Wednesday midday news briefs

I am enduring this teabagging mess with the consulation that its message is slowly but surely being seen as astroturf nonsense.

And also by view of the cute guy in the library presently walking away from me. Ah yes I love the view.

Seriously though . . .

Anti-gay campaign did not grab Twitter and domain names - I know this has been covered before but a little more fun poking at the expense of NOM can never hurt.

Drag performer found dead in Fayetteville - My prayers go out to her family.

The Advocate interviews mom of 11-year-old who committed suicide over gay taunts - Tell me again why the Day of Silence is a bad idea . . .

Their blind eyes are DEAD wrong - Speaking of which, the organization at the center of this post, Capitol Resources Institute, was behind that hideously inaccurate piece by John R. Diggs, The Health Risks of Gay Sex.

Today is teabag day - be still my intestines

Editor's note - I've added four new entries to my anti-gay lies and liars time line to reflect incidents that have taken place thus far in 2009.

Today is the day where conseratves nationwide will give the wholesome act of teabagging a bad name.

This entire thing has driven me nuts. Let's be clear about it - this is not a protest against an unfair government but an attempt to undermine the Obama Administration before it really has a chance to fix the problems left by the Bush Administration.

The bullshit going around about how this is a spontaneous protest organized by Americans who are tired of an oppressive government is nonsense.

It's more of the same - people who won't admit that their side loss and whose egos are allowing them to be led by the nose by others with ulterior motives i.e. Dick Armey, Fox News, and the American Family Association.

And although I would love to go to the rally today in Columbia and count the signs that have the word "socialist" spelled wrong, I simply can't do it.

For one, I have a day time job and I work for what I want. And secondly, the reason why I won't attend the rally is the same reason why I won't watch Fox News - my mother raised me to have good sense.

Between you and me, however, I would've loved to attend the rally where Alan Keyes is speaking. From what I hear, organizers are letting him say whatever he wants.

That should be good for a few hundred laughs.

A reminder about why we need the Day of Silence

Anti-Gay Bullying Drives 11-Year-Old to Suicide

Relentless taunting resulted in the tragic end of an 11-year-old Massachusetts boy, who hanged himself last week after being teased by his classmates.

As reported by PUBLICNOW.com, Sirdeaner L. Walker discovered her son, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, hanging by an extension cord in her Springfield home on April 6. Walker said her sixth-grade student at the New Leadership Charter School, was often the target of gay jokes and was threatened with physical violence on a daily basis. The young football and basketball athlete, who was also a Boy Scout, took his own life when anti-gay bullying and constant harassment became too much for him to endure. Since September, the boy's mother made frequents phone calls to the school's administrative staff and pleaded for them to address the situation but claims to have gotten minimal response.

Walker-Hoover's suicide occurred just two weeks before the National Day of Silence. Thousands of students will participate in the annual event by taking a vow of silence to bring attention to anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) bullying and harassment at school. . . .

According to GLESN, this is the fourth suicide of a middle-school aged child linked to anti-gay bullying this year.

More here

No child should be put in a situation where he or she feels that the only way to stop taunts is to commit suicide.

Our opponents are always whining about the alleged "gay agenda," but why is it that they never talk about helping to stop the hurt.

They give offhand comments like "well no child should be picked on," or "everyone gets picked on" and it makes me wonder just where their hearts lie.

And in our sadness over those who commit suicide, let's not forget those who don't necessarily harm themselves in a permanent manner, but whose lives are negatively affected by the taunts they are subjected to.

I knew an intelligent, bright young man who was openly gay - he couldn't hide his mannerisms and such. He was subjected to taunts and constantly picked so much so that he dropped out of school.

With no education to speak of, he continued to make bad choices until one cost him his life.

Now folks could say that he was responsible for his own life and the decisions he made - this is true. But I think we all have a little responsibility in each other's lives.

If we see someone stumble, we should go and help them up.

If we see someone drop some money on the floor, we should make that person aware of his or her potential financial loss.

And if we see someone being picked on or know of someone getting no love or support for any reason, we have a responsibility to do what we can to stop the taunts and provide the love and support.

That's exactly what folks are trying to do during Day of Silence.

How can anyone not support that?

What's the deal with Governor Mark Sanford?

Again, not necessarily an lgbt issue per se, but still important nonetheless.

As I understand it, Governor Mark Sanford will be speaking at one of the tax day tea parties. And recently, he filmed a commercial explaining why he doesn't want to use monies from the stimulus package to help South Carolina's schools.

All in all, not bad for a man who, to my knowledge, has never even visited the "Corridor of Shame."

For those who don't know, the Corridor of Shame is the nickname they give rural schools along South Carolina’s Interstate 95 corridor; schools in which textbooks are torn and fragile, there is no heat, there are problems with sewage, and the buildings are in badly need of repair - schools that would benefit from the $700 million in stimulus money that Sanford doesn't want to give them.

Twice, South Carolina fell for Sanford's phony folkism and what do we have to show for it? A State House full of pig poop, high unemployment, and bearing witness to legislative fights that resemble the worst of an episode of Jerry Springer.

And now Sanford wants to ride that record to the White House with this teabagging party nonsense being the first step.

You know, it used to be that when politicians were aiming for the White House, they would have the good taste not to be so obvious about it.

Tuesday midday news briefs

Forgive me for not adding my usual commentary but this stimulus issue has me majorly teed off.

'True tolerance', except for both the true and tolerant part

Police investigate anti-gay attack at UVa

Washington State House Passes Transgender Hate Crimes Bill

Peter LaBarbera is jealous of Wayne Besen

It's been a while since I've written about our friend Peter LaBarbera.

Today he and ex-gay fact falsifier Greg Quinlan attack Wayne Besen over an alleged incident that took place three years ago:

How fascinating that Wayne Besen (left) is given the opportunity to appear on FOX News, of all places [this YouTube clip features a hilarious Snickers ad that was pulled], to critique alleged “homophobic” attitudes and speech toward homosexuals — when he has such a well-deserved reputation for being one of the nastiest “queer” activists in the business. (Besen is the guy who came up with the deceptive smear “Porno Pete” to demonize yours truly — as if I have some prurient interest in homosexual pornography rather than a desire to expose the hyper-promiscuity celebrated within the homosexual male subculture. Wayne knows this is a lie but he continues to use it–strange conduct for the founder of a group called “Truth Wins Out.”) TAKE ACTION: forward this article by my friend Greg Quinlan to FOX’s Bill O’Reilly (oreilly@foxnews.com) and urge him to reconsider his use of an accomplished anti-Christian bigot (who especially hates public ex-gays like Greg) as a talking-head “expert” on “tolerance.

Allegedly, according to Quinlan, Besen violently accosted him at a National Education Association conference in 2006.

Now I don't know what happened and I could care less.

It seems to me that the only reason why LaBarbera brought this incident up is because he is jealous of Besen. It isn't the first time LaBarbera has asked his readers to write O'Reilly about Besen.

But I really can't blame him for being jealous.

After all, Besen has steadily been gaining more and more credibility.

He continues to be invited on Bill O'Reilly's show to talk about gay issues,

He recently spoke at a star studded event for marriage equality, and

His organization, Truth Wins Out, recently became the recipient of a $5,000 contribution.

In comparison,

LaBarbera couldn't get on O'Reilly even if he took a million pictures of naked gay men,

He hardly gets a mention from anyone except for One News Now and bloggers like Stacy Harp (who is Stacy Harp? My point exactly), and

What was the name of that college which invited LaBarbera to give a talk on the alleged "gay agenda?" The talk where supposedly less than 40 people attended. Again, my point exactly.

Someone should inform LaBarbera that jealousy is not a Christian virtue. And it makes you look petty and foolish.

Not that this would bother LaBarbera any. If he truly cared about looking foolish, he wouldn't started Americans for Truth in the first place.

Monday afternoon news briefs

Ugh - talk about your bad days. I had a huge problem today which kept me from posting my midday news briefs. So without futher adeiu, here they are.

Tomorrow, I should be back to normal. By the way, I have not received an answer from NOM regarding my email.

Opponents to Day of Silence still unhappy - Even after his colossal failure in trying to undermine the Day of Silence last year, Ken Hutcherson comes back to try again.

Anti-gay bait and switch - How ironic that NOM likes to play the black and lgbt communities against one another. And it turns out they might not be so pro-minority community themselves.

Concerned Women for America in debt, losing money - Kismet is a bitch. And I love me some bitches.

Gay, Lesbian Families Headed To W.H. Lawn - Very appropriate when considering today's earlier blog post.

Clergy in the crosshairs - More lies about hate crimes legislation courtesy of One News Now

Questions that the National Organization for Marriage will never answer

We laugh at the recent blunders by the National Organization for Marriage, but we shouldn’t let our amusement cloud our anger over the entire situation.

And personally I have been miffed all weekend.

I am so tired of seeing groups like NOM bogart the concepts of marriage and family. I respect their First Amendment rights but I hate their inferences that our desire to have relationships and families are derived from selfishness.

The desire to have a relationship and a family is natural and it should never be determined by sexual orientation.

I’ve developed a few questions about this that I’ve emailed to NOM. I doubt they will answer these questions, but it helps my heart to let them know how I feel about their belief that they own the definition of family.

Dear NOM,

According to the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy, studies estimate that between 1 and 9 million children in the United States have at least one parent who is lesbian or gay. There are approximately 594,000 same-sex partner households, according to the 2000 Census, and there are children living in approximately 27 percent of those households.

According to 2000 Census analyses by the Urban Institute and Human Rights Campaign, same-sex couples raising children live in 96% of all counties nationwide in the United States.

According to the Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the National Black Justice’s analyses of 2000 Census data, there are almost 85,000 same sex couples in the United States who are African-American. Three in five Black female same-sex households (61%) are comprised of mothers living with at least one child. Black lesbian couple households are almost as likely as Black married opposite-sex couple households to include children (69%).

I’ve read your talking points and you don’t even address these families. Since you claim that your concerns have to do with the definition of marriage and, by extension, family, I have a few questions. I would appreciate very much if you would make an attempt to answer them.

Doesn’t the language and semantics you use in fact create a caste system for American families?

When your leader Maggie Gallagher gets on talk shows why does she attempt to divert the conversation from the proven fact that the raising and care of children is not necessarily a heterosexual two-parent function?

Why do you repeat jargon about the studies that show that families with mothers and fathers are the best place to raise children when you know fully well that those studies never looked at same sex households?

You say that same sex marriage will force schools to teach that gay couples are just as good for raising children as heterosexual couples. Would you directly tell a child raised by a same sex couple that he or she is inferior because of not being raised in the “right environment?”

What’s more confusing to a child - a same sex couple or not being able to talk about his or her family in class simply because the family is a same-sex household?

And finally,

Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that lgbts have families and that children in these households are thriving?

Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that the concept of family belongs to us too?

Don’t our families deserve the same societal and legal protection and support that heterosexual families do?

NOM lies about David Parker controversy

In its "Gathering Storm" ad (which is slowly making my weekend interesting and fun-filled), the National Organization for Marriage included this lie:

“I’m a Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is OK.”

Those who keep up with this blog and have read my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, know that NOM is referring to the David Parker controversy in which Parker, a Massachusetts parent, claimed that he was unfairly arrested because he didn't want his son's school to "teach" him homosexuality.

The claim is a huge lie. Earlier this week, Box Turtle Bulletin already covered the truth of this situation, but I want to go into more detail. This is a reprint from an earlier post and my book:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distortion—David Parker was arrested because Joseph Estabrook Elementary did not respect his rights as a parent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then don’t forget this interesting addendum:

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

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

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

Articles and web pages used for this post:

www.massresistance.org

www.lexingtoncares.org

www.davidparkerfund.org/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Press release, Lexington Public Schools, June 16, 2006

Friday midday news briefs

Faith Groups Increasingly Lose Gay Rights Fights - Hat tip to my friends at Americablog for pointing this out. I'm all broken up over this development. No doubt it will probably get the troops on the other side all spooked. But I think there is a happy medium that can be worked out.

Video: Happy Easter (and only Easter) - In which Focus on the Family truncates an speech by President Obama. I guess they figure why should Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck have all of the fun.

Maggie Gallagher’s PR Advisor Must Hate Her - Far be it from me to heap on the National Organization for Marriage. Then again, why not.

Gay conservative 527 launched to counter Log Cabin Republicans - Oh good Lord.

Vermont legislators ignoring Genesis lessons - That's right. God wants us all butt naked in a garden where we can frolic with all of the animals. Darn those Vermont legislators! Now we won't be able to!!

Why the National Organization for Marriage ad failed

It was a million dollar ad complete with technical effects. It featured people telling seemingly compelling stories. It presented the issue in a clear and concise manner.

It wasn’t supposed to fail.

But it did, big time.

How did it happen?

When it’s all said and done, the National Organization for Marriage’s commercial will be remembered as a huge debacle. Years from now, it will probably be looked at in the same vein of an Ed Wood movie- at college dorm parties complete with drinking games.

But for a while, I couldn’t figure out just why this ad resonated the way it did (and certainly not the way that the NOM had hoped).

Then the reason came to me.

The ad came across as a low budget Youtube version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

NOM head Maggie Gallagher consistently makes the same evasive argument in almost every talk show appearance - “if you believe in traditional marriage, then you are unfairly labeled a bigot.”

She does everything but hint about re-education camps for those who don’t agree with same sex marriage. Maybe she should have consulted with Rep. Michele Bachman and Janet Porter.

While this argument can be effective in the hit/miss world of talk shows and soundbites, it becomes less effective when people have time to assess it.

It’s nothing more than a scare tactic, really. And when given time, people tend to recognize scare tactics.

Especially when they are ensconced in a background of phony dark clouds and artificial thunder and lightning with actors talking about “the enemy” that threatens America.

It’s just too intense to be taken seriously.

Lgbts and our allies laughed with good reason at the silliness of the ad. But I venture to say that some people who viewed the ad came away feeling pretty stupid about opposing same-sex marriage.

I also think that some did not come away from viewing the ad with the notion of “My God, we have to stop this from happening.”

Instead there was a lot of “Who the hell are these crazy people who put out this dumb ad?”

NOM is facing a brave new world where people are slowly but surely beginning to realize that gay marriage is not so threatening. While we have a long way to go, the victories in Vermont and Iowa prove that gay marriage is no longer a consistently winning issue for the right.

They can no longer rely on dark clouds, talk of secret empires, and inscrutable enemies to get their point across.

But when that’s all you have, what can you do?

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.