Julian Bond tells it like it "T.I." is!
from HRC Back Story
National NAACP Chairman Julian Bond gave such a powerful speech in support of LGBT rights at HRC’s Los Angeles Gala Dinner on Saturday, March 14 that we knew it important to give proper to highlight his speech .
Here are a few choice statements from his speech:
When someone asks me, “are gay rights civil rights?” my answer is always, “Of course, they are.” Civil rights are positive legal prerogatives: the right to equal treatment before the law. These are the rights shared by everyone. There is no one in the United States who does not, or should not, enjoy or share in enjoying these rights. Gay and lesbian rights are not special rights in any way. It isn’t “special” to be free from discrimination. It is an ordinary, universal entitlement of citizenship.
People of color ought to be flattered that our movement has provided so much inspiration for others. That, it has been, that our movement has been so widely imitated. That our tactics, our methods, our heroes, our heroines, and even our songs, have been appropriated or served as models for others.
Now, no parallel between movements is exact. African-Americans are the only Americans who were enslaved for more than two centuries and people of color carried the badge of who we are on our faces. But we are far from the only people suffering discrimination; sadly, so do many others. And those others deserve the law’s protection and civil rights too….
Like race, our sexuality isn’t a preference. It is immutable; it is unchangeable. And the constitution protects us against prejudices and discrimination based on immutable differences.
In particular, Bond’s response to many of the biblical passages used by Christian conservatives to condemn homosexuality (including those favorite scriptures in Leviticus) is must-see TV. His humorous refutation of “cafeteria Christians” begins about 15:25 in the video above. (You can see the video from the webpage)
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
President Obama meets with THEM - why we shouldn't lose our heads
From Religious Right Watch comes this news:
The Brody File has learned that conservative Evangelical groups will meet with the head of the White House Faith-Based Office on Tuesday.
Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council will meet with Joshua DuBois, the man who leads the administration’s office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Wendy Wright, the president of CWA reached out to the Obama administration and they responded by inviting CWA and some of these other conservative Evangelical groups to The White House. The meeting plans to focus on the need to reduce abortions in the country and on responsible fatherhood programs. Also present at the meeting will be Tom McClusky, Senior Vice-President of the Family Research Council as well as representatives from the Christian Medical Association and Care Net, a pro-life Evangelical pregnancy crisis group.
Trust me when I say that I am a bit alarmed by this meeting. FRC and CWA have been at the forefront of stigmatizing the lgbt community via lies, inaccurate anecdotes, and bad studies.
Just last year, I had an interesting encounter with FRC regarding its claim of no longer using "outdated sources."
But I am hoping that my lgbt brothers and sisters will a more cautious attitude instead of going off breathing fire.
We have every right to be concerned over President Obama's people agreeing to meet with these folks but we also have to understand that it is his modus operandi. Obama has a history of trying to gain a consensus with folks who do not share his opinion on political matters.
For that, I can respect him.
The bulk of our anger and concern should not be with President Obama, but with FRC and CWA. I've already seen some webpages where the two groups are being called "anti-gay hate groups."
That's all well and good but there is a problem with simply calling these groups names. You leave an avenue open for them to show phony piety and go into their "why are we called haters when we simply want to uphold traditional values" routine again.
And yet again, they will come across looking innocent while we look like barking dogs despite the the fact that their behavior over the years gives us full reason to question their motivations.
So I say cut out the name-calling and the simplistic reasons why the FRC and CWA aren't what they say they are.
Show proof. Give examples of why these groups have nothing to do with values or morality. And trust me when I say it's out there.
Two places to start is here via Box Turtle Bulletin and here in my other blog (pan down to the timeline).
It's not enough to call them anti-gay. It's time we start proving our assertions. Let the White House know the depth of the dishonesty these groups stoop to.
You can contact the White House here.
From Religious Right Watch comes this news:
The Brody File has learned that conservative Evangelical groups will meet with the head of the White House Faith-Based Office on Tuesday.
Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council will meet with Joshua DuBois, the man who leads the administration’s office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Wendy Wright, the president of CWA reached out to the Obama administration and they responded by inviting CWA and some of these other conservative Evangelical groups to The White House. The meeting plans to focus on the need to reduce abortions in the country and on responsible fatherhood programs. Also present at the meeting will be Tom McClusky, Senior Vice-President of the Family Research Council as well as representatives from the Christian Medical Association and Care Net, a pro-life Evangelical pregnancy crisis group.
Trust me when I say that I am a bit alarmed by this meeting. FRC and CWA have been at the forefront of stigmatizing the lgbt community via lies, inaccurate anecdotes, and bad studies.
Just last year, I had an interesting encounter with FRC regarding its claim of no longer using "outdated sources."
But I am hoping that my lgbt brothers and sisters will a more cautious attitude instead of going off breathing fire.
We have every right to be concerned over President Obama's people agreeing to meet with these folks but we also have to understand that it is his modus operandi. Obama has a history of trying to gain a consensus with folks who do not share his opinion on political matters.
For that, I can respect him.
The bulk of our anger and concern should not be with President Obama, but with FRC and CWA. I've already seen some webpages where the two groups are being called "anti-gay hate groups."
That's all well and good but there is a problem with simply calling these groups names. You leave an avenue open for them to show phony piety and go into their "why are we called haters when we simply want to uphold traditional values" routine again.
And yet again, they will come across looking innocent while we look like barking dogs despite the the fact that their behavior over the years gives us full reason to question their motivations.
So I say cut out the name-calling and the simplistic reasons why the FRC and CWA aren't what they say they are.
Show proof. Give examples of why these groups have nothing to do with values or morality. And trust me when I say it's out there.
Two places to start is here via Box Turtle Bulletin and here in my other blog (pan down to the timeline).
It's not enough to call them anti-gay. It's time we start proving our assertions. Let the White House know the depth of the dishonesty these groups stoop to.
You can contact the White House here.
Washington, D.C. faces problem with HIV - the truth before the lies begin
From Washington, D.C. comes a huge problem regarding HIV:
A new report by D.C. health officials says that at least 3 percent of residents in the nation's capital are living with HIV or AIDS and every mode of transmission is on the rise.
The findings in the 2008 epidemiology report by the D.C. HIV/AIDS Administration point to a severe epidemic that's impacting every race and sex across the population and neighborhoods.
Scheduled to be released Monday, the report says that the number of HIV and AIDS cases jumped 22 percent from the nearly 12,500 reported in 2006. Almost 1 in 10 residents between ages 40 and 49 are living with HIV, and black men had the highest infection rate at almost 7 percent.
The report says that the virus is most often transmitted by men having sex with men, followed by heterosexual transmission and injection drug use.
That's the problem. The question is how long will it be before folks on the other side of America's so-called cultural war use this calamity to stigmatize gays? At least this once, I hope they think before going off half-cocked. AIDS affects everyone and we need solutions, not cynical talking points. Nor do we need to stigmatize populations affected by the disease.
Monday news briefs
The Culture Warriors Get Laid Off - would be nice if it comes out to be true. The problem is these folks are like 1980s horror movie monsters. Just when you think they are dead, there they are again.
Madaleno: Fighting for Transgender Rights Statewide - It's nice to see a state legislator fighting for all people.
From Washington, D.C. comes a huge problem regarding HIV:
A new report by D.C. health officials says that at least 3 percent of residents in the nation's capital are living with HIV or AIDS and every mode of transmission is on the rise.
The findings in the 2008 epidemiology report by the D.C. HIV/AIDS Administration point to a severe epidemic that's impacting every race and sex across the population and neighborhoods.
Scheduled to be released Monday, the report says that the number of HIV and AIDS cases jumped 22 percent from the nearly 12,500 reported in 2006. Almost 1 in 10 residents between ages 40 and 49 are living with HIV, and black men had the highest infection rate at almost 7 percent.
The report says that the virus is most often transmitted by men having sex with men, followed by heterosexual transmission and injection drug use.
That's the problem. The question is how long will it be before folks on the other side of America's so-called cultural war use this calamity to stigmatize gays? At least this once, I hope they think before going off half-cocked. AIDS affects everyone and we need solutions, not cynical talking points. Nor do we need to stigmatize populations affected by the disease.
Monday news briefs
The Culture Warriors Get Laid Off - would be nice if it comes out to be true. The problem is these folks are like 1980s horror movie monsters. Just when you think they are dead, there they are again.
Madaleno: Fighting for Transgender Rights Statewide - It's nice to see a state legislator fighting for all people.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Peter LaBarbera's idea of an intellectual discussion
Today, I am doing a first - a repost of a blog entry from August 16th of last year. My reason for this repost stems from an item I read today via the Americans for Truth webpage. In answering a letter concerning his anti-gay stance, Peter LaBarbera said he has "intellectual conversations" with gays all of the time.
The August 16th post is one of these supposed intellectual conversations he had with me:
Nice try Peter LaBarbera, but you are no hero
On his webpage, our friend Peter publishes his "response" to an email allegedly sent to him from a person from Michigan regarding his recent publishing of x-rated pictures from a San Francisco street fair.
Peter does not publish the person's letter but says the following:
"The following is adapted from my response to a letter from a Michigan pro-homosexual activist who wrote AFTAH, making the usual obnoxious charges: that I am a “pornographer” (for exposing San Francisco’s government-tolerated public street depravities) — and, of course, that I am a secret homosexual (”You are gay and part of you knows it and HATES it”). It’s all par for the course when you cover the loving and tolerant GLBT community. "
By not showing the alleged "obnoxious" letter but publishing his response, Peter tries to make himself look intelligent and noble.
Don't be fooled.
You see, Peter and I had an email exchange last week and based on that exchange, Peter does not come across as an intelligent or noble person. Nor does he come across as a particularly moral person.
Judge for yourself as I reveal a snippet of our email conversation. In it, I was able to question Peter point blank about his tactics as well as the tactics of other members of the anti-gay industry:
From: Peter L.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
Sent: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:42 am
Spare me. Talk about consumed? You are beholden to your "gay" ideology, so much so that you are actually comparing ex-gays to that? Skin color is immutable. MANY people have left homosexuality behind. Just because YOU don't believe that -- or you explain it away thru your various arguments doesn't make it not so.
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:29 AM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
well you can always ask wade richards or michael johnston. to me though sexual orienation is fluid. science may never find the reasons behind sexual orientation. but it leans to it not being able to be chosen.
but you miss the point, peter.
Your beliefs about homosexuality is on what you call a solid foundation (i.e. the Bible). Every time you and those on your side distort legitimate studies, every time you all use bad studies (i.e. Paul Cameron, John R. Diggs), every time you go to one of those subcultural events and attack lgbts there without saying a word about the heterosexuals who attend the events, you weaken that foundation.
The house you seem to think you are building on a rock will start to have a foundation of sand. And that house will crumble.
Look around you. It's crumbling now.
In a message dated 8/12/2008 6:22:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
Don't worry about me, Alvin. You talk about crumbling: try your side's pathetic attempt to deny the obvious, that people change.
You MUST focus on the "failures," although of course you have no idea about Mike Johnston's life. It's a sin, Alvin. I could go into it ... And you can come out of it.
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:34 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
Peter,
Don't you see? It's not about celebrating Johnston's "failure." It's about moral authority. You deliberately downplayed the fact that AFA was selling the tape featuring Johnston's "ex-gay" testimony even though he had not changed his orientation. You helped to sell a lie.
Robert Knight stood in front of Congress and cited studies that he had to know were wrong.
You and Matt Barber tried to infer that the MRSA infection was some type of new "gay plague" and then tried to played the game of "exact wording" when you were caught.
And the list of deceptions goes on and on.
Now some may say that we are all sinners, but others can say that your sin and the sins of your friends are greater than mine.
I believe that homosexuality is not a sin so I have acted accordingly. But in trying to prove that homosexuality is wrong as well as a sin, you and others have engaged in tactics that you had to know were wrong.
Leading me to ask what moral authority do you have? What credibility do you have?
In trying to fight what you see as sin, you have become as bad of a sinner as you see me as being.
From: Peter L.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
Sent: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:25 am
This deserves a serious answer later. FYI, MJ is not practicing homo'l behavior. My moral authority comes ultimately from agreeing with God's moral truth. You are the one who is making up moral authority out of....what?
Your feelings? Guess what? Sin feels good often. So it is you, Alvin, who must -- if you are really a serious person on these issues -- ask the question: by what moral authority do you fight against God, Nature, etc. on this issue?
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
But see, Peter you tried to bypass my question. And my question is the gist of the entire thing.
Who are you to tell me what God is or the what the nature of God is when you can't answer my question as to your behavior regarding holding true to HIS statues and laws.
How can one be a Christian and act as unethically as you and yours have and then turn around and try to talk about God's law. If you cannot answer my question regarding your behavior then you are just as much of a sinner as you think that I am.
And your words mean nothing. They are just like filthy rags.
In a message dated 8/13/2008 2:28:06 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
You won't accept my words because ultimately you won't accept God (the one true God) and His revelation on the issue dearest to your heart (rationale for homosexual practice). You have NO authority, Alvin, can't you see it.
I can (note - that is a typo on Peter's part. He meant to say can't) physically PROVE to you God's existence, or the truth of Christ and the Bible, but I know it to be true (by faith) and I'm trusting in it.
What are you trusting in?
I understand why you reject God's authority in your life. You must -- to practice and defend sin. And I don't buy your cockeyed notions of acting unethically. That's YOUR description bec. YOU have vested interest in demonizing faithful Christians who HAVE NOT rejected God like you
have.
It's all about rationalizing your behavior, which is NOT innate.
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:33 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
Peter,
what makes you think that I don't believe in God. God is real and is the reason why I accept my gay orientation.
And why are you trying to move the conversation as to whether or not I believe God is real. My point is how you can speak about God when your tactics aren't Godly?
Would a faithful Christian demonize an entire community? Would a faithful Christian stand in front of Congress and lie about studies? Would a faithful Christian participate in a lie regarding someone's sexual orientation? Would a faithful Christian aid and abet a man who lied about his son being beat up by the children of gay activists? (i.e. David Parker)? Would a faithful Christian get on a radio program and say all sorts of ugly things about a person like you did on July 24th to Brenda Watson?
You and folks on your side have done some highly underhanded things. No matter how you try, you will never get away from your conduct.
This is not about the existence of God. It is about the conduct of those who call themselves his people.
In a message dated 8/13/2008 6:03:31 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
We're not perfect, but you are in denial. YOU reject God when you spend your life defending that which He opposes. I'll go back and listen to my Brenda Watson remark: bottom line is: men don't make good "women"
You may believe in God, Alvin, but you are warring against Him. Do you think my side has even come close to documenting the evil of organized homo'y? Not a chance: how is it, exactly, that all those teenage boys are contracting HIV? Aren't you one of the guys trying to make the (absurd) case that men practicing homo'y are subject to disproportionate health risks?
Not to worry, I answered his silly question. And I kept asking about his tactics. But the response of "we're not perfect" is the closest he came to addressing the issue. Finally, he told me that he can no longer talk to me because I will not face reality, which based on his non- answers to my question, is the height of irony.
Like I said earlier, judge for yourself regarding Peter's nobility. But based on our email conversation, Peter LaBarbera comes across as a man who talks about values and morality while espousing an ends justifies the means attitude. He comes across as a man who claims to talk about the truth, but does what he can to ignore it when it does not suit him.
Just something to remember the next time LaBarbera tries to paint himself as a noble Christian warrior. I have never known a noble Christian warrior who ducks and dodges and produces talking points when confronted with his lying behavior.
Maybe LaBarbera has a different version of the Bible.
The August 16th post is one of these supposed intellectual conversations he had with me:
Nice try Peter LaBarbera, but you are no hero
On his webpage, our friend Peter publishes his "response" to an email allegedly sent to him from a person from Michigan regarding his recent publishing of x-rated pictures from a San Francisco street fair.
Peter does not publish the person's letter but says the following:
"The following is adapted from my response to a letter from a Michigan pro-homosexual activist who wrote AFTAH, making the usual obnoxious charges: that I am a “pornographer” (for exposing San Francisco’s government-tolerated public street depravities) — and, of course, that I am a secret homosexual (”You are gay and part of you knows it and HATES it”). It’s all par for the course when you cover the loving and tolerant GLBT community. "
By not showing the alleged "obnoxious" letter but publishing his response, Peter tries to make himself look intelligent and noble.
Don't be fooled.
You see, Peter and I had an email exchange last week and based on that exchange, Peter does not come across as an intelligent or noble person. Nor does he come across as a particularly moral person.
Judge for yourself as I reveal a snippet of our email conversation. In it, I was able to question Peter point blank about his tactics as well as the tactics of other members of the anti-gay industry:
From: Peter L.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
Sent: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:42 am
Spare me. Talk about consumed? You are beholden to your "gay" ideology, so much so that you are actually comparing ex-gays to that? Skin color is immutable. MANY people have left homosexuality behind. Just because YOU don't believe that -- or you explain it away thru your various arguments doesn't make it not so.
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:29 AM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
well you can always ask wade richards or michael johnston. to me though sexual orienation is fluid. science may never find the reasons behind sexual orientation. but it leans to it not being able to be chosen.
but you miss the point, peter.
Your beliefs about homosexuality is on what you call a solid foundation (i.e. the Bible). Every time you and those on your side distort legitimate studies, every time you all use bad studies (i.e. Paul Cameron, John R. Diggs), every time you go to one of those subcultural events and attack lgbts there without saying a word about the heterosexuals who attend the events, you weaken that foundation.
The house you seem to think you are building on a rock will start to have a foundation of sand. And that house will crumble.
Look around you. It's crumbling now.
In a message dated 8/12/2008 6:22:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
Don't worry about me, Alvin. You talk about crumbling: try your side's pathetic attempt to deny the obvious, that people change.
You MUST focus on the "failures," although of course you have no idea about Mike Johnston's life. It's a sin, Alvin. I could go into it ... And you can come out of it.
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:34 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
Peter,
Don't you see? It's not about celebrating Johnston's "failure." It's about moral authority. You deliberately downplayed the fact that AFA was selling the tape featuring Johnston's "ex-gay" testimony even though he had not changed his orientation. You helped to sell a lie.
Robert Knight stood in front of Congress and cited studies that he had to know were wrong.
You and Matt Barber tried to infer that the MRSA infection was some type of new "gay plague" and then tried to played the game of "exact wording" when you were caught.
And the list of deceptions goes on and on.
Now some may say that we are all sinners, but others can say that your sin and the sins of your friends are greater than mine.
I believe that homosexuality is not a sin so I have acted accordingly. But in trying to prove that homosexuality is wrong as well as a sin, you and others have engaged in tactics that you had to know were wrong.
Leading me to ask what moral authority do you have? What credibility do you have?
In trying to fight what you see as sin, you have become as bad of a sinner as you see me as being.
From: Peter L.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
Sent: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:25 am
This deserves a serious answer later. FYI, MJ is not practicing homo'l behavior. My moral authority comes ultimately from agreeing with God's moral truth. You are the one who is making up moral authority out of....what?
Your feelings? Guess what? Sin feels good often. So it is you, Alvin, who must -- if you are really a serious person on these issues -- ask the question: by what moral authority do you fight against God, Nature, etc. on this issue?
EDITOR'S NOTE - Peter never did give me an answer to that question.
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 11:08 AMTo: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
But see, Peter you tried to bypass my question. And my question is the gist of the entire thing.
Who are you to tell me what God is or the what the nature of God is when you can't answer my question as to your behavior regarding holding true to HIS statues and laws.
How can one be a Christian and act as unethically as you and yours have and then turn around and try to talk about God's law. If you cannot answer my question regarding your behavior then you are just as much of a sinner as you think that I am.
And your words mean nothing. They are just like filthy rags.
In a message dated 8/13/2008 2:28:06 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
You won't accept my words because ultimately you won't accept God (the one true God) and His revelation on the issue dearest to your heart (rationale for homosexual practice). You have NO authority, Alvin, can't you see it.
I can (note - that is a typo on Peter's part. He meant to say can't) physically PROVE to you God's existence, or the truth of Christ and the Bible, but I know it to be true (by faith) and I'm trusting in it.
What are you trusting in?
I understand why you reject God's authority in your life. You must -- to practice and defend sin. And I don't buy your cockeyed notions of acting unethically. That's YOUR description bec. YOU have vested interest in demonizing faithful Christians who HAVE NOT rejected God like you
have.
It's all about rationalizing your behavior, which is NOT innate.
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:33 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net
Peter,
what makes you think that I don't believe in God. God is real and is the reason why I accept my gay orientation.
And why are you trying to move the conversation as to whether or not I believe God is real. My point is how you can speak about God when your tactics aren't Godly?
Would a faithful Christian demonize an entire community? Would a faithful Christian stand in front of Congress and lie about studies? Would a faithful Christian participate in a lie regarding someone's sexual orientation? Would a faithful Christian aid and abet a man who lied about his son being beat up by the children of gay activists? (i.e. David Parker)? Would a faithful Christian get on a radio program and say all sorts of ugly things about a person like you did on July 24th to Brenda Watson?
You and folks on your side have done some highly underhanded things. No matter how you try, you will never get away from your conduct.
This is not about the existence of God. It is about the conduct of those who call themselves his people.
In a message dated 8/13/2008 6:03:31 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:
We're not perfect, but you are in denial. YOU reject God when you spend your life defending that which He opposes. I'll go back and listen to my Brenda Watson remark: bottom line is: men don't make good "women"
You may believe in God, Alvin, but you are warring against Him. Do you think my side has even come close to documenting the evil of organized homo'y? Not a chance: how is it, exactly, that all those teenage boys are contracting HIV? Aren't you one of the guys trying to make the (absurd) case that men practicing homo'y are subject to disproportionate health risks?
Not to worry, I answered his silly question. And I kept asking about his tactics. But the response of "we're not perfect" is the closest he came to addressing the issue. Finally, he told me that he can no longer talk to me because I will not face reality, which based on his non- answers to my question, is the height of irony.
Like I said earlier, judge for yourself regarding Peter's nobility. But based on our email conversation, Peter LaBarbera comes across as a man who talks about values and morality while espousing an ends justifies the means attitude. He comes across as a man who claims to talk about the truth, but does what he can to ignore it when it does not suit him.
Just something to remember the next time LaBarbera tries to paint himself as a noble Christian warrior. I have never known a noble Christian warrior who ducks and dodges and produces talking points when confronted with his lying behavior.
Maybe LaBarbera has a different version of the Bible.
Friday, March 13, 2009
West Virginia religious right group sinks low - I mean real low
I'm disappointed with the West Virginia Family Foundation.
Usually when a religious right group stands against pro-gay legislation, it has the decency to disguise its endeavors as something wholesome.
But not this group:
West Virginia Legislators have introduced multiple pro-homosexual bills to mandate West Virginians to accept the homosexual lifestyle as a "civil rights” protected class in WV Code.
SB-134 & SB-238 would grant “civil rights” status within the WV Human Rights Act, West Virginia Fair Housing Act, and West Virginia employment regulations, for bi-sexual, homosexual and gender identity (sex change) lifestyles. The House liberals have sponsored similar bills such as HB-2454, HB-2925 and HB-2954.
This legislation, if passed, would remove the rights of West Virginia employers not to hire, and West Virginia land owners not to rent to, transvestites, openly homosexual individuals, and others with a perverse sexual orientation.
So to this group, employers and land owners have a right to discriminate against gays and lesbians and the bill would remove that right.
We certainly wouldn't want that to happen (that was sarcasm.)
Interestingly enough, the bills have an exemption for churches and other religious organizations. In addition, they have been endorsed by Catholic and Episcopal clergy.
So how can the West Virginia Family Foundation demonstrate that these are "bad bills?"
On the top of its webpage, the group has two pictures of what it seems to think that the bills will allow - i. .e men in in drag and leather.
Only thing is that I don't think those pictures are of gays in West Virginia but of the Folsom Street Fair in California.
The fact that this group couldn't find any negatives pictures of gays in its own state is probably a good thing - which would give more creedence to the bills.
But the group's usage of California pictures in an attempt to stop pro-gay bills in West Virginia ranks right up there with using pictures of Playboy centerfolds to keep women away from military combat.
It's funny in that respect, but still dishonest.
UPDATE - One of the bills have passed through the State Senate!!
I'm disappointed with the West Virginia Family Foundation.
Usually when a religious right group stands against pro-gay legislation, it has the decency to disguise its endeavors as something wholesome.
But not this group:
West Virginia Legislators have introduced multiple pro-homosexual bills to mandate West Virginians to accept the homosexual lifestyle as a "civil rights” protected class in WV Code.
SB-134 & SB-238 would grant “civil rights” status within the WV Human Rights Act, West Virginia Fair Housing Act, and West Virginia employment regulations, for bi-sexual, homosexual and gender identity (sex change) lifestyles. The House liberals have sponsored similar bills such as HB-2454, HB-2925 and HB-2954.
This legislation, if passed, would remove the rights of West Virginia employers not to hire, and West Virginia land owners not to rent to, transvestites, openly homosexual individuals, and others with a perverse sexual orientation.
So to this group, employers and land owners have a right to discriminate against gays and lesbians and the bill would remove that right.
We certainly wouldn't want that to happen (that was sarcasm.)
Interestingly enough, the bills have an exemption for churches and other religious organizations. In addition, they have been endorsed by Catholic and Episcopal clergy.
So how can the West Virginia Family Foundation demonstrate that these are "bad bills?"
On the top of its webpage, the group has two pictures of what it seems to think that the bills will allow - i. .e men in in drag and leather.
Only thing is that I don't think those pictures are of gays in West Virginia but of the Folsom Street Fair in California.
The fact that this group couldn't find any negatives pictures of gays in its own state is probably a good thing - which would give more creedence to the bills.
But the group's usage of California pictures in an attempt to stop pro-gay bills in West Virginia ranks right up there with using pictures of Playboy centerfolds to keep women away from military combat.
It's funny in that respect, but still dishonest.
UPDATE - One of the bills have passed through the State Senate!!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Robert Knight pops up again
Some religious right members never seem to go away.
Fresh being let go from the Media Research Institute, former Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and frequent Paul Cameron studies user Robert Knight is now at Coral Ridge Ministries as a "senior writer."
That's the group started which once employed one of our favorite religious right spokespeople Janet (a vote for Obama is a vote against God) Porter.
Knight should feel right at home - from one asylum to another.
And he is not wasting time either as this quote from a Fox News article about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would attest to:
"The ban is in place for a reason -- open homosexuality poses many problems to good order, discipline and unit cohesion," says Robert Knight, a senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and former head of the Culture and Family Institute in Washington.
"There is going to be some be some very heavy pushback from people in the military and civilians (on this) ... this is a train wreck waiting to happen."
That's quite a switch. In 2004, Knight was blaming the policy for terrorism and gay acceptance in general for Iraqi prison abuse, the beheading of prisoner Nick Berg and Muslim dislike of the U.S. in general:
“We were told homosexuality is harmless and normal, and the military should live with a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy that allows homosexuals to stay in the barracks. We were told that men ‘marrying’ men and women ‘marrying’ women is inevitable not only for America, but for the world,” wrote Knight, whose Culture & Family Institute is part of Phyllis Schafly’s Concerned Women for America.
“Imagine how those images of men kissing men outside San Francisco City Hall after being ‘married’ play in the Muslim world. We couldn’t offer the mullahs a more perfect picture of American decadence. Businessman Nick Berg, who was beheaded by a group claiming revenge over the prison abuses, is the first victim, and we can only pray he will be the last.”
For the record, I'm glad Knight is back.
I was getting tired of lightweights like Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber.
Some religious right members never seem to go away.
Fresh being let go from the Media Research Institute, former Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and frequent Paul Cameron studies user Robert Knight is now at Coral Ridge Ministries as a "senior writer."
That's the group started which once employed one of our favorite religious right spokespeople Janet (a vote for Obama is a vote against God) Porter.
Knight should feel right at home - from one asylum to another.
And he is not wasting time either as this quote from a Fox News article about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would attest to:
"The ban is in place for a reason -- open homosexuality poses many problems to good order, discipline and unit cohesion," says Robert Knight, a senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and former head of the Culture and Family Institute in Washington.
"There is going to be some be some very heavy pushback from people in the military and civilians (on this) ... this is a train wreck waiting to happen."
That's quite a switch. In 2004, Knight was blaming the policy for terrorism and gay acceptance in general for Iraqi prison abuse, the beheading of prisoner Nick Berg and Muslim dislike of the U.S. in general:
“We were told homosexuality is harmless and normal, and the military should live with a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy that allows homosexuals to stay in the barracks. We were told that men ‘marrying’ men and women ‘marrying’ women is inevitable not only for America, but for the world,” wrote Knight, whose Culture & Family Institute is part of Phyllis Schafly’s Concerned Women for America.
“Imagine how those images of men kissing men outside San Francisco City Hall after being ‘married’ play in the Muslim world. We couldn’t offer the mullahs a more perfect picture of American decadence. Businessman Nick Berg, who was beheaded by a group claiming revenge over the prison abuses, is the first victim, and we can only pray he will be the last.”
For the record, I'm glad Knight is back.
I was getting tired of lightweights like Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber.
We win in Florida and other news briefs
Judge Gives Green Light to Florida High School Gay-Straight Alliance - One of the few places where we have been able to consistently smack down the religious right have been when lgbt students want to form clubs and support groups. Thank goodness for the Equal Access Act.
Choice quote of the week - RNC Chairman Michael Steele: " . . . you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”
I wonder what Ken Hutcherson and Harry Jackson have to say about that one?
Gay Candidate Anthony Niedwiecki Elected to Oakland Park City Commission - and he is going to be Mayor in 2011! I wonder if he is dating. I always wanted to be a political husband.
Lawsuit ignores voters' verdict on parenting - A day without a bullshit article from One News Now is like a day without sunshine.
Judge Gives Green Light to Florida High School Gay-Straight Alliance - One of the few places where we have been able to consistently smack down the religious right have been when lgbt students want to form clubs and support groups. Thank goodness for the Equal Access Act.
Choice quote of the week - RNC Chairman Michael Steele: " . . . you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”
I wonder what Ken Hutcherson and Harry Jackson have to say about that one?
Gay Candidate Anthony Niedwiecki Elected to Oakland Park City Commission - and he is going to be Mayor in 2011! I wonder if he is dating. I always wanted to be a political husband.
Lawsuit ignores voters' verdict on parenting - A day without a bullshit article from One News Now is like a day without sunshine.
A little comedy brought to you by World Net Daily
Ever since President Obama was elected, rightwing site World Net Daily has been working a stealth campaign of trying to undermine him.
From pushing stories about President Obama not being a United States citizen to publishing whatever other rumor comes down the pike about him, it's clear that World Net Daily doesn't exactly find President Obama to be their favorite person.
One of World Net Daily's efforts involves encouraging its readers to print the questions they would like to ask President Obama.
From the look of some of these questions, World Net Daily's readers seem to be a couple of fries short of a Happy Meal:
By what right, under what authority, do you deem yourself qualified to decide who is to live and who is to die? The pro abortion policies you are pushing and endorsing would be laughable if they weren't so horrifying. I thought the Nazis were defeated, but I guess they just morphed into the liberal leftist former Democratic party here. I hope you will stop trying to play God here, because frankly I can't think of anyone less qualified.
Mr. Obama,
For the first time in my life I can not call the person in this office by the title that has been given to you, primarily due to the fact that you have yet to satisfy the requirements of the office through the presenting of particular documents which would determine your eligibility to be in the office you currently occupy. You have made history by being the first person of your race to be elected to the office of the President of the United States, you also appear to be struggling to make additional history and taking your place among such noted figures in history as Marx and Lenin. My question for you this day is why are you so bent on turning this once republic (now democratic republic) into a communistic state? When the citizens must rely upon the state for health care, jobs, food and direction they are no longer free and the form of government is no longer a republic... this is a communistic socialist state, why do you wish to destroy freedom?
Are you deliberately trying to destroy America so you can install a Socialist Government?
Why don't you be a man and stand up for what you are? Go ahead and tell all that you are a Socialist and want to break the country down. That way everyone will be broke, homeless and hungry. Then you and your Socialist can act like your the "Godsend" and make all think your our "Buddy" (sic). Your a coward, a thief and a phony we will NEVER respect a Socialist. REAL AMERICANS want you EMPEACHED!
Do you beleive in an 'End Of Days'? Do you believe that Jesus, The Christ, will return to Earth and that God will decend upon this planet to cast his judgement? What do you believe will save you from His judgement?
I bet you admire Hitler don't you? God help us,I shudder to think what you are going to do to this country.
I can't help but notice when you are on stage addressing the masses, that you strike a pose, looking out and above at the horizon,(a favored look in a lenin-esque dictatorial kind of way). What are you looking at? Are you anticipating the arrival of the 'mother-ship'?
There are more here if you want a good laugh.
Ever since President Obama was elected, rightwing site World Net Daily has been working a stealth campaign of trying to undermine him.
From pushing stories about President Obama not being a United States citizen to publishing whatever other rumor comes down the pike about him, it's clear that World Net Daily doesn't exactly find President Obama to be their favorite person.
One of World Net Daily's efforts involves encouraging its readers to print the questions they would like to ask President Obama.
From the look of some of these questions, World Net Daily's readers seem to be a couple of fries short of a Happy Meal:
By what right, under what authority, do you deem yourself qualified to decide who is to live and who is to die? The pro abortion policies you are pushing and endorsing would be laughable if they weren't so horrifying. I thought the Nazis were defeated, but I guess they just morphed into the liberal leftist former Democratic party here. I hope you will stop trying to play God here, because frankly I can't think of anyone less qualified.
Mr. Obama,
For the first time in my life I can not call the person in this office by the title that has been given to you, primarily due to the fact that you have yet to satisfy the requirements of the office through the presenting of particular documents which would determine your eligibility to be in the office you currently occupy. You have made history by being the first person of your race to be elected to the office of the President of the United States, you also appear to be struggling to make additional history and taking your place among such noted figures in history as Marx and Lenin. My question for you this day is why are you so bent on turning this once republic (now democratic republic) into a communistic state? When the citizens must rely upon the state for health care, jobs, food and direction they are no longer free and the form of government is no longer a republic... this is a communistic socialist state, why do you wish to destroy freedom?
Are you deliberately trying to destroy America so you can install a Socialist Government?
Why don't you be a man and stand up for what you are? Go ahead and tell all that you are a Socialist and want to break the country down. That way everyone will be broke, homeless and hungry. Then you and your Socialist can act like your the "Godsend" and make all think your our "Buddy" (sic). Your a coward, a thief and a phony we will NEVER respect a Socialist. REAL AMERICANS want you EMPEACHED!
Do you beleive in an 'End Of Days'? Do you believe that Jesus, The Christ, will return to Earth and that God will decend upon this planet to cast his judgement? What do you believe will save you from His judgement?
I bet you admire Hitler don't you? God help us,I shudder to think what you are going to do to this country.
I can't help but notice when you are on stage addressing the masses, that you strike a pose, looking out and above at the horizon,(a favored look in a lenin-esque dictatorial kind of way). What are you looking at? Are you anticipating the arrival of the 'mother-ship'?
There are more here if you want a good laugh.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Kentucky anti-gay adoption/foster care bill is DEAD for now
Editor's note - despite what the opposition says, bills like this one are meant to target gays and lesbians. And that talking point about "children doing better in a home with Mom and Dad" is just insulting. None of these bill even guarantee that children in foster care will receive homes, whether two-parent or single.
Adoption, foster-care bill is dead for session
Some contend measure targeted gay couples
The sponsor of a controversial bill to ban unmarried couples from becoming foster or adoptive parents acknowledged yesterday that the bill is dead.
"It's too late," Sen. Gary Tapp, R-Shelbyville, said of Senate Bill 68, which was voted out of committee last week but still hasn't been called for a floor vote. "It didn't go anywhere this session."
Tapp said he didn't know why the Senate's Republican leadership didn't schedule a vote on SB 68.
"I quit asking," he said.
Neither Senate President David Williams nor Majority Leader Dan Kelly, the chamber's top leaders, could be reached for comment last night.
Even if the bill were to win Senate approval, it would still need to be passed by the House. And there is little chance of that happening with only three scheduled days for passing bills remaining in this year's session.
Opponents of the bill -- including those who said it was aimed primarily at gay couples -- were relieved to hear that SB 68 won't advance.
"We're encouraged," said Chris Hartman, executive director of Louisville's Fairness Alliance, which held a Feb. 25 rally at the Capitol to oppose the proposal.
Hartman said he hoped the numerous calls, letters and e-mails to lawmakers from opponents have "driven home the message that hate legislation should never be passed in the commonwealth."
The rest of the story is here.
Editor's note - despite what the opposition says, bills like this one are meant to target gays and lesbians. And that talking point about "children doing better in a home with Mom and Dad" is just insulting. None of these bill even guarantee that children in foster care will receive homes, whether two-parent or single.
Adoption, foster-care bill is dead for session
Some contend measure targeted gay couples
The sponsor of a controversial bill to ban unmarried couples from becoming foster or adoptive parents acknowledged yesterday that the bill is dead.
"It's too late," Sen. Gary Tapp, R-Shelbyville, said of Senate Bill 68, which was voted out of committee last week but still hasn't been called for a floor vote. "It didn't go anywhere this session."
Tapp said he didn't know why the Senate's Republican leadership didn't schedule a vote on SB 68.
"I quit asking," he said.
Neither Senate President David Williams nor Majority Leader Dan Kelly, the chamber's top leaders, could be reached for comment last night.
Even if the bill were to win Senate approval, it would still need to be passed by the House. And there is little chance of that happening with only three scheduled days for passing bills remaining in this year's session.
Opponents of the bill -- including those who said it was aimed primarily at gay couples -- were relieved to hear that SB 68 won't advance.
"We're encouraged," said Chris Hartman, executive director of Louisville's Fairness Alliance, which held a Feb. 25 rally at the Capitol to oppose the proposal.
Hartman said he hoped the numerous calls, letters and e-mails to lawmakers from opponents have "driven home the message that hate legislation should never be passed in the commonwealth."
The rest of the story is here.
Open Letter to the Exodus International Board of Directors
We, the undersigned organizations, have monitored the ex-gay industry for more than a decade. To our great horror, prominent members of the ex-gay organization Exodus International participated last week in a conference in Uganda that promoted shocking abuses of basic human rights. This included draconian measures against gay and lesbian people such as forced ex-gay therapy, life imprisonment for people convicted of homosexuality and the formation of an organization designed to “wipe out” gay practices in Uganda. The conference also featured Scott Lively, a holocaust revisionist who at the event also blamed the 1994 Rwandan genocide on gay people.
The facts incontrovertibly show that Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International, was aware of the list of speakers and abhorrent content prior to the conference. Exodus board member Don Schmierer, who spoke in Uganda, made no objections to the radical and dangerous platform offered. Instead, these mortal threats to the lives of gay and lesbian people were met with a deafening silence. Exodus, in effect, gave this insidious conference its tacit approval.
Today, we take the unprecedented step of joining together to demand that Exodus International’s Board of Directors take immediate action to hold accountable those who used the Exodus brand to promote an atmosphere conducive to serious human rights abuses. The accountability must begin with reasonable and responsible action by Board Chair Bob Ragan, including:
Dismissing Exodus President Alan Chambers for his knowing role in using Exodus to promote human rights abuses
Removing Board member Don Schmierer for speaking at a hate conference that promotes physical harm and psychological torture against GLBT people
Boldly articulating Exodus’ policy against human rights abuses including forced therapy
Promising to end future participation in all conferences that call on the persecution and criminalization of gay and lesbian people
We do not take this call to action lightly. These steps are necessary and commensurate with the massive breach of ethics and trust by the Exodus leadership. Clearly, Exodus has lost credibility and its claim to “love” gay people in the aftermath of Uganda seems duplicitous and insincere. As long as Chambers and Schmierer remain at Exodus, the organization is hopelessly compromised and even complicit in grave human rights abuses. It is time for the Exodus Board, led by Bob Ragan, to assert its moral authority by appointing new leadership and taking the organization in a more humane and principled direction.
Sincerely,
Jim Burroway
Box Turtle Bulletin
David Roberts
Ex-Gay Watch
Wayne Besen
Truth Wins Out
Mike Airhart
Truth Wins Out
More at Truthwinsout.org
We, the undersigned organizations, have monitored the ex-gay industry for more than a decade. To our great horror, prominent members of the ex-gay organization Exodus International participated last week in a conference in Uganda that promoted shocking abuses of basic human rights. This included draconian measures against gay and lesbian people such as forced ex-gay therapy, life imprisonment for people convicted of homosexuality and the formation of an organization designed to “wipe out” gay practices in Uganda. The conference also featured Scott Lively, a holocaust revisionist who at the event also blamed the 1994 Rwandan genocide on gay people.
The facts incontrovertibly show that Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International, was aware of the list of speakers and abhorrent content prior to the conference. Exodus board member Don Schmierer, who spoke in Uganda, made no objections to the radical and dangerous platform offered. Instead, these mortal threats to the lives of gay and lesbian people were met with a deafening silence. Exodus, in effect, gave this insidious conference its tacit approval.
Today, we take the unprecedented step of joining together to demand that Exodus International’s Board of Directors take immediate action to hold accountable those who used the Exodus brand to promote an atmosphere conducive to serious human rights abuses. The accountability must begin with reasonable and responsible action by Board Chair Bob Ragan, including:
Dismissing Exodus President Alan Chambers for his knowing role in using Exodus to promote human rights abuses
Removing Board member Don Schmierer for speaking at a hate conference that promotes physical harm and psychological torture against GLBT people
Boldly articulating Exodus’ policy against human rights abuses including forced therapy
Promising to end future participation in all conferences that call on the persecution and criminalization of gay and lesbian people
We do not take this call to action lightly. These steps are necessary and commensurate with the massive breach of ethics and trust by the Exodus leadership. Clearly, Exodus has lost credibility and its claim to “love” gay people in the aftermath of Uganda seems duplicitous and insincere. As long as Chambers and Schmierer remain at Exodus, the organization is hopelessly compromised and even complicit in grave human rights abuses. It is time for the Exodus Board, led by Bob Ragan, to assert its moral authority by appointing new leadership and taking the organization in a more humane and principled direction.
Sincerely,
Jim Burroway
Box Turtle Bulletin
David Roberts
Ex-Gay Watch
Wayne Besen
Truth Wins Out
Mike Airhart
Truth Wins Out
More at Truthwinsout.org
Is Peter trying to get someone fired?
For all of their talk about the alleged intolerance of gays and how we are trying to silence folks and get them fired, some members of the religious right have no problem with engaging in those same tactics when it suits them.
Witness the recent situation involving our friend Peter LaBarbera and one Warren Throckmorton.
As I recall, I have never written about Throckmorton before. He is a professor at Grover City College and is also vocal about the subject of homosexuality. From what I see, there is plenty to disagree with him about but his demeanor is nothing like that of LaBarbera and company. He tends not to froth at the mouth while going on some tangent about "radical gay activists."
And sometimes he disagrees with LaBarbera and company. For example - this Day of Silence Walkout that I talked about on Monday.
Throckmorton posted a piece criticizing the walkout. He says that a walkout would be more disruptive than silence.
Yesterday, LaBarbera posted a reply from phony gay expert Laurie Higgins. What strikes me are the little notes LaBarbera included in the response making what I think are hints that Throckmorton needs to be let go from his job:
Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton has directed his hostile “reporting” at NARTH, “reparative therapy,” former homosexual Richard Cohen, Sally Kern and now the pro-family coalition campaign to boycott the homosexual activist “Day of Silence” in schools (April 17). But Throckmorton doesn’t like it when pro-family critics focus attention on his unScriptural positions, which are presumably at odds with Grove City’s Christian mission.
We will have more in the coming weeks on controversial Grove City College associate professor Warren Throckmorton, who has strayed far from a Biblical worldview on homosexuality, and far from the mission of his employer. (Grove City College’s mission statement affirms that the college “remains true to the vision of its founders. Rejecting relativism and secularism, it fosters intellectual, moral, spiritual, and social development consistent with a commitment to Christian truth, morals, and freedom.”)
We will provide further excerpts of this interview, (editor's note - an interview Throckmorton did with Micheangelo Signorile) and possibly the entire transcript, which we will provide to Grove City College officials (who have already been contacted by pro-family leaders concerning Throckmorton’s controversial statements and tactics).
Bear in mind that LaBarbera is the same one who sounded the horn for Matt Barber and Crystal Dixon, claiming that they were fired for conduct done on their own time, even though the conduct was in direct opposite of their employers' mission (and in both cases, involved their employers).
I guess he won't extend that same courtesy to Throckmorton.
I doubt that his bleatings will have any bearing on Throckmorton's employment, but any day that I can shine a light of LaBarbera's hypocrisies is a good day.
For all of their talk about the alleged intolerance of gays and how we are trying to silence folks and get them fired, some members of the religious right have no problem with engaging in those same tactics when it suits them.
Witness the recent situation involving our friend Peter LaBarbera and one Warren Throckmorton.
As I recall, I have never written about Throckmorton before. He is a professor at Grover City College and is also vocal about the subject of homosexuality. From what I see, there is plenty to disagree with him about but his demeanor is nothing like that of LaBarbera and company. He tends not to froth at the mouth while going on some tangent about "radical gay activists."
And sometimes he disagrees with LaBarbera and company. For example - this Day of Silence Walkout that I talked about on Monday.
Throckmorton posted a piece criticizing the walkout. He says that a walkout would be more disruptive than silence.
Yesterday, LaBarbera posted a reply from phony gay expert Laurie Higgins. What strikes me are the little notes LaBarbera included in the response making what I think are hints that Throckmorton needs to be let go from his job:
Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton has directed his hostile “reporting” at NARTH, “reparative therapy,” former homosexual Richard Cohen, Sally Kern and now the pro-family coalition campaign to boycott the homosexual activist “Day of Silence” in schools (April 17). But Throckmorton doesn’t like it when pro-family critics focus attention on his unScriptural positions, which are presumably at odds with Grove City’s Christian mission.
We will have more in the coming weeks on controversial Grove City College associate professor Warren Throckmorton, who has strayed far from a Biblical worldview on homosexuality, and far from the mission of his employer. (Grove City College’s mission statement affirms that the college “remains true to the vision of its founders. Rejecting relativism and secularism, it fosters intellectual, moral, spiritual, and social development consistent with a commitment to Christian truth, morals, and freedom.”)
We will provide further excerpts of this interview, (editor's note - an interview Throckmorton did with Micheangelo Signorile) and possibly the entire transcript, which we will provide to Grove City College officials (who have already been contacted by pro-family leaders concerning Throckmorton’s controversial statements and tactics).
Bear in mind that LaBarbera is the same one who sounded the horn for Matt Barber and Crystal Dixon, claiming that they were fired for conduct done on their own time, even though the conduct was in direct opposite of their employers' mission (and in both cases, involved their employers).
I guess he won't extend that same courtesy to Throckmorton.
I doubt that his bleatings will have any bearing on Throckmorton's employment, but any day that I can shine a light of LaBarbera's hypocrisies is a good day.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Tuesday news briefs
According to the blogs, some folks have lost their damned minds . . .
Scott Lively: The Gay Agenda Is “To Turn The Whole World Gay” - I talked about Scott Lively and his phony book The Pink Swastika on numerous occasions. Now it seems that he has gone off the deep end. I want to know - just who told him about "our plan."
Seriously though, if you think the headline is strange, wait till you read what he said about our "handbook."
Hat tip to Box Turtle Bulletin
Goodasyou.org gets misrepresented - One of my favorite blogs, Goodasyou.org, has reached a plateau that many have reached, even though none has aspired to - it gets misrepresented by a religious right group. Misrepresented? Hell, what was done was out-and-out lying. I wished it had happened to my blog. I would have gone for the jugular.
FRC, Focus on the Family Blame Their Victims for ‘Decline’ of Religion - From truthwinsout.org comes the news that Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council knows who is to blame for the decline of religion in America (as talked about in a recent USA Today article). And of course, the culprit isn't them, even though for 30 years they have spread lies (particularly about the gay community) designed to appeal to the egos and the fears of Christians. And of course the culprit isn't them even though they have reduced the credibility of Chrisitianity in selfish pursuits of political power.
Sexual-orientation rights bill advances - It's nice to close out the day with good news.
According to the blogs, some folks have lost their damned minds . . .
Scott Lively: The Gay Agenda Is “To Turn The Whole World Gay” - I talked about Scott Lively and his phony book The Pink Swastika on numerous occasions. Now it seems that he has gone off the deep end. I want to know - just who told him about "our plan."
Seriously though, if you think the headline is strange, wait till you read what he said about our "handbook."
Hat tip to Box Turtle Bulletin
Goodasyou.org gets misrepresented - One of my favorite blogs, Goodasyou.org, has reached a plateau that many have reached, even though none has aspired to - it gets misrepresented by a religious right group. Misrepresented? Hell, what was done was out-and-out lying. I wished it had happened to my blog. I would have gone for the jugular.
FRC, Focus on the Family Blame Their Victims for ‘Decline’ of Religion - From truthwinsout.org comes the news that Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council knows who is to blame for the decline of religion in America (as talked about in a recent USA Today article). And of course, the culprit isn't them, even though for 30 years they have spread lies (particularly about the gay community) designed to appeal to the egos and the fears of Christians. And of course the culprit isn't them even though they have reduced the credibility of Chrisitianity in selfish pursuits of political power.
Sexual-orientation rights bill advances - It's nice to close out the day with good news.
Gay adoption ban in Florida heats up again
The state of Florida is filing an appeal against a ruling that struck down its ban on gay adoption. And helping it will be the religious right group, the Liberty Counsel.
Last year, Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman said that the state's ban on gay adoption was unconstitutional. She made that ruling in the case of 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. The childen had come from an abused environment. Since coming to the Gill home, the two brothers have thrived tremendously. The Gills now want to adopt the boys.
Judge Lederman ruled that the state didn't make a compelling argument in keeping the Gills from adopting these boys.
Of course the state of Florida wasn't exactly helped by the "experts" it choose to defend its ban. George Rekers and Bob Schumm said that the state had a compelling reason to keep gays from adopting.
Rekers, in particular, said a few interesting comments. According the Miami Herald:
Gay men and lesbians have two to four times the likelihood of suffering from major depression, anxiety or substance abuse, based on several national studies, Rekers testified. Gay men, he said, are four times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide.
Depressed people, Rekers said, ''are less consistent in their parenting, less positive [and] have higher rates of neglecting child needs.'' Gay people, he added, ``would have less capability of providing the kind of nurturing and secure emotional environment for children.''
. . . Rekers said he would, in fact, favor banning anyone from adopting who had more than 18 ''sex partners'' during a lifetime. ''I think that would be a very good social policy,'' he said in a deposition.He 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.''
Needless to say, Judge Lederman didn't exactly find his testimony to be accurate:
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.
Interestingly enough, these facts seem to have eluded Liberty Counsel head Matt Staver in his statement to One News Now:
Matt Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University Law School, notes the law has been challenged many times with the court siding with the law, but he tells OneNewsNow that an activist judge has revived it.
"Last year, Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman actually wrote that the law violates the constitution of the state of Florida," he points out.
So that's it! - Florida didn't lose the case because its witnesses were awful. It was because Lederman is an "activist judge."
Staver runs the gambit of religious right talking points here:
Staver contends the Florida law soundly demonstrates the need for children to be permanently adopted into homes with stable families, including a mother and father.
What a lie! The case demonstrates that the state of Florida needs to get rid of an antiquated ban created at a time in which folks thought that gays were trying to recruit children.
Granted, some idiots still believe the recruitment bull now but it's a notion that is dying a slow, painful, and much deserved death.
And the Florida ban on gay adoption needs to die also.
The state of Florida is filing an appeal against a ruling that struck down its ban on gay adoption. And helping it will be the religious right group, the Liberty Counsel.
Last year, Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman said that the state's ban on gay adoption was unconstitutional. She made that ruling in the case of 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. The childen had come from an abused environment. Since coming to the Gill home, the two brothers have thrived tremendously. The Gills now want to adopt the boys.
Judge Lederman ruled that the state didn't make a compelling argument in keeping the Gills from adopting these boys.
Of course the state of Florida wasn't exactly helped by the "experts" it choose to defend its ban. George Rekers and Bob Schumm said that the state had a compelling reason to keep gays from adopting.
Rekers, in particular, said a few interesting comments. According the Miami Herald:
Gay men and lesbians have two to four times the likelihood of suffering from major depression, anxiety or substance abuse, based on several national studies, Rekers testified. Gay men, he said, are four times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide.
Depressed people, Rekers said, ''are less consistent in their parenting, less positive [and] have higher rates of neglecting child needs.'' Gay people, he added, ``would have less capability of providing the kind of nurturing and secure emotional environment for children.''
. . . Rekers said he would, in fact, favor banning anyone from adopting who had more than 18 ''sex partners'' during a lifetime. ''I think that would be a very good social policy,'' he said in a deposition.He 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.''
Needless to say, Judge Lederman didn't exactly find his testimony to be accurate:
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.
Interestingly enough, these facts seem to have eluded Liberty Counsel head Matt Staver in his statement to One News Now:
Matt Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University Law School, notes the law has been challenged many times with the court siding with the law, but he tells OneNewsNow that an activist judge has revived it.
"Last year, Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman actually wrote that the law violates the constitution of the state of Florida," he points out.
So that's it! - Florida didn't lose the case because its witnesses were awful. It was because Lederman is an "activist judge."
Staver runs the gambit of religious right talking points here:
Staver contends the Florida law soundly demonstrates the need for children to be permanently adopted into homes with stable families, including a mother and father.
What a lie! The case demonstrates that the state of Florida needs to get rid of an antiquated ban created at a time in which folks thought that gays were trying to recruit children.
Granted, some idiots still believe the recruitment bull now but it's a notion that is dying a slow, painful, and much deserved death.
And the Florida ban on gay adoption needs to die also.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Whatever happened to the Day of Truth?
Apparently some members of the religious right are abandoning "Truth."
Of course according to some of us, they have abandoned the notion of truth a long time ago, but this "Truth" is the Day of Truth they created to combat the Day of Silence.
The Day of Silence is an annual student-led event created to bring attention the plight of lgbt youth in America's schools.
Participating students across the nation from middle school through college remain quiet to bring attention to harassment and violence directed toward gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered youth.
Religious right organizations don't exactly like this (do they like anything that we do) so they created an event called the "Day of Truth," in which students are "encouraged" to speak the so-called truth about homosexuality. By this, I mean that students are encouraged not only to call homosexuality a sin but to repeat all of those discredited and misrepresented studies that have made our lives a living hell.
Like many spin-offs, the Day of Truth hasn't been that successful. And that is why several religious right groups are actually encouraging a "student walkout" in protest to Day of Silence:
AFTAH Joins April 17 Walkout of Pro-Homosexuality Student Day of Silence
Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) is part of a national coalition of pro-family organizations urging parents to call their children out of school on April 17. This is the day designated for this year’s Day of Silence when students and/or teachers will purposely remain silent during instructional time to protest so-called discrimination and gain sympathy for students who identify as homosexual or transgender.
The Day of Silence is a yearly event sponsored by the partisan political action group, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). The implicit purpose is to undermine the belief that homosexuality is immoral. It is the belief of the sponsors of the Walkout that parents should no longer passively accept the political usurpation of taxpayer funded public school classrooms through student silence.
The DOS requires that teachers either create activities around or exempt silent students from any activity that involves speaking. DOS participants have a captive audience, many of whom disagree with and are made uncomfortable by the politicization of their classroom.
There are so many things wrong that what these groups are trying to do.
The purpose of Day of Silence is to bring attention to the fact that many lgbt youth cannot function in an educational environment because they get picked on due to their orientation. It is not design to criticize personal religious beliefs but negative actions that may stem from those beliefs.
That comment about parents being forced to "accept the political usurpation of taxpayer funded schools through student silence" is bad logic turned inside out. What those this mean? Let's force these students to talk because them being silent is a waste of tax dollars?
And the notion that the Day of Silence causes disruptions is a lie. Generally when students are left alone to participate, the event is a success.
If anyone causes disruptions, it is those who oppose the event, like the Rev. Ken Hutcheron tried unsuccessfully to do last year in Seattle.
This new tactic is just another attempt to disrupt the Day of Silence. And it doesn't make sense. You protest against the alleged politicizing of schools by encouraging more politicizing?
And this explanation by the so-called Illinois Family Institute is a hoot:
Parents must actively oppose this hijacking of the classroom for political purposes. Please join the national effort to restore to public education a proper understanding of the role of government-subsidized schools. Please help de-politicize the learning environment by calling your child out of school if your child's school allows students to remain silent during instructional time on the Day of Silence.
That's right! Demand that students talk during class! It's not only educational, but now it's Christian.
Seems to me that the goal of these groups is to undermine the Day of Silence to the point that schools would be encouraged not to hold it.
When and if that happens, these same groups will claim that schools outright refused to hold the Day of Silence because of their Christian values rather than the fact that they were hassled to the point of exhaustion by a bunch of brats masquerading as "pro-family" groups.
And that strikes me as very untruthful.
Apparently some members of the religious right are abandoning "Truth."
Of course according to some of us, they have abandoned the notion of truth a long time ago, but this "Truth" is the Day of Truth they created to combat the Day of Silence.
The Day of Silence is an annual student-led event created to bring attention the plight of lgbt youth in America's schools.
Participating students across the nation from middle school through college remain quiet to bring attention to harassment and violence directed toward gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered youth.
Religious right organizations don't exactly like this (do they like anything that we do) so they created an event called the "Day of Truth," in which students are "encouraged" to speak the so-called truth about homosexuality. By this, I mean that students are encouraged not only to call homosexuality a sin but to repeat all of those discredited and misrepresented studies that have made our lives a living hell.
Like many spin-offs, the Day of Truth hasn't been that successful. And that is why several religious right groups are actually encouraging a "student walkout" in protest to Day of Silence:
AFTAH Joins April 17 Walkout of Pro-Homosexuality Student Day of Silence
Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) is part of a national coalition of pro-family organizations urging parents to call their children out of school on April 17. This is the day designated for this year’s Day of Silence when students and/or teachers will purposely remain silent during instructional time to protest so-called discrimination and gain sympathy for students who identify as homosexual or transgender.
The Day of Silence is a yearly event sponsored by the partisan political action group, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). The implicit purpose is to undermine the belief that homosexuality is immoral. It is the belief of the sponsors of the Walkout that parents should no longer passively accept the political usurpation of taxpayer funded public school classrooms through student silence.
The DOS requires that teachers either create activities around or exempt silent students from any activity that involves speaking. DOS participants have a captive audience, many of whom disagree with and are made uncomfortable by the politicization of their classroom.
There are so many things wrong that what these groups are trying to do.
The purpose of Day of Silence is to bring attention to the fact that many lgbt youth cannot function in an educational environment because they get picked on due to their orientation. It is not design to criticize personal religious beliefs but negative actions that may stem from those beliefs.
That comment about parents being forced to "accept the political usurpation of taxpayer funded schools through student silence" is bad logic turned inside out. What those this mean? Let's force these students to talk because them being silent is a waste of tax dollars?
And the notion that the Day of Silence causes disruptions is a lie. Generally when students are left alone to participate, the event is a success.
If anyone causes disruptions, it is those who oppose the event, like the Rev. Ken Hutcheron tried unsuccessfully to do last year in Seattle.
This new tactic is just another attempt to disrupt the Day of Silence. And it doesn't make sense. You protest against the alleged politicizing of schools by encouraging more politicizing?
And this explanation by the so-called Illinois Family Institute is a hoot:
Parents must actively oppose this hijacking of the classroom for political purposes. Please join the national effort to restore to public education a proper understanding of the role of government-subsidized schools. Please help de-politicize the learning environment by calling your child out of school if your child's school allows students to remain silent during instructional time on the Day of Silence.
That's right! Demand that students talk during class! It's not only educational, but now it's Christian.
Seems to me that the goal of these groups is to undermine the Day of Silence to the point that schools would be encouraged not to hold it.
When and if that happens, these same groups will claim that schools outright refused to hold the Day of Silence because of their Christian values rather than the fact that they were hassled to the point of exhaustion by a bunch of brats masquerading as "pro-family" groups.
And that strikes me as very untruthful.
Here we go again - School tries to challenge gay/straight alliance
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- An attorney for two gay students at a north Florida high school told a federal judge Thursday they should be allowed to form a campus club promoting tolerance toward gays, despite a school prohibition.
But a lawyer for the Nassau County School Board said the group's name, Gay-Straight Alliance, is against school policy.
Yulee High School students Hannah Page and Jacob Brock, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, are suing the school board to overturn its decision banning them from forming the club at school. Yulee is about 25 miles north of Jacksonville, near the Georgia state line.
U.S. District Judge Henry Adams Jr. said he would issue a ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction "as soon as I can," but gave Nassau County three days to submit additional written arguments. The students want an injunction to allow them to meet until the case goes to trial.
ACLU Attorney Robert F. Rosenwald Jr. argued that Page and Brock had been the target of anti-gay epithets and threats of violence at school and wanted to start the Gay-Straight Alliance to open a discourse among students.
Attorney Frank Sheppard, who represents the school board, said the district's main complaint is the name of the group, saying it does not approve of groups dealing with sexual orientation and noted the school has an abstinence-based sex education curriculum.
"If they change the name and comply with Nassau County School Board policies they can meet," he said.
The judge questioned Sheppard over the school's objection to the name.
"A Gay-Straight Alliance, that covers everybody doesn't it?" Adams asked.
More here . . .
The school district is wrong and will most likely lose, thanks to the Equal Access Act:
. . . (It) provides that if a school permits students to organize clubs, then school officials cannot prevent a club from organizing based upon the subject matter addressed by the club. Although the Equal Access Act does not specifically address gay clubs, the law applies to students who want to form a Gay-Straight Alliance or other gay-rights club. Students must, of course, comply with their school's rules relating to forming clubs, such as application requirements and procurement of faculty sponsors. In other words, students who want to form a gay-rights club must follow the same rules as students who form a chess club.
The irony is that the Equal Access Act was created on behalf of some students who weren't able to form a Bible Club in schools.
The irony gets better. According to Box Turtle Bulletin:
Schools with anti-gay authorities aren’t too pleased about this. And they have frequently tried to bar gay and gay-friendly students from meeting, going to court and indignantly defending their position.
They generally argue that gay clubs are sexual hook-up clubs whose purpose is to advocate for immoral sexual behaviors -and provide sex partners - and that because they are an “abstinence only” school then they have a right to deny this “sex club”. Or they may argue that there is already a generic anti-bigotry club (usually in actuality a black or Hispanic student club) so there’s no need for a club to support gay students. Some - with a perfectly straight face - will argue that if gay students identify as such they will be picked on so the school needs to protect gay students by not allowing them to meet.
These arguments tend to be recognized as the defense of homophobia that they are and judges don’t often find them very persuasive. In fact, I can’t think of a single instance in which the courts found that schools, principals, or school boards could deny equal access to gay students.
And of course, the Florida Baptist Witness gives its point of view on the case. As bizarre as it sounds, the article is somewhat (I said somewhat) fair and gives a lot of good detail.
The people at One News Now should take notes.
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- An attorney for two gay students at a north Florida high school told a federal judge Thursday they should be allowed to form a campus club promoting tolerance toward gays, despite a school prohibition.
But a lawyer for the Nassau County School Board said the group's name, Gay-Straight Alliance, is against school policy.
Yulee High School students Hannah Page and Jacob Brock, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, are suing the school board to overturn its decision banning them from forming the club at school. Yulee is about 25 miles north of Jacksonville, near the Georgia state line.
U.S. District Judge Henry Adams Jr. said he would issue a ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction "as soon as I can," but gave Nassau County three days to submit additional written arguments. The students want an injunction to allow them to meet until the case goes to trial.
ACLU Attorney Robert F. Rosenwald Jr. argued that Page and Brock had been the target of anti-gay epithets and threats of violence at school and wanted to start the Gay-Straight Alliance to open a discourse among students.
Attorney Frank Sheppard, who represents the school board, said the district's main complaint is the name of the group, saying it does not approve of groups dealing with sexual orientation and noted the school has an abstinence-based sex education curriculum.
"If they change the name and comply with Nassau County School Board policies they can meet," he said.
The judge questioned Sheppard over the school's objection to the name.
"A Gay-Straight Alliance, that covers everybody doesn't it?" Adams asked.
More here . . .
The school district is wrong and will most likely lose, thanks to the Equal Access Act:
. . . (It) provides that if a school permits students to organize clubs, then school officials cannot prevent a club from organizing based upon the subject matter addressed by the club. Although the Equal Access Act does not specifically address gay clubs, the law applies to students who want to form a Gay-Straight Alliance or other gay-rights club. Students must, of course, comply with their school's rules relating to forming clubs, such as application requirements and procurement of faculty sponsors. In other words, students who want to form a gay-rights club must follow the same rules as students who form a chess club.
The irony is that the Equal Access Act was created on behalf of some students who weren't able to form a Bible Club in schools.
The irony gets better. According to Box Turtle Bulletin:
Schools with anti-gay authorities aren’t too pleased about this. And they have frequently tried to bar gay and gay-friendly students from meeting, going to court and indignantly defending their position.
They generally argue that gay clubs are sexual hook-up clubs whose purpose is to advocate for immoral sexual behaviors -and provide sex partners - and that because they are an “abstinence only” school then they have a right to deny this “sex club”. Or they may argue that there is already a generic anti-bigotry club (usually in actuality a black or Hispanic student club) so there’s no need for a club to support gay students. Some - with a perfectly straight face - will argue that if gay students identify as such they will be picked on so the school needs to protect gay students by not allowing them to meet.
These arguments tend to be recognized as the defense of homophobia that they are and judges don’t often find them very persuasive. In fact, I can’t think of a single instance in which the courts found that schools, principals, or school boards could deny equal access to gay students.
And of course, the Florida Baptist Witness gives its point of view on the case. As bizarre as it sounds, the article is somewhat (I said somewhat) fair and gives a lot of good detail.
The people at One News Now should take notes.
Uganda hates gays while Peter tells us what exactly is a 'power bottom'
Scary stuff coming out of Uganda courtesy of Box Turtle Bulletin -
Anti-Gay Conference Kicks Off In Kampala
Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Two - The Uganda anti-gay conference continues for a second day, with no further explanation on conference leaders’ endorsement of a parliamentarian proposal to upgrade Uganda’s anti-homosexuality law to include forced “therapy” on those who are convicted. Ugandan law already provides for a life sentence on conviction . . .
Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Three -- Gays Blamed For Rwandan Genocide; More Exodus Ties To Holocaust Revisionism
Meanwhile . . .
One of our favorite anti-gay spokesman is devoting serious time to identifying the definition of a "true power bottom."
I wonder which story will One News Now cover.
Scary stuff coming out of Uganda courtesy of Box Turtle Bulletin -
Anti-Gay Conference Kicks Off In Kampala
Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Two - The Uganda anti-gay conference continues for a second day, with no further explanation on conference leaders’ endorsement of a parliamentarian proposal to upgrade Uganda’s anti-homosexuality law to include forced “therapy” on those who are convicted. Ugandan law already provides for a life sentence on conviction . . .
Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Three -- Gays Blamed For Rwandan Genocide; More Exodus Ties To Holocaust Revisionism
Meanwhile . . .
One of our favorite anti-gay spokesman is devoting serious time to identifying the definition of a "true power bottom."
I wonder which story will One News Now cover.
Friday, March 06, 2009
'Christian' organization doesn't know the difference between a pro-family group and a hate group
Yesterday, I mentioned that the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) was miffed at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) due to the designation of several organizations as "hate groups."
The CADC is also circulating a petition asking that the SPLC stop labeling so-called "pro-family" organizations as hate groups:
Apparently the SPLC has no tolerance for Christians who speak and act in accordance with their faith. This is the typical, liberal kind of tolerance that is a one way street for those who oppose traditional Christian morality.
This brand of Christian bashing needs to be stopped. Sign our petition urging the SPLC to stop slandering Christians for their biblical point of view. SPLC’s attempt to label pro-family organizations "hate groups" must to be renounced.
Interestingly enough, the CADC doesn't give the names of these groups it claims is being unfairly labeled as hate groups.
Here are just two:
The Family Research Institute - that is the organization run by discredited researcher Paul Cameron.
You remember him, don't you?
He is the guy who has been called out or censured by individuals and groups from diverse backgrounds including the American Psychological Association, The American Sociological Association, conservative leader Williams Bennett, and anti-gay group Exodus International.
He is the guy who makes up stories about gay men castrating children in bathrooms.
He is the guy who publishes phony studies claiming, amongst other things, that gay men eat feces.
He is the guy who said the following:
“If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get—and that is what homosexuality seems to be—then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men, and women on women if all you are looking for is an orgasm.”
Then there is Abiding Truth Ministries - that is the group founded by Scott Lively. He is the guy who wrote that fradulent book The Pink Swastika which connects the gay community to the Nazi party. That's the book that has been repeatedly discredited. Presently, Mr. Lively is at a conference in Uganda, lending support to that country's very very strict anti-gay laws (those "convicted of homosexual acts" are given a life sentence).
In naming these organizations as hate groups, the SPLC said:
Anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification.
In addition, Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the SPLC said:
“we don’t ordinarily list groups that say homosexuality is wrong or see it as a sin; we list very few anti-gay groups. They have to be very extreme in their views. We see Lively the same way we see Paul Cameron; the two of them in our view consciously promote easily provable false defamations. They don’t seem to care at all what the truth is.”
Seems to me that anger shouldn't directed at SPLC for labeling these organizations as hate groups, but to CADC for calling them "pro-family."
That is if one cares about the integrity of such terms as "pro-family" and "Christian."
Yesterday, I mentioned that the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) was miffed at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) due to the designation of several organizations as "hate groups."
The CADC is also circulating a petition asking that the SPLC stop labeling so-called "pro-family" organizations as hate groups:
Apparently the SPLC has no tolerance for Christians who speak and act in accordance with their faith. This is the typical, liberal kind of tolerance that is a one way street for those who oppose traditional Christian morality.
This brand of Christian bashing needs to be stopped. Sign our petition urging the SPLC to stop slandering Christians for their biblical point of view. SPLC’s attempt to label pro-family organizations "hate groups" must to be renounced.
Interestingly enough, the CADC doesn't give the names of these groups it claims is being unfairly labeled as hate groups.
Here are just two:
The Family Research Institute - that is the organization run by discredited researcher Paul Cameron.
You remember him, don't you?
He is the guy who has been called out or censured by individuals and groups from diverse backgrounds including the American Psychological Association, The American Sociological Association, conservative leader Williams Bennett, and anti-gay group Exodus International.
He is the guy who makes up stories about gay men castrating children in bathrooms.
He is the guy who publishes phony studies claiming, amongst other things, that gay men eat feces.
He is the guy who said the following:
“If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get—and that is what homosexuality seems to be—then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men, and women on women if all you are looking for is an orgasm.”
Then there is Abiding Truth Ministries - that is the group founded by Scott Lively. He is the guy who wrote that fradulent book The Pink Swastika which connects the gay community to the Nazi party. That's the book that has been repeatedly discredited. Presently, Mr. Lively is at a conference in Uganda, lending support to that country's very very strict anti-gay laws (those "convicted of homosexual acts" are given a life sentence).
In naming these organizations as hate groups, the SPLC said:
Anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification.
In addition, Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the SPLC said:
“we don’t ordinarily list groups that say homosexuality is wrong or see it as a sin; we list very few anti-gay groups. They have to be very extreme in their views. We see Lively the same way we see Paul Cameron; the two of them in our view consciously promote easily provable false defamations. They don’t seem to care at all what the truth is.”
Seems to me that anger shouldn't directed at SPLC for labeling these organizations as hate groups, but to CADC for calling them "pro-family."
That is if one cares about the integrity of such terms as "pro-family" and "Christian."
More on HRC's End the Lies project
Yesterday, the Human Rights Campaign launched a new site that will expose the lies told about the lgbt community.
Now you can help this site by nominating your favorite (and I use the term very loosely) spreader of anti-gay lies and distortions for the Wall of Shame.
I've already nominated a few deserving individuals.
By all means, nominate a few of your own. Lord knows that there are so many out there.
Yesterday, the Human Rights Campaign launched a new site that will expose the lies told about the lgbt community.
Now you can help this site by nominating your favorite (and I use the term very loosely) spreader of anti-gay lies and distortions for the Wall of Shame.
I've already nominated a few deserving individuals.
By all means, nominate a few of your own. Lord knows that there are so many out there.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Thursday news briefs
I know everyone is chomping at the bit regarding the Proposition 8 court hearing today, but I thought I would provide a little bit of other news . . .
Where Did You Get Them? - First comes love, then comes marriage (despite the religious right), then comes somebody in a baby carriage.
Christian Pro-Family Organizations Labeled "Hate Groups" - The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (it's always amusing to me how the folks on the other side give themselves these "titles") are urging folks to sign a petition against the Southern Poverty Law Center for naming various anti-gay groups as official hate groups. Interestingly enough, while the C.A.D.C. are outraged about these groups being labeled, they never get around to giving out their names. And I don't think that was a typo. If you want to see the groups, go here.
If the C.A.D.C. considers Paul Cameron's group (the Family Research Institute) and Mass Resistance as "pro-family" organizations then they have a very screwed-up concept of the word "pro-family."
Hat tip to Rightwing Watch .
Rush Limbaugh’s Top Anti-Gay Quotes - Everyone is beating up on Rush and I wanna get my shots in. Seriously this is from a new addition to my links and blogroll - The New Civil Rights Movement.
IL school hosts homosexual dance - Apparently according to phony gay expert Laurie Higgins, holding a school dance for gay youth and their allies is a political act. I wonder how she feels about humming a Judy Garland song? This article is interesting in that in the comment section, a lot of responders give Higgins hell. I couldn't believe it when I saw it.
Hat tip to Openly Gay.
And now for something completely different . . .
Alfred Hitchcock Presents: And the Desert Shall Blossom - This is a long link so watch it at your leisure. When I told a friend about this, he said that maybe I see a gay connection in things that do not have them.
But bear with me when I explain the premise - two old prospectors who live out in the middle of nowhere are in danger of being forced into a retirement home by the town council unless they can prove that they are self-sufficient. Now you may disagree but I still say that despite the fact that this episode took place in the 1950s, one can infer that the two men are in a relationship.
Look at the episode and see for yourself.
Don't worry - it has a happy ending.
I know everyone is chomping at the bit regarding the Proposition 8 court hearing today, but I thought I would provide a little bit of other news . . .
Where Did You Get Them? - First comes love, then comes marriage (despite the religious right), then comes somebody in a baby carriage.
Christian Pro-Family Organizations Labeled "Hate Groups" - The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (it's always amusing to me how the folks on the other side give themselves these "titles") are urging folks to sign a petition against the Southern Poverty Law Center for naming various anti-gay groups as official hate groups. Interestingly enough, while the C.A.D.C. are outraged about these groups being labeled, they never get around to giving out their names. And I don't think that was a typo. If you want to see the groups, go here.
If the C.A.D.C. considers Paul Cameron's group (the Family Research Institute) and Mass Resistance as "pro-family" organizations then they have a very screwed-up concept of the word "pro-family."
Hat tip to Rightwing Watch .
Rush Limbaugh’s Top Anti-Gay Quotes - Everyone is beating up on Rush and I wanna get my shots in. Seriously this is from a new addition to my links and blogroll - The New Civil Rights Movement.
IL school hosts homosexual dance - Apparently according to phony gay expert Laurie Higgins, holding a school dance for gay youth and their allies is a political act. I wonder how she feels about humming a Judy Garland song? This article is interesting in that in the comment section, a lot of responders give Higgins hell. I couldn't believe it when I saw it.
Hat tip to Openly Gay.
And now for something completely different . . .
Alfred Hitchcock Presents: And the Desert Shall Blossom - This is a long link so watch it at your leisure. When I told a friend about this, he said that maybe I see a gay connection in things that do not have them.
But bear with me when I explain the premise - two old prospectors who live out in the middle of nowhere are in danger of being forced into a retirement home by the town council unless they can prove that they are self-sufficient. Now you may disagree but I still say that despite the fact that this episode took place in the 1950s, one can infer that the two men are in a relationship.
Look at the episode and see for yourself.
Don't worry - it has a happy ending.
HRC gets in the game of exposing the religious right
For years, myself and other bloggers have been doing what we can to expose the lies of the religious right.
Now the Human Rights Campaign is going full tilt in the game:
On the day the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the NCLR/ACLU lawsuits to overturn Prop 8, HRC will launch EndTheLies.org, a new website to call out the lies spread by right wingers to stop the LGBT movement’s push for equality.
As we gear up to fight for passage of our legislative agenda in Congress, EndTheLies.org will feature an “interactive wall” of anti-LGBT crusaders (i.e. the AFA, Sally Kern, and George W. Bush) and will provide ways for visitors to take action against their efforts. Users will also be able to nominate their own candidates for the wall.
Here’s two examples of how EndTheLies.org will combat some of the favorite fibs by the right wing:
Lie: If hate crimes laws are passed, pastors will be prosecuted for preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality.
Truth: Pastors will not be held liable for hate crimes based on preaching anti-gay sermons. The First Amendment protects a preacher from being charged as an accessory to a hate crime simply because of their speech. The Matthew Shepard Act only punishes violent crimes, not a person’s speech, beliefs or thoughts. In fact, the legislation contains language specifically protecting free speech.
Lie: Legislation that will provide employment protection based on sexual orientation or gender identity will force churches to hire homosexuals.
Truth: Federal employment non-discrimination legislation is sensitive to religious organizations and their fundamental beliefs and tenets, and includes a broad exemption for these groups, including churches, religious schools and other faith entities.
For too long, anti-LGBT right wingers have won battles against our community by telling lies about our lives and families – and then excite fear and hysteria all the way to victory. It’s past time for us to aggressively go head-to-head with their tactics – and to call them out for their hypocrisy.
It's good that HRC is taking a role in breaking down the intentional inaccuracies that are geared to poison the minds of people of faith and Americans in general against the lgbt community.
While some may ask what took so long, I say that it's about time. I also say that before we get all judgmental, the lgbt community should give the site time to grow and focus.
And above all, we should give HRC's effort all of our utmost support.
For years, myself and other bloggers have been doing what we can to expose the lies of the religious right.
Now the Human Rights Campaign is going full tilt in the game:
On the day the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the NCLR/ACLU lawsuits to overturn Prop 8, HRC will launch EndTheLies.org, a new website to call out the lies spread by right wingers to stop the LGBT movement’s push for equality.
As we gear up to fight for passage of our legislative agenda in Congress, EndTheLies.org will feature an “interactive wall” of anti-LGBT crusaders (i.e. the AFA, Sally Kern, and George W. Bush) and will provide ways for visitors to take action against their efforts. Users will also be able to nominate their own candidates for the wall.
Here’s two examples of how EndTheLies.org will combat some of the favorite fibs by the right wing:
Lie: If hate crimes laws are passed, pastors will be prosecuted for preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality.
Truth: Pastors will not be held liable for hate crimes based on preaching anti-gay sermons. The First Amendment protects a preacher from being charged as an accessory to a hate crime simply because of their speech. The Matthew Shepard Act only punishes violent crimes, not a person’s speech, beliefs or thoughts. In fact, the legislation contains language specifically protecting free speech.
Lie: Legislation that will provide employment protection based on sexual orientation or gender identity will force churches to hire homosexuals.
Truth: Federal employment non-discrimination legislation is sensitive to religious organizations and their fundamental beliefs and tenets, and includes a broad exemption for these groups, including churches, religious schools and other faith entities.
For too long, anti-LGBT right wingers have won battles against our community by telling lies about our lives and families – and then excite fear and hysteria all the way to victory. It’s past time for us to aggressively go head-to-head with their tactics – and to call them out for their hypocrisy.
It's good that HRC is taking a role in breaking down the intentional inaccuracies that are geared to poison the minds of people of faith and Americans in general against the lgbt community.
While some may ask what took so long, I say that it's about time. I also say that before we get all judgmental, the lgbt community should give the site time to grow and focus.
And above all, we should give HRC's effort all of our utmost support.
Proposition 8 plea to my lgbt brothers and sisters - show a little forethought and restraint
Today, California courts will be hearing a challenge to Proposition 8 - the law the banned gay marriage in California.
Since that monstrosity passed in November, the lgbt communty has tossed and struggled with why it passed, what it means for our community, and how do we go on.
So today will be interesting.
But I have a plea to my lgbt brothers and sisters.
If the courts give us what we want, please show some forethought. The other side will be galvanized in huge number, like they were when the sodomy laws were stricken. While there may be a need to celebrate, we should remember that a victory is not the end of the entire thing, but another avenue that could take us down a bad road if we don't have the presence of mind to control the argument.
But what if the courts don't give us what we want. That concerns me more.
Last year when Proposition 8 passed, some of us got so angry that we forgot ourselves. We allowed our private prejudices and inner demons to come out and control our actions.
And we allowed ourselves to be played.
One thing I hated last year was how the gay community was unfairly cast as overly violent racist aggressors who wrote nasty threatening things on blogs, sent threatening letters to Mormons and beat up old women.
But we helped further that image by playing into the hands of the opposition. We gave them plenty of ammunition as they scoured blogs looking for negative reactions to the vote and looked at video protests seeking to twist the smallest thing into evidence of a gay insurrection.
Yes I know that we get angry over the lies of the religious right, but there is no excuse for being so angry that you allow yourself to become a pawn in your own dehumanization.
So let me advise this - despite what happens today (regardless of what the prognosticators say the court will rule before its 90 day window), remember that this is not over. And the actions that you may choose to take will always have either positive or negative repercussions.
If you feel yourself getting angry over the lies and such, channel that anger into something more productive than writing an ugly note on a blog. Volunteer for a local political or service group. Organize your friends together.
And above all, get educated. That's the one thing we don't do enough as a community.
The struggle for self-determination isn't supposed to be easy, but there is no excuse for making it more difficult.
Today, California courts will be hearing a challenge to Proposition 8 - the law the banned gay marriage in California.
Since that monstrosity passed in November, the lgbt communty has tossed and struggled with why it passed, what it means for our community, and how do we go on.
So today will be interesting.
But I have a plea to my lgbt brothers and sisters.
If the courts give us what we want, please show some forethought. The other side will be galvanized in huge number, like they were when the sodomy laws were stricken. While there may be a need to celebrate, we should remember that a victory is not the end of the entire thing, but another avenue that could take us down a bad road if we don't have the presence of mind to control the argument.
But what if the courts don't give us what we want. That concerns me more.
Last year when Proposition 8 passed, some of us got so angry that we forgot ourselves. We allowed our private prejudices and inner demons to come out and control our actions.
And we allowed ourselves to be played.
One thing I hated last year was how the gay community was unfairly cast as overly violent racist aggressors who wrote nasty threatening things on blogs, sent threatening letters to Mormons and beat up old women.
But we helped further that image by playing into the hands of the opposition. We gave them plenty of ammunition as they scoured blogs looking for negative reactions to the vote and looked at video protests seeking to twist the smallest thing into evidence of a gay insurrection.
Yes I know that we get angry over the lies of the religious right, but there is no excuse for being so angry that you allow yourself to become a pawn in your own dehumanization.
So let me advise this - despite what happens today (regardless of what the prognosticators say the court will rule before its 90 day window), remember that this is not over. And the actions that you may choose to take will always have either positive or negative repercussions.
If you feel yourself getting angry over the lies and such, channel that anger into something more productive than writing an ugly note on a blog. Volunteer for a local political or service group. Organize your friends together.
And above all, get educated. That's the one thing we don't do enough as a community.
The struggle for self-determination isn't supposed to be easy, but there is no excuse for making it more difficult.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Congratulations Mass Resistance - you hateful folks deserve your honor
For the second consecutive year, the Southern Povery Law Center has designated Massachusetts anti-gay group Mass Resistance as a hate group.
It couldn't have happened to a better bunch.
From the Southern Poverty Law Center:
Anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification.
Mass Resistance is in good company. Apparently Paul Cameron's group, the Family Research Institute, is included in SPLC's listing of anti-gay hate groups.
Now if you think that Mass Resistance gave a speech about their designation thanking the usual - God, their parents, and their supporters - think again.
In a way true to the form that led them to receive such designation, Mass Resistance claims that SPLC's honor is part of "the plan" put forth by the gay community in the book After the Ball:
It's a common theme of the left, going back to the Saul Alinsky tactics in the 1930s, to demonize your enemies if they become effective. This was adopted by the homosexual movement. In their classic manifesto After the Ball, Marshall Kirk & Hunter Masden advised activists to compare people with traditional values to the Ku Klux Klan (which lynched blacks).
That annoying and inaccurate claim has been popping up steadily this year.
In truth, Mass Resistance has done more than enough to deserve the designation given to them by SPLC, including the following:
At a recent MassResistance Banquet, the guest speaker was Scott Lively, the author of the book The Pink Swastika which alleges that gay men were not particularly persecuted under the German Nazi regime, and that homosexual men were especially prevalent in the ranks of German Nazism, and were in large part, the motivators of the Jewish Holocaust.
In an interview with the Daily Show, Camenker said that if he was given enough time he could "connect the dots" to same sex marriage in Massachusetts for the rise in homelessness and crime rates and the poor air quality.
MassResistance protested a Macys store in Boston because they believed Macys was dressing transgendered mannequins in their windows. MassResistance went so far as to roam the Macys and photograph what they considered "normal" mannequins and then compared the photos on their website.
On the MassResistance blog, the group stated that children learn about sex from hearing noises outside of their parents locked door: "And sometimes the bedroom door is locked and he hears noises. This is a child's normal introduction to sex. It is simply put before him in the context of normal, healthy family activities."
Even former Governor Romney, who is not an ally of the Marriage Equality movement issued a press release exposing Brian Camenker and this group MassResistance.
And let's not forget its lead role in the David Parker debacle.
Hat tip to Mass Resistance Watch for providing this list.
For the second consecutive year, the Southern Povery Law Center has designated Massachusetts anti-gay group Mass Resistance as a hate group.
It couldn't have happened to a better bunch.
From the Southern Poverty Law Center:
Anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification.
Mass Resistance is in good company. Apparently Paul Cameron's group, the Family Research Institute, is included in SPLC's listing of anti-gay hate groups.
Now if you think that Mass Resistance gave a speech about their designation thanking the usual - God, their parents, and their supporters - think again.
In a way true to the form that led them to receive such designation, Mass Resistance claims that SPLC's honor is part of "the plan" put forth by the gay community in the book After the Ball:
It's a common theme of the left, going back to the Saul Alinsky tactics in the 1930s, to demonize your enemies if they become effective. This was adopted by the homosexual movement. In their classic manifesto After the Ball, Marshall Kirk & Hunter Masden advised activists to compare people with traditional values to the Ku Klux Klan (which lynched blacks).
That annoying and inaccurate claim has been popping up steadily this year.
In truth, Mass Resistance has done more than enough to deserve the designation given to them by SPLC, including the following:
At a recent MassResistance Banquet, the guest speaker was Scott Lively, the author of the book The Pink Swastika which alleges that gay men were not particularly persecuted under the German Nazi regime, and that homosexual men were especially prevalent in the ranks of German Nazism, and were in large part, the motivators of the Jewish Holocaust.
In an interview with the Daily Show, Camenker said that if he was given enough time he could "connect the dots" to same sex marriage in Massachusetts for the rise in homelessness and crime rates and the poor air quality.
MassResistance protested a Macys store in Boston because they believed Macys was dressing transgendered mannequins in their windows. MassResistance went so far as to roam the Macys and photograph what they considered "normal" mannequins and then compared the photos on their website.
On the MassResistance blog, the group stated that children learn about sex from hearing noises outside of their parents locked door: "And sometimes the bedroom door is locked and he hears noises. This is a child's normal introduction to sex. It is simply put before him in the context of normal, healthy family activities."
Even former Governor Romney, who is not an ally of the Marriage Equality movement issued a press release exposing Brian Camenker and this group MassResistance.
And let's not forget its lead role in the David Parker debacle.
Hat tip to Mass Resistance Watch for providing this list.
Dumb comment courtesy of One News Now
I try to talk about only religious right organizations and how they deceive people of faith with their lies.
But sometimes I see something that makes me think that some of these folks want to walk down the primrose path of deception.
A comment arising from a One News Now article, Christians in medical field face 'conscience' challenge, is a perfect example of this.
The article is a slanted view of President Obama's decision to rescind a sloppy overreaching regulation regarding physicians' personal beliefs when treating their patients. Supporters of the regulation claim that it's to prevent doctors from being forced to perform abortions if they are personally opposed to abortions.
The regulation is sloppy because it is too broad, dealing with more than abortion and dealing with more than physicians. It even covers people cleaning medical equipment.
Naturally One News Now provides slanted coverage and naturally many of its commentators are angry at President Obama's decision.
But one comment in particular caught my eye. The person was responding to another comment asking what would be done if your doctor was a Jehovah's Witness and refused to give a blood tranfusion. This is the response:
If I needed a blood transfusion and went to a doctor who was a Jehovah's Witness, I wouldn't ask him to change his beliefs...I would simply choose a different doctor. That's the beauty of living in a free society. You have the right to choose, AND you have freedom from tyranny. Forcing someone to do something against their will is the epitome of tyranny.
My question is if you are in the position to need a blood tranfusion, how can you "choose" a different doctor?
I try to talk about only religious right organizations and how they deceive people of faith with their lies.
But sometimes I see something that makes me think that some of these folks want to walk down the primrose path of deception.
A comment arising from a One News Now article, Christians in medical field face 'conscience' challenge, is a perfect example of this.
The article is a slanted view of President Obama's decision to rescind a sloppy overreaching regulation regarding physicians' personal beliefs when treating their patients. Supporters of the regulation claim that it's to prevent doctors from being forced to perform abortions if they are personally opposed to abortions.
The regulation is sloppy because it is too broad, dealing with more than abortion and dealing with more than physicians. It even covers people cleaning medical equipment.
Naturally One News Now provides slanted coverage and naturally many of its commentators are angry at President Obama's decision.
But one comment in particular caught my eye. The person was responding to another comment asking what would be done if your doctor was a Jehovah's Witness and refused to give a blood tranfusion. This is the response:
If I needed a blood transfusion and went to a doctor who was a Jehovah's Witness, I wouldn't ask him to change his beliefs...I would simply choose a different doctor. That's the beauty of living in a free society. You have the right to choose, AND you have freedom from tyranny. Forcing someone to do something against their will is the epitome of tyranny.
My question is if you are in the position to need a blood tranfusion, how can you "choose" a different doctor?
Come on, Peter. You know you miss Paul Cameron
Yesterday, I showed a comment that our friend Peter LaBarbera made about focusing on the supposed unhealthy aspect of being gay:
"I think they (young conservatives) feel that they have to do something for these gay unions. We have to bring it back to the behavior, the unhealthiness of the behavior, but also the entire gay agenda . . . " - Young conservatives misled on homosexual issue
Today in a humorously bad piece, MSM=Disease, he follows the same vein.
What makes the piece so bad is how he dances around the issue. He waxes about bathhouses and "queer ideology," and makes a veiled comment about the "extraordinary health risks of homosexual behavior" (without saying what these extraordinary health risks are. And here I was hoping he would dare to cite 'gay bowel syndrome.')
He also unleashes this howler:
This colossal public health disaster is the direct result of GLBT organizing and political clout which, ironically, helps perpetuate the suffering of homosexual men. If the public health powers that be could somehow manage to cut through the politically correct cow manure, they might ask themselves why this link between homo-sexual behavior (or, as Prof. Rob Gagnon calls it, homosex) and disease is being downplayed or ignored while other similarly obvious connections (e.g., smoking and lung disease) are dealt with forthrightly, resulting in no-nonsense prevention methods that discourage or ban unhealthy conduct (e.g., public media campaigns against smoking and laws banning smoking).
Sorry, but there is nothing backing up LaBarbera's inferrence that being gay directly leads to disease (as in the case of smoking and lung disease) Nor is his claim that organizing and growing political clout leads to disease in the gay community correct.
What LaBarbera will not tell you is that there are many studies which say homophobia leads to negative behaviors in gays, particularly our youth. And these negative behaviors can lead to diseases.
If anything, political organizing has led the way in stopping homophobia and negative behavior in gays, particularly our youth, thereby putting a damper on diseases.
But it's just like Peter to try and turn the truth on its head.
I bet he really misses the ability to cite Paul Cameron now.
Yesterday, I showed a comment that our friend Peter LaBarbera made about focusing on the supposed unhealthy aspect of being gay:
"I think they (young conservatives) feel that they have to do something for these gay unions. We have to bring it back to the behavior, the unhealthiness of the behavior, but also the entire gay agenda . . . " - Young conservatives misled on homosexual issue
Today in a humorously bad piece, MSM=Disease, he follows the same vein.
What makes the piece so bad is how he dances around the issue. He waxes about bathhouses and "queer ideology," and makes a veiled comment about the "extraordinary health risks of homosexual behavior" (without saying what these extraordinary health risks are. And here I was hoping he would dare to cite 'gay bowel syndrome.')
He also unleashes this howler:
This colossal public health disaster is the direct result of GLBT organizing and political clout which, ironically, helps perpetuate the suffering of homosexual men. If the public health powers that be could somehow manage to cut through the politically correct cow manure, they might ask themselves why this link between homo-sexual behavior (or, as Prof. Rob Gagnon calls it, homosex) and disease is being downplayed or ignored while other similarly obvious connections (e.g., smoking and lung disease) are dealt with forthrightly, resulting in no-nonsense prevention methods that discourage or ban unhealthy conduct (e.g., public media campaigns against smoking and laws banning smoking).
Sorry, but there is nothing backing up LaBarbera's inferrence that being gay directly leads to disease (as in the case of smoking and lung disease) Nor is his claim that organizing and growing political clout leads to disease in the gay community correct.
What LaBarbera will not tell you is that there are many studies which say homophobia leads to negative behaviors in gays, particularly our youth. And these negative behaviors can lead to diseases.
If anything, political organizing has led the way in stopping homophobia and negative behavior in gays, particularly our youth, thereby putting a damper on diseases.
But it's just like Peter to try and turn the truth on its head.
I bet he really misses the ability to cite Paul Cameron now.
The Mormon Church is at it again
this is from Box Turtle Bulletin
EXCLUSIVE: Mormon Machine Cranking Up Against Illinois Civil Unions Bill
The Illinois House will begin considering another Civil Unions bill this week. Introduced by Rep. Greg Harris on February 20, HB 2234 has been assigned to the Youth and Family Committee, which will hold a hearing on Thursday. We’ve received word that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has engaged its private communications network to bombard state legislators with phone calls in opposition to the bill.
The Mormon Church maintains a private internet social-networking service in lieu of individual churches having their own Internet web sites. This allows the church to oversee the information that is made available to members and nonmembers. It also allows the church to maintain private information that is only made available to church members.
Among the many capabilities the web site has for members who are authorized to log in is the ability to send private email to other church members in the same ward. It also allows a ward bishop to send a blanket email to all members of his ward, and it allows a stake president to send a blanket email to all members of his stake.
But this is key: no individual member can send a blanket email to all members of his ward without it first going through his or her bishop. The same is true at the stake level, where the stake president would have to first authorize the message. So when a church member receives a broadcast message, he or she can be assured that it has the blessing, so to speak, of the bishop or stake president.
In a private email sent out to LDS members of at least one ward in Illinois, church members are being encouraged to call their representative to voice their opposition to the bill, which would provide same-sex couples with recognition and limited protections under Illinois law. But the official LDS-sanctioned email to members is loaded with much of the same misinformation that was present in the campaign against California’s Proposition 8.
More at Box Turtle Bulletin
this is from Box Turtle Bulletin
EXCLUSIVE: Mormon Machine Cranking Up Against Illinois Civil Unions Bill
The Illinois House will begin considering another Civil Unions bill this week. Introduced by Rep. Greg Harris on February 20, HB 2234 has been assigned to the Youth and Family Committee, which will hold a hearing on Thursday. We’ve received word that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has engaged its private communications network to bombard state legislators with phone calls in opposition to the bill.
The Mormon Church maintains a private internet social-networking service in lieu of individual churches having their own Internet web sites. This allows the church to oversee the information that is made available to members and nonmembers. It also allows the church to maintain private information that is only made available to church members.
Among the many capabilities the web site has for members who are authorized to log in is the ability to send private email to other church members in the same ward. It also allows a ward bishop to send a blanket email to all members of his ward, and it allows a stake president to send a blanket email to all members of his stake.
But this is key: no individual member can send a blanket email to all members of his ward without it first going through his or her bishop. The same is true at the stake level, where the stake president would have to first authorize the message. So when a church member receives a broadcast message, he or she can be assured that it has the blessing, so to speak, of the bishop or stake president.
In a private email sent out to LDS members of at least one ward in Illinois, church members are being encouraged to call their representative to voice their opposition to the bill, which would provide same-sex couples with recognition and limited protections under Illinois law. But the official LDS-sanctioned email to members is loaded with much of the same misinformation that was present in the campaign against California’s Proposition 8.
More at Box Turtle Bulletin
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Gays are not persecuting Christians - The moral panic exposed
Did you hear the one about the church that was forced to allow lesbians to hold a commitment ceremony on its property?
How about the father who was dragged away from his son's school in handcuffs because he wouldn't let teachers "indoctrinate" his child in the alleged gay agenda?
Well how about the secret plan of gays to take over America via a six-point plan put out by a 1980's book?
I can't believe you haven't heard of these things? Haven't you been keeping up with the news? There is a HUGE conspiracy by gays to silence Christians.
I kid you not and I know for certain that this is true because the American Family Association and other religious right groups created a "documentary" proving it.
Okay, realistically, this claim about gays trying to silence Christians is an unadulterated fraud not unlike the equally phony "War on Christmas" moral panic perpetrated by religious right groups every December.
And like the "War on Christmas," this lie about gays plotting to silence Christians is built on deceit, intentionally misrepresented anecdotes, and the inherent laziness of the media and public in general for not seeking out the truth behind said anecdotes.
Creating a moral panic about the gay community is nothing new to the American Family Association (AFA) or any other religious right group for that matter. In the 80s and early 90s (and even now), these groups pushed shockingly inaccurate studies that masqueraded as scientific facts. The purpose of these studies was to give the false impression of gays as diseased hordes obsessed with gerbils, carrots, public sex, blood, and children.
And the idea of presenting anti-gay innuendoes in a "documentary" (thereby giving them a fake air of truth) isn't a new concept either. Religious right groups (AFA included) took those pre-mentioned studies and packaged them into propaganda films such as The Gay Agenda and Gay Rights/Special Rights.
So what's happening now is just a new version of the same tired game. In the past, the religious right tried to make the issue of gay rights into that of a public health menace. Apparently the gay community have gotten savvy to this game so they are now trying to slink their lies into another inaccurate talking point - gay rights will increase religious persecution.
Now all that is left is for a public religious right figure (i.e. Mike Huckabee) to push these lies with an unassuming frame of mind and say things like "you gays can't seem to understand that we Christians don't hate you" while his friends in the background (AFA and company) accuse gays of everything BUT attempting to bring back the Spanish Inquisition.
It's a nifty way to poison the case for gay rights in the eyes of the public while at the same time leave gays sputtering in anger over the wanton evasiveness of such tactics.
The end result being gays will look pushy and threatening while Huckabee and company will come across looking like St. Peter and smelling like a Rose of Sharon.
And let's not forget the anecodotes because they play a crucial part in this game. No matter how farfetched or deceptive they are, random stories about gays allegedly persecuting Christians are effective. No matter how many times they are discredited, there is always a crowd ready to believe them - especially when these anecdotes take centerstage in "documentaries" that will repeat them ad naseum.
But for the sake of bringing things back to the beginning, let me return to the anecdotes I mentioned at the beginning of this piece:
The incident involving the church had to do with the church receiving tax breaks for a pavilion it owned. But a requirement of the tax breaks was that the pavilion had to be open to all, gays included.
And that father allegedly dragged away in handcuffs? Well he objected to his son bringing home a book on different families on the grounds that one family in the book was of a same sex nature. The school accommodated his anger via private meetings, but he used the occasion to orchestrate his arrest - even to the point of having people waiting outside to take pictures when the police led him away in handcuffs.
Lastly, that book about gays taking over America? The majority of gays have never heard of it.
And that's the true story behind just three of the stories regarding gays allegedly persecuting Christians. But you won't find this truth featured in any religious right "documentary."
And that's a shame because it's proof that to some people who claim to fight for moral values, truth is an expendable casualty.
Did you hear the one about the church that was forced to allow lesbians to hold a commitment ceremony on its property?
How about the father who was dragged away from his son's school in handcuffs because he wouldn't let teachers "indoctrinate" his child in the alleged gay agenda?
Well how about the secret plan of gays to take over America via a six-point plan put out by a 1980's book?
I can't believe you haven't heard of these things? Haven't you been keeping up with the news? There is a HUGE conspiracy by gays to silence Christians.
I kid you not and I know for certain that this is true because the American Family Association and other religious right groups created a "documentary" proving it.
Okay, realistically, this claim about gays trying to silence Christians is an unadulterated fraud not unlike the equally phony "War on Christmas" moral panic perpetrated by religious right groups every December.
And like the "War on Christmas," this lie about gays plotting to silence Christians is built on deceit, intentionally misrepresented anecdotes, and the inherent laziness of the media and public in general for not seeking out the truth behind said anecdotes.
Creating a moral panic about the gay community is nothing new to the American Family Association (AFA) or any other religious right group for that matter. In the 80s and early 90s (and even now), these groups pushed shockingly inaccurate studies that masqueraded as scientific facts. The purpose of these studies was to give the false impression of gays as diseased hordes obsessed with gerbils, carrots, public sex, blood, and children.
And the idea of presenting anti-gay innuendoes in a "documentary" (thereby giving them a fake air of truth) isn't a new concept either. Religious right groups (AFA included) took those pre-mentioned studies and packaged them into propaganda films such as The Gay Agenda and Gay Rights/Special Rights.
So what's happening now is just a new version of the same tired game. In the past, the religious right tried to make the issue of gay rights into that of a public health menace. Apparently the gay community have gotten savvy to this game so they are now trying to slink their lies into another inaccurate talking point - gay rights will increase religious persecution.
Now all that is left is for a public religious right figure (i.e. Mike Huckabee) to push these lies with an unassuming frame of mind and say things like "you gays can't seem to understand that we Christians don't hate you" while his friends in the background (AFA and company) accuse gays of everything BUT attempting to bring back the Spanish Inquisition.
It's a nifty way to poison the case for gay rights in the eyes of the public while at the same time leave gays sputtering in anger over the wanton evasiveness of such tactics.
The end result being gays will look pushy and threatening while Huckabee and company will come across looking like St. Peter and smelling like a Rose of Sharon.
And let's not forget the anecodotes because they play a crucial part in this game. No matter how farfetched or deceptive they are, random stories about gays allegedly persecuting Christians are effective. No matter how many times they are discredited, there is always a crowd ready to believe them - especially when these anecdotes take centerstage in "documentaries" that will repeat them ad naseum.
But for the sake of bringing things back to the beginning, let me return to the anecdotes I mentioned at the beginning of this piece:
The incident involving the church had to do with the church receiving tax breaks for a pavilion it owned. But a requirement of the tax breaks was that the pavilion had to be open to all, gays included.
And that father allegedly dragged away in handcuffs? Well he objected to his son bringing home a book on different families on the grounds that one family in the book was of a same sex nature. The school accommodated his anger via private meetings, but he used the occasion to orchestrate his arrest - even to the point of having people waiting outside to take pictures when the police led him away in handcuffs.
Lastly, that book about gays taking over America? The majority of gays have never heard of it.
And that's the true story behind just three of the stories regarding gays allegedly persecuting Christians. But you won't find this truth featured in any religious right "documentary."
And that's a shame because it's proof that to some people who claim to fight for moral values, truth is an expendable casualty.
The most telling thing Peter LaBarbera will ever say
"I think they (young conservatives) feel that they have to do something for these gay unions. We have to bring it back to the behavior, the unhealthiness of the behavior, but also the entire gay agenda . . . " - Young conservatives misled on homosexual issue
How long will it be before we see this sort of thing again (Hat tip to Goodasyou.org):
"I think they (young conservatives) feel that they have to do something for these gay unions. We have to bring it back to the behavior, the unhealthiness of the behavior, but also the entire gay agenda . . . " - Young conservatives misled on homosexual issue
How long will it be before we see this sort of thing again (Hat tip to Goodasyou.org):
Tennessee bill going after the 'adopting gays'
Here we go again:
Tennessee bill would ban adoptions by unwed couples
They don't have Karl Rove. They no longer have James Dobson. But the religious right are bound and determined to create another campaign issue like the push against marriage equality.
Of course the bill doesn't mention anything about gays, just unmarried couples. But as the article and comments under it demonstrate, this bill is all about keeping gay couples from adopting children.
We know what may happen next. The bill passes, the court strikes it down, and we get to hear the standard blather about "activist judges trying to redefine the notion of family," thereby bringing a shitload of voters to the polls which the media (in all of its overdramatic glory) will give some stupid name to (i.e. values voters).
The need to engage in subterfuge over what this bill truly does should be enough to tell its supporters that it's not necessarily the Christian thing to do. That, and the fact that if the bill passes, it will put Tennessee in a financial bind and deny more children good homes.
But you know these folks. They have that special Bible - the one that says that God permits lying and dishonest if it is done in His name.
Here we go again:
Tennessee bill would ban adoptions by unwed couples
They don't have Karl Rove. They no longer have James Dobson. But the religious right are bound and determined to create another campaign issue like the push against marriage equality.
Of course the bill doesn't mention anything about gays, just unmarried couples. But as the article and comments under it demonstrate, this bill is all about keeping gay couples from adopting children.
We know what may happen next. The bill passes, the court strikes it down, and we get to hear the standard blather about "activist judges trying to redefine the notion of family," thereby bringing a shitload of voters to the polls which the media (in all of its overdramatic glory) will give some stupid name to (i.e. values voters).
The need to engage in subterfuge over what this bill truly does should be enough to tell its supporters that it's not necessarily the Christian thing to do. That, and the fact that if the bill passes, it will put Tennessee in a financial bind and deny more children good homes.
But you know these folks. They have that special Bible - the one that says that God permits lying and dishonest if it is done in His name.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Monday news briefs
Michelle Malkin: I hope Obama fails.
Santorum At CPAC: ‘Absolutely We Hope That’ Obama Fails, ‘I Believe His Policies Will Fail’
Tom DeLay Channels Limbaugh: I Want Obama To Fail
Limbaugh Responds To Sanford: The ‘Hell We Don’t’ Want Obama To Fail! Just Need ‘The Guts’ To Say So
What a difference a new president makes. I can remember the hell the Dixie Chicks went through for daring to make a comment about President Bush. Hypocrisy is definitely an emotion devoid of shame.
Christian school showing film about homosexual agenda - Last week, I highlighted a vile 1986 comic book that demonized the lgbt community. The post got a lot of attention and probably a lot of laughter. But be aware that the same tactics are still being used even though there seems to be a shift. The religious right is slowly creeping away from the "homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle" lie to the "gays want to silence Christians" lie. And while the lies are different, the way they are pushed (via ignorant crowds of people in church settings) remain the same.
This film is filled with same lies and inaccurate anecdotes religious right organizations have been telling repeatedly to make it seem that gays are trying to harm Christians.
And what galls me about it the most? Those who are showing the film are trying to beat back an anti-discrimination ordinance:
The Kalamazoo City Commission in December adopted an anti-discrimination ordinance, extending protections to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodation.
The commission later rescinded the ordinance after opponents filed petitions that could have forced an election over the issue. The commission is aiming to craft a compromise ordinance. A three-member commission subcommitee plans to host a public meeting on the issue at 7 p.m. March 9 at the Kalamazoo Public Library, 315 S. Rose St.
Kalamazoo County Treasurer Mary Balkema, who submitted the petitions opposing the ordinance, said such a law would have ``unintended negative consequences.''
``It is very important that the public be informed about the issue itself and about the possible ramifications of adopting the proposal,'' Balkema said.
Scaring people about an alleged gay agenda in order to beat back an anti-discrimination ordinance? Some things never change.
The only thing Buttars did wrong was open his trap about the homos, say lawmakers - If lawmakers agree with Chris Buttars's comments, then why are they stripping him of his posts. I despise homophobia but I can't stand homophobic cowardice.
Michelle Malkin: I hope Obama fails.
Santorum At CPAC: ‘Absolutely We Hope That’ Obama Fails, ‘I Believe His Policies Will Fail’
Tom DeLay Channels Limbaugh: I Want Obama To Fail
Limbaugh Responds To Sanford: The ‘Hell We Don’t’ Want Obama To Fail! Just Need ‘The Guts’ To Say So
What a difference a new president makes. I can remember the hell the Dixie Chicks went through for daring to make a comment about President Bush. Hypocrisy is definitely an emotion devoid of shame.
Christian school showing film about homosexual agenda - Last week, I highlighted a vile 1986 comic book that demonized the lgbt community. The post got a lot of attention and probably a lot of laughter. But be aware that the same tactics are still being used even though there seems to be a shift. The religious right is slowly creeping away from the "homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle" lie to the "gays want to silence Christians" lie. And while the lies are different, the way they are pushed (via ignorant crowds of people in church settings) remain the same.
This film is filled with same lies and inaccurate anecdotes religious right organizations have been telling repeatedly to make it seem that gays are trying to harm Christians.
And what galls me about it the most? Those who are showing the film are trying to beat back an anti-discrimination ordinance:
The Kalamazoo City Commission in December adopted an anti-discrimination ordinance, extending protections to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodation.
The commission later rescinded the ordinance after opponents filed petitions that could have forced an election over the issue. The commission is aiming to craft a compromise ordinance. A three-member commission subcommitee plans to host a public meeting on the issue at 7 p.m. March 9 at the Kalamazoo Public Library, 315 S. Rose St.
Kalamazoo County Treasurer Mary Balkema, who submitted the petitions opposing the ordinance, said such a law would have ``unintended negative consequences.''
``It is very important that the public be informed about the issue itself and about the possible ramifications of adopting the proposal,'' Balkema said.
Scaring people about an alleged gay agenda in order to beat back an anti-discrimination ordinance? Some things never change.
The only thing Buttars did wrong was open his trap about the homos, say lawmakers - If lawmakers agree with Chris Buttars's comments, then why are they stripping him of his posts. I despise homophobia but I can't stand homophobic cowardice.
A little bit of truth brought to you by Gary Glenn of the American Family Association
Calling for a ballot measure to ban homosexual adoptions in Michigan, Glenn believes the ruling goes against the grain in Michigan. "I think the simplest response to this kind of court ruling, which is a concern, is simply to give Michigan voters an opportunity to prohibit homosexual adoption as Florida does, as Arkansas voters voted to do just this past November, as Mississippi and Utah have on their statute books," he concludes. - Michigan courts hear lesbian custody trial
Actually, Arkansas voters pushed a law through that disallowed adoption by unmarried couples, whether they be gay or straight. The law was passed after the Arkansas courts ruled that the state couldn't ban gay adoption.
Now those behind this law will tell you that keeping gays from adopting had nothing to do with the law's passage.
But we all know that isn't true, right Mr. Glenn?
Calling for a ballot measure to ban homosexual adoptions in Michigan, Glenn believes the ruling goes against the grain in Michigan. "I think the simplest response to this kind of court ruling, which is a concern, is simply to give Michigan voters an opportunity to prohibit homosexual adoption as Florida does, as Arkansas voters voted to do just this past November, as Mississippi and Utah have on their statute books," he concludes. - Michigan courts hear lesbian custody trial
Actually, Arkansas voters pushed a law through that disallowed adoption by unmarried couples, whether they be gay or straight. The law was passed after the Arkansas courts ruled that the state couldn't ban gay adoption.
Now those behind this law will tell you that keeping gays from adopting had nothing to do with the law's passage.
But we all know that isn't true, right Mr. Glenn?
Friday, February 27, 2009
Dobson resigns, Obama pushes out bad regulations - who says Fridays aren't good days?
Dobson resigns as chairman of Focus on the Family - two words - good riddance
Obama Set to Undo ‘Conscience’ Rule for Health Workers - The rule was a BAD IDEA. Double good riddance
Just in case you get too happy, folks - please check out my last post (that is if you haven't already). Mindsets like that of the man who created the monstrosity I spoke of still exists.
And you just know that now, these folks are doubly pissed.
Dobson resigns as chairman of Focus on the Family - two words - good riddance
Obama Set to Undo ‘Conscience’ Rule for Health Workers - The rule was a BAD IDEA. Double good riddance
Just in case you get too happy, folks - please check out my last post (that is if you haven't already). Mindsets like that of the man who created the monstrosity I spoke of still exists.
And you just know that now, these folks are doubly pissed.
Something guaranteed to piss you offI ran into something a while back that I have been itching to show on this site.
This 1986 comic was created by a man named Dick Hafer and it is a vile representation of some of the most evil anti-gay lies out there.
This is for the many young folks who don't remember what it was like in the 1980s when the AIDS crisis was in full bloom, ignorance was all around and Paul Cameron was a credible name.
It is a representation of how far we have come and how far we have to go. You will recognize how some of the same arguments are still being used, although not as explicitly. Check out the comic's list of supporters shown on the last graphic.
You can click on the pictures to get a better view of the pages - more are at the bottom (even though I don't think it's work safe). And if you want to see the entire comic (God help you) go here.
Editor's note - The webpage featuring this comic is not anti-gay. It's a site that looks at "problem-based comics" from the past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)