Peter LaBarbera's friends are our best allies

I think our friend Peter LaBarbera takes pride in the fact that sometimes he exasperates a lot of people.

To me, its not his tendency to intentionally ignore lgbt families while seeking leather daddies in the corners of the latest Folsom Street festival.

Nor is it his desire to reduce the richness and the history of lgbt lives to stereotypes about anal sex.

It is his tendency, as it is with the rest of the anti-gay industry, to repeat a point continuously even in the face of it being exposed as a lie.

But he more than makes up for it by the company he keeps.

Like the lastest screed for Proposition 8 in California, What ‘Gay Marriage’ Has Done to Massachusetts, he placed on his webpage.

There is no need to rehash it. It's the same crop of lies that the forces for Proposition 8 have been repeating over and over again. The ole "gasp and swoon, children are going to be forced to learn about homosexuality if we don't do something" lie.

Which by the way has been debunked. However, when have the anti-gay industry ever let the truth get in the way of a good talking point?

The piece is by Brian Camenker, a phony pro-family activist in that state. To put it nicely, Camenker has done more to help the cause of lgbts in Massachusetts than any group or organization.

His organization, Mass Resistance, is a laughing stock of Massachusetts. Forget the "gang who couldn't shoot straight," Mass Resistance is the "gang that continuously shoots itself in the ass."

They have accused gays of everything from attacking their members to stealing their credit cards.

And they have this bizarre (but fun to watch) tendency of accusing everyone of a conspiracy when they don't get their way. Subsequently, they have alienated just about everyone in Massachusetts; Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, zipoids, wastoids, smurfs, elves, pixies, etc. etc.

They even got on Mitt Romney's bad side. And that simply amazes me.

And lest I forget, they are behind the David Parker controversy, including conveniently being there when Parker was arrested while at the same time feigning ignorance of the entire situation. By the way, Camenker continues to spin the Parker controversy in the piece.

To get a good idea Camenker's mind, check out this transcript of when he appeared on Comedy Central's Daily Show:

Ed Helms: So the quality of life has decreased?

Brian Camenker: Yeah.

Ed Helms: Homelessness gone up?

Brian Camenker: I could, you know...

Ed Helms: Crime rates?

Brian Camenker: Crime rates?

Ed Helms: Air quality?

Brian Camenker: I mean, let me put it this way, I could, if, I could sit here, and I could probably, you know, find some way of connecting the dots to gay marriage, to all of these, if I had enough time, and I did some research.

Ed Helms (voice-over): Yeah! Why take time to do the research, when saying it is so much faster!

Falsely blaming gays for everything? I can see why Peter thinks of him as the most principled and effective pro-family advocate in (the People’s Republic of) Massachusetts.

Of course Peter has gone on record calling a racist Anti-Semite a "pro-family advocate," so his embracing of Camenker isn't unexpected.

But you know what, Peter? Continue your behavior that you probably do not necessarily in truth, but in spite.

But don't forget to bring along your friends. They more than make up for it.

Mass Resistance Watch is the premiere site in all things regarding Mass Resistance. Big ups to them on the work they do.

Election notes from friends

I am burned out.

So instead of writing a post, I am linking to several articles about the election that I think will interest you all.

Go Obama!!!

NY Post Smears Michelle Obama With Caviar (the New York Post writes something negative about the Obamas? We must be in planet Earth)

Chuck Todd: There's a "tenseness" between McCain and Palin (trouble in paradise? More like trouble in hell)

Blithering Idiot Watch (first Michelle Bachman and now this. I'm starting to love Chris Matthews . . . . I don't mean on a physical sense, you dirty minded individuals)

Bachmann Doubles Down: ‘Barack Obama’s Views Are Against America’ (Can this woman make up her mind? She can always say that Chris Matthews is using mind control on her)

GOP donors critical of Palin's pricey threads (come on now. sista gotta get her hair did and her clothes tight)

One word - OUCH!! (feel free to pass this one around)

Study: McCain coverage mostly negative (nobody's fault but his own)

Will Obama carry South Carolina?

As a lot of you know, I reside in South Carolina, a state that is habitually written off in presidential elections.

A Democratic presidential candidate hasn't carried this state since Carter in 1976. Hell, our elected state officials try to out-Republican each other, be they Democrat or Republican.

And I have always felt that despite all, Obama will not carry South Carolina.

But now, I have to wonder.

I sense a serious degree of interest from South Carolina's black population in this election. As November rolls around, I see and hear conversations regarding the elections in places where I have never seen it before.

In a store where I usually shop, which is situated in an African-American neighborhood, the radio was running full blast about early voting in North Carolina and other places. The announcers also took it upon themselves to run audio clips of comments from people at McCain/Palin rallies.

And I don't think I have to rehash those comments.

The curious thing is that usually when the radio is playing in the background, people don't pay attention. They usually go about their business, treating what they hear as background noise.

But not today. Shoppers were actually stopping to listen. The young woman with the children, the old man looking for rubbing alcohol, the young couple who probably just became legal voters, the two elderly women.

All seemed to be interested in what they were hearing. And not just them, but the stockers.

Hell, if someone had started jotting down notes, I think I would have dissolved in pride.

They are even talking about this election at the city bus terminal.

Yes, despite the images put out there by Republicans about "real Americans," people who ride the city buses are generally hard working individuals who just happen not to own a car. They trod every day to and from their jobs.

And the election has been the serious topic of discussion there.

Now some may say "big deal" because the African-American population of South Carolina is not that numerous. Well it's numerous enough to turn the tide of an election if combined with other voters.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part. Or maybe it's something more.

Either way, if McCain does try to carry South Carolina, he is going to know that he was in a fight.


Where is David Parker and the Wirthlins on this matter?

So if Proposition 8 is not passed, students will be" indoctrinated" about gay marriage in schools eh?

Some Proposition 8 supporters aren't even waiting that long:

A Salinas High School teacher who distributed “Yes on Proposition 8” literature to her students last week has been asked to refrain from doing so by administrators.

Proposition 8 on the November ballot in California would make same-sex marriages illegal.

Salinas Union High School District Superintendent Roger Antón said this afternoon that Principal Michael Romero reminded the teacher that faculty members’ political beliefs may not be expressed during work hours.

The teacher’s name was not disclosed by the district.

Anton said the district’s policy allows for political discussion in the classroom only when it is objective and relevant to the curriculum being taught.

The literature that was passed out to students says it is important to protect marriage as an institution between a man and a woman.

The one-page statement also says it is critical to vote yes on Proposition 8, saying its failure would eventually force the state to approve “polygamy, polymory, incest, group and other ‘creative’ arrangements for marriage.”

Hat tip to Box Turtle Bulletin

Free Republic spins conspiracy theories about Obama's grandmother

The news that Barack Obama is taking time off from his campaign to visit his ailing grandmother doesn't really mean that much except for concern for his family.

But the members of the ultra, to-the-right of Atilla the Hun site Free Republic seem to know why Obama is really postponing his campaign.

I must apologize to my online buddy Pam Spaulding for copying her tactic. She is the one who usually posts the outrageous comments from Free Republic. This time, I thought I would save her the trip.

These folks are so crazy that I am almost hesistant to post some of these comments. I don't want them trying to "investigate" me:

I was under the impression that she was practically under house arrest ever since That One began his campaign.Curious that no one has so much as even seen her, much less get a few words from her.

He has no birth certificate. And his grandmother will mysteriously die while he is there. You know she holds secrets that cannot be revealed...... “Here, Grandma, let me put this pillow over your head. Nice grandma”

“Grandma, you F’n racist!”

Innocent people do not act this way.

Maybe he just needs desperately to get away from Michelle.
What guy wouldn’t?

Time for the Hillary hit.

Hillary is going and to pay off her campaign debts and to get the Supreme Court post she has to whack grandma.

He can work on his tan.

Oh Dear God...he’s not going there to kill her himself is he? I pray for the dear lady.

Could he have a condition which would be considered embarrassing? Sexually transmitted?

UPDATE: According to Americablog, the comments on Fox News website are equally nasty. What's wrong with these people?


A quick lie vs. slow truth - The Wirthlins case and Proposition 8

It has been said that a lie can travel around the world before the truth has time to put on its shoes.

How true it is even when supposed Christians play with the facts.

I have talked about the David Parker case in Massachusetts on many occasions. Parker was the parent who tried to make it seem that his son was "forced to learn about homosexuality" and he was arrested for simply trying to push an opt-out policy.

Well Parker's story was a lie of course but there was another component to the lawsuit he unsuccessfully brought against his son's Massachusetts school.

Another family, the Wirthlins, joined Parker's lawsuit after an incident where their second grade son was read a book in class, King and King, where a prince ended up marrying another prince.

Personally, as a young man who was read all versions of Little Red Riding Hood (including the one with the sad ending where the wolf ate everyone), Hansel and Gretel, The Three Little Pigs (the version where the wolf eats the two pigs and the third pig eats the wolf), and Jack and the Beanstalk before reaching first grade, I don't see anything wrong with a fairy tale as light as King and King.

But that is neither here nor there.

The Wirthlins claimed that reading the book, King and King, violated the opt-out policy where parents could opt out their children in the case of sex education.

The courts, as I have pointed out, ruled against Parker and as such ruled against the Wirthlins. Neither the Parker case nor the Wirthlins case had anything to do with sex education, but a simple acknowledgement of lgbt families.

Now here is where the lies start:

The Wirthlins have filmed a campaign ad pushing for the passage of Proposition 8 in California.

In this ad, which can be seen here, they claim that if Proposition 8 is not passed, then children will be "forced to learn about gay marriage."

The most pernicious part for me was when the father said:

"The courts said we had no right to object or pull him out of class."

Actually that is a clever misconception. Yes the courts did say that the reading of King and King was not an issue of human sexuality, therefore it had nothing to do with the opt-out policy.

But Mr. Wirthlin is clearly deceiving people when he said the courts said the parents could not pull their children out of class. The courts actually advised parents who object to do just that:

In the 38-page decision, Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf, of the U.S. District Court, said that families who don’t agree with the teachings of the public school, have the choice of private schools or homeschooling.

And like I said before, the reading of King and King had nothing to do with marriage equality in Massachusetts. It had to do with the fact that there were children who attended the school and lived in same-sex households.

People like Wirthlin, Parker and the rest of that bunch always seem to forget that despite the fact of whether or not gay marriage is legalized, children will still be brought up in same-sex households. And they should not have to feel like there is something wrong with their families, because there isn't.

Of late I think of Deerfield

During the battle over marriage equality in California, the religious right have been making noise about a recent incident involving school children attending the same-sex wedding of one of their teachers.

They inferred that the children were forced to go and their "innocence" is being corrupted by having been made to view such a thing. They also claim that this incident will be a common occurrence if Proposition 8 (anti-gay marriage amendment) is not passed.

But like always when they create a moral panic, the religious right intentionally left out an important detail to the story.

The children had permission slips from their parents to attend.

This point was brought up in the San Francisco Chronicle article speaking of the event and also highlighted by my good friend Jeremy from GoodAsYou.org

So of course that would make the entire argument of "children being indoctrinated" null and void, right? After all, the parents not only knew of the wedding but allowed them to attend.

But why let the truth get in the way of a good talking point.

The situation reminds me of the Deerfield High School/Angels in America controversy that took place earlier this year.

The religious right, especially our friend Peter LaBarbera, accused Deerfield High School in Illinois of forcing children to read Angels in America, the Pulitzer Prize winning play that spotlights the early years of the HIV/AIDS crisis.

Peter even ran snippets from the play that highlighted not necessarily clean language in an attempt to stoke the emotions of his readers.

Of course Peter and the rest of the moral crusaders conveniently omitted that:

A. No one was forced to read the book. It was an elective

B. It was only offered in a Senior Honors English class, and

C. Parents had to give permission for their children to read Angels in America.

Needless to say when I sent an email to Peter and company highlighting this last point, I was all but ignored.

So it's not about families is it? Nor is about protecting children.

It's all about entitlement and control.

The case about the recent wedding and the Deerfield situation says less about the lgbt community and the American culture than it does about the supposed defenders of morality and truth like Peter, Concerned Women for America, and the rest of the religious right.

They like to talk about "parental rights" and "embracing the family" only when it suits their purposes but there is nothing there but lip service.

They don't care about any family that doesn't look like their own (and that includes ethnicity) or adheres to their Ozzie and Harriet nonsense.

Behind the fascades of truth and morality are petty people with petty plans to try and force American society to conform to their caste system of life and families simply because someone has told them that their religion entitles them to dictate policy on these matters..

They think they own the patent on the words "family," "truth", and "morality."

Not true.

They don't own the patent on any of those words. But if I could, I would gladly give them the patent on the word "bullshit."

After all, they are certainly full of it.

UPDATE - It's over and I am so glad

Say what you want, but Obama played a smart game tonight. McCain was obviously trying to rattle him, but with no success.

I think the victory belongs to Obama but since the spin was on "McCain HAS TO DELIVER tonight," I am sure much will be said about his "feistiness."

Sorry but he came across partly as a gassy grandfather who whines too much. And what's the deal with those sounds he kept making when the camera wasn't focused on him.

One last thing - that Joe the Plumber is kinda cute. After tonight, he will be PAID.

I wonder does he like black guys?


Last debate - Thank God

One more debate between Obama and McCain and I am on pins and needles.

Desperate people do desperate things and that being the case, all bets are off regarding what McCain will try tonight.

I have faith in Obama, though. Probably his greatest asset is how he is underestimated.

But I am worried about the tone of this entire campaign.

Today, a friend of mine at work told me something disturbing. While he was at the fair he had heard a comment from someone about taking an Obama poster and using it for target practice.

Based upon the things I have heard going on around the country, I don't think anyone can take this lightly.

The tone of elections in this country got extremely ugly when Clinton was elected. It wasn't about electing someone whose policies would better suit the country. Thanks to the religious right and their cohorts, every election seems to be a mini episode of Star Wars where the United States stands on the brink of annihilation if the right person is not elected.

And it's getting uglier.

But concerning Obama, there is a elephant in the room that no one wants to address - race.

Whether we want to admit it or not, there are a lot of folks who have lost their minds over the idea of a black man possibly becoming president.

And I think we need to admit that to ourselves.

But we won't. Because in doing so, we have to face up to the darkside of America, i.e. our history of racism and violence committed in the name of ethnic supremacy.

It gets white folks defensive and black folks angry.

But sooner or later, we need to address it.

I just hope nothing drastic happens that makes us have to address it.

One News Now's readers sound off about Obama (and yes it's hateful)

You don't have to go to a McCain rally to show how supposed Christian conservatives feel about Obama.

You can always go to the One News Now site.

Readers of the site posted comments to a blog post Did Obama Mock the Bible?

For the record, he did not. The blog post is clearly distorting a speech Obama made. Hell, that's obvious from watching the clip.

But check out the comments from these so-called Christians (I am printing these comments verbatim. I did not change a word):

HE STUDIED FROM THE KORAN, WHAT ELSE DO YOU EXPECT. THE GUY IS A MUSLIN SOCALIST.

Yes, He did mock the Bible. I hope U.S. open the eyes and understand we should not vote for him. Obama is false, arrogant, disrespectful to God and very dangerous. Lets pray that He won't be the President, God Bless U.S.A. and God have mercy on us.

This man is a very dangerous man hiding behind a big smile and smooth words. He is not only mocking God and the bible...he is demeaning God's power- and true Christians fundamental beliefs. He is deceiving many and laughing at what's righteous and true. We have to keep praying that God will protect our great nation from Obama's destructive ideals & deceit. This is not an issue of a black or white president...it is an issue of flippancy, hatred, pride, arrogance, & lies Against Morals, Values, Integrity, Faith in a Righteous God & Protection of our Great Nation from terrorist ideals and attacks. Our great nation will be in serious trouble if Obama were elected. Christians - Kneel Together & Pray that God will protect us under McCain and Palin's faithful christian service and leadership to keep us "One Nation Under God" then VOTE!

Louis Farrakhan just announced Obama as the Messaiah... for the Nation of ISLAM!!!

This only further emphacizes Obama's lack of knowledge about the Bible and Christianity. Whether this is a result of Rev Wright or his Muslim background I do not know.

Mr. Obama is NOT a Christian. PRAY to God that this man may never sit in the Oval office of this great Nation. And PRAY that God heals our land and has Mercy on us and Mr. Obama who has mocked God. And God will NOT be mocked.

Obama is truly NOT a Christian. He's an african muslim and don't let him fool anyone. God save us from Obama.

He is the ANTICHRIST come to steal, kill, and destroy

To me he is mocking the Bible. I believe he is a muslim.

Regardless of what Obama says, all data indicates that he is a practicing muslin and what are muslins doing in Iraq now?--they are killing the Christian people over there. If he is elected, he will probably be the antichrist.

I feel the world in be in despiration if Obama is elected. He, to me, is the right hand of satan.


There is NOTHING WRONG with children attending same-sex wedding ceremonies

Our opponents are in a tither over the fact that members of a first grade class attended the same sex marriage of their teacher:

In the same week that the No on 8 campaign launched an ad that labeled as “lies” claims that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools to young children, a first grade class took a school-sponsored trip to a gay wedding. Eighteen first graders traveled to San Francisco City Hall Friday for the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The school sponsored the trip for the students, ages 5 and 6, taking them away fromtheir studies for the same-sex wedding. According to the Yes on 8 campaign, the public school field trip demonstrates that the California Supreme Court’s decision to legal same- sex marriage has real consequences.

Naturally neither this press release nor our friend Peter (who pushed the press release on his site) had anything to say about whether or not the parents of these children gave their permission for the children to attend.

If this was not the case, I would have a problem with the children going as I do with any field trip that takes place without parental approval.

But if parents did give permission, then what's wrong with those children attending the wedding?

Yet again this another bit of nonsense from the religious right: Oh this sort of thing will happen if Proposition 8 in California is not passed. Children will be forced to attend weddings of homosexuals.

Those children don't look like they are being forced to me. As a matter of fact, they look like they are having a good time.

Unlike the religious right, these children get it. A wedding is a joyous occasion.

And what's wrong with a joyous occasion?

Cut McDonalds some slack!

So now we are starting to get the story from McDonalds on whether or not it capitulated the American Family Associations's boycott:

McDonald's Denies U-Turn on Gay Rights Support

It looks like the American Family Association is again taking credit for a victory it didn't really achieve.

Back in March, the Christian-values lobbying group announced that it had successfully mau-maued Ford into cutting off its marketing efforts targeting the gay community. Ford said it had done no such thing.

Now AFA says it has ended a long-running boycott of McDonald's after the fast-food giant agreed "to no longer support political activity by homosexual activist organizations."

The cessation of the boycott was evidently triggered by the resignation of McDonald's vice president Richard Ellis from the board of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. "McDonald's also said that the company has no plans to renew their membership in NGLCC when it expires in December," claimed the group.

But a McDonald's spokeswoman disputed details of AFA's account. McDonald's, she said, was never a corporate "member" of NGLCC; its relationship with the organization consisted of Ellis's board seat and a sponsorship he arranged. "McDonald's sponsored a table at an event at an NGLCC gala fundraiser," said the spokeswoman. "That's what they're labeling a sponsorship. That was the extent of our involvement."

Now we all know the anti-gay industry's mode of behavior. No matter what has been said, the AFA will continue to claim that their boycott against McDonalds was successful.

So their bullshit don't concern me.

What bothers me was the ease in which folks on our side started spewing venom against McDonalds.

I read so many nasty things about the restaurant on pro-gay blogs that my head began to spin.

And why did my head spin? Because of the following:

The announcement about McDonalds' alleged capitulation came from the AFA itself in a press release, which leads me to ask a question:

JUST WHEN DID WE START BELIEVING THE AFA?

WHEN DID THE GAY COMMUNITY START THINKING THAT THE AFA WAS CREDIBLE?

In an incredible show of laziness, some of us practically broke our fingers in condemning McDonalds over the alleged capitulation on the words on the AFA, an organization:

who routinely uses a phony news source to distort current events against the lgbt community,
who refers to the studies of a man ( Paul Cameron) who was not only kicked out of the American Psychological Association but actually believes that gay men stick gerbils up their rectums and that lesbians are master seducers,

who continued to sell a video that claimed that a certain individual "walked away homosexuality" even after it was discovered that the man (Michael Johnston) was having sex with men and possibly infecting them with HIV.

Plainly speaking, if I was in the middle of a hot burning desert with AFA head Donald Wildmon and he remarked on hot it was, I would start trying to build an ark.

What I want to know though is why did so many of us take the AFA at its word without even trying wait for more of the truth to come out?

When I get the answer to that question, I will most likely have a better understanding as to why we are having difficulty defeating the religious right in this alleged culture war.


Whip his ass, girlfriend!!!

Our community could learn a lesson in noncapitulation from Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mary Mitchell.

Recently, she caught some flack from Rush Limbaugh because of a column she wrote about how Sarah Palin stokes up negative emotions at campaign rallies:

"Mary Mitchell, a wuss, wimp columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times says that Sarah Palin should be censured. She says that 'Sarah Palin should apologize to the Obama campaign and the American people for her role in bringing out the worst in her supporters.' This is laughable.
"Come on, Mary. Grow up. This is the big leagues. How about the people in your party? I know you're a Democrat, Mary Mitchell. You can't deny it, all you liberal media people are Democrats. What about the incitement of this whole country that you and your fellow journalists have engaged in along with the Democrat Party? You have gendered up hate for this president. You have ginned up a despise for the US military. You have sought to convince the American people their country is worthless and sinking into an abyss. You have been doing it for six years."

How did Ms. Mitchell respond?

She called out Limbaugh using fire and poise that is sorely lacking sometimes in our community when the religious right attacks us. Folks, pay attention to how it's done:

When you step on a pig's tail, it squeals. Rush Limbaugh is a squealer.

And why is he squealing?

Because John McCain and Sarah Palin are losing ground in a contest that they thought was theirs.

And they are losing it to a black man.

Of course, Limbaugh won't say that. Instead, on Thursday he spent his time berating me for saying Palin needs to apologize for inciting crowds that hurled racial epithets at black members of the press.

I'm a "wuss, wimp columnist," Limbaugh says.

So why would a multimillion-dollar squealer use his air time on a "wuss and a wimp?"

The reason Limbaugh is squealing like the pig he is, is because he's the epitome of white privilege.

Hat tip to Pam's House Blend

Lastly, I would like to congratulate Jeremy from Goodasyou.org and his partner, Andrews, on their engagement.

Damn, I need me a man. I wonder if Frank Luntz, Seth Rogen or Jonah Hill is free?

Hush up. I know what I like.

McDonalds caves to the AFA - riiiiiiiiiiight

The American Family Association is claiming victory today. It's claiming to have received "assurances" that McDonalds will now pursue a policy of neutrality in the so-called culture wars.

AFA has been pursuing a boycott of McDonalds accusing the restaurant of "embracing the gay agenda."

Knowing AFA's history of spinning and lying, I will choose to wait for the rest of the story.

Unfortunately, the AFA will get a bit of mileage out of their claim. It is already posted as an article on the phony news site One News Now.

And regardless whatever the official statement from McDonalds will be, expect to hear AFA, Peter LaBarbera and the rest claim that their boycott was successful.

Repeition of lies is a hallmark for the anti-gay industry as well as incorrectly spinning current events.

Take for example the situation involving David Parker that I talked about Monday. Despite the fact that his lies has been turned away on every level, including the Supreme Court, Parker's story is still being spun as the case of a man who "tried to save his child from the gay agenda."

And it's even being used to try and defeat marriage equality in California, which was much like how the Repent America story was used by those who tried to keep the lgbt community from being added to hate crimes legislation.

I don't get depressed over this mess. Lies have a way of being exposed eventually.

But I can't help wishing that our community, especially our leaders, were a bit more vigilant in keeping an eye on these situations and getting the correct information out before the lies have a chance to take root.

If not, even our victories in these cases come back to haunt us.

Thoughts from Obama vs. McCain II

I have never seen my mother so interested in an election. But it's starting to get scary. When Tom Brokaw wouldn't allow Obama to respond to a McCain attack, she screamed at Brokaw to let him finish.

She hasn't shown that much intensity since she stopped watching pro wrestling. I had to remind her that Tom Brokaw wasn't Ric Flair.

McCain should not tell jokes. Those were the flattest moments of the debate.

And you just know that I simply have to talk about THE MOMENT.

I really didn't catch the impact of McCain's "that one" line. Shows you how dense I can be. It wasn't until that five minutes later when it was posted as a clip on my favorite sites that I realized just how much impact the line will have.

And it did, particularly amongst my fellow African-Americans. There were times during the day in which I forgot exactly what McCain said due to hearing constant interpretations of from fellow black folks.

It all came down to the same principle: they were insulted by the inference. As one of my friends put it, "you just know McCain wanted to say "that little ni . . er over there."

Personally, I think McCain got caught up in the excitement and was trying to be witty. But these things do have a habit of taking on another life.

And I do remember cosmically hearing two sounds when McCain said "that one."

One was the sound of numerous black women snatching off their earrings.

The other: the last little bit of good will the Republicans had with the black community going down the drain.

But basically it was a good night for Obama. Which means things are going to get more nastier than they were before.

Heck, it's starting now:

MN radio host Baker goes 2 for 2 - boosts video of pastor calling Obama's mom 'trash'

McCain rally speaker refers to Obama's middle name

The upcoming election is the most critical election in the history of our nation. The very future of our nation’s foundation is at stake. Every person will be affected. If the liberals win, then our foundation will no longer be based on the traditional Judeo-Christian morality. It will gradually but assuredly be based on an ever shifting, ever moving foundation. If the liberals win, the damage can’t be stopped with elections two, four or forty years from now. America will forever be changed. We will keep seeing a gradual and growing hostility toward people of faith, especially Christians. The morals of our nation will continue to decline. Our children and grandchildren will pay the price. - American Family Association in a fundraising email sent to me

All I can say is keep your fingers crossed and your nose plugged locked in tight.

David Parker's last stand (Supreme Court kicks him to the curb)

Word has come down that our favorite liar in Massachusetts, David Parker, played his last hand in his lawsuit against his son's school.

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to look at his case. Last year, federal judge dismissed Parker’s lawsuit, saying that schools are "entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy."

Parker had sued his son's school, Joseph Estabrook Elementary in Massachusetts, after he was arrested in 2005 for not leaving campus. He claimed that school officials refused to give him assurances that his son would not be "taught" about homosexuality.

At least that is the spin Parker and members of the anti-gay industry have tried to turn the incident to.

And of course the claims are blatant lies.

Even though Parker lost at the highest level, his case won't die per se. It will continue to be incorrectly cited by the anti-gay industry as an example of parential rights sacrificed on "altar of the gay agenda."

As recent as today, Bishop Harry R. Jackson mentioned it in a Town Hall column:

The dangers of primary school “re-education” of children are illustrated by the true story of David Parker who was outraged when he opened up the book Who's in a Family? This book was given to his 5-year-old son in 2005 at the Joseph Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Mass. Parker deemed that both the message and the method of the book were highly inappropriate. The book depicted different kinds of families, including same-sex couples raising children.

Jackson's column was claiming that if Proposition 8, a dreary "marriage amendment" in California isn't passed, things that "happened" to Parker could be a common occurrence.

Of course Jackson is wrong on sooo many levels, but let's focus on the Parker story. In order to combat stories that are going to be coming out about it ad naseum, allow me to push a brief summary of truth and lies about the Parker controversy:

Distortion—David Parker objected to his child being exposed to homosexuality because it was an issue of sexuality and Joseph Estabrook Elementary refused to accommodate him

Truth—In a January 17, 2005 email to the school, Parker said: “There is a book included entitled, Who’s in a Family (with pictures) that include lesbian and homosexual couples with children—implicitly equating this family structure as a morally equal alternative to other family constructs. We stand firmly against this book or any other subject matter pertaining to homosexuality ever being indoctrinated to our child, discussed in school, or sent home. We don’t believe gay parents constitute a spiritually healthy family and should not be celebrated.”

Joseph Estabrook Elementary principal, Joni Jay, wrote Parker an email clearly saying homosexuality is not a part of the kindergarten curriculum. She also said she cannot control what students say to one another and that many children attending Joseph Estabrook Elementary live in same-sex households.

Point of fact: The entire controversy began because Parker’s son brought home a “diversity bookbag” with several items in it. Among them was a book showing certain types of families, including same-sex families. It was the only book in the packet that talked about anything of a homosexual nature.

Distortion—Parker was well within his rights because Massachusetts laws says parents must give permission to have their children discuss any issue involving human sexuality.

Truth—Parker was not well within his right because discussions of differing families, including gay-led households are not included in the parental notification policy. This is because it is not an issue about human sexuality. Principal Jay informed Parker of this on March 4, 2005. Jay said she confirmed this with the district assistant superintendent and the director of Health Education. She was answering an email in which Parker said that neither he nor his wife authorize any teacher or adult to “expose” his sons (Parker has two sons) to “any sexual orientation/homosexual material/same sex unions between parents.”

Point of fact: The night before Parker’s arrest, he addressed the Lexington School Committee during their public meeting. In his speech, he attempted to link gay-led households to sexual behavior:

“Children who are successfully indoctrinated that same-sex marriage is normal and correct will eventually understand that sexual intimacy is a part of this union. Let’s not be naive about the implied human sexuality aspect of same-sex unions. Let’s be honest with ourselves. When we accept same-sex unions, we accept its implied . . . sexual intimacy. These concepts are indeed inextricably linked.”

Distortion—David Parker was arrested because Joseph Estabrook Elementary did ot respect his rights as a parent.

Truth—David Parker was arrested for trespassing. Even though his initial questions were answered, Parker persisted and finally received another meeting with school officials. According to a press release issued by William J. Hurley, Interim Superintendent of Schools and Christopher Casey, Chief of Police in Lexington, Parker and his wife requested that the school, in the future, ensure that teachers automatically remove their children from discussions of same-sex households, even if the issue rises spontaneously. It was explained to Parker and his wife that the policy allowing students to opt out of discussions of human sexuality was not relevant here and the Parkers’ request was “not practical” because children could discuss “such matters among themselves at school.”

When Parker and his wife were told that they could appeal the response to the Commissioner of Education, Parker did not want to. It was then that the two decided not to leave the school. The Lexington Police were called. Parker’s wife went to the couple’s car but he stayed. Two plain-clothed detectives came at 5:20 p.m. and a police lieutenant came at 6 p.m. All asked Parker to leave but he refused.

Distortion—David Parker did not intentionally get arrested. According to his lawyer, Jeffrey Denner:

“He (Parker) was invited to come in, he came in, there was a dialogue going back and forth, there were faxes sent back and forth to the school committee. His intent was not to get arrested. His intent was to establish a dialogue to protect his own children and other children as well.”—Father faces trial over school’s ‘pro-gay’ book, WorldNetDaily, August 4, 2005

Truth—According to the press release submitted by Hurley and Casey, Parker said “If I’m not under arrest, then I’m not leaving.” The press release also said Parker began calling people on his cell phone and a small group of people began arriving with cameras. Parker was finally arrested at 6:24 p.m. The group with the camera was waiting behind the police station and photographed his arrival.

Mass Resistance (Massachusetts conservative group) claimed that Parker was using his cell phone in order to keep his wife up to date with the meeting while she sat in the couple’s car.
Point of fact: There are pictures of Parker being arrested and led away by police on the Mass Resistance web page. Now how could any of this have happened by chance? For that matter, there are pictures of Parker addressing the Lexington School Committee the night before his arrest. The fact that these pictures are on the web page do give an impression of premeditation by Parker and Mass Resistance.

Distortion—David Parker got into this fight solely because of his concern for his children and what they are being exposed to in school.

Truth—Since his arrest, Parker has been speaking against gay rights in other states. On June 13 and 14, he was the speaker in a six-town “Wake UP Maine” tour with Brian Camenker, the head of Mass Resistance. The purpose was to aid a Maine referendum against the recently passed bill outlawing discrimination against the gay community. A flyer was distributed showing Parker in handcuffs. The flyer also claimed that Parker “questioned the homosexual rights movement.”

The image of Parker in handcuffs had made its way around several web pages like some sort of bastardized picture of Che Gueverra. He also appeared in a commercial in another effort to overturn the Maine anti-discrimination bill.

And then don’t forget this interesting addendum:

In May 2006, Parker’s son was involved in a fi ght at school with a friend over seating in the school cafeteria. His son and the other student made peace with each other and continued to be friends. They even had a play date later that week. In addition, Parker was informed as to what happened.

However, less than a month later, the Mass Resistance sent out a press release claiming that Parker’s son was set upon by eight to 10 students who did not appreciate his fight against Joseph Estabrook Elementary. The press release generated considerable buzz with the anti-gay industry, as it was either run or referenced by many so-called “pro-family” web pages, including the Traditional Values Coalition and Concerned Women for America.

Joseph Estabrook Elementary School explained the true story in a press release. However, none of the so-called “pro-family” groups, including Mass Resistance and the Traditional Values Coalition, apologized for any of their claims about a conspiracy to hurt Parker’s son nor did they correct the error.

Parker should chalk this entire experience up as a lesson that all of us, no matter what age, can learn.

When you lie, you lose. And you deserve to lose.

Articles and web pages used for this post:

www.massresistance.org

www.lexingtoncares.org

www.davidparkerfund.org/

Arrested father had point to make, The Boston Globe, April 29, 2005

Wake UP Maine Tour announced, www.MaineToday.com, June 10, 2005

Massachusetts Men Speak Against Homosexual Rights, www.MaineToday.com,
June 14, 2004

Coalition for Marriage to host David Parker at Littlefi eld Baptist Church, www.
MaineToday.com, November 3, 2005

Father faces trial over school’s ‘pro-gay’ book, WorldNetDaily, August 4, 2005

Report: Christian Parent Arrested After Being Denied Say-Son in Son’s Education,
Agape Press, April 28, 2005

Dad Becomes Icon in Battle over Homosexual Agenda in Schools, Agape Press,
May 18, 2005

School dispute persists after plea deal is struck, The Boston Globe, October 27, 2005
Press release, Lexington Public Schools, May 2, 2005

David Parker’s Son Beaten Up on the Playground, Traditional Values Coalition,
June 15, 2006

New liberal strategy: Assault 7-year-olds, Kevin McCullough, June 16, 2006

Press release, Lexington Public Schools, June 16, 2006

Damn the skies, watch the smears

Just something that I have noticed:

Saturday - Sarah Palin accuses Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists."

Sunday - GOP announces lawsuit against Obama for illegal "foreign contributions"

Monday - One News Now runs article talking about "pro-Obama" registration in mosques.

Tell me again how John McCain and his cohorts want to talk about issues. Apparently the issue that most interest them is character assassination.


Paging Paul Cameron, paging Paul Cameron

The chaplain to the London Stock Exchange is under pressure to quit today after demanding gay men should be forced to have "sodomy" warnings tattooed on their bodies.

The suggestion is contained in a series of comments on the internet blog of the Rev Peter Mullen.

The Bishop of London today branded Mr Mullen's comments "highly offensive" and Stonewall, the gay rights charity, said he should resign.

Mr Mullen, 66, wrote on his blog: "It is time that religious believers began to recommend ... discouragements of homosexual practices after the style of warnings on cigarette packets.

"Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed with the slogan SODOMY CAN SERIOUSLY DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH and their chins with FELLATIO KILLS."

Jeremy from goodasyou.org covers this story with his usual excellence.

I am personally speechless.

Libraries should not cave in to the anti-gay industry in book selections

The anti-gay industry has taken an interesting approach to getting their opinions heard. They are now attacking libraries for daring to have standards:

During a week that librarians nationwide are highlighting banned books, conservative Christian students and parents showcased their own collection outside a Fairfax County high school yesterday -- a collection they say was banned by the librarians themselves.

More than 40 students, many wearing black T-shirts stamped with the words "Closing Books Shuts Out Ideas," said they tried to donate more than 100 books about homosexuality to more than a dozen high school libraries in the past year. The initiative, organized by Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family was intended to add a conservative Christian perspective to shelves that the students said are stocked with "pro-gay" books.

The article also says:

"the collection should support the diverse interests, needs and viewpoints of the school community." But library officials said donated and purchased books alike are evaluated by the same standards, including two positive reviews from professionally recognized journals.

None of the donated titles met that standard, said Susan Thornily, coordinator of library information services for Fairfax schools. Some librarians also said that the nonfiction books were heavy on scripture but light on research, or that the books would make gay students "feel inferior," she said.

I’m usually not one for censorship but I am for standards. And I have a hard time believing that anything put out about the lgbt community by the anti-gay industry or their allies belong in a public library without extreme scrutiny on its credibility.

The anti-gay industry has a track record of relying bad research (Paul Cameron) or distorting legitimate research (i.e. Elizabeth Saewyc, Robert Spitzer, Patrick Letellier, Robert Garafalo, Carol Gilligan, Lisa Waldner, Joanne Hall, Francis Collins, etc. )

And this track record of lies should not be ignored simply because the anti-gay industry was able to find enough guillible students and their parents to try and play a game of semantics.

These are the inferences I got from the press conference :

“Why are we being censored?”

“I thought libraries for free speech”

“I thought gays were supposed to be tolerant.”

All that’s missing was the louding weeping, elaborate fainting, and the bloodhounds snapping at their rear ends.

Sorry but I am also not buying this phony appeal for “tolerance” pushed by Dobson, LaBarbera and their allies.

And frankly, I wouldn’t mind seeing a full listing of these books they are pushing. We aren’t talking about mere tolerance here; we are talking about the possible codification of lies.

I don’t think a book should be included in a library’s selection simply because a group holds a press conference and sidesteps the issues of accuracy by appealing to emotions and religious beliefs

When choosing books, libraries should always adhere to high standards and the highest of all of these are veracity, or truth.

Or more to the point, would libraries have to allow books by David Duke to be carried simply because some parents feel there are too many “pro black” books on the shelves?

**Note - one of the books is Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting. I may try and find a copy of it and see how many distortions I can link via my Anti-Gay Lies and Liars timeline.

UPDATE: I'm glad that's over

The debate is over and I am full of ribs and macaroni.

My thoughts - Palin will be declared the winner solely on the point that she didn't faint at the beginning. I actually think she did well at the beginning but as time ran on, Biden started zeroing in on her and she began to channel Tina Fey. I got a little confused as to who was debating Biden.

I am sure there will be sheafs of written copy and volumes of words said, but for my money, I came away with the belief that she needed to do better than adequate and she was unsuccessful.

Another update - Stith admits error.

I am eager (very eager in fact) to jump on the anti-gay industry when they distort and lie about lgbts.

But what about when one admits when he or she is wrong?

In my defense, I cannot remember when this has ever happen; that is until now.

Last week, I wrote about a controversy involving the distortion of research by Dr. Francis Collins.

Today, one of the principals involved, Bob Stith of the Southern Baptist Convention, sent a letter to Ex-Gay Watch apologizing for the misusage for the work.

Not only does he get kudos for doing this but he also gets special pat on the back for saying that he does not use Paul Cameron statistics.


Pardon for the short post today but I am in a rotten mood.

And it has nothing to do with the election or the debate later tonight (which I will be posting on later).

Bad moods happens to everyone and I am no different. So I will try to make myself feel better by making a huge pan of bar-b-que ribs.

Meanwhile, don't give up on me yet. Look to this site later for my thoughts about the debate.

But until then, look at the following for very good reading material regarding what's going on today:

One News Now declares Biden as debate winner before it even takes place

Those lovely transphobic liars in Maryland dealt another kick in the teeth (and you would think that it would put me in a good mood)

Right-wing lying machine targets Sandra Bernhard

Defending my sista

I have fixed the Mandy Carter, Pepper LaBeija, and Dorian Corey links that weren't working. I wasn't aware of it until it was brought to my attention. I also added a new link that gives a list of lgbts of color via wikipedia.

Okay, this isn't an lgbt issue, but it is an issue.

Everyone in the blogsphere has gone election crazy while I have chosen to stay focused on ways to throw wrenches at the anti-gay industry (and I mean in a figurative sense. I want to make that clear. Otherwise, Peter and company will be sending out an email about the "radical gay activist" who wants to injure "pro-family" folks with wrenches.)

However, I simply have to defend journalist Gwen Ifill.

Apparently McCain feels that the election is slipping away so he is getting so desperate that he is relying on nonsense by sites like Free Republic.

To recap: There are rumblings that Ifill will not be impartial in tomorrow's vice presidential debate because she is the author of a book that looks at the impact of African-Americans on the political process.

Some are even construing the book as a "pro-Obama" tome.

And it hasn't even come out yet. Here is what the summary says. Judge for yourself:

In THE BREAKTHROUGH, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power.

Ifill argues that the Black political structure formed during the Civil Rights movement is giving way to a generation of men and women who are the direct beneficiaries of the struggles of the 1960s. She offers incisive, detailed profiles of such prominent leaders as Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and U.S. Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama, and also covers up-and-coming figures from across the nation. Drawing on interviews with power brokers like Senator Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vernon Jordan, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and many others, as well as her own razor-sharp observations and analysis of such issues as generational conflict and the "black enough" conundrum, Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history.

THE BREAKTHROUGH is a remarkable look at contemporary politics and an essential foundation for understanding the future of American democracy.

We all know what's going to happen. Conservative bloggers and phony news sites are going to dig up anything that can be construed as anti-conservative bias on Ifill's part.

Hell, it's happening now via the Media Research Center:

As we learned in the first debate, moderators can help shape the outcome. PBS host Jim Lehrer asked tough questions to President Bush about his record, but failed to do the same for John Kerry. He asked Kerry to list Bush's “colossal misjudgments,” and then to list the President's lies. But he never once asked Kerry about his 20-year Senate record. Will PBS’s Gwen Ifill do better in the running-mate debate? The evidence suggests here comes liberal moderator number two . . .

How fitting. The Media Research Center now houses Robert Knight. For years, Knight made his bones conducting the same tactics against the lgbt community. If you breathe in deeply, you can smell his odor on this smearing of Ifill.

There will probably be more attempts to pile on. I see that Michelle Malkin (who seems to always be curiously at the front of the pack when conservatives take the guise of attack dogs) is trying to get her shots in.

For the record, I have enjoyed watching Ifill for years and she has never shown a bias. She reminds me of what journalism was like before Hannity, O'Reilly and the rest of the pundits took over.

And I know that tomorrow night, she will continue to show America what a true journalist should be like irregardless of this pathetic attempt by conservatives to "work the ref."

UPDATE - Ifill responds and becomes one of my heroes

PBS journalist Gwen Ifill, moderator of the upcoming vice presidential debate, dismissed conservative questions about her impartiality because she is writing a book that includes material on Barack Obama.

Ifill said Wednesday that she hasn't even written her chapter on Obama for the book "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," which is to be published by Doubleday on Jan. 20, 2009, the day a new president is inaugurated.

"I've got a pretty long track record covering politics and news, so I'm not particularly worried that one-day blog chatter is going to destroy my reputation," Ifill said. "The proof is in the pudding. They can watch the debate tomorrow night and make their own decisions about whether or not I've done my job."

More here . . .

That's class defined.

Yes, I like to mess with One News Now but they make it so damned easy

(Presently I am at lunch and thus am making this post at the public libary. I usually post when I get home but I felt I just had to direct your attention to something I read in One News Now. Many are aware of the fact that One News Now made it difficult for me to link to their site from my computer. However, I am unaware of whether that little edict can affect me if I link to their stuff from another source. One more thing - if you haven't read yesterday's post, please do because it has a lot to do with one of the subject of today's post - i.e. repeition of anti-gay lies irregardless of refutations. )

Those who read this blog will probably notice that lately I have been devoting much time to breaking down the lies of phony news services One News Now.

This is true but don't mistake my motives. I am amused that the powers-that-be there made it difficult for me to link to the site.

But that is not why I poke fun at One News Now.

Truth be told, I can't help myself because One News Now puts itself out there with not only its constant easy-to-refute lies, but its stubborn decision to reveal the mindsets of the "Christians" who read the site via the comments section.

Today is a hallmark in One News Now idiocy.

Yesterday, I wrote how the anti-gay industry will go out its way to repeat a negative point about the lgbt community even after said point has been continuously refuted.

And today, One News Now proves me right it an article published, Smoking banned - so why not a more dangerous lifestyle, too?

Of course the so-called dangerous lifestyle is homosexuality (is it just me or are these people easier to read than a Dick and Jane book). But check out this gem from the article:

Diane Gramley of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania agrees that smoking imposes health risks. But she argues that the State System of Higher Education condoned a riskier lifestyle last year when it voted to extend domestic partner benefits -- including tuition and health benefits -- to same-sex partners of faculty members.

According to a press release from Gramley's group, The New England Journal of Medicine reported that men who smoke shorten their lives by up to 7.2 years. But Gramley says according to the Oxford Internal Journal of Epidemiology, the homosexual lifestyle can shorten a man's life by up to 20 years.

The distortion of this study (by the way, the article got the name of the journal wrong. There is no Oxford Internal Journal of Epidemiology. The Oxford study appeared in 1997 in the International Journal of Epidemiology) has been refuted continuously by myself and countless other sources.

Even the authors of the study themselves, in 2001, went on record complaining how their work was being misused by the anti-gay industry.

But of course who cares about truth when God is on your side, huh One News Now.

And if this very bad piece of journalism isn't enough, One News Now compounds the error by their articles about a possible Obama victory in the presidential election:

Could an Obama loss spark race riots?

The article itself is a supreme hoot. Nothing like a bit of inferred racism to get the white folks scared enough to vote against Obama.

But it gets better. Yesterday, One News Now published an article, Political observer: Black voter turnout critical for Obama, that got some very interesting comments by its readers.

Allow me to give you a few choice sniglets:

"How does the black community relate to Barak Obama? He is half white. He was raised white. He speaks real English. He wears two-button suits, and diagonal stripped ties like an old white guy. He's rich. He is not the descendant of African slaves, but a part-Arabic African and a white woman. He has more in common with white people than blacks. African-Americans are grasping at straws with Barak Obama."

"Any votes that goes toward Barak Obama can only come from people that hates the Word of God

"If black voters will pay attention to their "thinking" leaders such as Thomas Sowell, none of them will think about voting for Obama because he is "black". Actually, people in Kenya say he is more Arabic than black and more "white" than black. I received an email from a missionary who has been to "his native village" in Kenya and states that Obama went there to request voodoo curses be hurled at McCain's campaign so that he can be elected. There is more to Barack Hussein Obama than meets the eye. Also most people when they convert from Christian to Muslim will take a Muslim name (ie Cassius Clay to Mohammed Ali) and the same is true of Muslims who convert to Christianity. So why did Barry Sotero change his name to Barack Hussein Obama?"

Gotta love those "Christians."

You're supposed to be steadfast and unmovable in TRUTH, not lies

Well one debate is down and Obama rocked the house. One thing about him, he believes in consistency. Throughout all of the hype, Obama has stayed focused on relaying how he is an excellent choice for president. Now the debate between Biden and Palin is going to be interesting. It's not about knock out punches or one-liners. I have faith that Biden can ignore all of the hype regarding the Lindsay Lohan of Alaska (sorry Lindsay) and continue to show why Obama would be an excellent choice for president.

And that's my two cents about the election for today.

I am not going to do it.

I will not link to Peter LaBarbera's Folsom Street nonsense nor will I talk about it any more than I have to.

Frankly, Peter gets me upset. Not only does he continue to unfairly demonize the lgbt community; that is a given.

But how is it that he, a raging homophobe, can have more visual access to naked men while I in the prime of my life (eat your heart out, Jean Brodie) can't get these mean queens in SC to show me at least a bare ankle.

It's just depressing.

But seriously . . .

An annoying characteristic of the anti-gay industry (and they have several) is their inability to admit wrongdoing even in the face of exposure.

God forbid that any of these so-called followers of Jesus remember the Christian tenet of admitting wrongdoing and seeking absolution. Instead, when confronted with their distortions and lies, they either ignore the exposure or try to "kill the messenger."

A perfect example is a series of incidents that I unfortunately overlooked due to the merriment of South Carolina Pride; that is until I read excellent posts from goodasyou.org and Pam's House Blend.

Allow me to recap as best I can:

Ex-gay Greg Quinlan made the claim that geneticist Dr. Francis Collins had gone on record saying that there is no genetic cause for homosexuality.

In fact Quinlan's exact words were:

" . . . the director of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins, said this: homosexuality is not hardwired. There is no gay gene. We mapped the human genome. We now know there is no genetic cause for homosexuality."

But Dr. Collins said no such thing. In fact, Collins was not happy with how his work was being distorted by folks like Quinlan and "ex-gay" organizations like NARTH.

In May 2007 he told Ex-Gay Watch just how he felt.

Now when confronted with this, Quinlan did not backtrack an inch. He actually accused Ex-Gay Watch of making up Dr. Collins' response.

And even after Dr. Collins went on record again verifying what he told Ex-Gay Watch, Quinlan has made no effort to admit wrongdoing.

It gets better. Apparently last week, Southern Baptist Convention member Bob Stith wrote a column making the exact same claim about Dr. Collins that Quinlan did.

Those of us who know the anti-gay industry aren't suprised by Quinlan's and Stith's behavior. We have come to expect it. It's the classic anti-gay industry tactic of repeition, or repeating a negative point about lgbts regardless of the fact that said point has been continuously refuted.

There have been so many examples over the years Let me give you a few of my favorites:

In 1998, 14 anti-gay industry group used the research of pediatrican Dr. Robert Garafalo to make the claim that gay teens indulge in negative behaviors (i.e. drug abuse, suicide) because such things are indicative of the "gay lifestyle." When Dr. Garafalo complained that their citation omitted a crucial part of his findings (i.e. gay teens do these things when faced with abuse from a homophobic society), then Concerned Women for America (CWA) spokesman Robert Knight attacked Dr. Garafalo, calling him a thrall of political correctness.

Bear in mind that Knight has never had any background in field of pediatrics. (the entire story is told here - Boston doctor says ads distorted his work on gays, The Boston Globe, August 4, 1998)

A more up-to-date example would be how both Peter LaBarbera and former CWA spokesperson Matt Barber, this year, tried to infer that the recent MRSA infection scare amongst gay men in a certain area of the country was like the start of the AIDS virus in the early 1980s.

When confronted, both tried to play the game of exact verbiage. They falsely claimed that "gay activists" were accusing them of outright calling the MRSA infection the "new gay plague."

Though I have no proof of this, I like to think that the pitiful way Barber tried to cover up his distortions and the public (and very, very enjoyable from my standpoint) lashing he and LaBarbera received from the blogs led Barber to realize that he was in over his head as an anti-gay spokesperson and slink to the safe confines of Liberty University.

And then there is my favorite: I had an interesting exchange earlier this year with an anonymous poster that reached the level of high camp.

According to him (or her), the anti-gay industry are actually correct when they distort the work of physicians and researchers because these physicians and researchers have such a pro-gay bias that anything they print which can be construed as a negative fact about lgbts is correct because psychologically, they are telling the truth to themselves . . . or something like that.

There have been so many other incidents like the ones I have mentioned in which anti-gay industry members refuse to admit they are wrong, even to the point of lunacy.

And I have to wonder why won't members of the anti-gay industry admit when they make a mistake?

But then I tell myself, "mine is not to wonder why, mine is to nail those suckers for every lie they tell" (I know it doesn't rhyme, but I like it).

Maybe there will be time later to wonder about their mind sets but I could care less.

For now, I am all for exposure.

Clay Aiken - Coming out and defining heroes

I did something naughty today. I called a good friend at work who is a dyed in wool conservative Republican and said the following:

"We are working fast. We got Lindsay Lohan and Clay Aiken yesterday."

Needless to say, he got the joke but didn't appreciate it. I guess I am going to have to buy him lunch next week.

I was referring to two incidents in which celebrities have come out.

Lindsay Lohan (the newest track on the Hollywood train to stardom and ruin - let's hope she doesn't go the way of Carole Landis and Lupe Velez) has admitted to dating female DJ Samantha Ronson.

While it is still up to speculation and may be considered as a stunt via Madonna and Sandra Bernhardt, I still say good for her.

Since talk has been going on about the two dating, I have stopped being exposed to pictures of Lohan with no underwear, Lohan passed out, Lohan drinking too much, etc.

If they are dating, maybe Ronson is good for her.

Now the Clay Aiken situation is a bit more definite.

Aiken has come out as a gay man.

And in other news, I will be on the next cover of People with the headline "Yep, I'm an African-American."

I think that a lot of jokes about Aiken's coming out stems from the fact that for a long time, he was a stereotype.

You know the one I speak of - the who is he kidding. Everyone knows he is gay so he should just come out stereotype.

But when you stop laughing, you have to admit to yourself that Aiken came out for the right reason.

He did not want to teach his child that lying about one's self is a good thing.

End of story as far as I am concerned.

But there will probably be discussion as to Aiken's celebrity status and his "responsiblity" to the community.

Before it gets into overdrive (and it can despite this wild presidential election), allow me throw out some thoughts.

I don't buy the celebrities should come out because they have a responsibility as role models argument. There are just too many problems with that.

Just because someone is in the public eye doesn't make them suitable spokespeople. And we shouldn't try to anoint them as such.

Remember the hell Lance Bass went through when he made comments about "straight acting." To some folks, he was someone who should have known better. Why? Because he sold millions of records?

To me, he was still a child just coming into something he did not fully understand. He made mistakes just like I did when I first came out (in my case, it was some very ugly comments about women in general, i.e. referring to them as a certain aquatic animal). The only difference is that his being in a former member of a boy band magnified his comments.

Then there is the tug of war. Let's say Ellen DeGeneres is invited to an HRC function. Before she even agrees to attend, another group who is angry at how HRC supported ENDA legislation that omitted the transgender community starts making public requests for her to boycott the function?

Now what's Ellen to do? Before she probably got her outfit picked out, she is in the middle of a hot mess.

Let's face it - our community objectifies being a celebrity too much. This is not to downplay celebrities or the visibility that gay celebrities provide us. This is to say that role models and heroes don't necessarily have to be actors, actresses, singers, etc.

They could be people next door who, while not fitting the physical image of homosexuality that is thrust upon us, are heroes in their own way. The young gay man who adopts three children, the lesbian who staffs the local pride center without wanting anything in return, the transgender person who, while quiet and unassuming, carries herself with a certain aura of grace and dignity that would make Audrey Hepburn jealous.

And let's not forget the nameless faces who show up at city council or state legislative meetings, who write letters to the editor, who kick in a little money to support a function, or who greet you with a simple hug.

I have been fortunate to be exposed to all of the above. And I consider them as my role models.

Another researcher cries foul over anti-gay industry misuse of study

Last week, I talked about how the phony news site One News Now distorted a study to claim that the lgbt orientation in itself leads to depression and substance abuse.

I pointed out not only how the study was distorted but also the fact that One News Now cited researcher discredited researcher Paul Cameron.

Well today brings part two of the story, courtesy of my friends over at Box Turtle Bulletin:

A British researcher has denounced two North American anti-gay web sites for distorting his research. University College London professor Michael King, in a statement to Box Turtle Bulletin, clarified the findings of his research on depression and suicide among LGB people, and emphasized the importance that “all sectors of society welcome them as equal and valuable citizens.”

Professor King spoke out in response to an article that appeared last Wednesday in LifeSite, an unofficial Catholic web site, which claimed that the “homosexual lifestyle [is] strongly linked to depression [and] suicide.” The same article by Kathleen Gilbert appeared again Saturday on the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow.

. . . We asked Professor King for his reaction to the LifeSite/OneNewsNow article. This was his reply:

"LifeSite News and OneNewsNow have misinterpreted our review. Evidence from around the world identifies the main stressors leading to mental distress in gay and lesbian people as discrimination, prejudice, bullying in schools and colleges, and the consequent need for many LGB people to keep their homosexual identity secret, even from their families.

Our review did not examine links between mental disorder and homosexual “behaviour” or “lifestyle”. Our work reviewed studies of the mental health of lesbian, gay and bisexual people, and sadly, those studies showed that it is people (not behaviour) that are discriminated against, and not least by religious groups and organisations.

Discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is even more devastating than other forms of discrimination such as racism, as it reaches right into families and leaves no refuge for its victims.

We suggest in our review that the availability of alcohol and drugs at gay social venues may be a factor in the greater risk of drug and alcohol misuse in LGB people. Reducing this problem is something for which LGB people must take greater responsibility. However, the fact that discrimination still exists in our societies means that many are forced to use such venues to meet each other rather than through more common ways available to heterosexuals, such as at work, during the pursuit of hobbies and past-times, or at church.

There is now abundant evidence that homosexuality is not itself a mental disorder and that it is compatible with a healthy lifestyle. We shall only begin to see a reduction in mental distress and deliberate self harm in LGB people when all sectors of society welcome them as equal and valuable citizens."

Now we all know the modus of operation of the anti-gay industry. They are going to either ignore the rebuke or claim that King is biased and pro-gay.

Their tactics are beginning to sound like a broken record.

But one thing is clear and everyone had better take note of it - members of the lgbt community are getting highly savvy in pointing how just how the anti-gay industry distorts legitimate studies.

And sooner or later all of their tactics, every lie they told, every study they misused, every discredited study they used will come back to bite them in the ass.

Payback is a bitch and I hope to be around to enjoy every minute of it.

Hell, I hope to be right in the middle of it all, directing traffic.

I got dem Folsom Street Fair blues

There's a crazy guy in Illinois

Bum bum bum bum bum

Who's really anti-gay

Bum bum bum bum bum

And he won't rest

Bum bum bum bum bum

Until everyone else

Bum bum bum bum bum

Is the same way

Ugh. I was not born the sing the blues.

The WWE has Wrestlemania.

Malls have the Christmas holidays

And our friend Peter has this period; the time where he attends California's Folsom Street Fair, takes pictures of gays engaged in frivilous activity (while ignoring the heterosexuals doing the same thing), and tries to paint the entire community with a broad nasty brush.

This year, he and others, including Linda (I can't tell you why but I am a pro-family expert) will be holding a press conference designed to bring attention to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome and U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Of course the press conference will conveniently ignore the fact that Republican Arnold Swarzeneggar is the governor of California and as such, should have attention devoted to him. After all, San Francisco is a state in California.

Frankly, Peter leaves me weary. I am three-days away from one of the most successful prides in South Carolina where families (including children), lgbts of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, and their allies came together for good clean fun.

As such, I really don't have the mental patience to deal with Peter's grandstanding.

All I can say is I hope no one is fooled by it. What Peter and company are doing is no different than a racist distorting FBI crime statistics to make the case that African-Americans are more criminal than whites.

From my conversations with Peter, I gauge that he knows fully well what he is doing. And he knows fully well that sometimes people on his side of the argument (himself included) skirts rules of accuracy for the sake of shock.

So why does Peter do it? Why does he knowingly attempt to paint the lgbt community with a broad brush of lies? Why does he concentrate on things that puts the lgbt community in a bad light with the full knowledge that what he is doing is unfair?

Because Peter is a fanatic. Some of you know this already, but up until this moment, I shirked away from extreme namecalling.

But the fact of the matter is that Peter is so convinced that homosexuality is a sin that he is willing to bend the rules to prove this point. He seems to think that "robbing Peter to pay Paul" is a Christian virtue.

Hmmm. I think America should fear his attitude more than that of a gay man in a leather harness.

SC Pride 2008 - a Monster success

I know, I know . . . McCain's chief of staff is allegedly gay. And this is going to cause a mad blogsphere rush of speculations, accusations, etc.

And you can get the dish on any blog, so allow me to indulge a bit about something that I feel is equally important.

My state celebrated its 19th gay pride and it was awesome. It was largest, most diverse, most enthused crowd of lgbts, our families, our allies, and our children that I have ever seen.

You see, this is the what gay pride is all about; not some subcultural event that our friend Peter will attend in order to demonize the entire community, nor some spooky "other" that other members of the anti-gay industry try to portray us as.

Whether some folks like it or not, we are America. And we are God's children, created exactly as we are supposed to be. Other pictures can be seen here under SC Pride 2008 and Pride 2008. A special no-prize to anyone who can spot me in one of the pictures below.

One News Now distorts another study AND cites Paul Cameron

SC Gay Pride is over and it was a huge success. But more on that later.

As I sit here, an item from One News Now hit me:

A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com.

After analyzing 25 earlier studies on sexual orientation and mental health, researchers, in a study published in the medical journal BMC Psychiatry, also found that the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.

Warning signs went off in my head when I read this due to One News Now's penchant for distorting news items (which has been chronicled on many occasions on this site).

Warning sign 1: One News Now did not give the name of the study.

I found the study here. And the first paragraph says the following:

Homosexual and bisexual men and women may face higher risks of depression, substance abuse and suicidal behaviour than heterosexuals do, a new study suggests. The reason for this may lie in discrimination and rejection often associated with being homosexual or bisexual.

Warning sign 2: One News Now acknowledged what the study was saying about discrimination and reject and then tried to dismiss it:

While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark - the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality - both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s.

The first problem with this is the fact that One News Now claims that Denmark is "highly tolerant" of homosexuality without giving actual proof of the assertion. This is only to create a straw man argument that homophobia has nothing to do with gays engaging in negative behaviors.

But even if One News Now's assertion regarding Denmark is correct, the study talks about this factor too:

This study could not examine the reasons for the higher-than-expected rate of mental disorders and substance abuse. However, (Michael) King told Reuters Health, it is likely that lifelong stress is involved.

Even in relatively liberal societies, he said, gay, lesbian and bisexual people face both overt and subtle discrimination. They may also have to deal with social exclusion and rejection by their own families.

Warning sign 3: One News Now cites the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron:

These findings strongly support the results of similar studies conducted in the United States, which have unveiled the severe physical and psychological health risks associated with homosexual behavior. Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron of the Family Research Institute revealed in 2007 that research shows that the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual. As a health threat, even smoking pales in comparison, as studies show smoking can shorten one's life by only 1 to 7 years on average.

No, sorry. One News Now is telling a boldfaced lie. The study in question was actually conducted in the early 1990s. In addition, the study is indicative of why Cameron has been discredited, censured, and mocked by so many legitimate physicians, researchers, and other folks (this blogger included. )

Let's go into more detail regarding Cameron's study:

What he did was count obituaries in various gay community publications and claimed to be able to use them to calculate the average life expectancy for homosexuals.

The conclusion – that homosexual men and women have a shorter life span than heterosexual men and women – provides a textbook example of the perils of using data from a convenience sample to generalize to an entire population.

Most city newspapers include a section containing death notices for community residents. These notices – which can carry a small fee for printing – typically list the name, age, address, and survivors of the deceased, along with information about funeral or memorial services. Funeral directors often assist the loved ones of the deceased in submitting such notices.

Gay community newspapers do not have sections of death notices. When the AIDS epidemic began to claim the lives of so many gay and bisexual men in the 1980s, however, many gay newspapers began to print obituaries. Except in the case of prominent community figures, these obituaries are typically written by (or based on information from) the loved ones of the deceased.

Assuming that the deceased person wasn't famous, an obituary appears in a gay community newspaper only if (1) a loved one or friend notifies the newspaper about the death (and, in many cases, writes the obituary) and (2) the editor decides to print the obituary.

Consequently, many gay men and lesbians who die never have an obituary in a gay community publication. Here are just a few examples of who is left out of gay newspapers' obituaries.

gay men and lesbians who were not involved in the gay community

gay men and lesbians who were in the closet about their sexual orientation

gay men and lesbians whose loved ones or family didn't want their homosexuality to be known

gay men and lesbians whose loved ones or family simply didn't think of sending an obituary to a gay community newspaper

gay men and lesbians whose loved ones did not write an obituary for some other reason (e.g., they were too grief stricken)

gay men and lesbians who died without leaving anyone to write an obituary for a gay publication (e.g., those whose loved ones and relatives died before them).

An accurate estimate of the life span of gay men and lesbians would have to count such people. By restricting their analysis to obituaries in gay newspapers, however, the Cameron group systematically excluded them from the sample.

In later years, Cameron tacked on more data but the general reasonings as to why his study has been discredited remain unchanged.

Frankly, I am surprised that One News Now would have the nerve to cite Cameron. Maybe the phony news service thought that no one would be paying attention.

For more details about Cameron's lies, go here or here.

Or if you don't feel so inclined, allow me to give you a partial timeline of the man that One News Now feels is an expert on gay issues. This is taken from the timeline of my Anti-Gay Lies and Liars blog:

1982 - He invented a story about a child being mutilated in the bathroom by a gay man in Nebraska. When the police investigated and found the story to be false, he admitted to making it up.

1983 - He was kicked out the American Psychological Association after an investigation that he distorted the work of six researchers to prove negative theories about gay men.

1984 - A. Nicholas Groth, director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections, complained to the Nebraska Board of Examiners of Psychologists about Paul Cameron’s usage of his work to make the claim that gays molest children at a high rate.

1985 - The Midwest Sociological Society censures Paul Cameron. Also, the American Sociological Association and the Society for the Study of Social Problems both pass resolutions against him.

What does it say about One News Now as a supposed Christian news service to cite a discredited researcher?

What does it say about One News Now as a supposed Christian news service to use a study against gays while at the same time discarding the part of the study that does not fit their stereotype of gays?

The sad thing is that what this phony news service did most likely contributes to more gays feeling isolated and abused which will most likely lead to more negative behaviors.

And when that happens, there will be studies to say so. And when this happens, One News Now will be there to distort the studies.

I think we are getting in a rut here.