The 2008 Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters Misinformers of the Year Awards

As 2008 draws to a close and we anticipate the possible joys and pains of 2009, let us not forget those who have tried to make life hell for lgbts.

This year, they were in rare form. Sometimes, they drove us a little north of where we were supposed to be.

But at other times, it was pleasureable to watch them leap through all sorts of ethical hoops in their ongoing struggle against the evil of the so-called Godless homosexuality, which everyone knows is the best kind of homosexuality.

So with that in mind, I present . . .

(drumroll please)

The Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters Misinformers of the Year Awards

“Who are you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes” Award Part 1

Peter LaBarbera - You just know that our friend Peter was going to snag at least one award. Of all of Porno Petey's exploits in 2008, one stands out.

Earlier this year, there was a small break out of staph infections amongst a group of gay men in San Francisco. Rather than waiting for the entire story to come out, members of the religious right (especially LaBarbera) claimed that this infection (MRSA) proved that homosexuality is a so-called “dangerous lifestyle.” LaBarbera in general tried to link MRSA to the early days of the AIDS crisis.

The Centers for Disease Control quickly said that based on the information, the MRSA infection had nothing to do with the lgbt orientation. In an attempt to backtrack from earlier statements, LaBarbera claimed that “gay activists” were falsely accusing him of calling MRSA a “new gay plague.”

But no one accused him of this. LaBarbera was playing a game of semantics to cover up his jumping the gun. However, judge for yourself after reading LaBarbera’s original claim:

Is this not an eerie reminder of the initial stories 25 years ago about AIDS -- then called GRID (Gay-Related Immunodeficiency Disease)? It is unfathomable that after that plague, disease specialists and the media are now surprised at the correlation of new infections with homosexual behavior;Wake up, medical and political establishment: homosexual behavior is unhealthy -- no matter how many secular sermons you preach against "homophobia." Due to liberal political correctness, which treats aberrant -- even deadly -- behaviors as a "civil right," we as a society don't seem to have learned much from the AIDS pandemic.

Who are you going to believe? Me or your own eyes " Award Part 2

Rick Warren - Warren is a classic example of giving some people enough rope to hang themselves. In the furor caused by President-Elect Obama’s selection of him to give the inaugural invocation, Warren tried to blame lgbts for the controversy. In a video message on his church’s webpage, Warren said he never equated same sex relationships to incest or pedophilia. Unfortunately for him, an online interview with Beliefnet.com proved otherwise.

So the question remains were we the ones who gave Warren the rope or was it Obama?

“Now that I’ve got it on my shoe, how do I get it off” Award

The Mormon church - Come on guys, while it is true that you were well within your First Amendment rights, there are consequences for every action done and every word said. In your victory regarding the Proposition 8 vote in California, you did the following:

Jumped into a situation that had absolutely nothing to do with the survival of the Mormon church.

Put up a wad of cash to fund lies about gays forcing children to be “indoctrinated” about homosexuality.

Aligned yourselves with people and groups who think that you are a cult and basically despise you.

Beat up on a group of people who, to my knowledge, have never done you any harm.

And all in the name of God.

The "Height of Hypocrisy" Award

The American Family Association, various religious right groups - After weeks of railing against lgbts for our Proposition 8 protests, after espousing the beliefs about a free nation and people's right to make choices unafraid, after wrapping themselves up in the flag of democracy, the AFA and various religious right groups made a 360 degree turn and called for a boycott against Campbell Soup for ads placed in the Advocate magazine. And the main bone of contention - the ads dared to show a same-sex couple and their child enjoying a bowl of soup.

Now see, I thought we were going to do the soup indoctrination thing after the inauguration.

"If Edward R. Murrow was alive, he would beat the hell out of you" Award

American Family Association's One News Now - This phony news services makes any of the yellow journalism committed by William Randolph Hearst look like Pulitzer Prize-winning material.

From writing articles telling only one side of the story, to its citing of Paul Cameron and legitimate studies taken out of context, to the hilarious comments section (where the so-called Christian readers of the site repeatedly reveal their abject ignorance and bigotry), if One News Now tells the true "Christian" side of today's cultural issues, then I think Jesus needs to sit some of his followers down for a looooong talk on truth.

“Nostradamus” Award:

Janet Folger Porter - Anti-gay spokesperson Porter finally reached her nadir of nuttiness this year through a column that took an interestingly mind-boggling look into the future of a Hilary Clinton presidency. Apparently in this future, gays have taken over and are working to re-educate her and other “Christians.” Those who will not re-educate will be imprisoned in filthy dungeons.

And here I thought the most we were going to do was strap them down and force them to watch Funny Lady for 24 consecutive hours.

“Exposed for Lying but He Keeps on Trying” Lifetime Achievement Award

Paul Cameron - Despite the fact that he is constantly and consistently exposed for bad research tactics, Cameron continues to spout his discredited anti-gay studies. And what’s more, he is referred to continuously by members of the religious right. This year, Cameron even traveled to Russia and gave a talk at Moscow State University. You gotta admire his chutzpah if not his lack of integrity.

“Is She Our Ally or Enemy” Award

Elaine Donnelly - Donnelly, head of the Center for Military Readiness, gave testimony in front of Congress this year against allowing gays to serve openly in the military She actually did more to make our case than we ever could. She got her behind handed to her for spouting inaccurate anecdotes and horror stories designed to appeal to fears about lgbts. And she gives me an idea; perhaps Paul Cameron should be the next to testify in front of Congress.

"Is He Our Ally or Enemy" Award

George Rekers - Former University of South Carolina professor and Family Research Council board member George Rekers struck a blow for gay adoption this year by testifying against it.

Rekers had testified in defense of Florida's gay adoption ban in November. Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman not only ruled against Florida but said that Rekers' testimony cannot be considered as credible or worthy of forming the basis of public policy.

Ironically, this is the same conclusion that Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Timothy White reached in 2005 when Rekers testified in defense of Arkansas's gay adoption ban.

This information enables Rekers to become a two-time award recipient as I now bestow upon him the coveted "Second Verse, Same as the First but the Song Still Sucks" Award.

SPECIAL AWARD

“Say it loud if you are black and proud but keep that gay *&@ to yourself” Award

To Harry Jackson, Ken Hutcherson, Alveda King, and the rest of the black ministers and spokespeople (this means you too, Crystal Dixon) who spout silly homilies like “don’t equate my skin with your sin” and help propagate the lie that the lgbt orientation and the African-American identity are mutually exclusive.

To all of the black ministers nationwide who knowingly have lgbt of color congregants but will not pursue private one-on-one nonjudgmental conversations with them

To Ebony, Essence, Jet, Emerge and other African-American oriented magazines who write very few articles regarding lgbts of color.

To all of the African-American social organizations who will not even mention lgbts of color.

To all of the African-American oriented television shows (such as House of Payne) who feature no lgbt of color characters.

To all of the African-American motion pictures who feature lgbt of color characters strictly as vehicles for the worst form of comedy.

To BET network for continuing to show Soul Plane almost every month (thereby showcasing the worst stereotypes about lgbts of color).

To all of the civic minded African-American spokespeople and leaders who will not even address the fact that lgbts of color exist.

To all of those in the African-American community who reduce lgbt of color relationships to sexual innuendoes by their patronizing comments like "not caring about who someone sleeps with."

To all of you, thank you for sowing the seeds of inferiority in the minds of lgbts of color and thereby causing them to act in ways that make the HIV rate go up in the African-American community.

And finally . . . .

The Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters Misinformer of the Year Award

Matt Barber - This guy’s entire career as a religious right spokesperson has been a fluke from the beginning. Originally, he was fired from AllState Insurance for anti-gay columns he wrote. Although Barber claimed to have written them on his own time, it was alleged that he used company equipment to do so. Also he did involve the company in his nonsense by listing the fact that he was an employee in his columns.

Barber parlayed that furor into becoming a spokesman for Concerned Women for America, where he scrapped with folks like Wayne Besen and Keith Boykin on coast to coast television, despite often times being in way over his head.

Whether using antiquated arguments against lgbts (citing that old inaccurate line about lgbts engaging in a organized campaign to take over America put forth by the book After the Ball) or constantly reminding everyone about alleged gay sexual intercourse (aiding and abetting LaBarbera on the MRSA debacle), Barber's attacks on the lgbt community have bordered on fanatic and loony.

But one act cements this award for Barber.

In June, he repeated the “gays have short lifespan” lie. In doing so, he cited the 1997 Canadian study with the full knowledge that in 2001 the study’s authors complained about the distortion of their work.

And he attacked the credibility of the authors for daring to complain. He called their words “worthless fluff” and said they were under “tremendous pressure” to refute their original work. Naturally Barber did not elaborate about this “tremendous pressure.”

You get that: a failed insurance salesman-cum-rightwing spokesman attacks the credibility of prominent researchers simply because they complain as to how their work has been distorted.

So in the grand scheme of things, we are talking about going from the Immaculate Conception, calming stormy seas, turning water into wine, healing the sick, and raising the dead to attempting make inaccurate information credible with a stroke of a keyboard.

Christianity hasn't fallen this far since Jan Crouch of Trinity Broadcasting discovered hairpieces.

Barber left Concerned Women for America in late 2008 to be a staff member at the religious right college, Liberty University. But he refuses to let go of the spotlight.

Like a quarterback falling on the football and thereby sealing a Superbowl victory, Barber cemented this award with a recent column comparing lgbts and progressives in general to idol worshippers and child sacrificers of Biblical times.

No need to run the clock out, Matt. At this juncture I doubt anyone can match your silliness.

So that's it. Those are my award winners. And by the way, the award is a huge bronx cheer.

Hey, if I really hated these guys, I would force them to listen to the Osmonds' One Bad Apple.

But Mr. Warren, you aren't telling the truth

In the transcript of Rick Warren's comments about the controversy (talked about in my last post), he said he never equated gay marriage with pedophilia or incest:

I have been accused of equating gay partnerships with incest and pedophilia. Now of course as members of Saddleback Church you know I believe no such thing, I never have. You've never once heard me in 30 years heard me talk that way about that.

Well then just what is this statement taken from an interview with Beliefnet.com:

Rick Warren: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Steven Waldman: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

Rick Warren: Oh I do . …

You can see the video of the interview here and judge for yourself.

In his defense, Warren does try to clarify what he meant in this interview:

. . . in that interview I named several other relationships, in fact I've done it several times, I've named other relationships such as living together, uh or a man with multiple wives or brother sister relationship or adults with children or common law partnerships or all kinds of other relationships. I don't think any of them should be called marriage. Now I was not saying that those relationships were the same thing because I happen to not believe that and I've never taught it. I was just pointing out that I believe the definition of marriage should only be included one definition, a man and a woman for life.

You can take it for what you want, but to me, Warren needs to man up and own his comments. The "explanations" he gives for equating same sex marriage to pedophilia and incest are weak at best.

And it is more proof that Warren's attack on lgbts for calling him out on his dishonesty is unfounded.

In the transcript, Warren also blames the media and bloggers for "creating this controversy."

I guess his lying has nothing to do with it, huh?

Someone needs to tell Warren that the more he talks, the worse he looks.

UPDATE - Apparently Steve Waldman, the Beliefnet writer who interviewed Warren, doesn't agree with the explanations either, but he does add a caveat in another attempt to clarify Warren's comments. I happen to not agree but still it is worth mentioning:

In his December 22 video Warren had an opportunity to do something quite straightforward and healing: clarify, take resonsibility and, ideally, apologize. He did clarify but did not, in my view, take responsibility. He could have simply said, "it came out in a way I didn't mean and I apologize for those who I hurt because of that." It wouldn't have required him to back off his position on gay marriage one iota. Instead, he blamed the media and misremembered or mischaracterized what he'd said.

On the other hand, what's most important is that he did make it clear that he doesn't believe gay relationships are the moral equivalent of incest etc. That idea should now be put to rest.

Hat tip to Teach The Facts for the transcript and to Box Turtle Bulletin for the part about Waldman.

Now hold up, Rick Warren! YOU started this @&%#!

Had to post this one.

Apparently Rick Warren has posted a video about the recent controversy.

According to Americablog:

Warren accuses gays of "hate speech," of launching "hateful attacks" against him, and he then says that gay and lesbian Americans have "Christ-ophobia," a clear effort to mock the term "homophobia." He goes on to explain that gays are "afraid of any Christian," suggesting that gay and lesbian Americans - gay and lesbian Obama voters - are not Christians. He then goes on to call gays criticizing him "evil." All this from a man who compared gay marriage to incest and pedophilia, and who explicitly bans "unrepentant gays" from his church membership.(He also adds that bloggers are "rude" and "need to get a life." I don't really care about that part, it's just more evidence that we're getting under Warren's skin, and that he's not quite ready for prime time.)

Lgbts are obviously getting to Warren and that's good.

And I am glad to see that NO ONE is allowing Warren to get away with playing the victim here.

As John Aravosis so eloquently stated, Warren was the one started this mess by comparing gay marriage to incest and pedophilia, and who explicitly bans "unrepentant gays" from his church membership.

And as Jeremy from Goodasyou.org has said:

We're not hiding. We're not life-deprived. We are daring to stand up against your attempts to deny us of our lives. We in the gay community, in particular, are putting our lives on hold to fight this needless battle that you are FORCING US TO FIGHT! Why? Because we DO love our lives and we refuse to hide them for anyone! HOW DARE YOU trivialize the pain you have caused?!?!?

This is truly a wig-snatching off, earring-removing moment for the lgbt community.

It's like that old ghetto saying: "don't start nothing and there won't be nothing."

I have tried to be moderate about this (mainly because I remember how unneccesarily angry I was about the Donnie McClurkin incident) and I still believe that despite this misstep, an Obama Administration is good for the lgbt community.

But this constant whining by Warren is getting me this close to "losing all of my religion."

Just who in the hell does Warren think he is?

I know I am preaching to the choir, but I really want to know this.

He tells lies about gays wanting to jail Christians, he disrespects us and our relationships, and then when he is called on it, we (the community that have been maligned) are the ones in the wrong because we are complaining about it?

We are the haters? My head is spinning from that lack of logic.

No one has threatened Warren. But there have been vigorous disagreements with his statements. I guess Warren is channeling the mindset of the rest of the religious right - to attack their lies amounts to hatred because they are right even when they are wrong.

I know about Warren's work to fight AIDS but to me, it is the equivalent of putting out a fire that you have started.

Doesn't he realize that the things he says goes a long way in fostering an inferiority mentality amongst lgbts that would lead them into dangerous behavior which in turn leads to catching AIDS?

When you infer that someone is a freak and help to make sure that they cannot prove you wrong, don't be surprised to have a freak on your hands.

If Warren really cared about the lgbt community and AIDS, he would do more to foster monogamous lgbt relationships rather than tell lies in order to kill them.

And then comes the alleged elimination of anti-gay language on his church's webpage.

Instead of trying to beat up on lgbts, Warren needs to come clean on this. Obviously there was a feeling that the language was inappropriate. If not, then why was it removed?

That in itself proves that Warren's whining is inaccurate. Mike Rogers said it best in his smackdown on Hardball - the lgbt community at large has not changed on our position regarding Warren. It is Warren who made the changes.

Warren should just get off of the cross and stop trying to be Joan of Arc because HE started this mess with us.

And we are finishing it.

Quick briefs from the world

Warren’s church removes anti-gay statements from website. (If you haven't done anything wrong then why do you feel the need to remove stuff from your webpage, Mr.
Warren)

Mike Rogers owns Warren defender on Hardball (Of course it's never about "gotcha politics" but I am so sick of weak ass spokespeople on news shows allowing people like Tony Perkins or Mike Huckabee to walk all over them with an Atticus Finch stick. Rogers was clear, to the point, never raised his voice, but controlled the conversation)

Lesbian's brutal gang rape investigated in Calif. (God, I hope this is just an urban legend)

Rule Shields Health Workers Who Withhold Care Based on Beliefs (If Concerned Women for America supports this then it can't be good for the lgbt community)

Yes on 8 Campaign: Liars (You mean they lied about not wanting to overturn the gay marriages that already took place in California? No shit.)

The AFA hates lgbt families

Despite all, I am convinced that despite the Rick Warren controversy, lgbts are in a much better state than we would be in if McCain had been elected president.

And I am equally convinced that an Obama Administration will be good for us.

But I guess a lot of folks don't really get why the lgbt community are up in arms about Warren. Much has been said, broken down, and manipulated, but what I read in One News Now today gives a perfect reason for our anger:

The American Family Association (AFA) says Christian consumers need to know that the Campbell Soup Company embraces the homosexual agenda.

Campbell Soup bought two 2-page ads in the December and January issues of The Advocate, the nation's largest homosexual magazine. The ads promote their Swanson line of broth, and one of the ads highlights the lives of two lesbians, who are portrayed as being married, along with "their" son. Other ads feature chefs from New York City.

Randy Sharp, AFA's director of special projects, says concerned consumers should contact company officials and ask them to stop endorsing homosexuality.

"When you specifically target a homosexual magazine, then your company is basically endorsing these activities; you're endorsing the lifestyle," claims Sharp. "And in one ad, which...clearly shows two lesbians who say they are married, who say they have a son together, ...the Campbell Soup Company is saying 'we approve of homosexual marriage.' There is no question whatsoever of what the intentions of the company are."

Yeah it's clear what the company is trying to do - sell soup, you moron.

Now Mike Huckabee, Warren, and the rest can do fluff televised interviews in order to their point of views sound palpable, but the AFA's objections regarding Campbell Soup is the real face of the religious right in America.

Why shouldn't Campbell Soup sell their products to lgbts? We have families and we eat soup.

Or better yet - just what gives AFA the right to dictate lgbt images? The organization is basically saying, "despite the fact that lgbts families exist and despite the fact that they are consumers, we don't like the idea of lgbt families so we are going to do everything we can to hinder that image."

I'm sure the AFA will give us the standard line of "not hating gays" and "just because you don't agree with the lifestyle means that you hate the person," but it just doesn't wash here.

It's one thing to be angry at a company for whom it gives money to, but this goes beyond the pale.

The AFA is angry because Campbell Soup dared to acknowledge the fact that not only lgbt families exist but they are pretty normal.

This attempt to dehumanize us and stigmatize our families under the guise of religion is what lgbts have to deal with everyday in one form or another.

And frankly, we are getting tired of it.

Unfortunately no one ever seems to want to ask Warren or Huckabee about things like this. And I won't hold my breath waiting for those questions.

Thank you Peter for showing the hypocrisy of your side

It took him a while but our friend Peter LaBarbera finally came through in trying to defend Pastor Rick Warren. Let's look at some clips from his defense:

By blasting Obama for choosing Rick Warren as an Inaugural speaker — and demonizing Warren as a “homophobe” because he supported Prop 8 — homosexual activists are showing the world just how empty their “tolerance” ideology really is

Here’s an outstanding release from Pastor Bryan Fischer with the Idaho Values Alliance, an affiliate of American Family Association. Poor Barack Obama: he’s promised the world to one of the most demanding and unreasonable special interest movements on the planet. Imagine blasting the gregarious Warren as a “homophobe” because he supported Prop 8 in California.

The press release makes it seem that lgbts going to riot in the streets during the event:

Prediction: for the first time in American history, a speaker at a presidential inauguration may be booed unmercifully, and his remarks completely drowned out by angry jeers from an incensed crowd. We may even see shoes tossed at the inauguration platform by the hundreds. It could be a modern day lynching, only this time the victim of a vigilante mob will be proverbially strung up not because of skin color but creed.

At the end of the press release, there is a listing of articles detailing the controversy as if to further illustrate how supposedly "intolerant" lgbts are.

Allow me to present my own list and it speaks to the audacity of the folks on the other side of the issue.

They attack lgbts for our anger at the Warren selection and play that "they say they are tolerant but this proves that they are not" game despite the fact that a short time ago, a lot of them were angry at Newsweek for its article on gay marriage. And they made this displeasure known:

Homosexuality — The Evangelical Temptation

AFA Takes on Newsweek’s Shameful Distortion of the Bible to Shill for Homosexual ‘Marriage’

Mohler on Newsweek article: The ‘biblical case for gay marriage’ falls flat

Newsweek Religion Editor Rewrites the Bible

Answering Newsweek

They call us intolerant despite the fact that a prominent pastor on their side was forced to resign because of his support of same sex relationships:

Evangelical Leader Takes Heat For His ‘Shift’ On Same-Sex Relationships

They call us whiners because of our anger over Warren despite the fact that they have been acting like serious crybabies over incidents involving aetheist displays at Christmas. (Editor's note - If you want to see true award-winning whining, check out the comments section of these articles):

Illinois Christians angry over atheist display

Washington State rewrites holiday display policy

Multicultural displays 'neutering' Christmas

And not long before Peter started shilling for Warren's presence at the inauguration, he was raising hell that a gay marching band would be appearing:

Transgender Twirlers? Homosexual Band to March in Obama’s Inaugural Parade

So what's the deal here?

When the religious right complain about something, it's perfectly okay but when lgbts do the same thing, we are being intolerant?

I don't think so.

I noticed that One News Now has been noticeably silent on the Warren controversy. Thank God for Peter LaBarbera whose pathetic attempts to be relevant does his side more harm than good.

A new challenge to the lgbt community - analyze the war against lgbts

I've noticed that in the Obama/Warren controversy, folks have been making comparisons between inviting Rick Warren and inviting a known racist like David Duke:

You wouldn't give David Duke a prominent place at the inaguration. Also if Warren maligned any other group like he maligned gays, we wouldn't be having this conversation about "having a dialogue."

Those who press this argument do have a point. But the devil is in the details.

People are throwing around the word "homophobic" to describe Warren but what they don't understand is that the word "homophobic" does not have the same power as the words "Anti-Semite" or "racist."

With the words "racist" and "Anti-Semite" comes the history of lynchings, cross burnings, the Holocaust and various other acts of violence.

But before you point out the case of Lawrence King, Matthew Shepard, and others who have suffered homophobic violence, remember one thing.

The racists and the Anti-Semites don't have people like Tony Perkins or James Dobson invited on news programs to give their positions.

And not matter how ugly anti-gay violence is, people like Perkins and Dobson are able to distance themselves from these acts. With a calm visage and a smiling face, they are able to bat down the word "homophobic" as a term that gays use to bash Christians.

This speaks as to how insidious the war against lgbts actually is. For the most part, the weapons are not sticks, knives, and guns, but carefully worded rhetoric and soundbites that have been practiced consistently in meeting rooms until they have the semblance of sounding unthreatening.

So the question is how do we combat this without looking like raging dogs.

Chill out people! It's not the end of the world just yet

I cringe to say this and I know folks are going to be a little upset but . . .

Everyone needs to chill out about Obama selecting Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inaguration.

For the record, I am not in favor of the choice. I think Obama was showing that he is a president for all Americans, even though many of us do not share same views on controversial issues.

It was a clumsy attempt but as much as I hate to admit it, I have to give him points for it.

And I will tell you why I feel this way.

I was involved in the protest when Donnie McClurkin toured for Obama in 2006. I didn't like what happened then but mostly I hated how the entire thing ended. There were folks on our side who were too strident and undisciplined, Donnie McClurkin came out of the controversy smelling like a rose, and still the issues of lgbts of color were not addressed.

Subsequently, I did some soul searching and came to the conclusion that sometimes you have to step back and look at the bigger picture before going off half cocked.

Also, I remember how the religious right acted when Bush was re-elected in 2004.

I remember the cocky comments from pastors who loudly declared that they were the ones who got Bush re-elected and as such folks had better show them some respect.

I remember the words of Bob Jones University in a letter written to Bush after the election:

You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you.

I remember how Bush said the election gave him capital and he was going to use it. And use it he did. We are going to be paying for how he used his capital long after he leaves office.

So when I remember these things, I cringe when I hear the comments of my lgbt brothers and sisters who are already declaring “game over” and calling Obama everything but a child of God.

I cringe to hear the extreme hyperbolic claims that Obama has thrown lgbt families over the side.

Has he really?

No he hasn’t. All he did was reach out to a core of constituents.

Warren and people like him have been unfairly appropriating words like “family” and “values” and making their views seem moderate when they are anything but moderate.

But they are Americans too. And while we see them as misguided, Obama sees them as people that he has been elected to reach out to and represent.

The problem here does not lie with Obama. The problem lies with the assumption that Obama’s election is a magic lamp that will make our problems go away.

That’s not the case. The road got less bumpy with Obama in office but it is still a long road that we have to travel to get what we need.

And we still have work to do. We still have to educate Americans (Obama included) on who we are, what our needs are, and how we have a right to words like “family” and “values.”

Obama is going to be in office for at least four years. During that time, I know that I will not agree with every decision he makes.

But I am still glad he was elected. And I am not ready to say “game over” just yet.

Obama and Rick Warren - Let's do the right thing

Homobigot Rick Warren to deliver invocation at inauguration

I don't like it but can we do something other than getting on our computers and spew venom? I swear if some of us lgbts did what we needed to do in our individual communities as quick as we throw around hyperbole on blogs, we would be unbeatable.

Of course it's not supposed to be all peaches and cream. I'm sure before it's all said and done, Obama will do things to piss us off as well as delight us.

One thing for sure though. In light of their protests over the recent Newsweek article about religion and gay marriage, the religious right had better not say a damned thing about our supposed "lack of tolerance."

Of course who am I kidding?

But this is the perfect time to act as a community. I am sorry if I offended some by my first statements but I am of the opinion that we shouldn't waste time talking about how "Obama betrayed us."

We need to show our anger as a community over this action. When the religious right gets angry, they complain en masse.

Why should we be any different?

I don't like the assumption that Obama should "get where we are coming from" without some prodding from us from time to time.

And this is one of those times.

So, if you want to complain, here are the appropriate emails to do it. I don't think I have to tell you all to show some dignity and respect. Be courteous:

parag.mehta@ptt.gov (Parag Mehta is Obama’s LGBT liaison in the transition team.)

dnoble@barackobama.com

bbond@barackobama.com

steve@hildebrandtewes.com (Steve Hildebrandt)

fred.hochberg@ptt.com )

The Family Research Council and the Disappearing Studies on Homosexuality

While we are all anticipating an Obama Administration and while the religious right continues to compile inaccurate anecdotes about “gay persecutors,” something strange has taken place on the Family Research Council’s webpage.

Several “studies” about homosexuality are gone.

The following studies are no longer on the Family Research Council’s webpage - The Negative Effects of Homosexuality, Homosexuality and Child Abuse, and Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk.

If you click the following links (taken from here), you will see what I am talking about:

"Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse," Insight No. 247 (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council), May 17, 2002 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3)

· "The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality," Insight No. 232 (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council), March 6, 2001 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1)

· "Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk," Insight No. 238 (Washington: Family Research Council) November 1, 2001 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3)

These studies were supposed to show the so-called “dangers of homosexuality.” All of the religious right talking points about lgbts are touched on including:

Gays molest children at a high rate,

Gays have a short life span,

Gays and lesbians don’t know how to be monogamous,

Gays and lesbians have high rate of domestic violence.

The author of these items, Timothy Dailey, is still employed with the Family Research Council and one of his areas of "expertise" is homosexuality. This is highly strange because according to his bio, Dailey’s Ph.D. and qualifications all fall under religion.

For the record, his studies about homosexuality were highly flawed.

In them, Dailey cited out-of-date data compiled in the early 1970s, distorted other studies (including the 1997 Canadian study concerning the “gay life span”), and relied on discredited work (i.e. discredited researcher Paul Cameron).

One of his papers in particular, Homosexuality and Child Abuse, got complaints from former director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections, A. Nicholas Groth.

In 2002, Groth said that Dailey distorted his work to claim that gays molest children at a higher rate than heterosexual men.

The irony is that this was the same error Paul Cameron made with Groth’s work in 1984. Groth complained then too.

I don’t know when Dailey's studies was removed, but they were on the webpage in 2006. It was at that time on my blog I noted how some of them included the following proviso:

Please note: this article is an archived item on Family Research Council's website; the information contained therein may be outdated.

At the time, I called it a "cover your ass disclaimer."

I called the Family Research Council last week in order to get some answers. A very nice woman who answered my call told me that I would have to speak Dailey to get more details.

I left two messages via email and have yet to receive an answer.

So the question is are we seeing some quiet acknowledgment by the Family Research Council that some of their “studies” on lgbts were flawed?

Since I haven't spoken to Dailey, I cannot give a definite answer.

But if this is the case, then I think the Family Research Council owes the lgbt community more than an covert abandonment of these studies.

I would like to have something a bit more public from the Family Research Council. These studies are present on other unaffiliated sites and have probably been used numerous times in attempts to beat back pro-gay legislation.

Also they have helped form inaccurate images put forth about lgbts by the religious right.

In light of how we lgbts have been unfairly called terrorists for our reaction over the Proposition 8 vote, anything less than a full and public acknowledgement is unacceptable.

Anything less than a full and public acknowledgement would be a classic case of throwing rocks and then pleading innocence when those hit by the rocks react.

Has Robert Knight been put out to pasture?

Rumor control has it (via People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch) that long-time anti-gay talking head Robert Knight is out of a job. This was an email sent to Tips-Q (which despite the email is not an anti-gay site):

We need Bob Knight in the pro-family movement!

Bob and his whole department at Media Research Center have been laid off. Please circulate this message in hopes that another position will surface for him and the rest of his terrific staff.
The list of Bob’s stellar accomplishments would take pages and more time than any of us have. He was a reporter with the Los Angeles Times, has held key positions at several conservative think tanks, Family Research Council, and Concerned Women for America. He has been instrumental in the battle to preserve marriage. He has written compelling pieces about the threat to religious liberty of “hate crimes” and ENDA legislation. He has exposed the pseudo-science of the “born gay” claims of homosexual advocates.He has appeared on countless TV and radio shows and always represents our side with truth, humor and grace.

At MRC, Bob’s department has done a terrific job of tracking the bias against Christians and conservatives in the mainstream media.

As we approach one of the darkest times in recent American history, the knowledge and experience of a fine Christian man like Bob Knight is needed more than ever. We understand the tough financial woes of Christian groups, yet a background like his is rare and should not go unutilized.

Please circulate this to all Christian and conservative contacts.

Robert Knight is many things but I really don't think being a Christian would fit his classifications. And he has NOT represented the other side with truth, humor, and grace. On the contrary, he has used lies, innuendoes, and out-and-out deceptions.

For years, via his involvement with the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America, Knight has accused lgbts of everything except pulling tags off of mattresses and squeezing the Charmin.

Knight has called us pedophiles on more than one occasion:

“The ‘gay agenda’ targets children. They’re luring kids into homosexual behavior. There is a strong undercurrent of pedophilia in the homosexual subculture.” - Rolling Stone, March, 18, 1999

“Knight feels the festival organizers’ excuse that the kids’ films were being shown in a separate part of the theater is not good enough. He says there is a cavalier attitude on the part of pro-homosexual advocates, who believe there is nothing wrong with homosexual sex, and therefore, if the kids happen to get exposed to it, their response is ‘So what? Maybe some of them might be gay, and maybe this will inspire them.’" - Parents Warned Against ‘Family-unfriendly’ Film Festivals - Agape Press - December 13, 2004

He has disrespected our lesbian sisters:

“If you look at the footage from Operation Rescue, um, vigils outside abortion clinics, you will see that the anti Operation Rescue demonstrators invariably have a pink triangle on and they are usually pretty big heavy set women who look like they’ve been over working October Fest for the last six years . . .” - Reclaiming America For Christ Conference, “Homosexuality” panel, February 28, 1999

He has on occasion distorted the work of legitimate researchers and have attacked their credibility when challenged on it. In 1998, he attacked pediatrician Robert Garafalo when Garafalo complained as to how the religious right was misusing his study on gay teens. Knight had the temerity to call him a "thrall of political correctness."

Knight has even used the lovely time-old bullshit claim that homosexuality is wrong because the "parts don't fit:"

Just look at the human body!” Says Knight. “You can’t fool nature. The rectum was not made for sexual activity.” Then, impishly, he adds, “it is an exit ramp, not an entry ramp.”

To me, the most egregious thing Knight has done is to refer to the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron. He has done this on many occasion in his "research studies" and including in front Congress on July 29, 1994 when speaking against ENDA.

I had the misfortune of meeting Knight in 2004 and I asked him about using Cameron's work. His words to me were:

“Yes we have used his research. So what?”

And here I thought the Bible spoke against bearing false witness.

So if the rumors are true and Knight has been put out to pasture, I will not mourn his loss. I won't necessarily dance in the streets either.

To do such a thing would be tacky and let's face it - Knight will probably not be out of work for long. The religious right can always use a morally malleable individual like him.

But if he can't get a job with some other religious right group or conservative thinktank, let's hope Knight pursues an honest line of work for a change.

Might I suggest pimping. After all, he has gotten enough experience pimping lgbts.

Gee Matt Barber, why don't you tell us what you really think about decriminalizing homosexuality

The United Nations resolution urging countries to decriminalize homosexuality gives us an interesting view into the religious right mindset.

The non-binding resolution, backed by the 27-member European Union, calls on governments worldwide to decriminalize homosexuality. France, which put forth the initiative on Human Rights Day, is expected to submit a draft of the proposal at the U.N. General Assembly next week.

More than 80 countries have laws against homosexuality, including nine that prescribe death as punishment.

The resolution has opposition from the Roman Catholic Church which claims that it would lead to same-sex marriage.

Interestingly enough due to negative outcry, the Vatican seems be opposing the resolution and giving it support at the same time:

The United States government has yet to give an answer about the resolution which is still being drafted and carries the support of 56 countries.

But leave it to One News Now and former Concerned Women for American spokesperson Matt Barber to put an incorrect spin on the story:

The decision (I think the article meant resolution) represents just one step in the overall plan of homosexual strategists, according to Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel. "It's a brave new world out there, and homosexual activists have infiltrated the ranks of the United Nations. So I will not be surprised if this resolution does in fact pass," he contends.

. . . If the resolution succeeds, Barber fully expects a push to begin for recognition of homosexual "marriage" that could become a party of international treaties, binding signatory nations to recognition.

Barber offers no proof about his claim of "homosexual strategists" and it's not the first time he has exploited the fear of the unknown as a substitute for truth. On more than one occasion, Barber has conjured up the specter of invisible hordes of "homosexal strategists" or nameless groups of "radical homosexual activists" to justify his claims.

The most recent attempt came earlier this year when he addressed how researchers were complaining as to how he and other members of the religious right were distorting their work to claim that gays have a short lifespan.

Barber said that the researchers were under "tremendous pressure" to complain. Of course he didn't offer any proof of this at the time. Just like he doesn't offer any proof of his lie about "homosexual strategists" in the U.N.

(I talk about the situation regarding Barber and the Canadian study here and here.)

Using the threat of gay marriage to oppose a pro-gay law, ordinance, or resolution is a tactic the religious right have undertaken since their success in the 2004 general election. It is said that Bush was elected on the backs of so-called values voters who came to the polls in huge numbers to oppose same sex marriage.

Since that time, the religious right have sometimes tried to beat back potentially pro-gay laws or ordinances (be it anti-discrimination laws or hate crimes legislation) by claiming that they would lead us down a slippery slope to gay marriage, polygamy, and out-and-out chaos.

It's never amusing when they manipulate this fear, but on this occasion it's downright ugly.

To hear Barber say it, the United Nations should not worry about advocating that lgbts not be persecuted by arrest or death. Gays getting torched out of their homes or publicly hanged doesn't seem to be a big deal to him.

But allowing those same gays to walk down the aisle? That's worse than the Apocalypse.

Talk about your lack of priorities.

Hat tip to On Top Magazine for help on this post.

Way to go Colin Powell!!

If I ever became a Republican, it would be because of people like Colin Powell:

Powell: GOP 'polarization' backfired in election

The Republican party must stop "shouting at the world" and start listening to minority groups if it is to win elections in the 21st century, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday.

In an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria for Sunday's "GPS" program, President Bush's former secretary of state said his party's attempt "to use polarization for political advantage" backfired last month.

"I think the party has to take a hard look at itself," Powell said in the interview, which was taped Wednesday. "There is nothing wrong with being conservative. There is nothing wrong with having socially conservative views — I don't object to that. But if the party wants to have a future in this country, it has to face some realities. In another 20 years, the majority in this country will be the minority."

Colin Powell is the only publicly known black Republican worth a damn. The rest aren't worth shit.

I don't say that because of what Powell said but because of the meaning behind his words.

All other African-Americans who publicly align themselves with the Republican Party (and conservatives) have no backbone. From Star Parker to Michael Steele to Alan Keyes to Ken Hutcherson to Harry Jackson to Larry Elder, they seem to be content with toeing some stupid line, taking that right wing think tank money and running interference for those who have real power in the Republican Party.

Attack Jesse Jackson or bring up Louis Farrakhan's name to inflame the white folks?

No problem.

Attack gays for daring to compare the lgbt struggle to the civil rights movement even at the expense of making lgbts of color invisible in the public eye?

No problem.

Exploiting the election of President Obama by allowing yourself to be in-demand criticizers of his policies on right wing sites like Town Hall and One News Now even though you know that your appeal is solely because you and him share the same skin color?

No problem.

Where are the black Republicans who will demand leadership roles in the party rather than wear the token sign with pride?

Former Representative J.C. Watts tried but to paraphrase comedian Paul Mooney, he got his "Negro wake up call" and realized that the Republican Party only wanted him for photo ops or when they needed a black man to criticize Jesse Jackson.

They didn't give him any real leadership.

Powell is not stupid. He maintains his autonomy and integrity.

Even a pitbull has to rest

I'm tired. And this is highly ironic because I am on the cusp of an interesting story which I hope to finish by next week. And if it turns out like I want, it will be a doozy.

But today, permit me to direct you to other interesting links:

O’Reilly’s Christmas paranoia: They want to ‘revoke’ Christmas! (oh spare me, please. And here I thought we only wanted to have Judy Garland's birthday declared a national holiday. Those damned aetheists are always butting in on the "gay agenda.)

Gay Marriage and a Moral Minority (Amen my brother! And I especially liked that first sentence.)

W. Va. Lesbian Couple Fights to Keep Baby (From Florida to this? Talk about a dance. Every time we take two steps forward, they try to drag us back one.)

On the defense, digging that hole, where they belong. (That Newsweek article by Lisa Miller has really upset the religious right. I have never felt so much the desire to kiss a woman than I do now.)

Truth Wins Out hits back with ad in Salt Lake City newspaper (Go Wayne! It's your birthday!)

Yes Mr. Huckabee, there are some haters on your side

Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee appeared on the Daily Show publicizing his book, Do The Right Thing. In this appearance he yet again tried to make his opposition of marriage equality sound reasonable.

Host Jon Stewart skewered Huckabee and I rather liked that. But Huckabee did something that annoyed the hell out of me.

He made another reference to us gays supposedly "unfairly" calling people on his side of this so-called cultural war "haters."

It amazes me how the religious right and their cohorts like to flip the script. They are adept in trying to play the victim by whining how the “other side” (and that would include me) are so quick to call them “bigots” and “haters” when supposedly all they want to do is “protect traditional marriage.”

And I'm frankly tired of it.

Most of all, I don't like Mike Huckabee carousing the talk show circuit channeling Maria Von Trapp and taking advantage of the fact that he has a platform that lgbts don't have in order to distort the reasons behind our anger.

What he needs to do is check the backgrounds of some of his supporters.

Such as Jane Porter (nee Folger).

According to People For the American Way's Right Wing Watch:

Mike Huckabee willingly associates himself with Porter, praising her in his new book as "one of the main catalysts" for his success in the Republican primary and haling her as among a "new wave of leaders" who will remake the Republican Party in their own image.

Oh really?

This is the same woman who, according to Wayne Besen (in his excellent book Anything But Straight), falsely accused the gay organization ACT-UP of being partially responsible for pressuring the American Psychiatric Assocation of removing homosexuality from its lists of disorders in 1973. The only problem with that is ACT-UP did not exist until the 80s. The organization was formed to fight ignorance about the AIDS virus.

This is the same woman who, on a July 30, 1998 episode of the ABC news program Nightline, said she agreed with the sodomy laws that at the time could jail lgbts for private sexual behavior.

And this is the same woman who wrote a mind boggling, idiotic column in which she forecasted a future where Hilary Clinton was elected as president.

Apparently according to Porter, Christians will be placed in prisons for re-education and labor camps thanks in part to us lgbts:

When the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" ("Thought Crimes" for the Workplace) became law, businesses and ministries were targeted by homosexual activists and were forced to close when they wouldn't comply with a law forcing them to hire those opposed to their beliefs on moral issues.

When they canceled my program, banned my book and targeted my ministry, I knew it was only a matter of time before I'd be forced into "prison ministry" against my will. Unfortunately for our nation, that ministry is growing fast. A homeschooling mom was assigned the cell next to me. I try to comfort her, but she cries constantly at the thought of her kids being raised in government foster care.

The forced labor here makes me think that I should have done more for our brothers and sisters in China sent to labor camps for the crime of hosting a home church, or those imprisoned in every Muslim country for choosing Christ over Allah. We should have seen the writing on the wall when Yahoo turned over confidential searches to the Chinese government, sending people to prison, and when Google barred American Christian sites from its search engines as "haters." Finding allied ministries is now almost impossible.

And don't think Porter likes Obama either. Again according to Right Wing Watch, since his election, she has written six columns pushing the lie that Obama should not be president because he is not a natural born U.S. citizen.

If Huckabee wants to do the right thing, he needs to stop playing the martyr and look at the behavior and words of some of his supporters.

He would see that us lgbts do have a point when we refer to them as haters.

Don't start nothing and there won't be nothing

Tomorrow is Day Without Gay, in which members of the lgbt community are encouraged to take a day off from work (call in "gay") and donate time to service.

Unfortunately, certain circumstances preclude me from being able to "call in gay" at my job and donate time to service.

But I will make contributions to the cause in my own way; especially the part about trying not to spend money during the day. Although that will be partly because of necessity.

Despite it all though, I hope that tomorrow will be successful and the beginning of an annual tradition.

Speaking of which, it seems that the religious right and their cohorts are doing their best to make our protests seem like rampant acts of violence.

The scuttlebutt today is a column by singer and "Christian" Pat Boone (published in World Net Daily) in which he sounds the same familiar lies that Michelle Malkin, Chuck Norris, and Newt Gingrich alluded to; that lgbts are engaging in wild acts of violence against Mormons and Christians.

Boone's claims follows a full-page ad printed in the New York Times that I talked about last week. The ad, by the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, tries to take the high road while inferring yet again that gays are a violent lot who can't abide by the due process of law.

What a crock of shit.

But I have to say something. I love the way the community has jumped on these lies and those who push them. We didn't wait to voice our opinion and demonstrate how full of it these folks are. And we are doing it in positive manners.

Wayne Besen puts it best:

In a breathtaking display of lies and hypocrisy, a group of anti-gay culture warriors and long-time Mormon bashers placed a full page ad in the New York Times pretending to be both victims of alleged homosexual “mobs” and staunch defenders of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons). Both claims are absurd and a cruel attempt for the victimizers to claim the mantle of the victimhood - which is a manipulative and cynical political ploy.

The dishonest Times ad essentially claimed that violent mobs of gay protesters were attacking the Mormon Church and its followers in the aftermath of California voters narrowly approving Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in that state. They even launched a website www.NoMobVeto.org. (It seems they forget that they put basic human rights up for a vote, which is essentially mob rule)

This Times ad is full of blatant lies - much like the immoral television ads attacking same-sex families during the Prop. 8 campaign. The fact is, the vast majority of the rallies across America were peaceful. Considering gay families just got stripped of their basic rights by deception and deceit, the protests were remarkably tame. If any other group had been subject to such humiliation through a multi-million dollar smear operation, there would likely have been riots in the streets - not the fake “violence” conjured in the bogus Times ad.

Besen especially points out the hypocrisy of the signers of the ad who are all of the sudden "defending" the Mormon church:

“Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.” – Bill Donohue, Catholic League

“Mormonism either affirms historic Christianity, or it doesn’t. Since it doesn’t, it can’t call itself Christianity – a fact that all the good will and public relations in Utah can’t change…“While Mormons share some beliefs with Christians, they are not Christians.” –Chuck Colson, Prison Fellowship Ministries

“Most evangelicals still regard Mormonism as a cult.“ — Rich Cizik, National Association of Evangelicals

I really do hope this group shines a light of shame on those who promote religious bigotry - but they better be wearing very dark sun glasses when this occurs, as the glare from the light may be quite blinding. It appears that the only thing these men have in common with Mormons, or any other religion that they don’t agree with, is an uncommon passion for anti-gay discrimination. To watch these hypocrites act as the great defenders of the LDS church, and religion in general, is beyond laughable.

Box Turtle Bulletin also breaks down other comments these "peaceful folks" have said:

Ronald J. Sider - Evangelicals for Social Action

We cannot ignore this general truth when we come to the issue of AIDS. If the Bible teaches that homosexual practice is wrong, as I think it does, then it is right to suppose that violating God’s law in this area will have negative consequences.

This is not to say that the AIDS virus is some supernatural divine creation to punish homosexual practice; have emphasized that I reject that view. But I refuse to bow to today’s widespread relativism and deny and ignore the clear biblical teaching that some actions are wrong no matter what Hollywood or Greenwich Village says. Ignoring the moral order of the universe has consequences.

As a citizen. I insist on the right to say that and to seek to shape public policy in ways consistent with that belief without being called a bigot. [Emphasis added]

Chuck Colson - Prison Fellowship

It’s these attitudes, and the worldview that produces them, that have fueled the gay-rights movement. It rolls on because it resonates with what many Americans believe. And that means that the only way to slow it down is to change the terms of the debate: to once again establish that we are not lower than the animal species, that sex is not for recreation-it is for procreation.

This is why, for example, we need to pass a federal marriage amendment. If we do nothing, we are going to be facing the same future that Christians in the UK are facing: a future in which preaching the truths of the Gospel is against the law.

Dr. Alveda King - civil rights activist

God hates racism and God hates homosexuality.

Add to this Mr. Obama’s unprecedented support for homosexual rights and anti-procreative marriage legislation, which includes his promise to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and which would unleash a storm of sexual immorality such as America has never seen: then we can see which way the wind is blowing.

That’s what we’re facing today in the debate over homosexual rights. Homosexuals can either choose to be victims, or choose to make a change.


William J. Donohue - Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It‘s not a secret, OK? And I‘m not afraid to say it. That‘s why they hate this movie. It‘s about Jesus Christ, and it‘s about truth. It‘s about the messiah.

Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost.

Name for me a book publishing company in this country, particularly in New York, which would allow you to publish a book which would tell the truth about the gay death style. There are certain things that the left won’t tolerate. They are censorial at heart.

As for Pat Boone, I say we sic Little Richard on him. That is unless he has given Little Richard rightful recompensement for the songs he and racist record companies stole.

After all stealing is a sin, unlike homosexuality.

They don't hate us - they just want to treat us

Who would have thought that anyone associated with Sally Kern would become the lgbt's best spokespeople in demonstrating the basic dishonesty of the religious right

Kern (who was re-elected in the November elections) began a firestorm earlier this year when she called lgbts "terrorists" in a speech.

Her comments initiated a groundswell of anger in the lgbt community and a rallying cry of support from the religious right.

The main thing I remember from it all was the guise that Kern took. She claimed to be a simple politician, mother, and Christian who said what she said not because she hates lgbts, but because she loves them.

That old Anita Bryant defense never goes away. Well if Kern loves us gays, then she needs to have a talk with her husband, Steve:

A special investigation has revealed Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett has his eyes on the state executive office and is working closely with religious extremists to fill the Metropolitan Library Commission of Oklahoma County with anti-gay members in order to court the fundamentalist vote.

Cornett and Steve Kern, pastor of the Olivet Baptist Church and husband to State Rep. Sally Kern, are being accused of teaming up to rid the library system of all gay and lesbian materials, as well as those their church-based philosophies find objectionable. A source close to Cornett alleges, “The Mayor is looking to become Oklahoma’s next governor in 2010. With the conservatism rampant in the state, he feels now is the time to fully side with fundamentalist Christians in order to get their backing. He believes one way of doing that is going on an all-out assault on gay citizens. Even if things are done that would later be overturned in court at a great cost to the City, he will walk away a hero to certain people.”

The insider also stated, “The Mayor is aware that Ernest Istook is returning to Oklahoma to join the governor’s race again. Istook has the conservative base locked in, so the Mayor must shake loose Istook supporters if he is to get past the Republican primary. Gays are easy targets for him. He tried to use them in 2006, but it backfired. This round he wants to make it clear he is without a doubt against gay rights.”

Gossip Boy received other tips regarding Cornett’s ambitions and the scheme to appease Christian extremists, who sided against him in the 2006 race for 5th District Congress, and began a covert ploy to expose it. A reporter posed as a citizen working with the Mayor to push gay and lesbian literature out of city libraries and contacted Steve Kern.

According to this transcript, Kern said the following regarding gays during the conversation:

"We have to get rid of that and start curing those sinners. It’s past time that this nation stopped placating sin and start putting them in education programs. Courts can force drug offenders into treatment centers and violent people into anger management. There’s no reason our courts can’t do that with homos."

Treatment centers? Isn't that special.

If this story pans out to be true then the fact that we seem to be used as a campaign issue yet again gets me upset.

We have been used so many times as campaign issues by the religious right that we should sue for our cut of their donations.

At least leave the money on the dresser, boys.

Seriously though, I don't the idea of treatment centers for gays is high on the list of religious right priorities but it does speak to their activities.

I refer to it as the Native Son philosophy.

In 1940, African-American novelist Richard Wright wrote Native Son, an excellent novel in which he declared that if black men were violent, it is because racist American society was taking every option away from them to be anything but violent.

In that same sense, the religious right likes to point to the HIV rate and studies that allegedly show lgbts suffering from a high rate of depression and the like as proof that lgbts have no sense of morality or values or that homosexuality is a "dangerous lifestyle."

But in many cases, it is religious right actions that can lead lgbts to behave in ways that are not necessarily conducive to their survival.

These actions - whether it be attempting to keep lgbt children from forming gay/straight alliances, keeping lgbts from getting married and adopting children, and very vocally complaining about any and every thing that gives a positive look at the lgbt community via libraries, movies, or municipalities - go a long way in sending a message to lgbts that we don't count as humans.

When you tell a group of people that they are diseased (physically, mentally, socially, or spiritually) and then take every option away from them that will prove you wrong, sooner or later, you will have diseased people.

So I guess that means folks like Steve Kern have been trying to "treat" us already.

Grandstanding Principal Wants To Return

Irmo Principal Eddie Walker doesn't want to resign after all.

You will remember that Walker is the South Carolina principal who announced rather publicly earlier this year that he would resign before permitting a gay/straight alliance to be formed at Irmo High School.

The controversy his stance created pitted members of the community against one another. Some said that Walker stood up for morality while others said he should be fired.

Now apparently, Walker has changed his mind about resigning:

Irmo High School principal Eddie Walker, who planned to resign at the end of the school year because his values conflicted with a proposed Gay-Straight Alliance at the school, has changed his mind and wants to stay, school officials said.

Lexington-Richland 5 interim superintendent Herbert Berg received a letter from Walker this week “indicating his desire to remain at Irmo High School,” district spokesman Buddy Price said Thursday.

Before the new controversy erupts over Walker, I still have a question.

Obviously Walker is a popular principal. From what I have seen and heard, parents and students alike respect him.

But there is nothing wrong with gay/straight alliances in high schools. Despite all of the conjecture, they are not dating clubs nor are they sex clubs. Gay/straight alliances are a welcomed refuge for lgbt students who are still in the closet or are out and intimidated by other classmates.

So my question is why couldn't Walker have had a meeting with the students who wanted to start this organization? I think he would have gotten a better understanding as to why a group like this is needed. I constantly hear that Walker's door was always open and he made himself accessible to students. Well this was a time where such accessibility would have been the difference between reaching a quiet understanding and escalating the situation.

And Walker's objective as a leader should not have been escalating the situation. Perhaps had this meeting taken place, Walker wouldn't have felt the need to subject himself and his school to being public spectacles.

The way Walker handled this situation (and the way he continues to do so) is largely responsible for the criticism he is receiving.

At first, he made this huge unneccessary grandstanding gesture of quitting in order to "stand up for his values and beliefs." But now he is avoiding the grandstand and instead has taken to crawling back like an immature child who realizes that his threat to run away from home did not allow him to get his way.

So should Walker be allowed to return? As long as the gay/straight alliance is allowed to exist and thrive at Irmo, the school board can appoint Walker to any position they deem necessary.

But they should remember (as well as Walker) that the Irmo community suffered a needless controversy; something that wouldn't have taken place had Walker been the leader that so many have claimed him to be.

Columbia shows how it should be done

South Carolina, being a Southern state, gets a bad reputation for ignorance.

But it is places like my home city of Columbia that shows this reputation to be partly undeserved:

People are having consensual sex in Columbia’s parks — but primarily in Granby Park along the river — and a loophole in the city’s ordinance has kept the city from prosecuting them.

But City Council members approved an ordinance Wednesday that is expected to clear up any misunderstandings about what conduct is not allowed in city parks — spelling out in explicit language what is unlawful.

It is now unlawful for anyone to “knowingly or intentionally” have sex on any “streets, sidewalks, bridges, alleys, plazas, parks, driveways, parking lots, automobiles (whether moving or not), and those portions of buildings open to the general public.”

People are having consensual sex in Columbia’s parks — but primarily in Granby Park along the river — and a loophole in the city’s ordinance has kept the city from prosecuting them.

“We are not going to tolerate criminal behavior in our public places and parks,” Columbia Mayor Bob Coble said. “This gives law enforcement and the parks the tools to enforce it.”

Please that Mayor Bob Coble did not denigrate the entire gay community. The article does mention cases of men having sex in parks, but neither Coble nor anyone else cited in it takes the opportunity to grandstand or play up stereotypes.

I am reminded of the situation in Florida with Mayor Jim Naugle. He used the problem with public sex to denigrate the entire lgbt community as a whole and then had the temerity to act as if he wanted to reach across the aisle to them to combat the problem.

Then he feigned shock when he received negative comments.

Mayor Bob and the Columbia City Council shows how one takes care of a problem like this. Naugle should pay attention.

Gay adoption, a tale of two families, and the groups behind the word 'pro-family'

In light of last week's excellent decision in Florida striking down the ban on gay adoption, I want to make you aware of something that I found very interesting.

The family in the middle of the case includes Martin Gill and his partner of 10 years. Four years ago, they took in two brothers as foster children. One was four and other was four months old. Both had been horribly abused. Since that time, things have gone considerably well for the boys. This is just a snippet of their home life via court documents:

On weekdays, the household wakes up at about 6:30 a.m. Petitioner usually prepares
breakfast, permitting each child to assist with an assigned kitchen duty. Each morning, the family eats together without distraction from the television. As each child finishes his breakfast,he puts his dish in the sink and proceeds to the bathroom to brush his teeth and hair. Petitioner and Roe purchased a Ford minivan, which Petitioner jokes was not his dream car, however, to accommodate the family size, is the most feasible. Tom Roe, Jr. is dropped off at school first.

Afterwards, Petitioner takes John and James to school, walking them into their classrooms and usually speaking to their respective teachers. In the afternoon, after Petitioner picks the boys up from school, they generally go to the park for tennis lessons. At the conclusion of their lessons, the family heads home for dinner. At mealtime, the family blesses the food together and takes turns sharing the highlights of their day. Phones are not answered and the television is off during dinner. After the children are excused from the table, the older children load the dishwasher.

A scene out of Ozzie and Harriet or in this case, Ozzie and Harold.

Now compare this to an incident that took place recently:

A Girl Scout leader and her husband were arrested after an emaciated, terrified and nearly naked 17-year-old showed up at a gym with a chain locked to his ankle, saying he had just fled his captors, authorities said Tuesday.

Police were also seeking the boy’s aunt and had an outstanding felony warrant against her for an earlier alleged assault against the teen.

The boy, who authorities said ran away from a Sacramento foster home last year, came into the In-Shape Sports Club in Tracy on Monday wearing only boxer briefs and covered in what appeared to be soot, gym manager Chuck Ellis said. Tracy is about 70 miles south of Sacramento.

Ellis said the teen was scared someone was going to come after him and asked to be hidden.

“He said, ’Don’t let them get me, don’t let them get me,”’ Ellis said. “He was totally terrified.”
The boy said he had been held captive for nearly a year, said Ellis, adding that he looked as if he were only 10 to 12 years old.

So who do you think the religious right and other conservatives are attacking?

I will give you one guess:

Free Republic:

The gay advocates of the Lawrence v. Texas decision said it was about consenting adults in private. When does a child consent to be raised in a same sex household by non-birth parents under an alternative lifestyle?

Daddy, why is there a brown stain on the FRONT of your undershorts?

so imagine a child being adopted by a homo , and for their life they will see mostly homo’s coming and going, they will be took to freak parades they have, they will be used a a trophy, the poor child will see two men sleeping in the same bed

It’s disturbing that our broken justice system puts young impressionable minds in the hands of sick and perverted individuals that have little or no regard for their own safety let alone the safety of the innocent. Their trying to make the homosexual lifestyle normal, it’s anything butt! (ò¿ó)

The Liberty Counsel:

Most states ban homosexual adoption through legislation, regulation, or court precedent. These states ban adoption by homosexuals because the best interest of children is served by placing them in homes with a mom and a dad or where there is a likelihood of a mom and a dad. A homosexual home automatically excludes one gender, either the mom or the dad. Only a handful of states actually permit homosexual adoption.

Culture Campaign:

Judge places young boys with homosexual men

(Editor's note - The headline is a vile attempt to exploit stereotypes about men molesting boys. In addition, the site also prints a highly misleading version of the case. According to Culture Campaign - "The attorney general's office had argued that gay men and lesbians are disproportionately more likely to suffer from mental illness or a substance abuse problem than straight people, rendering them less fit to parent -- especially children in foster care who already are under tremendous stress."

This is technically accurate but ethically false. Culture Campaign conveniently omits that it was the state's hired "expert" George A. Rekers who said this. It also omits Rekers saying that based on this reasoning, Native Americans should be kept from adopting children. Lastly, Culture Campaign also omits the fact that the judge in the case discredited Rekers' testimony.)

Please do not think that I am attacking heterosexual families. There are good two-parent mom and dad families out there and there are bad ones.

The point of this piece is to show the inanity of those who oppose gay adoption.

To say that lgbt households are not good places to raise children and to continue to push an empty talking point that "the best family for a child is one with a mom and dad" despite events happening in the time frame that prove both notions to be false is not only pointless but yet again, homophobia defined.

But if the other side of the argument is intent on bashing their heads against a brick wall, who am I to stop them?

Religious right tries to use Proposition 8 protests for advantage in Obama Administration

The following item from Pam's House Blend gave me pause today:

The Blend has received word that the The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is pulling together a full page ad to run in the NY Times within the next few days, charging the LGBT community's response to Prop 8 is a "Campaign of Violence."

According to our source, the ad will cite an incident where a white powder was sent to a church, and "document" disruptions of services at houses of worship. The Becket Fund is also allegedly contacting like-minded anti-gay organizations to request that they sign on to the ad.

Here we go again - the time honored religious right tradition of using anecdotal information as a way to stigmatize the gay community.

It's highly ironic that this group is doing this given the number of times the gay community has been accused of trying to "use the emotional argument" to sway the so-called cultural war.

In this ad, we'll probably hear:

about the 69-year-old woman, Phyllis Burgess, who had a styrofoam crossed ripped from her hand during an anti-Proposition 8 protest (but not about how she allegedly pushed her way through the crowd of protestors in order to be on camera, knocking down a disabled man in the progress).

about the white powder that was mailed to several places of worship (which is totally uncalled for. However it has not been determined who sent the powder. At any rate, to blame the lgbt community for it really isn't fair).

about the Bash Back incident in a Michigan church (but not about how this group had nothing to do with the Join the Impact protests or about how police say the church exaggerated the incident).

And we will probably be made privy to every negative comment posted about Proposition 8 on pro-gay blogs (without the admonitions by the blog owners that said comments were wrong and uncalled for. And we won't be made privy to the equally vile and nasty comments posted about lgbts from places such Free Republic).

The Becket Fund is obviously going to push the notion that lgbts are engaging in a coordinated campaign of intimidation and wildcat violence. No doubt this group will be aided by One News Now, Peter LaBarbera and other religious right members of the echo chamber. And let's not forget Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly who be complicit to this public relations campaign with a wink, a nudge, and nary a peep from an opposing side.

The Becket Fund's ad is a cynical grab for position by groups who have rightfully guessed that the era of dominance given to them by the Bush Administration is over. Thus they seek to gain advantage and thereby control the argument over gay rights in an Obama Administration by unfairly painting the lgbt community as a mindless violent horde via anecdotal or exaggerated urban legends.

The Becket Fund is like so many religious right and conservative groups - heavy in the purse string department but short on integrity. If they had any, they would recognize the nasty game they are playing.

One News Now today features an article regarding a gay man who has been convicted and sentenced for murdering a heterosexual man. In the formulaic lament that I have come to expect from the religious right, One News Now talks to one source who complains about the "silence of gay activists" about this murder.

To me, that doesn't make any sense.

Is it expected for women's groups to make a statement every time a woman is convicted of a violent crime? Is it expected for a pro-Jewish group to make a statement every time an individual Jewish person is convicted of a violent crime? Or how about the African-American groups when an individual black man or woman is convicted of a violent crime?

Now if someone would argue in the affirmative in the case of women's groups, Jewish groups, or African-American groups, he would be blasted as either a sexist, an Anti-Semite or a racist.

And with good reason.

So how is it that someone could stigmatize the gay community on the allleged crimes of individual gays and not wear the mantel of homophobia?

Any incident of wildcat violence regarding Proposition 8 should be condemned by those for and against the amendment. Emotions and tensions ran high. But for the large majority, protests against Propostion 8 have been peaceful.

This consistent attempt by conservatives and the religious right to use sparse incidents to somehow condemn the entire lgbt community is wrong and exploitative.

More than that, it's homophobia defined.

But apparently so many people have a problem with saying so.

World AIDS Day - Good and Bad

(Editor's note - I redid this blog post because I wasn't satisfied with how it was written. It was a busy day and plus, I hate Mondays.)

I just came back from a very moving World AIDS Day ceremony at the South Carolina State House.

This state has unfortunately bore a huge brunt of the AIDS virus and I commend everyone who fight every day to stop this disease.

While there are good things about this day and how the community comes together, there are also bad things.

You know that I speak of our friend Peter LaBarbera and his friend, the phony "gay expert" Linda Harvey.

This is the nonsense LaBarbera has on his page:

SHUT DOWN THESE PERVERSION CENTERS? With 300,000 men dead from AIDS due to homosexual sex, why are homosexual bathhouses and sex clubs flourishing in the United States? At left is an ad in a homosexual newspaper for the Crew Club, a Washington, D.C.-based bathhouse where men go to commit anonymous sodomies with other men (our editorial comment is in red). It’s time for American AIDS policy to stop indulging and encouraging male homosexual behavior, which is one of the main risk factors of HIV/AIDS.

Of course this comes with a huge picture of a gay steamroom ad.

I guess I should be happy that LaBarbera has toned it down and not shown any explicit sex.

And he accompanies that drivel with a piece by Harvey about HIV:

December 1 marks the annual observance of “World AIDS Day.” While we should rightfully mourn the passing of so many victims, let’s get real about what can be done to prevent future death and disability, not to mention the expenditure of billions of dollars.
In short, we need to recognize that HIV/AIDS is largely a male homosexual disease in the U.S., and it is highly preventable.

Okay let's stop there. First of all, Harvey is NOT an expert of anything. She is a former ad executive who feels that God is telling her to stop homosexuality.

George A. Rekers is more of an expert than she is and that is only because he has degrees (if not knowledge) .

And then there is that problem of stigmatization:

It’s time for American AIDS policy to stop indulging and encouraging male homosexual behavior, which is one of the main risk factors of HIV/AIDS.

Notice that LaBarbera doesn't say a word about unsafe sex, but "male homosexual behavior."

LGBT behavior does not cause HIV/AIDS. Unsafe sex does, which means you can catch it regardless of whether you are gay or straight.

Harvey claims that according to the CDC, gay men are the highest at risk group to catch HIV.

Well what she is doing is contributing to the problem.

When HIV/AIDS first came into prominence in the 80s, a lot of gay men took good prevention advice as yet another attempt to stigmatize the gay community. And why? Because of people like Anita Bryant, Jerry Falwell and the rest who constantly dehumanized them in different ways.

Because of how they were persecuted on their jobs, in their families, and neighborhoods for being gay.

So how in the world can LaBarbera and Harvey actually try to claim credibility when they are contributing to this dehumanization and stigma? On her webpage, Harvey repeats every Paul Cameronesque lie about gay men from the short life span to the alleged high level of pedophilia.

And if anti-gay activism is ever included in a museum, LaBarbera should have his own wing.

If LaBarbera and Harvey are serious about fighting HIV/AIDS, might I suggest they look at themselves and their behavior.

Perhaps Harvey should eliminate some of the wild things she has said about gays molesting children from her webpage. Perhaps LaBarbera should start by not taking pictures at street fairs, but actually trying to meet gay families. Perhaps he should eliminate that section of his webpage called "Victims of Homosexual Murderers."

Maybe a total reorganization of his webpage would be in order.

Maybe LaBarbera and Harvey should try to help and stop the problem instead of contributing to it for a change.

Gay Adoption and a Sign of the Apocalypse - Town Hall feature pro-gay column

When I saw this column in the conservative Town Hall yesterday, I looked outside my door. I wanted to see what the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse looked like:

Gay Adoption: The Real Agenda

Don't be alarmed. It's a pro-gay article through and through:

The Florida ban is simple and stark. It says, in effect, that a child may not be adopted by gays even when the adoption is in the best interest of the child . That's the main reason the court overturned it: It violates the rights of children and "causes harm to the children it is meant to protect."

Those who want to keep gays from adopting think that's a small price to pay for blocking the "homosexual agenda." But then, they're not the ones who will be paying it.

Granted, the Freepers are going nuts over this (and not in a good way), but that's okay.

Anything that makes them angry must be a good thing.

Florida paid a pretty penny for discredited work against gay adoption

Editor's note - May, 5, 2010 - In light of recent developments regarding Rekers and a male escort, it has come out that he (and a colleague- Walter Schum) were actually paid $87,000 to testify against gay adoption.

According to court records, the state of Florida paid former University of South Carolina professor George A. Rekers a $60,000 retainer to testify for the gay adoption ban.

Ironically, according to the same court documents, it is clear that Rekers’ testimony didn’t help the state’s case.

Court documents said:

Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy.

Despite all of this, organizations on the right maligned Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman for her decision, calling her an “activist judge.”

Matt Staver of the Liberty Counsel said:

"This judge is merely an ideological activist, and ideological activists have no reason to don a black robe and sit behind a bench and pontificate. This judge's decision should be overturned, and moreover, this judge should be voted out of office.”
Moreover, comments on right-wing sites such as One News Now and Free Republic questioned not only Lederman’s objectivity, but her sexual orientation in lurid terms.

The American Civil Liberties Union, in an excerpt of proposed findings to the court, criticized the state of Florida for using Rekers as an expert witness even after he had been discredited in a similar Arkansas case involving gay adoption.

In 2005, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy White ruled that the state did not have justifiable grounds to keep gays from adopting children.

The Arkansas court specifically said that “Dr. Rekers’ willingness to prioritize his personal beliefs over his functions as an expert provider of fact rendered his testimony extremely suspect and little, if any, assistance to the court” and "Dr. Rekers' personal agenda caused him to have inconsistent testimony on several issues."

That ruling led to a ballot initiative that was passed in November barring unmarried heterosexual and gay couples from adopting children.

Rekers would later sue the state of Arkansas for $200,00 for his testimony but settled out of court for $60,000.

About Rekers's testimony, the ACLU said, "The fact that the State resorted to hiring Dr. Rekers - and paying him a $60,000 retainer - despite the fact that he had already been severly discredited by another court in a similar case suggests an absence of credible experts who would testify in support of the prohibition against adoption by gay people."

What happened in Florida is nothing new. For years the religious right/anti-gay industry have brought in phony experts to push for anti-gay laws or stop the passage of pro-gay laws. If Lederman’s criticisms of Rekers sound familiar to you, then you obviously have read opinions about Paul Cameron. The two are almost interchangeable in their lies about the gay community.

According to a 1994 OutFront magazine article, the then Colorado Attorney General Gail Norton paid Paul Cameron over $15,000 in an effort to defend the state’s newly passed law outlawing gay rights ordinances. When Norton learned of Cameron’s dubious reputation, she did not use him or his “research.”

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the law in the same year.

The Liberty Counsel's ridiculous defense of Florida's gay adoption ban

Well that didn't take long.

I was waiting for a religious right group to answer back to yesterday's ruling in Miami,FL that the state prohibition on gay adoption was unconstitutional.

And leave it to the Liberty Counsel to push the talking points that will most likely been seen on The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes as well as World Net Daily, One News Now and everywhere else that the conservative/religious right echo chamber resonate. I am going to point out the parts I found "interesting":

Miami, FL – Today, an activist Miami State Court Judge ruled that a 1977 Florida law that bans homosexual adoption is unconstitutional. (First thing's first. Smear the judge for not ruling the way Liberty Counsel felt she should. According to the Liberty Counsel, she didn't rule objectively. Somebody put roots on her.)

Earlier this month voters in Arkansas passed a law which bans unmarried heterosexuals and homosexuals from adopting children. (Notice that turn of phrase. In legitimate articles, I have read this phrase to say "voters in Arkansas passed a law which bans unmarried couples, whether they be heterosexual or gay, from adopting children." The way the Liberty Counsel claims, it looks like the Arkansas law bans gays from adopting outright.)

In September, the Kentucky Court of Appeals strongly rebuked an activist lower family court for permitting a lesbian woman to illegally “adopt” her female companion’s child, in clear violation of both Kentucky law and the Kentucky Constitution. The higher court reaffirmed that in Kentucky, stepparent adoptions are only legal when the stepparent is married to a biological parent and that same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. (This is true. The Kentucky Court of Appeals did say that stepparent adoptions are allowed only when the stepmother or father is married to the biological parent. But that has nothing to do with the Florida case. The Florida case deals with Frank Gill, a man who wanted to adopt two foster childen he had been raising for four years.)

Most states ban homosexual adoption through legislation, regulation, or court precedent. These states ban adoption by homosexuals because the best interest of children is served by placing them in homes with a mom and a dad or where there is a likelihood of a mom and a dad. A homosexual home automatically excludes one gender, either the mom or the dad. Only a handful of states actually permit homosexual adoption. (The big lie!!! In most states, the orientation of the potential adoptive parent is not an issue i.e. the state does not ask about orientation. Florida was the only state that outright banned gay adoption. However some states may be moving the way of Arkansas and making it difficult for lgbt couples to adopt children. One guess which organization will be helping to nudge them along.)

There is a vague mention of "studies" that show that the best place for a child is in a home with a mother and father.

This talking point is faulty for two reasons - 1. How many of these "studies" measured heterosexual households to same-sex households? From what I understand, none did.

2. Also, the talking point does not address the fact that across the nation, there is a waiting list filled with children waiting to be adopted. The notion that "children do best in a home with a mother and a father" is an empty talking point because it does not address the fact that these "homes" are not present to adopt these children.

Also - I noticed how the Liberty Counsel omitted the George A. Rekers testimony, probably because it was embarrassing to their side. Rekers testified for the ban and said that he would look into banning adoption for Native Americans.

Expect the religious right to try and not mention Rekers's testimony. Don't let them get away with it.

Now everyone can get on with their holiday travels and the like. Have a happy Thanksgiving!

Florida's ban on gay adoption declared unconstitutional!!!!!!!!!!

Well what do you expect when you have such "experts" like George A. Rekers against it.

The story is here.

I am just waiting for the anti-gay industry/religious right to try and spin this one.

Yes boys and girls, just try and say that gays and lesbians should not adopt children. Especially after that remark from Rekers about Native Americans:

(Rekers) said he would also consider banning Native Americans from adopting because research shows that they are also at much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse. ''They would tend to hang around each other,'' Rekers testified. ``So the children would be around a lot of other Native Americans who are . . . doing the same sorts of things.''