Lgbt supportive comments rock One News Now column

Yesterday, I talked about a One News Now column which focused on the so-called dangers of gay sex. In his piece, writer Peter Heck cited work from discredited researcher Paul Cameron:

According to the Omega Journal of Death and Dying, the median age of death for homosexual men is between 40 and 43. The median age of death for heterosexuals is between 74 and 80.

I asked that folks call him on it.

My guess is that some who read the column already had that in mind because Heck got a ton of good comments, including:

There are real, notable statistical problems in Cameron's studies. He has manipulated statistics in the past by having insufficient or biased samples. Partnered gays in Denmark, for instance, he reported die at a median age of 42. However, this restricts his sample because older Danish gays have a tendency not to be registered partners, and the law has only been in effect for a few years. So, most of those who are partnered are in their 30's or 40's, as opposed to heteros who run the gamut. So he is measuring the median age of thsoe gays in partnerships who have died SO FAR, not the median age of gay death. The very small numbers of older gays who have taken advantage of the law pushes the median age down. In other words, this is statistical sleight of hand. It is dishonest. It is, in other words, lying.

The study you cite regarding "the median age of death in homosexuals" is from 1994. Don't you think you should update a 15 year old periodical? And the study itself is questionable; it was a study only of obituaries. The ninth commandment is "Thou shall not lie". Don't you think you should be following this?

Yeah... it looks like this Paul Cameron guy does not have a good reputation. I looked him up just to make sure.

Uh that Omega Death and Dying Journal study is from Paul Cameron - a man who has been dismissed and censured by many health care organizations and bodies for bad research techniques. Even Exodus International doesn't use his work.

Mr. Heck uses long-discredited statistics to make his point, which ultimately discredits it. What would Jesus say about those who tell lies in his name? Hey, I love the sinner, just hate the sin.

While its obvious that real Science is not something that Mr. Heck uses, he should at least research cause and effect as well as the difference between correlation and causation. Mr Heck, your opinion is not proof of causation, regardless of what the correlation implies.

Then there are other comments like these:

You can dismiss Cameron, but not the Word of God. Homosexuality is an abomination. And I agree that this article was very well written!

It's such a common liberal tactic. Discredit or defame the source (Paul Cameron) or set the standard of proof so high, i.e. must come from a "peer reviewed" journal to have any credibility. How about providing actual contrary evidence to support your thesis?

I don't know what's worse - the fact that One News Now doesn't care about accuracy in its columns or the fact that some people are so wrapped up in their version of religion that they are willing to overlook basic tenets of said religion (i.e. thou shalt not bear false witness) when it suits them.

No matter. Kudos to everyone who responded about the Cameron study and also to those, who while not responding about the Cameron study, pointed out several other things wrong with Heck's assertions.

And not just in that piece either. I have noticed that pro-lgbt commentators have been putting their opinions down in several One News Now articles.

If the phony news service won't provide accuracy and balance, then it's up to us. I say we should keep it up.

Thursday mid afternoon news briefs

Apparently the good fairy is on my side (don't even THINK of making a joke on that one). I finished with my commitments with enough time to give a news brief posting

'Your comment is awaiting [a future deletion]' - Not that I'm pouring on the National Organization for Marriage or anything after their laughable ad . . . who am I kidding. Jeremy from Goodasyou.org catches them in a contradiction regarding freedom.

And the rest of the story...my Durham News column: lobbying black state legislators on LGBT issues - An excellent piece by Pam Spaulding.

Christian Leader Peter LaBarbera Fires Back over My Post, Asks Me if I'm Gay - A very interesting situation developing between our friend and a blogger who "dared" to criticize his mess. The irony is that LaBarbera is always offended when he is asked this question.

Warren's 'backsliding' on marriage damages church - And now a piece from One News Now because you can never have enough fiber in your diet.

LaBarbera Award: Bob Peters - Apparently gay marriage is to blame for the recent rash of shootings. How? Who cares about explaining when it's so much more fun to shock people with stupid hyperbole.

Box Turtle Bulletin weighs in on the ridiculous NOM ad

Editor's note - I won't be able to do my noon posting today because of commitments with work. This is why I am posting it now. Below this posting is an article I have written about how the Liberty Counsel is continuing to exploit the Jenkins/Miller custody dispute.

By all means read that post as well as this one.

My friends at Box Turtle Bulletin have jumped in the fray regarding that nonsensical "Storm is brewing" ad put out by the National Organization for Marriage. They address each lie specifically and with great detail.

Keep it coming guys!!

Religious right continues to exploit custody case

From People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch comes the news that religious right groups are continuing to exploit the custody case of Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins.

Jenkins and Miller at one time were involved in a relationship and agreed to raise a child together. Miller supposedly became "ex-gay" and has resorted to ugly tactics to keep the child (Isabella) away from Jenkins, despite the fact that a court has allowed Jenkins to have visits with their daughter.

The case is a cause celebre with the Liberty Counsel and other religious right groups. They claim that since Miller gave birth to the child, Jenkins has no right to be in her life. They have even created a webpage and an ad:

Called the Protect Isabella Coalition, the grassroots effort aims to create awareness of what it labels "judicial tyranny" in the child custody/visitation case involving Miller, Isabella's biological mother, and Vermonter Janet Jenkins, her lesbian former partner. The group has a Web site -- www.ProtectIsabella.com -- and also has produced television and radio public awareness ads.

"The road toward justice has taken a long and winding path, but we believe the courts are getting closer to addressing the core issues in this case," said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law. "The people of Virginia have plainly spoken in favor of traditional marriage and have rejected same-sex unions. The Virginia courts must now uphold the Constitution."

The Protect Isabella Coalition is asking fellow Virginians to contact their state delegates and senators and ask them to uphold the state's marriage laws, rein in judicial tyranny and stand up for Isabella.

Of course the Liberty Counsel will omit details of the case that doesn't suit their agenda. In December 2008, Newsweek magazine featured a long article about the case. These are those facts:

Miller and Jenkins agreed to raise Isabella together.

When the two broke up, Miller agreed to allow Jenkins to have visitation rights. Jenkins even paid child support. Miller allegedly began keeping Isabella away from Jenkins. Even now, she refuses to allow her to have unsupervised time with Isabella even though she has been ordered to.

The entire controversy is solely because Miller will not allow Jenkins to have unsupervised time with Isabella. Jenkins mainly won her case due to the Federal Kidnapping Prevention Law.

Miller has claimed she witnessed Isabella engage in disturbing behavior after vists with Jenkins. The claims were investigated by Virginia's Child Protective Services and were deemed "unfounded."

I sincerely hope that this case ends in what is good for Isabella. But something needs to be said about the values of the religious right groups who continue to exploit it for their own ends.

Anti-gay group gets pummeled for deceptive ad

Now that's what I call fast. Today the National Organization for Marriage (an anti-gay marriage group which thinks nothing of using deceptions to get its point across) came out with an ad.

The ad, rich in silly hyperbolic images, claimed that gay marriage will cause other freedoms to be taken away.

Since I'm not familiar with how to link from youtube, you can see the ad here at Goodasyou.org along with the excellent rebuttal made by Jeremy, the blogmaster of Goodasyou.org

And Jeremy is not the only one who jumped on this deceptive ad.

The Human Rights Campaign breaks down the ad's lies and gives the truth behind each one:

Background Ad Rebuttal

“The Real Truth Behind the Fake Ad”

The general argument of the ad is that the push for marriage equality isn’t just about rights for same-sex couples, it’s about imposing contrary values on people of faith. The examples they cite in the ad are:

(1) A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job

(2) A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can’t support same-sex marriage

(3) A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay

The facts indicate that (1) refers to the Benitez decision in California, determining that a doctor cannot violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief, (2) refers to the Ocean Grove, New Jersey Methodist pavilion that was open to the general public for events but refused access for civil union ceremonies (and was fined by the state for doing so) and (3) refers to the Parker decision in Massachusetts, where parents unsuccessfully sought to end public school discussions of family diversity, including of same-sex couples.

All three examples involve religious people who enter the public sphere, but don’t want to abide by the general non-discriminatory rules everyone else does. Both (1) and (2) are really about state laws against sexual orientation discrimination, rather than specifically about marriage. And (3) is about two pairs of religious parents trying to impose their beliefs on all children in public schools.

The real facts of each case are:

The California doctor entered a profession that promises to “first, do no harm” and the law requires her to treat a patient in need – gay or straight, Christian or Muslim – regardless of her religious beliefs. The law does not, and cannot, dictate her faith – it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.

The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions –concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments— but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization’s beliefs about homosexuality – it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.

The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son’s public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family’s religious traditions.

Not only that but HRC also reveals that the National Organization for Marriage hired actors to peddle its lies. The bad audition tapes are here and here.

Two points here - lgbts are progressing big time in fighting religious right lies. Years ago, we would have never moved this fast against anti-gay lies.

And the other thing - the opposition is getting desperate and with desperation comes sloppiness. Let's continue exploit that sloppiness.

Wednesday mid day news briefs - One News Now edition (cause you can't have too much of One News Now)

LGBTs are loved again!!! The phony news service One News Now have devoted seven front page stories to the so -called dreaded gay agenda. Let's look at just a few:

Rick Warren disavows support for Prop. 8 - Rick Warren is in trouble. At least he can take comfort in the fact that he brought lgbts and the religious right on the same page - looking to rip his ass apart.

Congress to vote on 'Day of Silence' - I hope Congress does the right thing.

NY high court to hear homosexual 'rights' cases - As you can see by some of the comments, the "special rights" argument is getting old.

Homosexual lobby lands activist on White House faith group - Matt Barber feels that since there is a high risk of gay men catching HIV, then Harry Knox of HRC shouldn't be on the faith group committee. If we followed that stuff to the logical conclusion, then Obama shouldn't be president since HIV affects the African-American community at a high rate. Then again, scratch that. No need to give the "birthers" new ammunition.

Perspective: Who are the homophobes? - This is what I meant about getting sloppy. The guest columnist here actually cites a Paul Cameron study. I've already written my comment about it and I hope many others point it out also. By using the discredited work of Paul Cameron he answers his own question.

Like I said, the best part of a One News Now article is not the bias the phony news service entails or even the bad studies it sometimes cites as accurate. The best part is always the comments from so-called Christians.

Enjoy!

Robert Knight uses biased work in attack on Vermont

Phony culture expert (and present writer for Coral Ridge Ministries) Robert Knight is definitely back.

Knight (who has on occasion used the discredited work of Paul Cameron as well as verbally attacked physicians who complain about how religious right groups distort their work) was in rare form when he criticized the Vermont legislature for overturning the state governor’s veto of its gay marriage bill:

In its unanimous opinion in Varnum v. Brien, the Iowa Supreme Court says that real marriage is merely a form of “prejudice” (using that word 21 times) and hints that homosexuals might be better parents than the mother-father variety. The seven justices cite junk science from gay-dominated guilds (the American Psychological Assn., etc.) to float the idea that kids are no better off in a normal home:

“Almost every professional group that has studied the issue indicates children are not harmed when raised by same-sex couples, but to the contrary, benefit from them. …we acknowledge the existence of reasoned opinions that dual-gender parenting is the optimal environment for children. These opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable scientific studies.”

Say what? They have it exactly backwards. It’s the “gay parenting” studies that are deeply flawed, as Drs. Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai demonstrate thoroughly in their devastating book No Basis: What the studies Don’t tell us about same-sex parenting.

So by his name calling of the American Psychological Association and other groups (without proof by the way), Knight is inferring that they have a bias and ergo their work is not credible.

How ironic that he should cite Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai’s book.

Lerner was appointed by the former President Bush as Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics. However before that time, he and Nagai, his wife, ran a consulting firm where they conducted research.

Their clients included:

the Center for Equal Opportunity, a Sterling Va.-based think tank headed by Linda Chavez, briefly President Bush's choice for secretary of labor and a leading opponent of affirmative action.

And

the Princeton, N.J.- based National Association of Scholars, a faculty organization that believes race-based admissions policies are divisive.

It gets better:

In the area of K-12 education, Mr. Lerner in 1995 co-wrote a review of history textbooks for Lynne V. Cheney, then chairwoman of the Committee to Review National Standards, a private group of scholars. Ms. Cheney, the wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, used the study, which was later published as a book, in her efforts to scuttle the voluntary national history standards underwritten by the federal government.

In that book, Mr. Lerner found that race, ethnicity, and gender got three times as much emphasis as political freedom in contemporary textbooks and that the latest wave of history texts used what he termed "filler feminism" to inappropriately insert female historical figures into texts in lieu of purportedly more significant males.

According to the Partners Task Force for Gay and Lesbian Couples, one study conducted by Lerner and Nagai on African-Americans and rape caused their credibility to come under question:

Lerner and Nagai are not credible; they are researchers-for-hire who make their living writing studies for conservative organizations and finding results that support conservative social policies. One such organization funded a Lerner study that found African Americans were over three times more likely to be acquitted of rape charges than whites. To reach this conclusion Lerner looked at a mere five jury trials involving black defendants. (Roger Parloff, “Speaking of Junk Science,” The American Lawyer, January 1997.)

The book in question that Knight referred to, No Basis, was commissioned by the Marriage Law Project, a Washington-based group against gay marriage.

The point here is clear. Knight recklessly accuses legitimate medical organizations of having a bias but then thinks nothing of citing two researchers who are paid to conduct research for conservative groups - something that shows an actual bias.

That’s bold faced duplicity.

But for those who know of his tactics, that’s Robert Knight to a tee.

One News Now commentators get in on the religious right freak out over Vermont

As to be expected, the religious right is freaking out over the news that Vermont has become the fourth state to offer gay marriage via the legislature overturning the Governor's veto.

And I want to bring it all to you but one of the biggest disadvantages of blogging part time is that sometimes the good stuff is covered before I get home from work.

But luckily for me, One News Now and its commentators are there to make sure I get a good foot into this fight:

Vermont legalizes same-sex 'marriage' with veto override

With a headline like that, you just know One News Now won't be wishing us any congratulations on our victory.

But check out the comments.

Now to be fair, some of them are supportive:

Well, for years we have been saying that this issue should be decided by legislatures. Now it has. Not all even Christians buy the notion that, in the civil union sphere, our respective beliefs must be reflected in civil law. Churches can still decide for themselves whether to participate in any marriage. What's all the shouting about? Everyone's rights are protected.

Wow Fanatastic. Just to allay your fears, God does not punish states that provide equal rights to homosexuals. I think he's more concerned about real sin not ones made up by fear mongering preachers How do I know? Here in Canada we've had gay marriage for almost a decade. What happened? Nothing! No Tornadoes, Earthquakes, Floods, and our economy is doing better than the US. God punishes those that discriminate. Your bad to gays, God punishes you. Expect bad times in California. They'll be punishment for Prop 8.

I understand this is a "Christian" website, but I am Christian and I am offended by your tactics to villify others, such as Muslims and queer folk. Why can't you just report on "Same-Sex Marriage" instead of reporting on "Homosexual 'Marriage'" (always putting it in quotes) that "Mock God"? Just report and let us decide. I wish there was a Christian website that wasn't so hateful. My relationship with Christ is about hope and love -- not about judging other people. I think God calls us to love not only those who look/act like us (which is relatively easy), but also those who do NOT look/act like that. And by "love" I do not mean "try to make them look/act like us".

Just love it!!! California, what's wrong with? Thess so called "San-Francisco values" are being adopted everywhere but in California??? Wake up!

Those darn activist legislatures. Decisions this important should never be left to the elected representatives of the people. Where are the courts to step in on this!?!?!

And then there are comments such as these:

I do not believe God will punish the USA directly for its moral decline so much as we will punish ourselves with the natural consequences of our own actions. This cancerous plague of Homosexuality has already metastasized, and it is only a matter of time before the affects take over. We are in the throes of economic crisis precisely because the level of greed has surpassed sustainable levels. What will happen when a majority of people's feelings about others turn completely inward, as the Homosexual movement is aimed exactly at doing (and seems to be succeeding for the most part)? What will the world look like at that point? I know. It'll look exactly like Hell.

It's a shame that these people who are supposed to work for the people ignore the will of the people for their own monitary and political gains. Just keep ignoring the majority for a very small minority of pervered people.

Traditional marriage is vital for long-term reasons of pro-creation, child rearing and social & economic stability – it is not just a “gay” issue. Places like Sweden (where traditional marriage is no longer sacred) (Editor's note - This has been proven to be false) already experience high out-of-wedlock childbirths. Other nations that have weakened their marriage laws have also seen others' rights taken away in terms of parental rights and freedom of conscience. I believe that we should show compassion and respect to those dealing with same-sex attraction, but we should not endorse harmful, immoral sexual conduct with law (even though people are still free to choose such conduct privately). Of course, unmarried heterosexuals are not always immune from sexual sin either.

Ok followers of Christ. It is time to get from behind the computer and go outside to let america know how angry we are. We have strength in numbers, time to put our numbers to use. if we don't, america will be completely lost to abomination and the smell of our country will stink in God's nostril.

A continuation of immorality in motion - what a STATE. In their case, however, the people voted for it via their legislature.

God will not be mocked but that is not the only law of God that we of these Uited States are breaking. We will pay the price someday and we have started with our current President. God caused him to become President because we - God's own are not standing firm and following Him as we should.

Firstly they should have used the proper term "sodomite" instead of homosexual. And yes, that term should make you feel uneasy. It's certainly not "gay" to be against God in your conduct. I'll even approach this from an evolutionary standpoint - "gay" behavior is maladaptive, because it does not perpetuate dna into successive generations. That behavior should have been vetted out millions of years ago. So this goes not only against the supernatural, it goes against the natural. The Bible does say that prior to Christ's return it will be as in the days of Lot. I guess we're getting close folks.

Two thumbs down for Vermont. Shame on you.

Unfortuneately this is paving the way for all states to adopt same sex marriage. I dread the day that I have to watch men, or women, hold hands and kiss openly in the street. We are considered "haters" for opposing this. Maybe it is time we hold to our beliefs but be Christlike examples in the way we live so that our lifestyle is attractive to these lost individuals. They cannot comprehend why we want this banned. They cannot fathom hell and eternal damnation. They don't get it ! Us Christians are way to late to do the picket and protest thing. It would have worked better 10 years ago, but now we are seen as haters. I think it is hurting the cause rather then helping.

Though we joke about religious right reactions, let's not get too lighthearted. We all know that religious right organizations are planning a comeback to all of this good lgbt news.

And we had better be ready to defend every success we get.

Tuesday mid day news briefs

In contrast to yesterday, there is sooooo much stuff going on today

Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override - We win again!!!!

Rick Warren lies about his homobigotry on Larry King Live - Unbelievable. You gotta see this. On Larry King Live, Warren says he never endorsed Proposition 8. However, he is on tape doing such. I guess he will fit in well with the rest of the religious right. He certainly has lying through his teeth down pat.

We're giving you a mission - From goodasyou.org comes a productive mission. I've already done my part and I can't wait to see the response.

Obama appoints open homosexual to faith-based office - Yep. Right on time. One News Now weighs in on President Obama appointing HRC's Harry Knox to his faith based council. The phony news service even gets a quote from Peter LaBarbera. And as always, One News Now's comments section is a hoot. Eat your heart out, Free Republic!!

I get letters!

I got an interesting letter this morning on my post about the upcoming Day of Silence and the walk out plans that religious right organizations are trying to push:

I have to wonder how you would feel about a day of silence for pro-heterosexual family or pro-Christian family or pro-straight orientation, etc. It's sad that we want to bring such politics into the public school classroom for introctination. I have gay friends (have for decades) and love them no differently than I do my straight friends, but as a Christian I am not supposed to pick and choose which of God's tough teachings I support. I love sinners (for I am one like everyone else), but I do not support sin. God's teachings may not always be easy or popular, but they are what they are. It is amazing that "hate" is so quickly used to attack an opponent when s/he says something with which we fallible humans do not agree. God bless you, but I have to wonder if you do not see your own blanket prejudices against those who don't support your opinion.

This was my answer. It wasn't long (I have to get ready for work) but I think I got my point across:

It's sadder that lgbt children feel so threatened that they can't function to their full potential in America's schools. I noticed that in your ramblings, you didn't have anything to say about that. While I respect your opinion, you take too much upon yourself. Your definition of sin and God is just that - YOUR definition.Lastly, when you use words like indoctrination (as to infer that gays indoctrinate children) then yes, you deserve to be called haters. It's one thing to disagree with homosexuality but when you add an inaccurate inference that gays are somehow engaging in secret conspiracies to politicize children, you are not different than a racist in my book.

To those who have something to add to this exchange, all I ask is that you be nice.

This just in - Dungy is out and other thoughts about the religious right

The news has come down that former Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy will not be a member of President Obama's Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships Initiative.

Well that's an averted controversy of the Rick Warren variety. Dungy has in the past aligned himself with anti-gay marriage initiatives. In 2007, he spoke out for an Indiana ballot initiative during a banquet for the Focus on the Family aligned Indiana Family Institute:

"We're not trying to downgrade anyone else," Dungy added. "But we're trying to promote the family—family values the Lord's way."

Same tired b.s. lines. Oh well, good riddance to possible bad rubbish.

In a move that may piss off the religious right (and I really hope so), Harry Knox of the Human Rights Campaign will be a part of the advisory group.

And speaking of interesting items guaranteed to piss off the religious right comes this bit from U.S. News and World Report:

Legalizing gay marriage in a culturally conservative heartland state, as the Iowa Supreme Court did today, would ordinarily provoke an immediate backlash, launching a movement to amend the state constitution to override the court's decision. It might even renew the national effort to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. But in the case of today's Iowa decision, no constitutions will be amended anytime soon.

That's because the earliest a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage could appear on the Iowa ballot is 2011. The state legislature must pass an amendment in two conservative sessions for it to land on the ballot. And with the Democrats who control both houses of the Iowa Legislature applauding today's ruling, even that timetable would seem overly expeditious.

With Democrats also in firm control of Congress, the Bush-era campaign religious conservatives waged to amend the U.S. Constitution has little chance of being revived. (Not to mention that the Republican Party has little stomach for beating the drum on social issues these days.).

In our anger about how the religious right organized and moved against gay marriage, are we missing the big picture - the idea that opposing gay marriage was a possible Pyrrhic victory for them.

The gay marriage argument was one they were definitely ready for and it gave them a lot of success - so much success that I sense a degree of burnt out and a general sense of "what do we do now" emanating from various religious right groups.

What can the religious right do next to galvanize the troops? They were successful in opposing gay adoption in Arkansas but nationwide, I don't see the issue giving them the same amount of success.

It's easy to galvanize people with the phrase that "marriage should be between one man and one woman" because that is how society has been trained to view marriage without deviations.

However, the phrase "the best place for a child is a home with a mother and a father" isn't so easy because we all know that the care of children is an intricate situation. The best place for a child may not necessarily be in a home with the mother and a father if say the father is abusive and the mother overmedicates herself.

In the care of children, people tend to give more leeway because not every successful family is the same. Not every successful family encompasses that of the Ward and June Cleaver variety.

So I don't think that the religious right will be very successful with that issue.

Now there are various issues coming up (i.e. hate crimes legislation, ENDA) that do run the risk of galvanizing the religious right.

But these things can also backfire.

The lgbt community have become aware of the piss poor talking points against hate crimes legislation and ENDA. This means the talking points lose their power because we have developed refutations.

But just in case you are not familiar with how to refute religious right talking points regarding hate crimes legislation and ENDA:

Hate crimes legislation for sexual orientation will not lead to pastors being arrested anymore than hate crimes legislation for religion (already present) has.

Tran-inclusive ENDA legislation will not lead to women being attacked in public restrooms and changing rooms by predators. Cities have already passed tran-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinances and have yet to have that problem.

The fact that the religious right will still continue to push those arguments demonstrates just how much this so-called culture war is wearing them out.

And tired people tend to make lots of mistakes.

I just hope that we can capitalize on them.

Monday mid-day news briefs

It's a real slow lgbt news day today. Apparently gay marriage coming to the supposed heartland of America really screwed up the religious right. It's all they are talking about.

Uganda Press Crank Up “Predator” Rhetoric - If the situation wasn't so dangerous for lgbts in Uganda, this item would be comical.

VT legislature may hold veto override vote on Tuesday - Will the Vermont legislature have enough votes to override the Governor's threatened veto on a gay marriage bill? They just might.

Milk stamp backers eye SF artist’s painting - I'm all for it.

Conservative Iowans fight to preserve traditional marriage - As you can tell by the headline, this item is from One News Now. The comments section is a hoot.

Christianity in America suffers a huge blow

I predicted it last year and it's coming to pass, according to Newsweek and Kathleen Parker that is:

Newsweek - While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago. I think this is a good thing—good for our political culture, which, as the American Founders saw, is complex and charged enough without attempting to compel or coerce religious belief or observance.

It is good for Christianity, too, in that many Christians are rediscovering the virtues of a separation of church and state that protects what Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island as a haven for religious dissenters, called "the garden of the church" from "the wilderness of the world." As crucial as religion has been and is to the life of the nation, America's unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom—not least freedom of conscience.

At our best, we single religion out for neither particular help nor particular harm; we have historically treated faith-based arguments as one element among many in the republican sphere of debate and decision. The decline and fall of the modern religious right's notion of a Christian America creates a calmer political environment and, for many believers, may help open the way for a more theologically serious religious life.

Parker - Is the Christian right finished as a political entity? Or, more to the point, are principled Christians finished with politics?

These questions have been getting fresh air lately as frustrated conservative Christians question the pragmatism -- defined as the compromising of principles -- of the old guard.

One might gently call the current debate a generational rift.

The older generation represented by such icons as James Dobson, who recently retired as head of Focus on the Family, has compromised too much, according to a growing phalanx of disillusioned Christians.

Pragmatically speaking, the Christian coalition of cultural crusaders didn't work.

For proof, one need look no further than Dobson himself, who was captured on tape recently saying that the big cultural battles have all been lost.

In the past two decades or so, Christianity in America seems have been taken over by a group of folks who talk about power and used phrases like "taking America back for God."

That last phrase always makes me laugh. If God truly wanted America per se, He would take it. He doesn't need any help to further His will.

But basically Christianity in America has lost its grace. There is no more humbleness, or the idea that you are serving a Higher Power and your trust is in His will and not your own.

Too many people have replaced the image of God with one of their own and have made Christianity into a religion of exclusion rather than inclusion. Jesus did not say "pick up your Cross and follow me and you will get a nice car, a nice house, 2.5 children and a Republican in the White House every four years."

When have organizations such as the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America or the Family Research Council actually dealt with relevant problems such as homelessness, lack of educational opportunities, or other issues that aren't geared to the so-called cultural war?

Hopefully those who want to truly follow God will take the hint and divest themselves from these phony Christian groups.

Freepers upset over Iowa Court decision

I shouldn't do this but I figure what the hell.

Please don't think I'm gloating (I'm not) but when a pro-gay decision comes down, I like to go to anti-gay sites to check out their reaction.

And sites like Free Republic never disappoint me:

Two points:

1. This is scary. Unlike Massachusetts, Iowa is an agricultural breadbasket. Watch crop yields plumett now. God takes His revenge in many ways. Just ask those people burned out of their homes (or had their crops dry up from drought) in California. Russia’s crop yields plummeted too, once she became an atheistic nation in 1922.

2. The Iowa governor and legislature should tell the Iowa Supreme Court, in effect, “go to hell, we’re not doing a damn thing to make same-sex marriage legal”, just like old Andy Jackson did with the SCOTUS regarding the Cherokee. The Iowa Supreme Court has no “divisions”, so it cannot enforce its decrees if no one goes along.

New Use for those extra cobs from the Corn State.

What contributed to the ruling were all of the activist, leftist judges. They weren't looking for rational arguments.

This also increases the likelihood that the US will be a target of Muslim terrorism. The Muslims (correctly) see homosexuality as an abomination. They won’t take kindly to rulings like this.

Gay marriage is coming. Well, if it helps us dissolve the present corrupt union and form a smaller republic then it was a good thing.

What date should we put on the death certificate? What date did the U.S. die on?

Well, if the Iowa queers move to Michigan they will be divorced as soon as they cross the state line. We banned queer marriage and queer partnerships, or anything else of a similar nature.

Watch for people marrying their dogs, horses, etc. After all, animals deserve love, too.

The Good Lord will bring down His wrath on Iowa. Expect crop failures, floods, or locusts. God is not mocked.

Who needs the commentators at One News Now? The Freepers are more fun to observe.

We win in Iowa!!!!!

Guess what happened today?

Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman

The Iowa Supreme Court this morning unanimously upheld gays’ right to marry.

“The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution,” the justices said in a summary of their decision.
The court rules that gay marriage would be legal in three weeks, starting April 24.

The court affirmed a Polk County District Court decision that would allow six gay couples to marry.

The ruling is viewed as a victory for the gay rights movement in Iowa and elsewhere, and a setback for social conservatives who wanted to protect traditional families.

More here

That's one point for the good side of the universe.

But let me take this time to tell you what the opposition will say. This is so that you will feel the need to ruin your good mood by logging onto sites like One News Now and Americans for Truth:

BLAH BLAH BLAH . . . Activist Judges . . . BLAH BLAH BLAH . . . Radical Homosexual Agenda . . . BLAH BLAH BLAH . . . Chocolate chip cookies . . . BLAH BLAH BLAH . . . Indoctrinating Children . . . BLAH BLAH BLAH . . . 5,000 years of marriage.

There. I have just saved you time searching through needless bullshit.

One News Now back on anti-gay track with weak article

While the editorial page in my state continues to bombard Sanford for his stance on stimulus money, One News Now is back on track with its verbal gay bashing:

A family advocate is encouraging parents to keep their children home during the "Day of Silence."

The Day of Silence will take place in junior and senior high schools across America on April 17. David Smith, the executive director of the Illinois Family Institute, explains what the Day of Silence is all about.

"Well, often students take a vow of silence on this day to protest perceived or real injustices against students who are homosexual, self-identify as being homosexual, bi-sexual, transgender or -- I'm sure there is another acronym out there, too -- but anyway, those students who are perceived or self-identify as that, they take a vow of silence," he says.

Smith notes schools handle the event in different ways. Some choose not to participate, some allow students to participate outside of class, while others will have teachers who participate in the classroom.

What a weak ass article. Where is the hyperbole? Where are the code words? There is only this:

"Now we object to the ones who are doing it in class, disrupting school time, because it is a tacit endorsement, an approval, of this political protest," he contends.

The family advocate encourages parents to find out if their child's school is participating in the event, and if so, to keep their children home on that day. "We're asking you to first complain about it, and then consider pulling your child out for the day," he adds. "We're calling it the 'Day of Silence Walk Out.' In fact, there is a website [called] DayOfSilenceWalkOut.org."

By pulling a child out of school for the day, Smith says the school will be hurt monetarily as well because school funds are based on a daily average attendance.

For the record, Day of Silence events generally do not disrupt school time. In past years, they have been successful with lots of students participating.

Disruptions have only come when phony "pro-family" groups have gotten in the mix and decided to raise a fuss, like Ken Hutcherson unsuccessfully tried to do last year.

My guess is that Smith and company will still try to spin success by counting all absences that day as protests against the Day of Silence.

But the odds are that despite that, the Day of Silence will be a success again this year.

Thursday afternoon news briefs

IOWA TOMORROW - Everyone is talking about it so I figure what the hell.

Exodus Maintains Month-Long Silence Amid Ugandan Gov’t Calls For LGBT Arrests - It's not as if Exodus will take a courageous stance on this mess. If they did, I know I'm in Bizarro World.

Hate Crimes and Scare Tactics - The Washington Post calls out the Family Research Council on their lies about hate crimes legislation. And suddenly the day just got better.

Birthers form "citizen grand jury," "indict" Obama - MAKE IT STOP, PLEASE!!

South Carolina's main newspaper serves up 'Sanford fried chicken'

While this is not a gay issue per se, I have to point something out about the situation involving SC Governor Mark Sanford's fight against President Obama's stimulus package.

One reason is that I am resident of South Carolina and it affects me as well as every other resident of the state be they lgbt or heterosexual.

The second reason is because of what I saw on the editorial page of The State, South Carolina's main newspaper.

To put it nicely, Governor Sanford is being destroyed, annihiliated, and figuratively tarred and feathered for his stance against taking stimulus money to help education.

I don't think that I have ever seen an editorial page take such as vocal position. Other than one letter to the editor and a some comments, Sanford has absolutely NO support.

And as well he shouldn't. He was elected to be the guardian of the citizens of South Carolina. And how can you be a guardian if you choose your political future over the needs of those you are elected to serve.

The entire editorial page is here.

But I am also including a link to each editorial, column, and letter to the editor:

The state of South Carolina vs. Gov. Mark Sanford

Online Extra: Sanford driving down GOP?

Leatherman: Budgetary Armageddon

Bolton: Maybe bailouts aren’t so bad after all, governor

Clyburn: A modern-day Alice in Wonderland

Thursday’s Letters to the Editor

It's just unbelievable.

Does the religious right mean to lie on lgbts or are they just too strident?

On the Opposing Views webpage, a huge discussion is underway regarding whether or not the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) is a hate group (I posted about it earlier this week).

I am heavily into the discussion and provided several reasons as to why I feel IFI is a hate group
One commentator brought up an interesting point as an answer to my posting proof of IFI's bad research:

Your argument shows that the group has a habit of using bad data, not that they engage in hate activities. The evidence you site, if verified, only shows that they are not rigorous in their research. For the “knowingly lie” standard to apply you would have to show intent to deceive. Poor research practices do not show intent.

That is a good point. When IFI and other religious right groups cite Paul Cameron's discredited and misinterpret legitimate studies, are they doing it intentionally or are they just being so strident that they aren't aware of what they are doing?

This issue has never been addressed like it should but if you ask me, the poor research practices do say a lot about intent if a grop continues to use the inaccurate and distorted studies even after shown that said studies are wrong.

And in the piece in question that got IFI into trouble, there is somewhat an acknowledgement by Peter LaBarbera that there is a problem, although he tries to blame the alleged "radical homosexual boogeyman" for it:

Paul Cameron's work has been targeted for ridicule by homosexual activists, and he has been demonized by the Left, but this should not discount his findings.

Generally speaking, religious right groups are aware of Cameron's history. I have recounted the story of meeting former Concerned Women for America and Family Research Council veteran Robert Knight in 2004. I asked him point blank why did he cite Cameron's work even after knowing of his history for lying.

Knight's words to be were: “Yes we have used his research. So what?”

Knight, by the way, lashed out at Massachusetts pediatrician Robert Garofalo in 1998 when Garofalo complained that CWA and other religious right groups were distorting his work. Knight (who has never done any work in the field of pediatrics) called Garofalo a "thrall of political correctness." (Boston doctor says ads distorted his work on gays, The Boston Globe, August 4, 1998)

Garofalo's work, by the way, is still being distorted by the Family Research Council.

And then there is this situation:

In 2002, Micah Clark, then the executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana, spoke in front of the Indianapolis City Council in order to get them to reject domestic partners health benefi ts for city employees. He quoted a Cameron statistic and was grilled on it by a council member.

This is what he said happened:

“The author of the (domestic partner benefit) bill . . . tried to come at me for using a Paul Cameron study. I diverted that one pretty well by pointing out that I have spoken with Dr. Paul Cameron and her information was wrong. In any event, I said it was published in a well respected peer review journal and the research has not been disproved. I have been waiting for that one for years.” (Indianapolis Rejects Domestic Partner Benefits, Concerned Women for America, August 8, 2002)

Religious right groups (Concerned Women for America, Traditional Values Coalition, American Family Association, etc.) are aware in fact of what they are doing when they misquote legitimate research and especially when they cite Paul Cameron's discredited mess.

The problem is that no one has legitimately put them on the spot about it.

Wednesday night news briefs

I can't always be the loud, vivacious Truman Capote/Sherlock Holmes wannabe. So allow me to present various newsbriefs and articles about things that you may or may not be aware of:

Michigan ruling protects kids adopted by gays - I love these slow steps forward. They can never hurt. Big props to Detroit News' Deb Price for covering lgbt issues the way she does.

The Base That Cried Wolf - I was wondering where that crazy Matt Barber was. I haven't seen him since I smacked down his ridiculous points on lgbt parenting.

Colbert mocks Glenn Beck's crybaby patriotism, mercilessly - Okay this is not necessarily an lgbt issue but it's too good not to share. From my buddies and Americablog, a denunciation of Glenn (we surround them - what the hell does that mean anyway) Beck.

EHarmony launches gay matchmaking service - I love it when we win lawsuits. I wonder if EHarmony can find me a harem?

American Family Association wants us all to 'teabag'

My fellow lgbt brothers and sisters, we seem to be getting replaced.

In the past few days, American Family Association's One News Now has written very little slanted articles against us.

What gives? I always looked forward to reading about the newest diabolical plot we have thought up to take over American society. If it weren't for these articles, I would never know what's going on. National headquarters still has not sent me the "Radical Homosexual Agenda" manual. They claim it was lost in the mail but I still think it's a racial issue.

It appears that a lot of One News Now's attention seems to be devoted to undermining President Obama. The American Family Association in general has focused on supporting teabagging parties.

For the benefit of those who don't know, some conservatives around the country have been holding teabagging parties where a lot of them gather together in a public place and hold up signs blaming President Obama for various things (the country's economic situation, Paula Abdul's behavior on American Idol, the destruction of Atlantis, etc.).

This is supposed to culminate with folks mailing tea bags to the White House, or something like that.

These protesters want to channel the spirit and spontaneity of the Boston Tea Party and the protests of the 1960s, but if you ask me, it's not working out all that well.

Not only is the entire thing too coordinated but I wonder about the intelligence a few of the participants. I mean if you are carrying a sign calling President Obama a "socialist," you should spell the word correctly.

Otherwise, you are only proving President Obama's point about more money being needed for education (i.e. his stimulus package.)

And the worst thing about the entire situation is the verbiage. I mean isn't teabagging a sexual term (look it up, you perverts)?

With that in mind, it brings a nice feeling to my mind whenever I say "the American Family Association supports teabagging."

Still it stands to reason that if some of these protestors actually teabagged in the appropriate sense, we wouldn't have to hear from them. And maybe some of them wouldn't be so uptight.

But I doubt it. These are some of the same people who think that President Obama was created in a Kenyan laboratory using the DNA of history's most evil dictators (or is that the plot of some G.I. Joe cartoon).

At any rate, we lgbts need to get on the ball if we are to make it back to the top of the American Family Association's list of phony moral panics created to scare the hell out of Christians.

I wonder if our operative, Sponge Bob Square Pants is busy?

A lie about hate crimes legislation courtesy of the Family Research Council

I wish the following batch of lies were an April Fools Day joke:

Please help FRC Action persuade conservatives and centrist Democrats in the Congress to stop a proposed federal "hate crimes" law that could lead to the criminalization of the biblical view of homosexuality in sermons and elsewhere.

. . . Many members of Congress are simply unaware of how dangerous the proposed "hate crimes" law is. FRC Action will warn them that this could lead to simple expressions of religious faith-including sermons and radio broadcasts-being prosecuted as "hate."

. . . A "hate crimes" law is really a "thought crime" law that punishes a person's beliefs-part of the Left's intolerant agenda to silence the voice of Christians and Conservatives in America and eliminate moral restraint.

How would it happen?

A federal "hate crimes" law prohibiting "bodily injury" could be construed by many law enforcement officials and judges to include words that inflict emotional or psychological distress.

That means an "offended" homosexual could accuse a religious broadcaster . . . a pastor . . . Sunday School teacher . . . or other individual of causing emotional injury simply by expressing the biblical view that homosexual behavior is morally wrong and unhealthy.

This abbreviated message came to me courtesy of a Family Research Council (FRC) email. I guess them refusing to take me off of their list is revenge for my report last year on their inaccurate studies.

This lie about hate crimes legislation has been refuted many times but one more time won't hurt.

Hate crimes legislation covers action, not words. Unless those words are expressly telling someone to physically harm someone else. That means that a pastor or Sunday School teacher is in no danger of getting arrested for stating a belief that homosexuality is a sin.

The pastor or Sunday School teacher would be in dangers of getting arrested if he or she expressly tells someone to physically harm gays or lesbians.

Hate crimes laws already exists in cases of race and religion. All this new legislation would do is add sexual orientation to the list of categories. This means if (and let's hope this never happens), a heterosexual man is attacked by a group of gay men for his orientation, those gay men could be prosecuted under hate crimes legislation.

I was surprised that FRC did not include any of those inaccurate anecdotes (i.e. incidents that happened in foreign countries, etc.) that usually lends an aura of phony immediacy to its ramblings.

But this constant lying about hate crimes legislation is a classic example of a "headless monsters," or an idea that, despite being refuted consistently, continues to be repeated as fact. This happens generally because the people repeating the lie is either ignorant of the truth or will ignore the truth because it doesn't suit their purposes.

I'll let you guess which category the FRC falls under.

Concerned Women for America's slanted poll makes me crazy

According to People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch, Concerned Women for American sent a survey to its members asking their opinions on the so-called "impact of the radical homosexual agenda in public schools."

You have to see these questions. They are unbelievable. Allow me to add some degree of editorialization (is that even a word) after each question:

1. Do you support teaching children in grades as early as kindergarten that cross-dressing is acceptable?

No. Children should learn to cross-dress before entering kindergarten.

2. What kind of impact do you believe this kind of teaching would have on young children? .

It would teach them how to properly accessorize.

3. Do you believe school children as young as 13 should be exposed to explicit, detailed discussions and instructions on homosexual practices (including sodomy) as are being conducted by homosexual teachers and activists right now?

That's not even necessary. Just make watching High School Musical mandatory. You'll get the same results.

4. What kind of impact do you believe this kind of instruction would have on young children?

They are sure to pay attention in class. Get them to take notes.

5. Do you believe the increase of homosexual experimentation among teens is related to presentation of pro-"gay" instruction in the classroom?

By homosexual experimentation, I'm guessing CWA means lip synching a Christina Aguilera song.

6. Is it possible for the radical homosexual agenda to succeed in achieving its overriding goal of changing the moral character of our young people and the moral landscape of our nation through our schools?

I'm guessing they mean as opposed to the "normal homosexual agenda." And I don't know what that is because national headquarters has yet to send me the manual. I think it's a racial thing.

7. What impact would this have on our nation and the next generation leading it?

No one will be wearing white after Labor Day.

8. Do you agree that instruction in some classrooms is a blatant push to unashamedly promote and encourage the homosexual lifestyle and ultimately force "gay marriage" on the American public?

That's right - we want everyone in a gay marriage. I am personally overseeing the committee to put Jack Black, Abraham Benrubi, Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, and Mike White in a polygamous marriage with myself. Call me boys - you either come to my house peacefully or else.

9. Do you feel instilling positive views of homosexuality in schools will result in America accepting same-sex "marriages"?

I sincerely hope so. Mother is hoping that I snag either a doctor or a lawyer.

10. Do you agree that homosexual "marriage" is as valid as traditional marriage, as is being taught in some school districts?

Who cares. As long as no one laughs at me for wearing white at MY wedding.

11. What impact on traditional marriage do you believe this kind of classroom instruction will have in the future?

Who cares. As long as no one laughs at me for wearing white at MY wedding. (Yes I repeated it!)

12. Do you support laws requiring schools to obtain parents' permission before their child is exposed to information of a homosexual nature?

Where the hell were you people when I had to read the Razor's Edge by gay author Somerset Maugham? Or when I was forced to watch that Strawberry Shortcake cartoon in grade school? That Peculiar Purple Pie Man of Porcupine Peak was a little TOO peculiar.

13. What impact on traditional marriage do you believe homosexual teaching would have in the future?

Not knowing who has to pay for the wedding.

14. Are you will to take a moral stand against pro-homosexual classroom curriculum by taking grassroots action against the organizations who promote it?

I would rather take an immoral stand. It's much more fun but you gotta make sure you destroy all of the pictures.

15. Will you help Concerned Women for America as we stand strong for Biblical principles and against the radical homosexual agenda in our schools?

Sure. Bend over. I hope you like fillet of sole.

I'm sorry if I am taking this too lightly. It's not even frustrating anymore when I read stuff like this. Not only is the poll slanted, but it's chock full of biases, code words (i.e. "pro-gay instruction"), and presents the lgbt community in the worst possible light.

To the CWA, we aren't people with feelings and emotions who care about family and country. To them, we are an entity out of some bad science fiction movie constantly plotting to seduce childen and take over America while having lots of wild sex in our leisure time (and trust me when I say that last point is a blatant lie).

I won't even tell you how the CWA members who responded to the poll answered the questions. I will let you guess.

However, according to Right Wing Watch, CWA said that a small percentage of its members responded at all.

I guess that means even right-wing conservative Christians get embarrassed now and then.

The Traditional Values Coalition - THAT is a hate group

I love it when those who oppose us help our cause with their insane rhetoric.

And when it comes to insane rhetoric, very few can beat the California group the Traditional Values Coalition and its founder Lou Sheldon.

Sheldon loves denigrating lgbts and we love him for it because he blows the "we only oppose the homosexual agenda because we love them" bullshit right out of the window. Witness his behavior at a conference in 2006:

Still, none of the panelists delivered as bombastic a screed as the Rev. Lou Sheldon, head of the hard-line anti-gay group Traditional Values Coalition. Sheldon demanded laws that treat homosexuality as "a social disorder." Decrying the term "homosexual" as the brainchild of a 20th-century German psychologist obviously sympathetic to gays, Sheldon implored the conferees to return to the 18th century's superior diction. "The word used in America [then] was 'perverted'," he noted. When Sheldon was asked by an audience member what to call homosexuals, he shot out of his chair and shouted, "Call them what they are -- sodomites!"

Well today, Sheldon and company are all upset over the possibility that the policy on gays in the military (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) may be overturned via a bill by Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher.

According to TVC:

The legislation will add “sexual orientation” to the law. It is defined in H.R. 1283 as “heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived, and includes statements and consensual sexual conduct manifesting heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.” This will open up the possibility that every sexual orientation could be legalized in the military! This will include cross-dressing and transsexualism.

Personally if this is true (and it isn't), it's not a bad thing. Have any of you ever seen a drag queen pageant? Talk about your vicious fighters.

TVC also says:

The legalization of sodomy in the military will also reduce the numbers of men and women who will enlist in the service. A Military Times poll of active-duty personnel revealed that 58% of them oppose repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” A 2008 poll found that if the law is repealed, 10% of the respondents would not reenlist and 14% said they would consider ending their careers.

Of course the organization conveniently forgets to mention that the objectivity of that poll was challenged.

According to a legitimate poll conducted last year:

Seventy-five percent of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.

Then comes the most hilarious line of the piece:

How will the military handle sodomy in battlefield situations?

Oh yeah. Bombs and guns firing all around. Bodies getting blown to pieces. The stench of death in the air and if gays were involved, all we would be worried about is having sex.

What did TVC do? Rent a copy of that movie Saving Private Ryan's Ass?

The claim is stupid. But it's not the dumbest claim in the piece. That award belongs to this:

The passage of H.R. 1283 is a recipe for disaster in the military – and our national security will be jeopardized by permitting homosexuals, drag queens and others with bizarre sex habits to serve openly in the Armed Forces.

First of all, gays have already been in not only the American military but militaries throughout history. And we kicked some serious ass. From Alexander the Great to Augustus Caesar to Richard I of the England to Fredrick Von Steuben, we gays have done pretty well for ourselves in military situations.

And that line about drag queens is so ridiculous that it doesn't even deserve attacking. But personally, I still say an army of drag queens can't hurt.

All Bush would have had to do was to tell them that a crown was in one of those caves in Baghdad.

And they would have found Osama Bin Laden, Amelia Earhart, Judge Crater, Jimmy Hoffa, etc., etc.

Okay that was a bad joke, but I think you get the point.

Sometimes we get angry when people like Sheldon and TVC denigrate us. But this is one of those times when you have to ask yourself why get angry at your enemy when he freely cuts his own throat.

Should Americans for Truth be considered as a hate group?

First an observation - it's been days since One News Now has featured a slanted article on the lgbt community.

The magic is gone from our relationship!

Seriously though, yesterday on Pam's House Blend (where I also post blog entries), someone made an interesting comment about my Illinois Family Institute/Southern Poverty Law Center post:

When I lived in Illinois, it was Peter LaBarbera who headed IFI. I don't know what happened, but somehow, he was either told to leave or did it on his own. They then put David Smith in charge of the organization.

Laurie Higgins now writes the anti-Gay articles for the group. She and Smith have done a fine job of making the organization a hate group and they have truly and diligently earned that label.

Yet they now decry it. Well, if the shoe fits, wear it!

What miffs me most, however, is that LaBarbera, and his organization "Americans For Truth About Homosexuality" (AFTAH) has not been labeled a hate group.

It certainly has gone above and beyond what IFI has written in misleading statements of "facts." Yet SPLC has yet to label AFTAH as a hate group.

What gives?

Then another comment said the following:

LaBarbera left the IFI right after his abysmal failure at getting an anti-gay marriage referendum on the ballot in November 2006. It was advisory only-- Illinois does not have ballot initiatives like California.

I was one of many volunteers for Fair Illinois, the organization that verified the signatures on the petitions. Lots of forged signatures and non-existent people. I know this because we were connected to the actual voter registration database when we audited their work. It was a complete sham.

You are correct. Laurie Higgins is now part of their echo chamber. It's rather incestuous-- the IFI and AFTAH are each other's Boards. All they've got is each other.

Laurie Higgins is about as qualified to talk about gay men and women as Elaine Donnelly is about the military. A bunch of junk science by a pair of quacks.

I, too, wondered why AFTAH was not labelled a hate group too.

I have to ask a basic question here: Does the SPLC even know that AFTAH exists? And how do we nominate The Peter for this? (seriously)

Does anyone know?

So the basic question is should Americans for Truth be considered as a hate group?

According to SPLC:

Anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification.

Over the years, Americans for Truth and LaBarbera has done more than enough to fulfill this requirement. LaBarbera seems to have made it his life's work to attack and villify the lgbt community via campaigns of misinformation, lies, and out-and-out ugly commentary.

SPLC has talked about LaBarbera before:

Peter LaBarbera, head of the Illinois Family Institute and a discredited "researcher" whose work has been denounced by the American Psychological Association for producing bogus data (Editor's note - actually that is incorrect. It was Paul Cameron who was denounced by the American Psychological Association. However, LaBarbera freely cites Cameron's work) "proving" homosexual behavior is deleterious to health and welfare, called homosexuality "disgusting." LaBarbera, who "investigates" this lifestyle by hanging out in gay chat rooms, insisted that good Christians must "stand up to homosexual aggression" and stop using "that hoary euphemism" -- "sexual orientation." He called for the repeal of all "sexual orientation laws" -- laws that ban discrimination against gays -- because they violate religious freedom. He demanded the closing down of all "homosexual establishments." And he spoke of the "need to find ways to bring back shame to those practicing homosexual behavior."

SPLC would do well to, at the very least, investigate the anti-gay activities of Americans for Truth.

You can tell them your feelings about the situation by contacting them via here.

Good news out of Arkansas that I missed

This happened last week and I nearly missed talking about it. This is a definite step in the right direction:

An Arkansas judge says a lawsuit can go forward challenging the state’s ban on unmarried couples adopting children.

Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza ruled Tuesday that issues the lawsuit raises are important enough to go to trial.

The Arkansas attorney general’s office had sought a dismissal, saying no one had been directly affected by the ban.

The voter-approved ban went into effect Jan. 1. It prohibits unmarried couples who live together from adopting or fostering children. Its authors acknowledge it was aimed at homosexuals.

The Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit on behalf of more than a dozen families. They argue that the act violates their rights and that its language was misleading to voters.

The law is ridiculous. It robs children of the chance to be included in good homes in order to fulfill someone's antiquated definition of the word "family." Sooner or later this law will be struck down.

Hopefully more sooner than later.

Monday midday news briefs

Gay adoption raises an issue still unmined - Sooner or later the gay adoption issue in Florida will go our way and that will be good news for children who have no suitable place to call home.

Uganda Situation Continues To Deteriorate; Exodus Washes Their Hands - And the situation gets worse.

Boycott Jamaica Site Launched - Stella may have gotten her groove back in Jamaica (and we know how THAT story ended) but Alvin isn't setting one foot there until they start getting a bit saner about lgbts.

Illinois Family Institute uses Paul Cameron’s work but claims its not a hate group

The Illinois Family Institute (IFI), the alleged pro-family group that was once led by anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera, is angry at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for labeling it a hate group.

In a letter written on the site Opposing Views, IFI member and phony gay expert Laurie Higgins (who herself has a history of demonizing the lgbt community) claims that the group has been unfairly targeted simply because of its moral belief that homosexuality is wrong:

I assumed that IFI made (SPLC’s) their list because we are committed to exposing and opposing the use of public money via public education to affirm and advance a particular understanding of the nature and morality of homosexual conduct that is unproven, controversial, and, we believe, destructive to the lives of individuals and the fabric of society.

Since, in the distorted view of pro-homosexual organizations, our efforts constitute hatred, the only way we can be deemed not hateful is to change our views on the nature and morality of homosexual conduct, or to accept the continued use of public money to affirm and advance liberal/radical views on the nature and morality of homosexual conduct through public education. That's a pretty tall and scary order.

But is this the actual reason? Probably not. As the letter continues, we get more details:

For clarification I called the Southern Poverty Law Center and spoke with Heidi Beirich. Our conversation was troubling in that Ms Beirich revealed that even a tenuous, distant connection to statements the SPLC doesn't like will land an organization on their hate groups list. She told me that the only reason IFI is listed is that in 2005, IFI's former executive director Peter LaBarbera posted a very short article by Paul Cameron for which Mr. LaBarbera wrote an even shorter introduction.

Although there were no defamatory comments made in Cameron's piece or LaBarbera's introduction, Ms. Beirich claimed that in other articles by Cameron, he had suggested that, in Ms. Beirich's words, "Gays are sickly, and people should stay away from them." IFI has no idea if that claim is true, but if it is, IFI rejects it, finds it inconsistent with Scripture, and finds it repellent. The problem is we did not cite or endorse any such rhetoric, and yet the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled IFI as an active hate group.

The article in question was a rehashing of Cameron’s discredited gay life span study. It also makes the claim that the Centers for Disease Control’s own work proves Cameron’s study to be accurate. This is a lie (which would make the piece defamatory, wouldn’t it?) A member of the CDC went on record saying that the article’s claim was totally inaccurate:

“[The CDC] does not collect statistics on the life span of gay men. While gay men continue to be severely impacted by HIV and AIDS, AIDS-related death data cannot be used to indicate that homosexual men live shorter lives than heterosexual men overall.” - Ronald Valdiserri, deputy director of the CDC’s National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention

Higgins really steps into it when she says the following:

Ms. Beirich also claimed that Cameron cited a purportedly erroneous statistic regarding shortened life-spans. I responded that I could see how a statistic could be erroneous and derived from flawed methodology, but I don't see erroneous statistics as defamatory or hateful. I don't think health statistics alone, even statistics that emerge from flawed methodologies, can be construed as hatred. In fact, if there are particular health risks associated with particular sexual practices, it would be callous and irresponsible not to share that information publicly.

So according to Higgins, even if Cameron’s statistics are inaccurate, they may not necessarily be hateful or wrong.

IFI would have a point here, except for Cameron’s words:

“What homosexuals do is so incredibly stupid, so patently absurd and antibiological, that only a foolish society would take their whimpering about ‘equal rights with heterosexuality’ seriously . . . Are we supposed to feel so sorry for them that we join them in the march to the cemetery?” - The Advocate, October 29, 1985

“At the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference, Cameron announced to the attendees, ‘Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.’ According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983.” - Mark E. Pietrzyk, New Republic, October 3, 1994

His actions:

Right now, here in Lincoln, there is a 4-year-old boy who has had his genitals almost severed from his body at Gateway in the rest room with a homosexual act… It’s really awkward. I could see where Gateway would want to suppress this. I could see where the parents would want to suppress it. It could be just a rumor. But enough things have happened recently so that such a thing doesn’t have to be invented.” - Paul Cameron told this story to a group in 1982 in Lincoln, NB in an attempt to kill a human rights ordinance. The police discovered the story to be false but the ordinance was defeated.

And mostly by the condemnation rained down on him by the medical profession:

“(Cameron) misrepresents my findings and distorts them to advance his homophobic views. I make a very clear distinction in my writing between pedophilia and homosexuality, noting that adult males who sexually victimize young boys are either pedophilic or heterosexual, and that in my research I have not found homosexual men turning away from adult partners to children . . . I consider this totally unprofessional behavior on the part of Dr. Cameron and I want to bring this to your attention. He disgraces his profession.” - Dr. A. Nicholas Groth in 1984 after discovering that Cameron distorted his work.

"Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists - American Psychological Association, 1983

The science and profession of psychology in Nebraska as represented by the Nebraska Psychological Association, formally dissociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality. Further, the Nebraska Psychological Association would like it known that Dr. Cameron is not a member of the Association. Dr. Cameron was recently dropped from membership in the American Psychological Association for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists - Nebraska Psychological Association, 1984

Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" - American Sociological Association, 1985

The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally disassociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality. - Canadian Psychological Association, 1996

You see, erroneous statistics can be considered as hateful if the creator of such statistics has a history of intentional inaccuracies in order to demonize a group of people. And Cameron has this history.

Now some may say that IFI cited Cameron’s work without knowing his history.

I don’t believe this to be true. I find it hard to believe that IFI had absolutely no knowledge of Cameron or his work, especially when I read the introduction of the piece in question:

As one who has read homosexual obituaries for over a decade, as a researcher of the "gay" movement, there can be no doubt that homosexual behavior shortens the life of those who practice it, especially men who have sex with other men. Paul Cameron's work has been targeted for ridicule by homosexual activists, and he has been demonized by the Left, but this should not discount his findings. We find it sad that more scientists have not joined Paul Cameron in assessing the extreme health risks of homosexual behavior, just like the scientific establishment researches obesity, smoking and other serious health issues.

Illinois Family Institute would support a nonpartisan federal research campaign into the health risks of homosexual behavior to further investigate Cameron's work.

And to make matters worse, Higgins will not acknowledge that IFI was inaccurate. Instead, she claims that "new work" proves Cameron’s falsehoods to be accurate:

But, more important, the same finding regarding reduced life expectancy for homosexual men has been reported by a world-reknowned medical journal, and has been cited as true by homosexual activists when it serves their purposes. That study, which appeared in Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology, concluded that "In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday."

Higgins is referring to the 1997 Canadian study that was distorted by religious right groups. We know this because in 2001, the authors of the study complained about it:

“ . . . if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia."

Certainly, an organization with a moral objection to homosexuality shouldn’t automatically be considered as a hate group.

But the problem with groups such as IFI is that they practice a sort of intellectual violence in which they are willing to distort credible research as well as rely on bad studies to give a negative view of the lgbt community - i.e. painting them as monsters who should be hindered and stopped at every turn.

That makes IFI no different than a racist group distorting FBI crime statistics to make the case that African-Americans are more violent than whites. Or Nazis using propaganda films against the Jewish community.

And that, as far as I’m concerned, makes them a hate group.

Peter LaBarbera exploits Weber murder case

An ugly murder took place recently. Unfortunately it's nothing new - murders take place all the time and all of them are ugly in their own fashion.

But this one was especially ugly. A former newsman, George Weber, was stabbed 50 times allegedly by a teenager he met on Craigslist.

According to reports, Weber had been looking for someone to choke him and engage in oral sex. He didn't know that the young man was a Satanist with a propensity for violence.

Peter LaBarbera has been exploiting the situation for his own purposes.

So far he has featured two consecutive posts about the crime spouting his usual unproven nonsense:

Folks, the greatest threat of violence to homosexual men comes from … other homosexual men. The stabbing murder of WABC reporter George Weber in New York is a terrible tragedy and yet it is instructive about the perils of promiscuous “gay” life. There is simply nothing that approaches the deviance of male homosexuality — especially at its sexual fringes — as other victims of gay-on-gay violence over the decades testify from the grave.

The second post featured an absolutely ridiculous comment by another so-called former gay, D.L. Foster (the interesting part put in bold by me):

“I probably will get hate mail for saying this but this type of hookup culture is common in the homosexual world. Another guy in NY who did the same thing was murdered. And yes heterosexuals do it too, but no matter what type of sexual proclivity it is, SIN leads to death. The best course of action is to get out of the deadly sin business and live for Christ.“

Let's be honest.

Had Weber been a heterosexual and his murderer been a teenaged girl, neither Foster nor LaBarbera would have given a damn.

In LaBarbera's posts, I saw the usual stuff - the lie that the lgbt orientation is indicative of hedonism, the lie that "you can walk away from homosexuality," the ugly innuendoes that lgbts aren't capable of having health relationships or families.

But one thing I did not see, and this bothers me, is concern for Weber and his family. No words of condolescences, no comments of concern, no words of encouragement. Nothing.

It's almost if LaBarbera went through reports of the crime drooling while he thought up the ways he could indict the lgbt community for Weber's murder rather than young man who possibly committed the crime.

LaBarbera's vile behavior is no different than a racist who will count how many black men were arrested for crimes on the evening news so that he can talk about it the next day on whatever white supremacist forum he is a member of.

I could easily say that the heterosexual community isn't blameless in this situation because after all, the alleged murderer has a girlfriend.

But I won't play that game.

Nine years ago I lost my father, Alvin S. Glenn, to violence.

Trust me when I say that for the family of the victim, the anger and feelings of helplessness never completely go away.

I pray that justice is served for Weber and his family can find some sort of peace after this awful incident.

I also wish that LaBarbera, for once, would have shown some taste and discernment.

Or at least acted like he gave a damn about the person rather than his "cause."