a hard slap by Gladys.

Friday midday news briefs

We are going to fight against that bill here in South Carolina. But in the meantime, all is not doom and gloom for the lgbt community at large:

Gov. Lynch Statement Regarding Same-Sex Marriage Legislation - The New Hampshire governor will sign the bill if certain provisions are included giving added protections to religious communities. These are the same protections included in Vermont and Connecticut bills. I have no problems with them. The bill is as good as signed.

Breaking News: Pa. grants domestic-partner benefits - Hot damn! We win one in Pennsylvania

Good News: Liberty Counsel Loses - And another nail is put in the coffin of Florida's anti-gay adoption law.

Watergate jailbird Chuck Colson's hysteria over 'saving marriage' from 'radical gays' - Chuck, baby, sweetheart, the Federal Marriage Amendment ain't gonna happen.

'Hate crimes' bill targets ex-'gay' community - This One News Now article reminds me of an episode of Family Guy when one of the main characters was running for Mayor. She decided to hell with the facts and started using buzzwords like "the terrorists" and "9/11." I think Regina Griggs of PFOX saw the same episode because she does not go into detail just how the bill will target "ex-gays" (probably because it doesn't). She just repeats talking points and buzzwords.

James Dobson surrenders the fort - whoop te do

While we fight the SC Legislature over that mean spirited bill, it's difficult to remember that things aren't totally bad for lgbts.

After all, James Dobson has given up the fight, so to speak:

Politically, James Dobson has surrendered. At least for the time being. Today, the Focus on the Family founder devotes his typically family-focused radio show to what he calls "the utter evil that's coming out of the United States Congress." He's referring to the hate crimes bill that recently passed the House.

That's not so unusual.

What's surprising is that Dobson tells his listeners that they're politically helpless:

I want to tell you up front that we're not going to ask you to do anything, to make a phone call or to write a letter or anything.

There is nothing you can do at this time about what is taking place because there is simply no limit to what the left can do at this time. Anything they want, they get and so we can't stop them.

We tried with [Health and Human Services Secretary] Kathleen Sebelius and sent thousands of phone calls and emails to the Senate and they didn't pay any attention to it because they don't have to. And so what you can do is pray, pray for this great nation... As I see it, there is no other answer. There's no other answer, short term.

So much for Christianity being the religion of hope. In reality, I think Dobson is being overly dramatic. I don't buy his phony surrender.

And apparently neither do many of the commentators:

Dobson speaks of conservative Christians as entering "their most discouraging" period, but he needs to return to the bible to see the political environment that birthed his religion, Jesus; entire ministry, indeed hes life, was spent under Roman occupation, but this didn't make an iota of difference in his mission. In fact, the church began awash with the blood and suffering of its martyrs. And this brand of Christianity becomes "discouraged" in the face of a Liberal Congress and Democrats in power? Tsk, tsk, Mr. Dobson...

Did I miss James Dobson's complaints when Republicans under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush controlled all three branches of government? Dobson takes the position of a spoiled, cowardly, cry-baby. Hypocrisy is his religion.

Dobson is just stoking the victim mentality his ilk feed off of. Underlying his taunt is "I say we're helpless but I'm just waiting for one of you brave souls to step up and prove me wrong". This kind of nonsense has nothing to do with religion. Clowns like Dobson are to Christianity what Bin Laden is to Islam - cunning manipulators of people too ignorant or intellectually lazy to know better. Turn of the TV and radio if you've got any guts and educate yourself. You don't need people like Dobson telling you what to do and think.

The hard right has led the utter decimation of the Republican party with their middle-ages mentality. Mr. Dobson, please don't give up hope and keep fighting, we need you to keep the Republicans out of step with majority of Americans.

Yes - repentance and prayer. That worked well during the Bush administration. It'll work just as well now. Get a grip people! The country is changing and doesn't want these old fashioned views anymore.

Having a spirited debate about the morality of government policy and initiatives is one thing. Characterizing anyone who doesn't believe as you do as a Godless immoral heathen is quite another. Dobson's decline was brought on by his own prejudices. He always did shill for the right wing of the Republican Party and so it is fitting that any pretense of being above the political aspirations of the GOP has been dropped. Reverend Doson, please retire to a life of prayer and reflection...and I will pray you come to realize how much you contributed to a divided United States of America.

I'm sick and tired of the evil, controlling Christian Right acting as if people that support Democrats are Godless and non-Christians. I am a Christian, raised in the Lutheran church, and I refuse to associate with any organized religion bc I don't need a church or a man telling me how to worship and how to vote. The Christian Right exhibit the most unChristian behaviors I can imagine. I would never associate myself with their version of Christianity. WWJD? He would not condone hatred, bigotry, and worship of a greedy pastor of a mega-church.

Bill with anti-gay amendment passes

I got this email from Ryan Wilson, head of SC Pride:

The House of Rep. just passed H. 3543 . . . amended to exclude same-sex dating relationships from education and reporting requirements in school districts in the state. The amendment to exclude passed by a vote of 87 to 13. The bill passed 75 to 25. Third reading is tomorrow.

According to the State newspaper:

Bill sponsor Rep. Joan Brady, R-Richland, said she's fine with the amendment to her bill because most dating violence occurs in girl-boy relationships.

That's a load of nonsense. What would the harm be to include lgbt relationships in this bill?

What I want to know is what's the deal with South Carolina's government. Why do our elected officials go out of their way to attack the lgbt community?

Last year, it was Governor Sanford vs. the "South Carolina is so gay" ad campaign. But that's frivilous when compared to this situation.

It doesn't feel good to know that the people we elect to represent us don't think that much of us to do their job.

Regardless of anyone's religious beliefs about homosexuality, lgbt children deserve protection just like heterosexual children.

I don't see what's so complicated about this.

Thursday midday news briefs

Barack's door: They knock Knox, we knock noxious attacks - You just know the religious right didn't like Harry Knox on President Obama's faith-based committee. It was just a matter of them finding the right lie to spin.

APA revises 'gay gene' theory - Leave it to One News Now to spin the APA revision lie. The truth of the story can be found here

FL winger Congressman files bill, still thinks Obama isn't a citizen - The birthers are like Jason Voorhees. They don't ever go away.

Uganda’s Anti-Gay Campaign Snares LGBT People and Rival Pastors, Tabloid Promises More “Outings” - They've declared war on lgbts in Uganda.

SC legislator wants to exclude gays from teen dating violence bill

Leave it to the South Carolina Legislature to shock my system this morning:

A bill, sponsored by Rep. Joan Brady, R-Richland, would require school districts to send home information or include in their student handbooks information about teen dating violence — including how to recognize whether a student is in an abusive relationship and where to go for help.

According to a 2007 state Department of Education survey, nearly 14 percent of S.C. students reported being “hit, slapped or physically hurt on purpose by their boyfriend or girlfriend” in the previous 12 months.

So far so good. It sounds like a productive idea. But then comes the shock:

The bill hit an unexpected roadblock Wednesday when Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester, introduced an amendment requiring the material to address only heterosexual relationships.

“I don’t want the Department of Education or school districts to teach children in grades six through 12 about (same-sex) relationships,” Delleney said.

I don't know where to begin to tell you what's wrong with Delleney's mindset. But I will try.

1. It stands to reason that if children are in a same-sex relationship (and I'm sure there are many who are), I don't think the school can't teach them something they already know. And even if they aren't in a same-sex relationship, children are not naive. Remind me to tell you the theories my 10-year-old cousin relayed to me about some of the characters of High School Musical.

2. Delleny's mindset is pure ignorance. His statement implies that learning about same-sex relationships will be mandatory in classrooms. This is what the bill says:

By Dec. 1, the S.C. Department of Education would have to develop a model dating violence policy to assist school districts in developing policies for reporting and responding to dating violence.

• By the 2010-2011 school year, each school district would establish a specific policy to address incidents of dating violence.

• Each school district’s dating violence policy would have to be published in school and school district handbooks or any publications on the school or district Web site that provide the rules, procedures or standards of conduct for students at school.

3. Delleny's mindset is also offensive. Gays are constantly hit with the barrage of nonsense that we want "special rights," but Delleny went out of his way to exclude us. He doesn't want to help us combat potential violence in our relationships because he doesn't care about us. It's bad enough when this comes from an ordinary citizen but the fact that a legislator publicly voices this notion without any shame is awful.

Delleny wasn't elected for his personal and religious beliefs. He was elected to serve the people of South Carolina regardless of race, religion, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation. He can't pick and choose who to serve. Or, in this case, who to protect.

His words emphasizes just how difficult it is for gays to live not only in South Carolina but in the United States in general. No other group is subject to the level of disrespect that we generally receive. Delleny wouldn't have gotten away with his public "screw you" if he had made any other group the subject of his tirade.

He will probably get a pat on the back by like minded homophobic individuals. Yes, Delleny is homophobic. I don't really see how anyone can use buzzwords to defend his actions. He isn't protecting traditional relationships or upholding morality.

Delleny is making it acceptable for South Carolina to cover it's ears so as not to hear the pleas of help coming from victims of relationship violence.

In a broader sense, he is making it acceptable to discriminate against South Carolinians simply because he has a personal problem with their sexual orientation.

And this is just basically wrong.

Peter LaBarbera is mad at me

I think our friend Peter LaBarbera is mad at me.

From time to time, I email Peter when I feel that his anti-gay postings are stepping a little too over the line of truth.

Today, I simply had to email him about something he put on his Americans for Truth webpage:

American Psychological Association Backtracks on ‘Gay Gene’ Claim

Peter is referring to a ridiculous article published by that lovely to-the-right of Atilla the Hun publication World Net Daily. The article claimed that the APA is now saying that there is no "gay gene."

Jeremy from Goodasyou destroyed this nonsensical piece of work before it even got off the ground:

. . . essentially WND is enabling NARTH and other "ex-gays," suggesting that a non-new, non-change from an organization that still very much stands against their work is somehow a "sudden" shift in policy. Once again, their side is using complexity to their advantage, simplistically and duplicitously presenting the scientific community's inability thus far to find one certain gene as "proof" that their own scientifically-shunned work has merit.

It's a good smackdown which I suggest you read (after you finish reading this post, naturally).

Jeremy's piece came out before Peter's post so rather than go into a long expository as to why he was misreprenting the APA's work, I sent LaBarbera this email:

Peter,

the more you misrepresent, the more you shame the body of Christ.

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/05/but-what-about-grasping-at-straws-wnd----is-that-genetic-or-a-choice.html#more

And you wonder why Bill O'Reilly won't have you on his show any longer.

Imagine my surprise when I received a reply in less than five minutes:

You think you were born homosexual, Alvin? What about developmental factors in your life? Did you have a healthy relationship with your father? Would you say you had a “normal” or stable upbringing? I’m curious. As for the Body of Christ, it’s odd to get lectured in such a way (“you shame the Body of Christ”) from someone who is not a part of it. I know that’s God’s ultimate call to make, but if you claim to be a faithful Christian AND a pro-homosexuality activist, that makes about as much sense as being a “faithful Christian and a swinger activist,” or a … pro-adultery Christian. In other words, it’s a lie and your fooling yourself if you claim to be a follower of Christ. However, you can become a Christian, but you would need to humble yourself and repent of your homosexual behavior and advocacy. I hope and will pray that you do that. Your feelings don’t decide Truth; God does.

PS. Get your facts straight: I was never on O’Reilly’s TV show. --pl

Now long time readers of this blog know that my father was a prison guard who was murdered in 2000 during an inmate escape attempt. Subsequently, the prison was named after him - the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center.

I am not saying that Peter knew this when he asked the question about my father - although I know for a fact that he has, from time to time, read my blog.

Nonetheless, I found it surprising as well as funny as to how vicious he tried to be in his email.

I think it was the O'Reilly thing.

Peter has a problem with the O'Reilly Factor inviting gay activist Wayne Besen on the show on several occasions while he hasn't been invited even once.

LaBarbera has taken out his anger against Besen with several "hit pieces" on his webpage like the pieces here and here.

So maybe my mentioning of the O'Reilly Factor was the equivalent of the magic mirror reminding the Wicked Queen that Snow White was much better looking than she.

Who knows.

Anyway, I did answer his silly email:

I seem to have struck a nerve.

Kinda rude don't you think to inquire about my family life in such an ugly way.

By the way, I am a person of faith. And it isn't really up to you to decide whether or not I am of the Body of Christ. That is unless you can point out a verse which says that you sit on the right hand of God.

Let me guess - you do have a Bible which says those words. And it's next to the verse which says it's okay to lie in God's name.

That would explain why you do it often.

But seriously, before you can even talk to me about repenting, maybe you need to acknowledge all of the lies you have told against the lgbt community, all of the times you have referred to bad studies (i.e. Paul Cameron), and all of the times you have misrepresented credible work - such as the American Psychological Association's pamphlet which seems to have started this brouhaha.

Thou shalt not bear false witness, Peter.

God made me gay and I am blessed for it. But I have never had to lie to defend this notion. You believe that homosexuality is a sin and you have lied as well as distorted to prove this notion.

How about you gain some integrity before you feel the need to lecture me.

But I guess I do stand corrected about the O'Reilly thing. Not that it matters any.

I really didn't see the need to get angry at LaBarbera. After all, I had fun messing with his head.

Sometimes it's so easy that I'm almost ashamed of myself.

Wednesday midday newsbriefs

N.Y. Assembly Passes Gay Marriage Bill - They can have Prejean. We'll take New York.

But what about grasping at straws, WND - Speaking of chicanery, the Family Research Council has nothing on World Net Daily.

The 'best of' batsh*t anti-marriage equality talking heads - Look at this one if and only if you have a strong stomach.

IFI Corrects Paraphilias Claim - Box Turtle Bulletin gets the Illinois Family Institute to admit its error. One down and a %!(load of religious right groups to go.

City council OKs domestic partner certificates - Moving right along.

Family Research Council = oblivious

In a recent post of the Family Research Council's blog is the following:

Two Parents = Happy Children

The headline is extremely deceptive. This is what the post says:

In the latest Mapping America, the General Social Survey shows that adults who lived with both biological parents as adolescents are more likely to be very happy than those who did not.

So the truth is that the study says children living with their biological parents are most likely to be happy, not necessarily two parents in general.

This is important because when organizations like FRC speak against gay adoption they use talking points like "studies show that children do better in a home with a mother and father."

How much do you want a bet that this "study" will be used against gay adoption even though it has absolutely nothing to do with children in foster care?

And it gets better. The Mapping America study was done by Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D. & Althea Nagai, Ph.D.

I've talked about Althea Nagai before and how she and her husband "conducts" studies for right wing groups, including an interesting one on race. The Mapping America webpage says that she is a visiting fellow at the Family Research Council

Fagan, according to the Mapping America webpage is senior fellow and director of the Center for Family and Religion at Family Research Council.

Both facts are conveniently absent from the FRC blog posting.

My guess is that when and if FRC tries to manipulate this study, that lovely fact about the authors' lack of objectivity will continue to be conveniently not mentioned.

Tuesday afternoon news briefs

Carrie's unique take: An ongoing series - a humorous look at the entire controversy courtesy of Goodasyou.org

The religious right seem to be determined to try and write some ridiculous story of innocent Carrie triumphing against the big bad gay folks. From the moment when I heard that Trump would give the final decision, I knew that he was going to let her keep the crown. And I'm glad he did. Maybe finally the religious right will stop whining about how there is some conspiracy to silence them.

Of course who am I kidding. The truth is the majority of the lgbt community did not care how this controversy ended one way or the other. There was no organized attempt to make Prejean lose her title. Hell there wasn't even an unorganized attempt.

If anything, we found the entire thing comical. Comical as to how some folks were trying to make Perez Hilton the voice of the lgbt community. Comical as to how the religious right put Prejean on a pedestal and then stooped to logical gymnastics to explain away her moral shortcomings. Comical as to how NOM made a huge media gaffe again. Comical as to how Prejean worked the media and then pleaded ennui when she found herself a target because of too much exposure.

I don't know about the rest of you but I had a fun time with this story. If only all anti-gay controversies were this fun. But next time, can the controversy involve a cute guy? I've never been so tired of seeing one woman's breasts in my entire life.

Right Wing Follows Deceptive Script On Supreme Court - Take note. THIS is what secret plotting looks like.

Janet Porter Plays the Victim, Literally - Janet Porter claims to be the victim of a hate crime. I didn't know hate crimes legislation covered the socially ill.

Will Maryland Follow DC in Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages in Other States? - Meanwhile in the real world . . .

Carrie Prejean story- the winners and losers

Miss California will keep title, Trump decides

Miss California Carrie Prejean, whose comments about gay marriage set off a firestorm, will keep her crown, Donald Trump announced today.

The controversy began nearly a month ago, when Prejean was asked about her views on same-sex marriage during the nationally televised Miss USA pageant. Although she said she believed people were entitled to do as they liked, she said marriage should only be recognized as an institution between a man and a woman.

Trump said he had no problem with Prejean's comments. "She gave a very honest answer when asked a tough question," he said at a New York press conference with Prejean sitting next to him. "It was the same answer the president of the United States gave... She has to be commended."

It's just as I figured and this is NOT something to freak out about.

I personally couldn't care less on whether or not she lost the crown but in assessing the situation, let's look at the winners and losers:

The Winners

Winner: Carrie Prejean - Sometimes any press can be considered as good press. Her controversy has overshadowed the winner of the pageant. She has become a cause celebre of the religious right.

Winner: Donald Trump - You just know that Donald Trump enjoyed the role of the "decider."

Winner : The Miss USA Pageant - Controversy creates attention and cash.

The Losers

Loser: Miss North Carolina - she is being overshadowed by the first runner up, big time.

Loser : Carrie Prejean - While she has garnered a lot of attention for her stance, she is not an untarnished figure. The semi-nude pictures and the breast implants came back to haunt her and will continue to do so. So while she travels the country talking about her "values" and how "Satan was trying to tempt her with the question," people are no doubt thinking, "didn't Satan already tempt you with those breast implants and semi-nude photos?" In the Scarlet Letter, character Hester Prynne had to wear a red "A" for adulteress. For a long time in some people's minds, Prejean will be wearing a red "H" for hypocrite.

BIG LOSER: Maggie Gallagher and the National Organization for Marriage - The "Gathering Storm" debacle made them laughing stocks. This situation makes them look downright sleazy. The organization did make Prejean their spokesperson and then backtracked when the nude photo controversy began to come out. Add to that the tongue lashing Gallagher received from pageant official Shanna Moakler on Larry King Live and the revelation yesterday that she benefits greatly on a monetary basis from NOM.

Loser: Anti-gay marriage movement - A while back, it had James Dobson leading it. Look who is in charge now. If folks like Gallagher and NOM continue to make big mistakes like "Gathering Storm" and this situation with Prejean, it won't be long before I will be able to register my gifts at Bloomingdales.

Okay folks, the circus is over for now. Might I suggest we get to more pertinent issues.

Religious right distortion techniques - a reposting

In the ongoing battle over hate crimes legislation, religious right organizations and their allies claimed that pedophiles are protected under the legislation. They continued to claim this irregardless of the fact that the assertion had been refuted.

This repetition of an inaccurate talking point is one of six distortion techniques that religious right groups use to stigmatize the lgbt community.

As the battle over lgbt rights get more intense, I thought it would be appropriate to repost all of the six distortion techniques that I outlined in my book Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters.

See how many of them you recognize from recent battles:

1. Using nonrepresentative or out-of-date studies to make generalizations, or distorting legitimate studies to give misleading conclusions

Example 1 - Anti-gay industry talking point - Same sex marriage and gay adoption are bad ideas because research shows that the best places to raise children are in homes with a mother and a father.

The truth - The research only looked at heterosexual two-parent households as opposed to single parent heterosexual households. Same-sex households were never included.

Point of fact - The following researchers, physicians, and Ph.D.s have complained about how the anti-gay industry has misused their work - A. Nicholas Groth, the six researchers of a Canadian study (Robert S. Hogg, Stefan A. Strathdee, Kevin J.P. Craib, Michael V. Shaughnessy, Julio Montaner, and Martin T. Schehter), Dr. Robert Garofalo, Lisa Waldner, Patrick Letellier, Dr. Kyle Pruett, Dr. Joanne Hall, Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc, Carol Gilligan, Dr. Robert Spitzer, Dr. Francis Collins, Gary Remafedi, Professor Michael King, and Professor Lisa Diamond.

2. Repetition - Despite the fact that several physicians and researchers complain about the distortion of their work by the anti-gay industry, corrections are usually not made.

3. Conspiracy Theory - Claiming that gays and lesbians are consistently plotting to "erode traditional values"

Example - “The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior. It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called After the Ball, where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior—in a decade-long time frame." - Craig Osten, Q&A: The Homosexual Agenda, Focus on the Family, July 25, 2003

4. Dire Consequences - Claiming that a pro-gay law or ordinance will lead to negative consequences without proof that the consequences will take place:

Example 1 - “Imagine, if you will, a 280 lb linebacker who likes to wear a dress and high heels and lipstick, you know comes to church wanting a job at the front desk as a receptionist and they turn him away because they don’t feel that that represents their values or the image that they’re trying to hold at that church, under ENDA they could be held accountable for
discrimination against that individual.” - Matt Barber, Concerned Women for America, 2007

Example 2 - “H.R. 254 elevates one group of Americans above others, creating a special class of victims. All things being equal, it means that if a 5-foot-2-inch grandmother is violently attacked on the street, she is less worthy of justice than the 6-foot-4-inch homosexual man who is attacked by the same assailant.” - Matt Barber, Concerned Women for America, 2007

5. Phony Experts - Creating their own "experts" on the gay and lesbian community.

6. Dehumanizing Semantics - Consistently using language (i.e. demonstrative verbs and adjectives) in their talking points, sound bites, and press releases to make gays and lesbians seem like impersonal, threatening outsiders

Example 1 - “But unfortunately, the evangelist observes, many Christians have been bullied into submission on the aggressive homosexual agenda in public schools.”—Evangelist Proposes to Combat Homosexual Agenda in Public Education, Agape Press, May 11, 2005

Example 2 - “Elsewhere in the battle against the homosexual agenda, the Broward County School Board in Florida has voted to allow a pro- homosexual group to indoctrinate its teachers on tolerance.”— Children Adopted by Homosexuals Suffer, Family Advocate Says, Agape Press, April 25, 2002

Example 3 - “The ACLU continues to use a law license to bully school districts and harass parents in order to brainwash their kids abut the ‘normalcy’ of homosexuality.”—Jan LaRue, ACLU Seeks Mandatory Homosexual Sensitivity Training, Concerned Women for America press release, July 14, 2005

It's all up to the Donald

Well today's press conference will lead to tomorrow's press conference:

Officials of the Miss California USA pageant strongly criticized some of the actions of titleholder Carrie Prejean on Monday but said it's not their decision whether she should be stripped of her crown.

Co-executive directors Keith Lewis and Shanna Moakler told a press conference that only Miss USA pageant owner Donald Trump can make that decision. He plans to hold a press conference at 11 a.m. Tuesday in New York City.

The officials said Prejean has been "unavailable" and so in the meantime they have appointed the state pageant's runner-up, Tami Farrell, as a "Beauty of California Ambassador" to fulfill any duties the winner normally would handle.

Lewis said that if Trump allows Prejean to retain her crown, state pageant officials would welcome her back and encourage her to take part in her normal duties.

"We're still going to be able to fulfill our duties no matter if Mr. Trump offers a second chance or utters his famous line from `The Apprentice,'" Lewis said (meaning, of course, "You're fired").

Prejean, 21, of San Diego, created controversy during the Miss USA pageant when she answered a judge's question by saying she believes marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

The state pageant has been investigating whether she violated her contract by making public appearances with groups opposed to same-sex marriage. Prejean also failed to reveal that she posed in her underwear as a teenager.

Personally I think that Donald will be a nice guy and allow Prejean to keep her crown. And I hope he does, with a strong admoninition that the crusade against same-sex marriage is not a part of her duties as Miss California. If she refuses, then get rid of her. Many may want Prejean to lose her title but for her to lose it now takes attention off of the fact that it was her actions, not words, that forced the situation to this point. By giving her a chance to conduct herself in a better fashion, Trump would help to remove the "she is being persecuted because of her beliefs" factoid.

For now, that factoid is being milked to its fullest extent by religious right groups.

And why not? It generates a lot of controversy and no doubt it's a good fundraising tool for the religious right. Who cares if she has broken her contract and have been derelict in her duties as Ms. California? Why let a good angle be spoiled by truth.

But something bothers me

I keep hearing that "the left" is trying to destroy Prejean. Just who are these people on "the left" who are trying to allegedly destroy Prejean?

Of course the lgbt community is angry at Prejean's comments but it's too much of a generalization to call all lgbts members of the left.

Perez Hilton? Come on now. The man draws doodles on pictures of celebrities.

TMZ? Please. It's a celebrity sheet and Prejean is a celebrity. The only plan TMZ has is to make money.

Prejean's situation illustrates the laziness of American culture. My journalism professors always told me to look deeper when looking at issues. But it seems that many in the media haven't gotten the same instructions. It's easier and sexier to talk about how "the left" or "the right" is after someone; to make false generalizations instead of exposing complex truths. It's easier to hire a pundit to tell people what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear.

Basically it all comes down to cotton candy journalism - it's sweet and tasty but melts before you know it. Then all you are left with is hard gummy junk that you can't get rid of.

And speaking of religious right groups - Miss California Director Indicts Maggie Gallagher

Monday midday news briefs

Man, this is a slow news day. I guess everyone is resting before THE PRESS CONFERENCE

Harry Jackson: Carpetbagger? - You mean Harry Jackson is being deceptive about his place of residency when he attacks same sex partnership in DC? I'm shocked.

Boycotted hotel gives gays gigs - Trying to get back in lgbts' good graces.

New ads from Cali. rights group - In anticipation for the possible Proposition 8 challenge loss, send that sucker back to the voters!

Maine Bishop Richard Malone: "Same Sex Marriage is Dangerous" - No Catholic priests jokes!

Wanda and Carrie makes the beginnings of a wild week

Today I am at home because of a bizarre agreement in the SC Legislature. In order to pass a holiday commemorating Martin Luther King Jr., legislators also agreed to pass a holiday commemorating the Confederacy.

This is that day - Confederate Memorial Day. While I'm not necessarily cottoning a holiday honoring the Confederacy, the pragmatist in me says "shut up and enjoy a day off from work."

So the pragmatist wins.

Anyway, Wanda Sykes, who has still yet to make the cover of the Advocate magazine, killed this weekend at the White House Correspodents Dinner. While some may not have liked what she said about Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity, I say deal with it. It was funny.

And yes I am saying that partly because I am biased. It was a great moment in gay and black history because Sykes was the first openly gay person to be the featured entertainer at this dinner.

Now in the territory of "God won't this thing just end," Miss California Carrie Prejean will probably lose her crown today:

Miss California USA co-directors Shannon Moakler and Keith Lewis are to hold a news conference in Beverly Hills today, presumably to discuss the controversy surrounding Prejean. While Prejean is not on the list of expected attendees, Tami Farrell, the first runner up to Miss California USA 2009, is.

. . . Prejean came under further scrutiny last week after semi-nude photos of her purportedly taken when she was a teenager emerged. Her contract contains a clause that asks participants whether they have conducted themselves "in accordance with the highest ethical and moral standards." For example, it asks if they have ever been photographed nude or partially nude.

. . . The beauty queen may also have violated her contract by working for a group that opposes gay marriage and making publicly speaking out against it. Last week, pageant officials said they were looking into whether Prejean violated the 12-page contract all contestants are required to sign before the November state contest.

The document prohibits whoever holds the title of Miss California from making personal appearances, granting interviews or making commercials without permission from pageant officials and gives the pageant's directors the right to revoke her crown for breaching any of the document's provisions.

If pageant officials decide to strip Prejean of her crown, they had better make damnmed sure that they have their reasons out there and clearly articulated.

Maggie Gallagher and NOM are just chomping at the bit right now. I bet they have already created the new commercial featuring Prejean as the new St. Catherine on the wheel.

The Jeffersons and the transgender community

The first time I ever saw anything about the transgender community was this episode of The Jeffersons.

The main character, George Jefferson, is going to meet his old navy buddy. Little does he know that his friend has had a sex change operation. George acts predictably uncomfortable but finds that he must rely on his friend because Louise, George's wife, believes that he is having an affair.

I personally thought that this episode was well ahead of its time on so many regards. A transgendered woman did not play George's friend but I still loved her performance. While she was definitely wanting to keep George's friendship, she did not take any disrespect.

If there is anything that can be seen as offensive in this episode, it would have to be the sequence where George tries to pass off a male employee as his friend. However, I don't think the sequence was making fun of the transgender community, but people's ignorance of them.

Anyway, I loved the episode, especially the ending. There was one thing I noticed about the character of Louise Jefferson that I particularly liked. See if you can guess what it is.

Funny or offensive? Part 2

As many of you can tell, I seem to be on a tangent today. It could be because it's Friday and all of the other interesting lgbt news have been covered by better blogs such as Pam's House Blend and Good As You.

Or it could that I'm pissed because of an incident last night. I was channel surfing and ran across a movie on Black Entertainment Network called 3 Strikes.

The plot was stupid but a scene really caught my eye and made me wish that I was a member of the NRA.

One of the characters in the movie had been shot in his rear by the police, so he was in a hospital suspended over his bed while wearing a bloody diaper. For some reason, whoever wrote 3 Strikes thought that it would be funny to show a gay black hospital worker lusting after the character (yes even after seeing the bloody diaper) and subsequently attacking him.

This was shown on Black Entertainment Network, a place that is supposed to uplift the race.

Which bring me to the clip above. It is a scene from Soul Plane, a black oriented movie so bad that it set African-American films back to the era before Birth of a Nation.

In the movie is a stewardess called Flame - a chubby oversexed black gay man wearing purple with matching lip gloss. Every time we see him, he is talking about sex (which is funny because he ends up being turned down hard by a blind guy at the end of the movie).

The very "interesting" part of this clip begins at 7:40.

BET continues to show this movie at least twice a month (I am not exaggerating).

Isn't it "nice" to be an lgbt of color and see such "fun" images on a network that is supposed to lift up your self esteem. And isn't it "nice" to be a member of a community who will not even acknowledge your existence.

The black community NEEDS a Mike Rogers desperately.