Wednesday midday news briefs
The Globalization of Gay Bashing - This is damned scary - that's all that needs to be said.
Orson Scott Card Joins NOM Board - It's like the hydra. One head drops and another one takes its place.
More Republicans embrace gay equality - It's about time, too!
Perez Hilton vs Dennis Prager on Marriage Equality - Because I'm all obsessive-compulsive about completing things, I am including this. When I first heard of this debate, it reminded me of those Lucio Fulci movies where zombies ate people alive. I was only hoping that Hilton would get away with only one body part chewed up. From what I hear though, he did rather well. That doesn't mean my opinion has changed about him, but I admire his tenacity to fight in a situation he unnecessarily exacerbated.
ACLU demands LGBT website access for TN students - Because according to One News Now, when anyone is looking for lgbt-related information, it's ALL ABOUT SEX!
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Will lies about hate crimes legislation ever die?
As Congress gets ready to take up the issue of adding lgbts to existing hate crimes laws, the religious right have quietly been trying to rally the troops against it by using the same old inaccuracies.
Yesterday, Matt Barber wrote a piece in One News Now which was full of his usual hyperbolic exaggerations. One passage in particular caught my attention:
While debating the notion of "conspiracy to commit a hate crime" in the last Congress, Representative Artur Davis (D-Alabama) admitted that the legislation could be used to prosecute pastors for merely preaching the Bible under the concept of "inducement" to violence.
This in an inaccuracy and I have a feeling that Barber knows this. Let's look at the original transcript passage courtesy of goodasyou.org (who broke the story of how Davis's supposed admission was a distortion in 2007 when the incident took place):
Mr. Gohmert: Even with your amendment, you still have to go back to the "rule of evidence" at page 15 of the underlying bill. And it says that these things may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial unless the evidence specifically relates to the offense.
And if I understood the gentleman's amendment—and I will put the question back to you—if a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation goes out and does an act of violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit that act, are you saying under your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced against the minister?
Mr. Davis: No.
Please bear in mind that this exchange said nothing about putting ministers in jail.
If someone commits a crime and blames a third party, then the police have an obligation to question that third party.
Then Barber relates this blatant lie (which was debunked by Pam Spaulding):
But the Christian needn't even touch the homosexual. If the homosexual merely claims he was subjectively placed in "apprehension of bodily injury" by the Christian's words then, again, the Christian can be thrown in prison for a felony "hate crime." The FBI has included mere words – "insults" and "intimidation" – in calculating "hate crimes" statistics and – under the current political regime in Washington – there's every reason to believe they'll subjectively consider "insults" and "intimidation" (read: traditional sexual morality) for purposes of prosecuting "hate crimes."
Spaulding said:
This law wouldn't do anything to stifle free speech. The ACLU's Washington Legislative Office passed along this document outlining that the legislation protects First Amendment rights of free speech and free association:
III. The New Bill Provides Strong Protection of Free Speech
The ACLU has a long record of support for stronger protection of both free speech and civil rights. Those positions are not inconsistent. In fact, vigilant protection of free speech rights historically has opened the doors to effective advocacy for expanded civil rights protections.
Fourteen years ago, the ACLU submitted a brief to the Supreme Court urging the Court to uphold a Wisconsin hate crime sentencing enhancement statute as constitutional. However, the ACLU also asked the Court "to set forth a clear set of rules governing the use of such statutes in the future." The ACLU warned the Court that "if the state is not able to prove that a defendant's speech is linked to specific criminal behavior, the chances increase that the state's hate crime prosecution is politically inspired." The evidentiary provision in the House bill will help avoid that harm.
And I would be remiss if I didn't include one of Barber's personal tactics - making wild unsubstantiated claims:
The entire push for federal "hate crimes" legislation is rooted in fraud. In fact, many of the most high-profile reports have turned out to be false. For example, investigators determined that the very "hate crime" (Andrew Anthos in Michigan) exploited by liberal lawmakers to justify the same legislation in the last Congress, was a false report. It never happened. (See report from Detroit News) And instances of such fabricated and politically motivated "hate crimes" continue to pile up.
If politically motivated hate crimes are truly piling up, then the proof is obviously somewhere in Barber's head because he doesn't elaborate on this point (much like last year when he attacked six Canadian researchers for complaining about how the religious right was distorting their work. Barber said they were under "tremendous pressure" to do such but he conveniently didn't elaborate on that either)
But Barber isn't alone in his pathetic attempt to talk against hate crimes legislation. Regina Griggs of the ex-gay group PFOX wrote a piece also. She should have left well enough alone:
Griggs say the bill puts hatred of ex-"gays" into legislation. "The legislation doesn't protect my organization, and it doesn't protect the rights of former homosexuals to live free, happy out of the closet, if you will, and to be getting their message out to the public and into the schools," she adds. "Change is possible; it's proven scientifically."
God. Where to start in proving that this statement is beyond stupid? First of all the legislation adds sexual orientation in general to exisiting hate crimes legislation; not just the lgbt orientation. This means a group of gays who physically assault a heterosexual simply because of his orientation could be prosecuted under the legislation.
This means it would in fact protect those who call themselves "ex-gays."
And lastly, if it has been scientifically proven that people can change their sexual orientation, then perhaps Griggs keeps that knowledge in the same place Barber keeps his knowledge about the "epidemic" of phony hate crimes.
Really though, if this is the best the religious right has in their attempts to stop hate crimes legislation, then I actually feel sorry for them.
As Congress gets ready to take up the issue of adding lgbts to existing hate crimes laws, the religious right have quietly been trying to rally the troops against it by using the same old inaccuracies.
Yesterday, Matt Barber wrote a piece in One News Now which was full of his usual hyperbolic exaggerations. One passage in particular caught my attention:
While debating the notion of "conspiracy to commit a hate crime" in the last Congress, Representative Artur Davis (D-Alabama) admitted that the legislation could be used to prosecute pastors for merely preaching the Bible under the concept of "inducement" to violence.
This in an inaccuracy and I have a feeling that Barber knows this. Let's look at the original transcript passage courtesy of goodasyou.org (who broke the story of how Davis's supposed admission was a distortion in 2007 when the incident took place):
Mr. Gohmert: Even with your amendment, you still have to go back to the "rule of evidence" at page 15 of the underlying bill. And it says that these things may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial unless the evidence specifically relates to the offense.
And if I understood the gentleman's amendment—and I will put the question back to you—if a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation goes out and does an act of violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit that act, are you saying under your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced against the minister?
Mr. Davis: No.
Please bear in mind that this exchange said nothing about putting ministers in jail.
If someone commits a crime and blames a third party, then the police have an obligation to question that third party.
Then Barber relates this blatant lie (which was debunked by Pam Spaulding):
But the Christian needn't even touch the homosexual. If the homosexual merely claims he was subjectively placed in "apprehension of bodily injury" by the Christian's words then, again, the Christian can be thrown in prison for a felony "hate crime." The FBI has included mere words – "insults" and "intimidation" – in calculating "hate crimes" statistics and – under the current political regime in Washington – there's every reason to believe they'll subjectively consider "insults" and "intimidation" (read: traditional sexual morality) for purposes of prosecuting "hate crimes."
Spaulding said:
This law wouldn't do anything to stifle free speech. The ACLU's Washington Legislative Office passed along this document outlining that the legislation protects First Amendment rights of free speech and free association:
III. The New Bill Provides Strong Protection of Free Speech
The ACLU has a long record of support for stronger protection of both free speech and civil rights. Those positions are not inconsistent. In fact, vigilant protection of free speech rights historically has opened the doors to effective advocacy for expanded civil rights protections.
Fourteen years ago, the ACLU submitted a brief to the Supreme Court urging the Court to uphold a Wisconsin hate crime sentencing enhancement statute as constitutional. However, the ACLU also asked the Court "to set forth a clear set of rules governing the use of such statutes in the future." The ACLU warned the Court that "if the state is not able to prove that a defendant's speech is linked to specific criminal behavior, the chances increase that the state's hate crime prosecution is politically inspired." The evidentiary provision in the House bill will help avoid that harm.
And I would be remiss if I didn't include one of Barber's personal tactics - making wild unsubstantiated claims:
The entire push for federal "hate crimes" legislation is rooted in fraud. In fact, many of the most high-profile reports have turned out to be false. For example, investigators determined that the very "hate crime" (Andrew Anthos in Michigan) exploited by liberal lawmakers to justify the same legislation in the last Congress, was a false report. It never happened. (See report from Detroit News) And instances of such fabricated and politically motivated "hate crimes" continue to pile up.
If politically motivated hate crimes are truly piling up, then the proof is obviously somewhere in Barber's head because he doesn't elaborate on this point (much like last year when he attacked six Canadian researchers for complaining about how the religious right was distorting their work. Barber said they were under "tremendous pressure" to do such but he conveniently didn't elaborate on that either)
But Barber isn't alone in his pathetic attempt to talk against hate crimes legislation. Regina Griggs of the ex-gay group PFOX wrote a piece also. She should have left well enough alone:
Griggs say the bill puts hatred of ex-"gays" into legislation. "The legislation doesn't protect my organization, and it doesn't protect the rights of former homosexuals to live free, happy out of the closet, if you will, and to be getting their message out to the public and into the schools," she adds. "Change is possible; it's proven scientifically."
God. Where to start in proving that this statement is beyond stupid? First of all the legislation adds sexual orientation in general to exisiting hate crimes legislation; not just the lgbt orientation. This means a group of gays who physically assault a heterosexual simply because of his orientation could be prosecuted under the legislation.
This means it would in fact protect those who call themselves "ex-gays."
And lastly, if it has been scientifically proven that people can change their sexual orientation, then perhaps Griggs keeps that knowledge in the same place Barber keeps his knowledge about the "epidemic" of phony hate crimes.
Really though, if this is the best the religious right has in their attempts to stop hate crimes legislation, then I actually feel sorry for them.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Perez Hilton and Peter LaBarbera - two different sides of the same idiot coin
Oh please make this situation go away. I will do penance, I will go to church every Sunday, anything.
But make this nonsense about the Miss America pageant go away.
Who am I kidding? This situation is juicy and it's not going away any time soon.
And it's just as I figured yesterday - Perez Hilton is now front and center on Peter LaBarbera's Americans for Truth webpage.
Peter is trying to link Hilton to all of us:
You see, it’s all about holding the “right” position — that is, the “gay” position — and shutting up or overriding your beliefs, or risk being smeared as a hateful “homophobe” if you dare to disagree. This is the emboldened Queer Lobby’s and their Amen Corner’s M.O. — whether it’s forcing a New Mexico Christian photographer to shoot a lesbian “wedding” against her convictions; trying to get Prop 8 thrown out and declared “unconstitutional” because you lost at the ballot box; equating opposition to “gay marriage” with rank bigotry, or moral opposition to homosexual behavior with “bullying gays”; or pressuring the media into rejecting ads featuring successful ex-”gays” (as GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, has done).
Not all of us like Hilton and not all of us agree with his actions. To link his stupid behavior with lgbts trying to gain our God-given right of self determination is homophobia defined.
It's no different than linking the behavior of black gang members to the African-American male in general or the behavior of a black woman you see on the Maury Povich show testing four men for the paternity of her child to all black women.
Really though, you can't blame Peter for trying to take advantage of this situation any more than you can fault a vampire bat for sucking blood. Both parties need to feed off of others to survive.
But I want to know something.
Am I being too hard on Perez Hilton?
I mean I don't think so. He asked a question. Miss California answered it. It may not have been the answer he liked but that should have been the end of the story. Of course it probably wouldn't have been but Hilton didn't make things better by getting on youtube and calling her a b*(#&& and a c*^$!
Whether we like it or not (and I hate it), Hilton is in the public eye and yes he has a responsibility to act as if his mother gave him good sense. But he didn't.
He called Miss California out of her name. She in return got on the Today show and took the position of Joan of Arc on the stake while at the same time talking about how she will pray for Hilton.
Who looks better? The pushy gay or the beauty queen?
Or a better question is who looks better? The lgbt community or the religious right?
It's too depressing to think about. One more question though:
African-Americans have Julian Bond, Cornel West, and a host of black intellectuals gaining attention. Women have Gloria Steinhem and, to an extent, Phyllis Schafly espousing their point of view about the role of women.
Just who in the hell does the gay community have to speak for us besides an immature gossip columnist whose claim to fame is outing a few celebrities and drawing ridiculous doodles on the pictures of other celebrities?
I know. We have many others who are far more intelligent and mature to espouse our community's values.
Okay, but then why is Hilton gaining all of the attention?
Oh please make this situation go away. I will do penance, I will go to church every Sunday, anything.
But make this nonsense about the Miss America pageant go away.
Who am I kidding? This situation is juicy and it's not going away any time soon.
And it's just as I figured yesterday - Perez Hilton is now front and center on Peter LaBarbera's Americans for Truth webpage.
Peter is trying to link Hilton to all of us:
You see, it’s all about holding the “right” position — that is, the “gay” position — and shutting up or overriding your beliefs, or risk being smeared as a hateful “homophobe” if you dare to disagree. This is the emboldened Queer Lobby’s and their Amen Corner’s M.O. — whether it’s forcing a New Mexico Christian photographer to shoot a lesbian “wedding” against her convictions; trying to get Prop 8 thrown out and declared “unconstitutional” because you lost at the ballot box; equating opposition to “gay marriage” with rank bigotry, or moral opposition to homosexual behavior with “bullying gays”; or pressuring the media into rejecting ads featuring successful ex-”gays” (as GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, has done).
Not all of us like Hilton and not all of us agree with his actions. To link his stupid behavior with lgbts trying to gain our God-given right of self determination is homophobia defined.
It's no different than linking the behavior of black gang members to the African-American male in general or the behavior of a black woman you see on the Maury Povich show testing four men for the paternity of her child to all black women.
Really though, you can't blame Peter for trying to take advantage of this situation any more than you can fault a vampire bat for sucking blood. Both parties need to feed off of others to survive.
But I want to know something.
Am I being too hard on Perez Hilton?
I mean I don't think so. He asked a question. Miss California answered it. It may not have been the answer he liked but that should have been the end of the story. Of course it probably wouldn't have been but Hilton didn't make things better by getting on youtube and calling her a b*(#&& and a c*^$!
Whether we like it or not (and I hate it), Hilton is in the public eye and yes he has a responsibility to act as if his mother gave him good sense. But he didn't.
He called Miss California out of her name. She in return got on the Today show and took the position of Joan of Arc on the stake while at the same time talking about how she will pray for Hilton.
Who looks better? The pushy gay or the beauty queen?
Or a better question is who looks better? The lgbt community or the religious right?
It's too depressing to think about. One more question though:
African-Americans have Julian Bond, Cornel West, and a host of black intellectuals gaining attention. Women have Gloria Steinhem and, to an extent, Phyllis Schafly espousing their point of view about the role of women.
Just who in the hell does the gay community have to speak for us besides an immature gossip columnist whose claim to fame is outing a few celebrities and drawing ridiculous doodles on the pictures of other celebrities?
I know. We have many others who are far more intelligent and mature to espouse our community's values.
Okay, but then why is Hilton gaining all of the attention?
Tuesday midday news briefs
Video: Poignant - THIS is what we should be focused on. Forget beauty pageants.
Autumn Sandeen writes from from Angie Zapata murder trial - Another issue we should focus on
Suicide Vicitm's FamilyBlames School - This has to stop!!
NARTH To Export Ex-Gay Message To London - Super. The road show from hell.
Video: Poignant - THIS is what we should be focused on. Forget beauty pageants.
Autumn Sandeen writes from from Angie Zapata murder trial - Another issue we should focus on
Suicide Vicitm's FamilyBlames School - This has to stop!!
NARTH To Export Ex-Gay Message To London - Super. The road show from hell.
I love my beautiful black people but sometimes I think they have lost their minds
And IT begins.
Miss California and Perez Hilton are now doing the morning news show circuits, no doubt sparring with each other over her answer to his question and whether or not it cost her the Miss America crown.
Why Lord, why? I still think it's a dumb controversy.
And in another "Why Lord, why" moment, I ran into an interesting gossip site yesterday and it put made me think about what lgbts of color have to deal with in the black community.
There is this belief that black folks are more homophobic than other Americans. I don't believe this is the case. What I do believe is that there needs to be some serious discussion in the black community regarding homosexuality. Sometimes those who are in leadership positions in the black community shirk their duties when they don't encourage (and in some cases try to hinder) this conversation.
I also think that trepidation about gays and lesbians in the black community goes beyond that of a religious issue. We are a threat to the ideas of gender roles.
And as these items (and comments) prove, there is a salacious aspect that many want to throw at the lgbt community; an aspect that wouldn't exist if lgbts of color would have more support in the black community:
EXPLOSIVE!!!! RADIO SHOW CLAIMS TO HAVE EVIDENCE OF RAPPER CHINGY'S SECRET LIFESTYLE!!!
HMMMMM!!! R&B Singer Brandy Spotted LEAVING THE CLUB With A VERY BUTCH Looking Gal Pal!!!
LMAO!!!! Vivica Fox Is Trying To Date THAT GAY LOOKING BOY From High School Musical!!!
ON BLAST!!! Gay Community ANGERED By Rapper Bow Wow's HOMOPHOBIC Comments!!!
And IT begins.
Miss California and Perez Hilton are now doing the morning news show circuits, no doubt sparring with each other over her answer to his question and whether or not it cost her the Miss America crown.
Why Lord, why? I still think it's a dumb controversy.
And in another "Why Lord, why" moment, I ran into an interesting gossip site yesterday and it put made me think about what lgbts of color have to deal with in the black community.
There is this belief that black folks are more homophobic than other Americans. I don't believe this is the case. What I do believe is that there needs to be some serious discussion in the black community regarding homosexuality. Sometimes those who are in leadership positions in the black community shirk their duties when they don't encourage (and in some cases try to hinder) this conversation.
I also think that trepidation about gays and lesbians in the black community goes beyond that of a religious issue. We are a threat to the ideas of gender roles.
And as these items (and comments) prove, there is a salacious aspect that many want to throw at the lgbt community; an aspect that wouldn't exist if lgbts of color would have more support in the black community:
EXPLOSIVE!!!! RADIO SHOW CLAIMS TO HAVE EVIDENCE OF RAPPER CHINGY'S SECRET LIFESTYLE!!!
HMMMMM!!! R&B Singer Brandy Spotted LEAVING THE CLUB With A VERY BUTCH Looking Gal Pal!!!
LMAO!!!! Vivica Fox Is Trying To Date THAT GAY LOOKING BOY From High School Musical!!!
ON BLAST!!! Gay Community ANGERED By Rapper Bow Wow's HOMOPHOBIC Comments!!!
Monday, April 20, 2009
Why the Miss USA controversy is a STUPID issue
Oh God no.
There is a dumb controversy brewing over the Miss USA pageant that took place last weekend.
Apparently in the question and answer segment, Miss California stated her opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
So batten down the hatches because here comes a whole lot of nonsense.
I should have known it couldn't last. For the past weeks, the lgbt community was on a unparalleled streak of good fortune. Iowa, Vermont, the mocking of NOM - we were hot.
Then this happens.
Now we are going to be distracted by a non-issue that only has the potential for us to look like bad guys.
You know what? I don't care what this woman said. It was her opinion. She expressed it. She didn't win the crown. Big whoop.
She will probably benefit from the controversy by becoming the newest religious right cause celebre. I can just see the spin now - "She was denied the crown because she stood up for the American family."
The optimist in me (I ate an optimist for dinner last week - you know us gays are also cannibals. Paul Cameron said so) sees a silver lining to this potential cloud.
If anything, maybe this controversy will teach my lgbt community not to canonize lgbt celebrities.
Gossip columnist Perez Hilton was a judge during the competition and since the controversy took place, he has been consistently rude to Ms. California and basically acted like a damn fool.
Way to go, Perez. Expect to see your vapid self in One News Now or on the Americans for Truth webpage as indicative of the entire lgbt community.
For the record, Hilton is simply a gossip columnist and a very immature one at that. I don't give a crap how many interviews he does or how many youtube videos he presents on the issue, or how often he is in the public eyes in general, Hilton does not represent the entire lgbt community.
And while some of us may be distracted and momentarily angry at Miss California, it's not a good thing to take crucial time away from the big picture of lgbt equality to talk about a single incident in a beauty pageant that will most likely be forgotten in a year.
Let this be a lesson to us all. Just because someone is an actor, singer, or gossip columnist and just happens to be gay does not mean that person shoud be taken as a sort of a spokesperson for the lgbt community.
We owe it to ourselves to adhere to a higher standard than that.
Oh God no.
There is a dumb controversy brewing over the Miss USA pageant that took place last weekend.
Apparently in the question and answer segment, Miss California stated her opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
So batten down the hatches because here comes a whole lot of nonsense.
I should have known it couldn't last. For the past weeks, the lgbt community was on a unparalleled streak of good fortune. Iowa, Vermont, the mocking of NOM - we were hot.
Then this happens.
Now we are going to be distracted by a non-issue that only has the potential for us to look like bad guys.
You know what? I don't care what this woman said. It was her opinion. She expressed it. She didn't win the crown. Big whoop.
She will probably benefit from the controversy by becoming the newest religious right cause celebre. I can just see the spin now - "She was denied the crown because she stood up for the American family."
The optimist in me (I ate an optimist for dinner last week - you know us gays are also cannibals. Paul Cameron said so) sees a silver lining to this potential cloud.
If anything, maybe this controversy will teach my lgbt community not to canonize lgbt celebrities.
Gossip columnist Perez Hilton was a judge during the competition and since the controversy took place, he has been consistently rude to Ms. California and basically acted like a damn fool.
Way to go, Perez. Expect to see your vapid self in One News Now or on the Americans for Truth webpage as indicative of the entire lgbt community.
For the record, Hilton is simply a gossip columnist and a very immature one at that. I don't give a crap how many interviews he does or how many youtube videos he presents on the issue, or how often he is in the public eyes in general, Hilton does not represent the entire lgbt community.
And while some of us may be distracted and momentarily angry at Miss California, it's not a good thing to take crucial time away from the big picture of lgbt equality to talk about a single incident in a beauty pageant that will most likely be forgotten in a year.
Let this be a lesson to us all. Just because someone is an actor, singer, or gossip columnist and just happens to be gay does not mean that person shoud be taken as a sort of a spokesperson for the lgbt community.
We owe it to ourselves to adhere to a higher standard than that.
Monday midday news briefs
There has been a very interesting update in my last post. Check it out
Mormon Scion Matthew S. Holland Quits the NOM Board - And the hits keep coming to NOM.
David Mixner: Rick Warren Badly Needs A Private Retreat - Ya think?
Uganda’s Anti-Gay Vigilante Campaign Is Now In Full Swing - This ain't good AT ALL!
Too young to vote. Old enough to be publicly condemned by LaBarbera - Peter is now picking on children. Big man he is!
Mocking "Gathering Storm" from start to finish - Go ahead. You know you want to check out the link.
There has been a very interesting update in my last post. Check it out
Mormon Scion Matthew S. Holland Quits the NOM Board - And the hits keep coming to NOM.
David Mixner: Rick Warren Badly Needs A Private Retreat - Ya think?
Uganda’s Anti-Gay Vigilante Campaign Is Now In Full Swing - This ain't good AT ALL!
Too young to vote. Old enough to be publicly condemned by LaBarbera - Peter is now picking on children. Big man he is!
Mocking "Gathering Storm" from start to finish - Go ahead. You know you want to check out the link.
Anti-Day of Silence video creator alleges gay conspiracy
Haven't heard anything about it? My point exactly.
On Saturday, I talked about a video put out about it by Capitol Resource Institute which claimed that Day of Silence supporters were "threatening" pro-family groups.
The video uses negative phone messages, alleged emails of a threatening nature, and footage of Proposition 8 protests in an attempt to twist the argument of lgbt teen safety into a semantic one about tolerance (i.e. claiming that while Day of Silence supporters want tolerance and safety for gay teens but they aren't capable of showing tolerance themselves.)
All in all, the video does a poor job of connecting the Day of Silence to any acts of violence.
This weekend, I spoke to the self-described creator of the video (on youtube, he calls himself the Dark Lord of Debate). I asked him specifically about the inaccuracies of the video, most specifically its attempt to link the Day of Silence with the Proposition 8 protests. This is what he said:
Regardless of the exact connection of each event in the video to the Day of Silence, I believe the video is illustrative of the intolerance of those advocating the gay agenda to silence all who disagree with them--of which the Day of Silence is only a small part. The message was that those of us who believe in traditional marriage and sexuality are not going to allow our voices to be silenced the way they have been in other countries where the gay agenda has been more successful than in the US. In Canada, Australia, and several Scandinavian countries pastors have been imprisoned for merely preaching that homosexuality is immoral. We won't stand for that, and if you are as tolerant as your side claims I hope you won't either.
My answer to him was short but to the point:
You speak of anecdotes taken out of context. Also whatever the case is, these situations happened in foreign countries - countries that do not possess the same laws or constitutions as America. The error in your statement lies in the belief that there is some worldwide conspiracy on the part of gays and lesbians. And that notion simply isn't true. The situations that you allege happened in Canada, etc. have nothing to do with the situations in the United States because they do not have the same "cast of characters," so to speak.
All in all, your statements are extremely debatable but what is not a debatable point is:
1. You unfairly generalized about all of those who support the Day of Silence - not to mention all gays and lesbian in general
2. Your video is so over the top that its credibility is questioned - the footage of alleged violence has nothing to do with the Day of Silence. And the phone calls and emails are equally questionable.
The semantical argument you put forth regarding "tolerance" is merely a dodge. And it's a sad one.
The "Dark Lord" didn't answer me back as of yet, but his first message is interesting.
To him, the video was not about truth or accuracy but about fighting the "alleged gay agenda."
I personally fail to see what the Day of Silence has to do with alleged incidents in foreign countries. And anyone with good sense would fail to see the connection also.
But those on Dark Lord's side of the argument aren't necessarily known for their good sense.
UPDATE - Dark Lord answered me back and admits to a degree of exaggeration:
To a certain extent I agree with you. I know full well that not all gay activists are like those portrayed in the video, and to that extent the video is somewhat of an exaggeration, though no more than any typical political attack ad, which is basically what this video was intended as. The video is however accurate in exposing the fact that not all gay activists are as tolerant as they claim, and are fully capable of engaging in hateful behavior themselves, which is important to counteract the common view of conservatives as hateful bigots and liberals as paragons of tolerance.
I also disagree that there is no connection between the Day of Silence and prop 8. CRI is a Californian organization which also worked for the passage of prop 8, and you can bet many of the people making those calls and sending those emails (which were all authentic, btw) were the same people protesting prop 8. The Day of Silence and the response to prop 8 are very much connected the way I see it.
As far as the idea of a gay conspiracy, I fully recognize that there is no organized conspiracy of gays against Christians, but the gay lobby worldwide does have a fairly unified political agenda and both in other countries and the US that has included silencing any dissenting voices which object to homosexuality as normal. These other countries were also western democracies, and their laws started out as "hate crimes" legislation like we have in the US. Sure we have a constitution that protects free speech, but that only works as long as the courts are willing to follow it, which is why I'm not convinced the same thing can't happen here, and why I will continue to oppose all efforts to silence our voice.
At any rate, I know I'm not going to convince you, but maybe that will at least help you understand my perspective in making this video. I'm sorry you disagree with it, but that is your right. See you around.
Now I could go on a tangent like he did but I want to zero in on something that bothers me. This is my return message to Dark Lord's newest email:
You are going all over the place with these tangents regarding hate crimes and the alleged worldwide gay conspiracy. But I won't follow you up on it.
What bothers me basically is your admittance that the video is exaggerated. Don't you think it's bizarre to accuse gay activists of being hypocritical because some don't practice the tolerance that they claim to espouse when you aren't practicing the Christian tenet about truth that you want to portray yourself standing for?
Aren't you guilty of the same hypocrisy you have accused them of?
How can you defend Christian beliefs through a video which you have admitted makes exaggerated claims? Just when did it become appropriate for those who follow Christ to get their point across via cynical attack ads?
Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the light." He didn't say "I am the way, the truth and the light but feel free to exaggerate in my name when you are trying to talk to sinners."
(Editor's note - This post has been updated. See below)
The Day of Silence has come and gone. Now it's time for the so-called counterpart - The Allied Defense Fund's Day of Truth.Haven't heard anything about it? My point exactly.
On Saturday, I talked about a video put out about it by Capitol Resource Institute which claimed that Day of Silence supporters were "threatening" pro-family groups.
The video uses negative phone messages, alleged emails of a threatening nature, and footage of Proposition 8 protests in an attempt to twist the argument of lgbt teen safety into a semantic one about tolerance (i.e. claiming that while Day of Silence supporters want tolerance and safety for gay teens but they aren't capable of showing tolerance themselves.)
All in all, the video does a poor job of connecting the Day of Silence to any acts of violence.
This weekend, I spoke to the self-described creator of the video (on youtube, he calls himself the Dark Lord of Debate). I asked him specifically about the inaccuracies of the video, most specifically its attempt to link the Day of Silence with the Proposition 8 protests. This is what he said:
Regardless of the exact connection of each event in the video to the Day of Silence, I believe the video is illustrative of the intolerance of those advocating the gay agenda to silence all who disagree with them--of which the Day of Silence is only a small part. The message was that those of us who believe in traditional marriage and sexuality are not going to allow our voices to be silenced the way they have been in other countries where the gay agenda has been more successful than in the US. In Canada, Australia, and several Scandinavian countries pastors have been imprisoned for merely preaching that homosexuality is immoral. We won't stand for that, and if you are as tolerant as your side claims I hope you won't either.
My answer to him was short but to the point:
You speak of anecdotes taken out of context. Also whatever the case is, these situations happened in foreign countries - countries that do not possess the same laws or constitutions as America. The error in your statement lies in the belief that there is some worldwide conspiracy on the part of gays and lesbians. And that notion simply isn't true. The situations that you allege happened in Canada, etc. have nothing to do with the situations in the United States because they do not have the same "cast of characters," so to speak.
All in all, your statements are extremely debatable but what is not a debatable point is:
1. You unfairly generalized about all of those who support the Day of Silence - not to mention all gays and lesbian in general
2. Your video is so over the top that its credibility is questioned - the footage of alleged violence has nothing to do with the Day of Silence. And the phone calls and emails are equally questionable.
The semantical argument you put forth regarding "tolerance" is merely a dodge. And it's a sad one.
The "Dark Lord" didn't answer me back as of yet, but his first message is interesting.
To him, the video was not about truth or accuracy but about fighting the "alleged gay agenda."
I personally fail to see what the Day of Silence has to do with alleged incidents in foreign countries. And anyone with good sense would fail to see the connection also.
But those on Dark Lord's side of the argument aren't necessarily known for their good sense.
UPDATE - Dark Lord answered me back and admits to a degree of exaggeration:
To a certain extent I agree with you. I know full well that not all gay activists are like those portrayed in the video, and to that extent the video is somewhat of an exaggeration, though no more than any typical political attack ad, which is basically what this video was intended as. The video is however accurate in exposing the fact that not all gay activists are as tolerant as they claim, and are fully capable of engaging in hateful behavior themselves, which is important to counteract the common view of conservatives as hateful bigots and liberals as paragons of tolerance.
I also disagree that there is no connection between the Day of Silence and prop 8. CRI is a Californian organization which also worked for the passage of prop 8, and you can bet many of the people making those calls and sending those emails (which were all authentic, btw) were the same people protesting prop 8. The Day of Silence and the response to prop 8 are very much connected the way I see it.
As far as the idea of a gay conspiracy, I fully recognize that there is no organized conspiracy of gays against Christians, but the gay lobby worldwide does have a fairly unified political agenda and both in other countries and the US that has included silencing any dissenting voices which object to homosexuality as normal. These other countries were also western democracies, and their laws started out as "hate crimes" legislation like we have in the US. Sure we have a constitution that protects free speech, but that only works as long as the courts are willing to follow it, which is why I'm not convinced the same thing can't happen here, and why I will continue to oppose all efforts to silence our voice.
At any rate, I know I'm not going to convince you, but maybe that will at least help you understand my perspective in making this video. I'm sorry you disagree with it, but that is your right. See you around.
Now I could go on a tangent like he did but I want to zero in on something that bothers me. This is my return message to Dark Lord's newest email:
You are going all over the place with these tangents regarding hate crimes and the alleged worldwide gay conspiracy. But I won't follow you up on it.
What bothers me basically is your admittance that the video is exaggerated. Don't you think it's bizarre to accuse gay activists of being hypocritical because some don't practice the tolerance that they claim to espouse when you aren't practicing the Christian tenet about truth that you want to portray yourself standing for?
Aren't you guilty of the same hypocrisy you have accused them of?
How can you defend Christian beliefs through a video which you have admitted makes exaggerated claims? Just when did it become appropriate for those who follow Christ to get their point across via cynical attack ads?
Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the light." He didn't say "I am the way, the truth and the light but feel free to exaggerate in my name when you are trying to talk to sinners."
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Day of Silence a huge success again while the opposition tries to pull a fast one
Early reports are saying that yesterday's Day of Silence was a huge success despite the efforts of several religious right groups who advised parents to keep their children out of school during this day. This was the view from the Seattle Times which looked at the high school where area pastor Ken Hutcherson held an anti-Day of Silence protest last year:
No protesters disrupted classes at Mount Si High School, and about 21 percent of students called in absent Friday — more students than usual, but less than last year, when almost half of all students didn't come to school.
Mount Si was the focus last year of a protest over the "Day of Silence," a national movement to represent the silence many gay and lesbian students feel they must maintain at school to avoid harassment.
Again this year, Rev. Ken Hutcherson, of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, urged parents to keep students out of school Friday but did not hold a protest.
About 150 of the school's 1,400 students signed up to participate in the Day of Silence, spokeswoman Carolyn Malcolm said, and there were no disruptions during the school day.
Nice try, Kenny boy but you lose again.
And there is a plethora of positive coverage from other areas in the country:
Teens speak volumes during Day of Silence
Students protest oppression during Day of Silence
Students stay mum to honor GLBT peers
March supports gay rights
Local students take a stand against harassment during national Day of Silence
ISU students ‘Break Silence’ in fight against prejudice
But those organizations who oppose the Day of Silence are not "going gentle into that good night," so to speak.
One group, Capitol Resource Institute, has put a video highlighting the alleged threats, "intolerance," and also other incidents of violence that it claims are indicative of Day of Silence supporters.
I looked at the video and listened to the comments, even the choppy ones.
Some of the comments are rude with one person saying that he wishes that members of the anti-Day of Silence groups would kill themselves (that's the one played repeatedly).
But these messages sound like they are coming from adults and not teenagers (the ones who mostly participate in the Day of Silence.)
The emails were equally rude, even though we don't know anything about these them - whether they are coming from folks mad at the anti-Day of Silence stance or folks mad at these groups in general.
Or even if they are authentic.
Capitol Resource Institute claimed that one email inferred a death threat even to the extent of sending a picture of a funeral to emphasize detail. But no where in the article does its spokesperson, Karen England, talk about alerting the authorities. (Editor's note - The article has now been updated to say that England has in fact filed a police report.)
And let's talk about the acts of violence the video shows.
These "acts" took place from various Proposition 8 protests, including the Phyllis Burgess incident which was debunked on this site as well as many others.
Why is this important?
Because the Proposition 8 protests had absolutely nothing to do with the Day of Silence.
All in all, the video is a pathetic attempt to get a visceral reaction rather than a logical one.
That's not to say that I agree with what was allegedly sent to these groups. Rude comments and threats should not be the way we fight our battles.
But the attempt by Capitol Resource Institute to connect the dots between the Day of Silence and the alleged negativity expressed to the groups opposing the Day of Silence is highly, highly suspect.
It just goes to show that some people just can't take a loss.
Early reports are saying that yesterday's Day of Silence was a huge success despite the efforts of several religious right groups who advised parents to keep their children out of school during this day. This was the view from the Seattle Times which looked at the high school where area pastor Ken Hutcherson held an anti-Day of Silence protest last year:
No protesters disrupted classes at Mount Si High School, and about 21 percent of students called in absent Friday — more students than usual, but less than last year, when almost half of all students didn't come to school.
Mount Si was the focus last year of a protest over the "Day of Silence," a national movement to represent the silence many gay and lesbian students feel they must maintain at school to avoid harassment.
Again this year, Rev. Ken Hutcherson, of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, urged parents to keep students out of school Friday but did not hold a protest.
About 150 of the school's 1,400 students signed up to participate in the Day of Silence, spokeswoman Carolyn Malcolm said, and there were no disruptions during the school day.
Nice try, Kenny boy but you lose again.
And there is a plethora of positive coverage from other areas in the country:
Teens speak volumes during Day of Silence
Students protest oppression during Day of Silence
Students stay mum to honor GLBT peers
March supports gay rights
Local students take a stand against harassment during national Day of Silence
ISU students ‘Break Silence’ in fight against prejudice
But those organizations who oppose the Day of Silence are not "going gentle into that good night," so to speak.
One group, Capitol Resource Institute, has put a video highlighting the alleged threats, "intolerance," and also other incidents of violence that it claims are indicative of Day of Silence supporters.
I looked at the video and listened to the comments, even the choppy ones.
Some of the comments are rude with one person saying that he wishes that members of the anti-Day of Silence groups would kill themselves (that's the one played repeatedly).
But these messages sound like they are coming from adults and not teenagers (the ones who mostly participate in the Day of Silence.)
The emails were equally rude, even though we don't know anything about these them - whether they are coming from folks mad at the anti-Day of Silence stance or folks mad at these groups in general.
Or even if they are authentic.
Capitol Resource Institute claimed that one email inferred a death threat even to the extent of sending a picture of a funeral to emphasize detail. But no where in the article does its spokesperson, Karen England, talk about alerting the authorities. (Editor's note - The article has now been updated to say that England has in fact filed a police report.)
And let's talk about the acts of violence the video shows.
These "acts" took place from various Proposition 8 protests, including the Phyllis Burgess incident which was debunked on this site as well as many others.
Why is this important?
Because the Proposition 8 protests had absolutely nothing to do with the Day of Silence.
All in all, the video is a pathetic attempt to get a visceral reaction rather than a logical one.
That's not to say that I agree with what was allegedly sent to these groups. Rude comments and threats should not be the way we fight our battles.
But the attempt by Capitol Resource Institute to connect the dots between the Day of Silence and the alleged negativity expressed to the groups opposing the Day of Silence is highly, highly suspect.
It just goes to show that some people just can't take a loss.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Friday midday news briefs
Getting to the Roots of Hate Crime - An excellent article courtesy of Huffington Post.
Yea, Tony? That figure's honest? See nothing false about the witness you've borne? Interesting - Gasp! You mean the Family Research Council is actually misrepresenting a poll on gay marriage in New York? And in other "shocking" news, the sky tends to be blue on bright and sunny days
Gates says axing DADT 'complex' - Some folks may disagree but I don't. I remember what happened during the Clinton years. Let's proceed slowly but not stop the progress.
Ex-McCain aide to call for gay marriage support - Uh oh. I can just see the headlines courtesy of One News Now.
Laurie Higgins Endorses the Bullying of Gay Kids - Why am I not surprised.
Anderson Cooper’s Vulgar ‘Tea-Bagging’ Joke Epitomizes Media’s Hatred of Conservatives- And now some comedy courtesy of our friend Peter LaBarbera. Apparently lgbts had something to do with the mocking of teabaggers. We just got our fingers in everything (Don't you dare make a joke out of that.)
Getting to the Roots of Hate Crime - An excellent article courtesy of Huffington Post.
Yea, Tony? That figure's honest? See nothing false about the witness you've borne? Interesting - Gasp! You mean the Family Research Council is actually misrepresenting a poll on gay marriage in New York? And in other "shocking" news, the sky tends to be blue on bright and sunny days
Gates says axing DADT 'complex' - Some folks may disagree but I don't. I remember what happened during the Clinton years. Let's proceed slowly but not stop the progress.
Ex-McCain aide to call for gay marriage support - Uh oh. I can just see the headlines courtesy of One News Now.
Laurie Higgins Endorses the Bullying of Gay Kids - Why am I not surprised.
Anderson Cooper’s Vulgar ‘Tea-Bagging’ Joke Epitomizes Media’s Hatred of Conservatives- And now some comedy courtesy of our friend Peter LaBarbera. Apparently lgbts had something to do with the mocking of teabaggers. We just got our fingers in everything (Don't you dare make a joke out of that.)
The Day of Silence will be successful
Today is when thousands of high school students will show their support for their lgbt classmates via the Day of Silence.
I personally wish this idea had been around when I was in high school. Back then (the 80s is such a long time ago) just a rumor that a person was gay would elicit an automatic beatdown.
Some may argue that things may be pretty much the same, but I would have to disagree. The level of support that our lgbt children are receiving now is much better than it was when I was a child.
And of course the usual cast of characters are opposing the Day of Silence. In fact, pro-Paul Cameron group Illinois Family Institute is leading a charge to tells parents to keep their children out of schools during this day.
No doubt this plan will fail like the so-called Day of Truth these groups have been trying to push in direct opposite to Day of Silence.
Not that it will stop them from distributing a "we were successful" press release which I'm sure they worked on the same day they decided to announce the walk out.
Liberty Counsel and One News Now has even gotten into the act with a phony news article listing the supposed times that people have been threatened over opposing or not participating in the Day of Silence.
The article is a bunch of substantiated anecdotes and whinings put together by folks who fail to realize that they are losing this fight.
No matter though because this day is not about them.
It's about our children - the next generation of Americans. According to the Day of Silence webpage:
In 2008, hundreds of thousands of students from more than 8,000 K-12 schools, colleges and universities organized Day of Silence events. These numbers make the Day of Silence one of the largest student-led actions in the United States.
I feel confident that the level of participation this year will exceed that.
Slowly but sure we are winning this war.
Today is when thousands of high school students will show their support for their lgbt classmates via the Day of Silence.
I personally wish this idea had been around when I was in high school. Back then (the 80s is such a long time ago) just a rumor that a person was gay would elicit an automatic beatdown.
Some may argue that things may be pretty much the same, but I would have to disagree. The level of support that our lgbt children are receiving now is much better than it was when I was a child.
And of course the usual cast of characters are opposing the Day of Silence. In fact, pro-Paul Cameron group Illinois Family Institute is leading a charge to tells parents to keep their children out of schools during this day.
No doubt this plan will fail like the so-called Day of Truth these groups have been trying to push in direct opposite to Day of Silence.
Not that it will stop them from distributing a "we were successful" press release which I'm sure they worked on the same day they decided to announce the walk out.
Liberty Counsel and One News Now has even gotten into the act with a phony news article listing the supposed times that people have been threatened over opposing or not participating in the Day of Silence.
The article is a bunch of substantiated anecdotes and whinings put together by folks who fail to realize that they are losing this fight.
No matter though because this day is not about them.
It's about our children - the next generation of Americans. According to the Day of Silence webpage:
In 2008, hundreds of thousands of students from more than 8,000 K-12 schools, colleges and universities organized Day of Silence events. These numbers make the Day of Silence one of the largest student-led actions in the United States.
I feel confident that the level of participation this year will exceed that.
Slowly but sure we are winning this war.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Thursday evening news briefs
Washington state passes DP rights - Good news out of Washington.
ACLU asks schools to stop blocking gay Web sites - The next time you hear the religious right talk about computer blockers to "shield" children from pornographic sites, keep this article in mind. The devil is always in the details.
NY Senator Ruben Diaz Sr. Calls 'Emergency Summit' on Gay Marriage - New York Governor David Patterson makes heads spin.
Why Read It Yourself When You Can Take The Right's Word For It? - Witness how the religious right go apeshit over a report from the Department of Homeland Security. Right Wing Watch breaks down how they lie.
Gathering Storm Spoof - Oh come on. One more won't hurt.
Washington state passes DP rights - Good news out of Washington.
ACLU asks schools to stop blocking gay Web sites - The next time you hear the religious right talk about computer blockers to "shield" children from pornographic sites, keep this article in mind. The devil is always in the details.
NY Senator Ruben Diaz Sr. Calls 'Emergency Summit' on Gay Marriage - New York Governor David Patterson makes heads spin.
Why Read It Yourself When You Can Take The Right's Word For It? - Witness how the religious right go apeshit over a report from the Department of Homeland Security. Right Wing Watch breaks down how they lie.
Gathering Storm Spoof - Oh come on. One more won't hurt.
The Illinois Family Institute and Paul Cameron again
The Illinois Family Institute continues to throw humorous tantrums about being designated as an official hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
IFI was given this designation because it apparently uses the discredited work of Paul Cameron.
In the latest screed on Opposing Views, IFI member Laurie Higgins talks about a conversation she had with Mark Potok of the SPLC over this designation:
Mr. Potok stated in his voice message that we, IFI, "publish and promote the work of a man named Paul Cameron." This grossly misrepresents the nature of our involvement with Cameron's work. It suggests that we regularly or continually publish and promote the work of Cameron, when, by Potok and Beirich's own admission, we published only one brief article.
More troubling yet, this one article contained no statements remotely like those that Mr. Potok articulated in his voice message: "gay men are, something like, 20 times more likely to molest children" or that "they're so sickly and, ya know, sorta do such terrible things."
Mr. Potok then digs himself in even deeper when he says on tape that it is the SPLC's view that "the Illinois Family Institute promotes these (emphasis mine) complete falsehoods." "These" is a demonstrative pronoun referring back to the statements he just made. The problem is that he is suggesting that IFI promotes falsehoods that the SPLC's own evidence proves we did not promote. The SPLC's own evidence is the one three-year-old article that did not include any references to "child molestation," or "sickly homosexuals sorta doing terrible things." Mr. Potok was either stunningly careless with his rhetoric or deliberately manipulative.
I also explained to Mr. Potok that the one article from three years ago contained no hate rhetoric, and that it alone cannot possibly justify labeling IFI a hate group. I told him that simply quoting a source once does not mean that an organization supports or endorses everything that a source says or does.
The point is not a specific article by Cameron. The point is that his research tactics are extremely suspect. And while the article may not have had "hate rhetoric" per se, it creates an inaccuracy about lgbts - that we have a short life span.
This inaccuracy is no different than distorting FBI crime statistics to claim that African-Americans on the whole are a violent people.
Regardless of what Higgins says, when an organization cites a source, the organization is supporting that source. The organization is saying that the source is credible.
And an organization that cites Paul Cameron is saying that he is a credible source for information despite the fact that he has been rebuked and censored by several different groups including Exodus International (yeah, I can't believe it either), the American Psychological Association, and the American Sociological Association.
What Higgins is trying to do is have it both ways.
If she and the IFI really care about the SPLC's designation (as well as truth and accuracy), they would take steps to remove the material from IFI's webpage, or at least investigate the claims about Cameron - which, by the way, the group has said it would do.
When you are two-faced, it's best not to speak out of both your mouths. You reveal your duplicity.
And yet, this is the group that is helping to sponsor the Day of Silence Walk out in defense of "Christian values."
Who knew Christian values included lying and evasion?
The Illinois Family Institute continues to throw humorous tantrums about being designated as an official hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
IFI was given this designation because it apparently uses the discredited work of Paul Cameron.
In the latest screed on Opposing Views, IFI member Laurie Higgins talks about a conversation she had with Mark Potok of the SPLC over this designation:
Mr. Potok stated in his voice message that we, IFI, "publish and promote the work of a man named Paul Cameron." This grossly misrepresents the nature of our involvement with Cameron's work. It suggests that we regularly or continually publish and promote the work of Cameron, when, by Potok and Beirich's own admission, we published only one brief article.
More troubling yet, this one article contained no statements remotely like those that Mr. Potok articulated in his voice message: "gay men are, something like, 20 times more likely to molest children" or that "they're so sickly and, ya know, sorta do such terrible things."
Mr. Potok then digs himself in even deeper when he says on tape that it is the SPLC's view that "the Illinois Family Institute promotes these (emphasis mine) complete falsehoods." "These" is a demonstrative pronoun referring back to the statements he just made. The problem is that he is suggesting that IFI promotes falsehoods that the SPLC's own evidence proves we did not promote. The SPLC's own evidence is the one three-year-old article that did not include any references to "child molestation," or "sickly homosexuals sorta doing terrible things." Mr. Potok was either stunningly careless with his rhetoric or deliberately manipulative.
I also explained to Mr. Potok that the one article from three years ago contained no hate rhetoric, and that it alone cannot possibly justify labeling IFI a hate group. I told him that simply quoting a source once does not mean that an organization supports or endorses everything that a source says or does.
The point is not a specific article by Cameron. The point is that his research tactics are extremely suspect. And while the article may not have had "hate rhetoric" per se, it creates an inaccuracy about lgbts - that we have a short life span.
This inaccuracy is no different than distorting FBI crime statistics to claim that African-Americans on the whole are a violent people.
Regardless of what Higgins says, when an organization cites a source, the organization is supporting that source. The organization is saying that the source is credible.
And an organization that cites Paul Cameron is saying that he is a credible source for information despite the fact that he has been rebuked and censored by several different groups including Exodus International (yeah, I can't believe it either), the American Psychological Association, and the American Sociological Association.
What Higgins is trying to do is have it both ways.
If she and the IFI really care about the SPLC's designation (as well as truth and accuracy), they would take steps to remove the material from IFI's webpage, or at least investigate the claims about Cameron - which, by the way, the group has said it would do.
When you are two-faced, it's best not to speak out of both your mouths. You reveal your duplicity.
And yet, this is the group that is helping to sponsor the Day of Silence Walk out in defense of "Christian values."
Who knew Christian values included lying and evasion?
Illinois Family Institute doesn't have a clue
The Illinois Family Institute, the organization spearheading the supposed Day of Silence walkout, got into trouble recently over an anti- Day of Silence video.
With the way things are going with religious right groups and videos (i.e. NOM), one would think that they wouldn't have pushed it.
But they did and got tremendously embarrassed. The video was originally removed because of a few errors on the part of IFI.
From Box Turtle Bulletin:
JoeMyGod seems to have some of the details leading up to its withdrawal. The IFI originally listed a Baptist Church in Glendale, Arizona as a producer of the video. In fact, the video referenced that church’s DareToStand.org web site. But that church denied having anything to do with the clip. They have posted a note, which reads:
Please note: The Illinois Family Institute posted an article on its site April 15, entitled Dare to Stand regarding a video produced by a church in Illinois. Because the radio ministry of Northwest Valley Baptist Church coincidently [sic] bears the name Dare to Stand, we were mistakenly connected with it.
Neither Dare to Stand radio nor Northwest Valley Baptist Church is in any way involved with the development of this video or with the web site connected with it (www.dare2stand.com). Our website is www.daretostand.org. Please contact the Illinois Family Institute at www.illinoisfamily.org for more information.
The IFI’s web page was then changed to identify the video’s creator as Grace Gospel Center in Bensonville, Illinois. And then sometime after that, the video and the web page both vanished into thin air.
JoeMyGod has kept up with the situation, including the fact that the video is back up.
It's full of outrageous images, including child being threatened by a teacher because he opens a Bible in class. Of course the semantics about the "evils of the tolerance crowd" are played to the hilt. And while the Day of Silence isn't mentioned by name, negative inferences to it are throughout.
The video has the same problem that the NOM video had - it's too intense and in your face with its inaccuracies. Most likely, it will do more to galvanize support for the Day of Silence than against it.
This is becoming a standard mode of behavior - those who are against us are consistently cutting their own throats due to their stridency.
And personally, I'm all for it.
For more about Day of Silence, go here.
The Illinois Family Institute, the organization spearheading the supposed Day of Silence walkout, got into trouble recently over an anti- Day of Silence video.
With the way things are going with religious right groups and videos (i.e. NOM), one would think that they wouldn't have pushed it.
But they did and got tremendously embarrassed. The video was originally removed because of a few errors on the part of IFI.
From Box Turtle Bulletin:
JoeMyGod seems to have some of the details leading up to its withdrawal. The IFI originally listed a Baptist Church in Glendale, Arizona as a producer of the video. In fact, the video referenced that church’s DareToStand.org web site. But that church denied having anything to do with the clip. They have posted a note, which reads:
Please note: The Illinois Family Institute posted an article on its site April 15, entitled Dare to Stand regarding a video produced by a church in Illinois. Because the radio ministry of Northwest Valley Baptist Church coincidently [sic] bears the name Dare to Stand, we were mistakenly connected with it.
Neither Dare to Stand radio nor Northwest Valley Baptist Church is in any way involved with the development of this video or with the web site connected with it (www.dare2stand.com). Our website is www.daretostand.org. Please contact the Illinois Family Institute at www.illinoisfamily.org for more information.
The IFI’s web page was then changed to identify the video’s creator as Grace Gospel Center in Bensonville, Illinois. And then sometime after that, the video and the web page both vanished into thin air.
JoeMyGod has kept up with the situation, including the fact that the video is back up.
It's full of outrageous images, including child being threatened by a teacher because he opens a Bible in class. Of course the semantics about the "evils of the tolerance crowd" are played to the hilt. And while the Day of Silence isn't mentioned by name, negative inferences to it are throughout.
The video has the same problem that the NOM video had - it's too intense and in your face with its inaccuracies. Most likely, it will do more to galvanize support for the Day of Silence than against it.
This is becoming a standard mode of behavior - those who are against us are consistently cutting their own throats due to their stridency.
And personally, I'm all for it.
For more about Day of Silence, go here.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
From The Vancouver Sun - Tea Parties a HUGE FLOP
Read it first before Michelle Malkin and company accuse the Vancouver Sun of being in on the "Obama Conspiracy." I had to pinch myself when I read this article because I haven't seen any real journalism for so long with this being the age of pundits and soundbites.
Fox News-driven "tea parties" fail to ignite popular uprising among U.S. conservatives
A reportedly corporate-financed grassroots" anti-tax movement, paid for, planned and promoted by right wing think tanks, corporate lobbyists and Fox News Channel, has failed to bring about the "popular uprising" against the Obama administration its creators had hoped for.
The day of "tea parties" were pushed by Republican operatives and partisan advocacy groups such as FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy group helmed by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey. Organizers sought to encourage protest over the Obama government's tax and stimulus policies by asking people to wave tea bags, but the national event brought about only a few hundred "tea-baggers" in most parts of the U.S., despite relentless promotion by Fox News TV hosts.
Participants had hoped to rally hundreds of thousands of people to begin a grassroots movement that would force Obama to change government policy. But the turn-out was far from what was hoped for, with most rallies looking decidedly on the small side, especially compared to the 2006 immigrants rights rallies or the 2004 pro-choice march on Washington, both of which attracted millions.
More here - you will get a kick about the part regarding the woman who fell in the river when trying to dump tea bags. Okay, maybe not because she is 68-years-old. I'm glad she was saved.
Read it first before Michelle Malkin and company accuse the Vancouver Sun of being in on the "Obama Conspiracy." I had to pinch myself when I read this article because I haven't seen any real journalism for so long with this being the age of pundits and soundbites.
Fox News-driven "tea parties" fail to ignite popular uprising among U.S. conservatives
A reportedly corporate-financed grassroots" anti-tax movement, paid for, planned and promoted by right wing think tanks, corporate lobbyists and Fox News Channel, has failed to bring about the "popular uprising" against the Obama administration its creators had hoped for.
The day of "tea parties" were pushed by Republican operatives and partisan advocacy groups such as FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy group helmed by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey. Organizers sought to encourage protest over the Obama government's tax and stimulus policies by asking people to wave tea bags, but the national event brought about only a few hundred "tea-baggers" in most parts of the U.S., despite relentless promotion by Fox News TV hosts.
Participants had hoped to rally hundreds of thousands of people to begin a grassroots movement that would force Obama to change government policy. But the turn-out was far from what was hoped for, with most rallies looking decidedly on the small side, especially compared to the 2006 immigrants rights rallies or the 2004 pro-choice march on Washington, both of which attracted millions.
More here - you will get a kick about the part regarding the woman who fell in the river when trying to dump tea bags. Okay, maybe not because she is 68-years-old. I'm glad she was saved.
Teabagger calls President Obama a fascist (but doesn't know why he thinks Obama is a fascist)
I didn't catch Columbia, SC's teabagging event like I said I wouldn't. One more reason besides the two I mentioned was that I was afraid that I would have been the only black person there - and one black amongst a big group of whites on an area where the Confederate Flag hangs and where there also exists a statue celebrating the life of an open racist (Ben Tillman) is not necessarily where I want to be.
I'm not saying that the folks there would have been automatically racist or anything like that. I just hate awkward juxtapositions.
Anyway, if you carry anything away from this interesting moment in American history, let it be this video courtesy of Daily Kos.
It's perfect representation of the teabaggers:
I've said it once and I will say it again - sheep looks much better on a dinner plate than they do being led on a leash by Fox News and the rest of the right. No offense to you vegetarians.
By the way, check out that link at Daily Kos for more teabagging fun.
I didn't catch Columbia, SC's teabagging event like I said I wouldn't. One more reason besides the two I mentioned was that I was afraid that I would have been the only black person there - and one black amongst a big group of whites on an area where the Confederate Flag hangs and where there also exists a statue celebrating the life of an open racist (Ben Tillman) is not necessarily where I want to be.
I'm not saying that the folks there would have been automatically racist or anything like that. I just hate awkward juxtapositions.
Anyway, if you carry anything away from this interesting moment in American history, let it be this video courtesy of Daily Kos.
It's perfect representation of the teabaggers:
I've said it once and I will say it again - sheep looks much better on a dinner plate than they do being led on a leash by Fox News and the rest of the right. No offense to you vegetarians.
By the way, check out that link at Daily Kos for more teabagging fun.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
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?
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
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.
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, April 13, 2009
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
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?
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?
Friday, April 10, 2009
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
“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!!
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?
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?
Thursday, April 09, 2009
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
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.
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)