Religious right tries to smear the American Psychological Association

Not happy with the American Psychological Association (APA) coming out against reparative (ex-gay) therapy, some religious right members are now accusing the organization of bias and "approving of pedophilia."

Religious right online publication Lifesite News has come out with a piece, The Psychological Profession and Homosexuality: Lunatics Running the Asylum?, which I guess is supposed to "nail" the APA.

Well I'm sure it does to those not informed enough to look at some of the charges. Those who are informed enough can see several errors with Lifesite News' wannabe smear piece.

Let's see if I can break this down. The piece says the following:

The APA's latest report, done by a task force composed of psychologists with long records of homosexualist activism, also claims as "scientific facts" that "same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality-in other words, they are not indicators of mental or developmental disorders" and "no empirical studies or peer-reviewed research supports theories attributing same-sex sexual orientation to family dysfunction or trauma."

These unbelievable statements fly in the face of more than a century of scientific, peer-reviewed studies and clinical observation that indicate that much homosexual behavior originates in deficient family relationships and is associated with a wide range of diseases and pathological behaviors.

A century of scientific and peer-reviewed studies? Hardly.

If one would click on the link, it would take him (or her) to one source: What Research Shows: NARTH's Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality.

NARTH stands for National Association for the Research & Therapy of Homosexuality and the piece in question comes from NARTH's Journal of Human Sexuality.

According to the online publication Box Turtle Bulletin:

The Journal of Human Sexuality is actually a booklet published by NARTH themselves. In fact, it’s structured more like a book than a journal, with only one article whose title matches the title on the front cover. This journal is billed as “volume 1,” and was, according to its acknowledgment, conceived back when Joseph Nicolosi was still president at NARTH. At this rate, I would expect volume 2 to show up sometime in 2011.

This is very similar to another stunt pulled by George A. Rekers in 1996. He too created a one-off journal, also called The Journal of Human Sexuality which seems never to have made it to a second volume. It looks like NARTH decided to recycle Rekers old idea.

And as for this new journal’s “peer reviewed” status? Well, I guess when you have a paper written by an anti-gay activist posing as a therapist, and you send that paper off to other anti-gay activists posing as therapists, all of whom are members of your tight little NARTH club with no possibility of an actual independent review taking place, then maybe I would have to concede that the effort was “peer reviewed.” Unfortunately, that’s not the definition accepted by the scientific community.

This publication is not a dispassionate study of changes in sexual orientation. It is a cannon-blast of anti-gay animus in a long 94-page screed, a veritable anti-gay propaganda omnibus touching on all sorts of unrelated subjects including HIV/AIDS, alcohol and drug abuse, violence, psychiatric disorders, and “promiscuity as the new social norm.” As far as anti-gay propaganda goes, there’s little that’s missing here.

So that's distortion number 1.

Distortion Number 2:

The Lifesite News piece also says:

Studies have shown that homosexuals disproportionately come from families in which sons or daughters lack a healthy relationship with one or both of their parents, or in situations in which the homosexual was the victim of child sex abuse by a same-sex adult.

Homosexual behavior is also statistically associated with a host of diseases, disorders, and pathological behaviors, including venereal and other diseases, promiscuity and unstable relationships, anxiety disorders, depression and suicide, alcoholism and drug abuse, domestic violence, pederasty, and early death.

Notice that the Lifesite report includes links to all of these claims. However, many of these links are to dubious sources:

The "unstable relationships" link connects to an inaccurate Family Research Council piece, Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples. I broke down the flaws of that piece, including unfair comparisons between unmarried lgbt couples and married heterosexual couples and a reliance on outdated work, here.

The "pederasty" link connects to a NARTH report on a book published in the late 1970s, The Gay Report.

The Gay Report cannot be considered as indicative of the sexual habits of the lgbt community for a number of reasons that I laid out in this link, including the fact that the authors of The Gay Report were only working with 5,400 responses from questionnaires they sent out regarding lgbt sexual habits.

They even said so themselves:

We agreed at the outset not to pretend that these percentages represented the practices and views of all gay people—they reflected only our respondents.

The "depression and suicide" and "early death" links connect to work by discredited researcher Paul Cameron.

Distortion 3:

Even when the Lifesite News piece does connect to legitimate sources, it leaves out crucial details as to what these sources are actually saying:

Even the homosexual Gay and Lesbian Medical Association admits that homosexuals suffer disproportionate rates of disease and self-destructive behavior.

The link in question, TEN THINGS GAY MEN SHOULD DISCUSS WITH THEIR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS, also says:

Following are the health issues GLMA’s healthcare providers have identified as most commonly of concern for gay men. While not all of these items apply to everyone, it’s wise to be aware of these issues.

GLMA's piece also places the blame of certain behaviors on society' s homophobia towards lgbts, like in the case of depression and anxiety:

Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population. The likelihood of depression or anxiety may be greater, and the problem may be more severe for those men who remain in the closet or who do not have adequate social supports. Adolescents and young adults may be at particularly high risk of suicide because of these concerns. Culturally sensitive mental health services targeted specifically at gay men may be more effective in the prevention, early detection, and treatment of these conditions.

Distortion 4:

The Lifesite piece also refers to the study by Dr. Robert Spitzer as proof that reparative therapy works:

Dr. Robert Spitzer, who has been been called the "architect" of the American Psychiatric Association's normalization of homosexuality in the 1970s, provoked outrage from the homosexualist establishment when he admitted in 2001 that his own investigations had convinced him that sexual reorientation therapy can work.

His study, published in the peer-reviewed Archives of Mental Health in 2003, found that a majority of his sample of 247 people had developed heterosexual urges or had ceased to be predominantly homosexual after only one year of therapy. None of the subjects said that they had been harmed in the process.

After presenting his paper before the American Psychiatric Association in 2001, Spitzer said: "I'm convinced from people I have interviewed...many of them...have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual. I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained."

Of course Lifesite omitted the following:

In 2001, psychologist Robert Spitzer published a controversial study that seemed to claim that small number of people can change their orientation from gay to heterosexual.

In 45-minute individual telephone calls with 143 “ex-gays” and 57 “ex-lesbians,” Spitzer asked them 60 questions dealing with their feelings and behavior before and after they allegedly changed their orientations. They also talked about their strategies, feelings and motives for changing. Many of these individuals were referred to Spitzer by “ex-gay” groups.

When Spitzer’s findings were made public, the anti-gay industry lauded him, making sure to mention that he was one of the principle people who led the American Psychiatric Association’s 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses.

Spitzer himself went on record declaring that he was “appalled” at how his work was being simplified. He also published a column in the May 23, 2001 edition of The Wall Street Journal. He said that “complete change is uncommon.”

In addition, in a 2006 interview with the Los Angeles Times, Spitzer said that he now believes that some of those he interviewed for his study may have been either lying to him or themselves. - Ex-Gays Seek a Say in Schools, Los Angeles Times, May 28, 2006

In addition to all of these distortions, the Lifesite piece also attacks one Dr. Theo Sandfort for research he conduted, calling him a supporter of pedophilia The piece also links Sandfort to the APA by calling attention to the fact that he has been a "fellow" of the organization since 2002.

Now I am not aware of the research that was conducted by Sandfort and I have emailed him on clarification as to what in the world is Lifesite talking about.

I have had correspondence with Dr. Sandfort before regarding religious right distortion of his work.

I find it ironic that the religious right is attacking Dr. Sandfort seeing that in the past, various groups (including PFOX) has distorted his work to claim that homophobia does not play a part in the bad life choices that some gays make.

So all in all, rather than using credible information, Lifesite relies on smears and distorted science to make the case against the APA.

Unfortunately to some people, those smears and distorted science will go a long way.

Related posts:

Another professor cries foul over religious right misrepresentation of research

How religious right groups distort legitimate research to demonize the gay community

Another flawed piece of work courtesy of the Family Research Council

More homophobic lies from the Paul Cameron Poland tour

Videos, blogs key to exposing religious right lies

You've probably already seen this video by Rob Tisinai on how the Traditional Values Coalition manipulates numbers on hate crimes.

If you haven't, take a look because it's an awesome breakdown. If you have, take a look again and jot down some notes.

Not just on what Rob is saying but on what he is doing.

It's the key to what I have been talking about. In exposing the lies of the religious right, we need to break it down on a level that calls attention to how they distort data.

When we appeal to the emotional or religious level, we give them an out. It's easy for the religious right to say "we don't hate you, just your sin."

But very few times (if any at all) have they been confronted with the facts on their reliance on junk science or the manipulation of studies.

And the point is not to convince them that they are wrong. I'm sure many religious right organizations intentionally distort facts and figures.

The point is to bring attention to what they are doing. The point is to put it in the public eye. When I write on my blog, when Rob creates his videos, when the rest of us bloggers and youtubers do our thing to bring attention to the lies of the religious right we aren't doing it for their courtesy or benefit but to put something out there to counter their nonsense.

It's like I have said before: sometimes we think that responding to their lies is beneath us. And this frame of mind has allowed them to go unchallenged as they have built up a wall of lies about the lgbt community.

Now we've got to break down that wall - all of us.

I would love to see more efforts like Rob's video. You can view his entire collection here.

Maine Equality ad rules!!!, Fox News thinks that Barney Frank is a meanie, and other Thursday midday news briefs

Now THIS is a good ad:



Court upholds Boseman adoption - Good news out of North Carolina regarding lgbt adoption rights.

Anti-gay group to fight marriage efforts in D.C. - Where the hell is the National Organization for Marriage getting their funding?

Fox thinks it's "quite rude" to slam anti-Obama Nazi attacks - What Congressman Frank did was NOT rude. Now THIS is rude - FOX NEWS CAN KISS MY !*@% . . . on second thought, never mind. Why should Fox News be rewarded for being such biased nicompoops?

Lutherans adopt more open view on homosexuality - Look out because here comes the whine from One News Now. I want you to pay attention to a particular comment this article received. It may not be on the site later:

"You know who should be the only ones commenting on issues like this?? LUTHERANS. If this isn't your particular flavor of Christianity mind your own business. Try to remember how you feel when someone from outside passes judegement on YOUR particular faith. The world doesn't always bend to your will. Sometimes you have to share real estate with those of many different beliefs and ideaologies. "

Anti-gay One News Now distorts study on gay mental health counseling

Lately, the phony news service One News Now was so focused on denigrating President Obama and spreading lies about his health care reform that I, as a member of the lgbt community, was beginning to feel left out.

It usually makes us the subject of its one-sided messes masquerading as news articles.

Well I no longer feel omitted, thanks to an article published today:

A new study shows that homosexuals and lesbians seek mental health counseling far more than heterosexuals.

The UCLA School of Public Health found that to be true in California, but there have been other studies with similar results. Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality says homosexuals usually respond that they would not have so many problems if society would simply accept their behavior as normal.

"You can't just keep going back to homophobia and societal stigma to account for this huge difference between straights and homosexuals with regard to various pathologies," he contends. "First of all, we're talking about California, where there's a much greater tolerance for homosexuality -- so you can't keep pointing to the stigma."

That's basically the gist of the article. A lead in talking about the UCLA study and then Peter LaBarbera rambling on as he does about us "nasty, evil, sinful homosexuals."

Now a credible news service would give more information about the study.

But then again we are talking about One News Now, the supposed Christian news service which used to be a sounding board for Paul Cameron's discredited studies when it was known as Agape Press.

But speaking of the UCLA study, I found some facts which were omitted from the One News Now article. This is from a UCLA press release:

Researchers collected data on 2,074 people, who were first interviewed in the California Health Interview Survey, in a new survey known as the California Quality of Life Survey. They found that 48.5 percent of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals reported receiving treatment in the past year, compared with 22.5 percent of heterosexuals. Overall, lesbians and bisexual women were most likely to receive treatment, and heterosexual men were least likely.

While men and women, regardless of sexual orientation, who had an alcohol and/or drug disorder showed no significant differences in treatment rates, the study found that lesbian and bisexual women who had not been diagnosed with mental and drug disorders were more likely to seek mental health counseling than heterosexual women. This is consistent with emerging findings from national surveys showing that many individuals who receive mental health treatment do not have a diagnosable disorder but may have other symptoms, such as psychological distress or impairments in functioning, that lead them to seek care.

The researchers considered several factors that may explain these findings. Discrimination, violence and other stressful life events may be greater among sexual and gender minorities, they said, and homosexuality and issues associated with it may be construed as mental health problems — particularly among racial and ethnic minorities — which may encourage people to seek treatment. Further, in gay and lesbian communities, therapeutic services are considered appropriate places for coping with the stresses associated with being a sexual minority.(Editor's note - I highlighted that part to show what One News Now omitted.)

So three things to remember:

1. The study never said that homosexuality is a mental disorder (but watch how some folks will misconstrue this point).

2. The researchers did say that discrimination (i.e. stress caused from discrimination) may play a part in their findings, and One News Now omitted this part.

3. You would have better luck with trying to get Rush Limbaugh and Hilary Clinton together as a couple than finding truth in a One News Now article.

Related articles:

Dissecting a One News Now article

It begins - Rush Limbaugh makes an ugly joke about Barney Frank's sexual orientation

I knew someone would link Barney Frank's very appropriate smackdown of healthcare town hall nonsense to his gay sexual orientation.

I just didn't think it would be Rush Limbaugh and I also didn't know how vile the comment would be.

Of course no one has said anything about it on the conservative sites. Maybe a "ha,ha, Limbaugh is so funny" on places like Free Republic, but as far as I know, Fox News hasn't said a word nor has One News Now.

And I don't think that they will.

Now if someone was to make a statement about Limbaugh's history of pill-popping, I'm sure that would wake up Glenn Beck and company.

But basically, Limbaugh is sending a message that when gay man makes a public statement, it all comes down to his sexual orientation, huh?

On one level we should all be ashamed that Limbaugh is a perfect example of political discussion in America.

I suppose if a female legislator gave the same response as Barney Frank, Limbaugh would attribute it to her "woman's problems."

If an African-American male legislator gave the same response, Limbaugh would attribute it to "black men wanting to always bed white women."

If the legislator was a black female, then he would attribute it to her thinking that the "white woman wanted to date her black husband." I'm sure he would have also said something about razors.

How about if the legislator was Native American? I'm sure Limbaugh could make a crass comment about "casinos and firewater."

Bottom line, it ain't funny, folks. Nor is it something to be looked at lightly when a slur like this happens.

Of course we can't expect anything intelligent coming from Limbaugh. But that doesn't mean the lgbt community should shrug our shoulders and go our own way when we are slurred.

Some of us accuse President Obama of being a wuss. Are we acting the same way?

Barney Frank rules, Black president = conservative march on Washington, and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Forgive me for posting this a second time, but BARNEY FRANK RULES!!!!!!!



Why didn’t harassing Anoka-Hennepin teachers get fired? - That's a real good question!

Justice civil rights hire to handle gay liaison - A step in the right direction.

Let the Money Laundering Begin - You mean anti-gay marriage folks are being shady? Tell me something I don't know.

FreedomWorks not free: $10K to participate in D.C. tea party march - I have officially seen everything. First the United States elects an African-American as president and now conservatives are wanting to have a "March on Washington."

Not necessarily an lgbt issue (yet), but as a black man, I simply MUST point out the irony of the situation.

Family Research Council spreading lies about healthcare reform

When it's all said and done, part of the reason why President Obama and the Democrats is losing the message war over healthcare reform is because the conservative machine is at them full tilt.

Even the religious right have gotten in on the message. I received the following email this morning from the Family Research Council. It reads in part:

As debate over "health care reform" heads toward a showdown, the White House and its liberal allies are in full attack mode-confusing voters with moderate words; attempting to silence dissent; demonizing Christians and conservatives; and twisting the arms of moderate and undecided lawmakers who share your traditional values.

. . . President Obama and his liberal congressional allies remain fiercely committed to their radical vision of a nationalized health care system that

Uses your taxes to pay for abortions

Gives bureaucrats the power to ration medicine and treatment

Pressures the elderly and seriously ill to forego life-extending care

Forces pro-life doctors, nurses, and other professionals to participate in abortions

Raises taxes and wastes trillions of dollars on programs that will make health care worse

Liberal advocates can't defend their "reform" plans without revealing those destructive intentions. Instead, our success in exposing the facts and building opposition to them has become a lightning rod for the anti-life movement and the mainstream press to repeat their lies.

Some may view this cynically as an FRC push for money. Apparently the organization feels that its more lucrative to beat up on the President than lgbts for the time being.

But there is more to it than meets the eye. Obama is now facing the machine that have plagued lgbts for as long as I can remember - organizations that will lie for the body of Christ.

I think that there is a coordinated attack on Obama that goes way beyond disagreement with policy. All elements of the right, including the religious right, are involved. My guess is that this will play out in other battles.

Barney Frank completely OWNS person comparing Obama to Hitler

I have to put this late post in because I want to give kudos to U.S. Representative Barney Frank for doing what many should have done at these town hall meetings:



Some folks may not agree with his tone but he was right on. How can you have a coherent conversation with someone who so determined to paint President Obama as a Nazi?

Now watch how soon before Hannity and company attack Frank. How long will it be before One News Now and the rest of the religious right links his words to his lgbt sexual orientation?

While you're at it, count how many columns will be written at Town Hall attacking Frank for telling it like it is.

And lastly, if these things come to pass, note the strange dynamic of how some folks think it is alright to carry a loaded gun to an event where the President is speaking but somehow think that it's wrong to rightfully call someone out for being an idiot.

Deconstructing the way the right-wing tries to dominate arguments

Now the following blog entry is just merely from something I have observed regarding how the right-wing (i.e. religious right, conservatives) sometimes dominate arguments. Don't quote me on this, but if I am wrong, by all means, let me know.

The Supreme Court rules for against a law the religious right and other conservatives favor. Let's say the ruling is a victory for the lgbt community.

What happens next is the following:

• One News Now, owned by the American Family Association, prints an article (biased, of course) against the ruling, and quoting only so-called “pro-family” leaders such as Gary Bauer, who claim that the ruling is a travesty on the country.

• Other talking heads such as Pete LaBarbera and Matt Barber write columns falsely claiming that the Supreme Court ruled against conservatives because of alleged biases of the justices. These columns are filtered to other right-wing publications and blogs.

• James Dobson (Focus on the Family) criticizes the ruling on his radio program, as does Tony Perkins (Family Research Council). Other articles are written trying to prove how the ruling will hurt America. More articles are written digging up speeches that the judges made, hinting on flimsy correlations between their ruling
and so-called personal biases.

• The think tanks emanating from conservative circles smear the reputations of the judges. The phrase “activist judges” is used over and over again in columns, articles, and books. Specifically these books will be written by think tank "experts" and will be driven up the New York Times best seller list by organizations such as the conservative Town Hall buying a bulk number. This way, the books can be referred to as best sellers, giving a false impression that a majority of Americans feel the same as the authors.

• Meanwhile, The Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council, and other so-called “pro-family” groups solicit donations making the claim that either the ruling will doom Christians and will lead to homosexuality being taught “as normal” to children or it will lead to criticizing homosexuality as being designated as a hate crime. They get people of faith who are gullible enough to believe their lies to write letters to Congress and their local newspapers (using a script of anti-gay industry talking points.)

• So-called news programs (such as those on Fox News) and conservative commentators (i.e. Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Mike Huckabee, Glenn Beck) begin debating whether or not judges have a bias against people of faith, making sure to invite only folks like Matt Staver of the Liberty Counsel or Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.

•Right-wing bloggers (i.e. Michelle Malkin) and columnists on webpages like Town Hall will write piece after piece after piece about “activist judges.”

•Conservative leaning Congressmen will be begin using the phrase "activist judges."

And boom, conservatives have control of the argument before the lgbt community has an opportunity to get our teeth into the discussion.

If I didn't despise it so much, I would give the conservative/religious right machine huge points for ingenuity, technique, and planning.

What gets me is that they like to accuse lgbts of these things, but we aren't nearly coordinated as they are.

Maybe one day we will be.

Donald Wildmon hospitalized, President Obama finally pisses off the right people, and other Tuesday midday news briefs

First, in my post, The Christian Medical & Dental Associations - another group, another batch of lies, I mixed up the American Academy of Pediatrics (a legitimate group) with the American College of Pediatricians (a phony medical group) in one paragraph.

I have corrected the error and hope that it proves my point about how hard it is to distinguish a legitimate medical group from a phony one when both have "official sounding" names.

Don Wildmon Hospitalized with Meningitis - I don't like Donald Wildmon but I don't have to like him to pray for his recovery.

Celebrate Marriage and Family Day in Warwick draws protests - Because this day didn't mean ALL families. That's why there were protests.

ESPN: Half of College Football Players Know a Gay Teammate - Works for me. I wish at least one of them knew my number.

Obama follows through, files to repeal DOMA - It's nice to see the President piss someone else off other than us liberals.

The right wing's latest insane conspiracy theory: an email enemies list - What's wrong with having an enemy's list? I have an enemies list and number one on it is the guy who invented cellphones.

NC: Durham City Council votes unanimously for marriage equality resolution - Big props for the Durham City Council!

Why won't the gay community 'study' the other team?

'WWJD' - about healthcare reform?

Home invasions would occur under Obamacare

Illegal aliens trump veterans at U.S. medical offices

Obama tack on NKorea wrong, misguided

Democrats' 'bait-and-switch'

These are the headlines to this morning's edition of the phony news service One News Now. As you can see, One News Now is waging a huge war against President Obama.

Subsequently the lgbt community, a reliable victim of One News Now's campaign of misinformation, has been pushed to the side for the time being.

It's the same way on the conservative site Town Hall. And even the Family Research Council and its head, Tony Perkins has gotten into the act.

I venture to say that almost every right-wing news site and blog are trying to engage in a Barack Obama feeding frenzy.

Now far be it from me to spin conspiracy theories but a case can be made that there is a coordinated effort to give President Obama as much hell as possible.

And I hope that the lgbt community is paying attention to what's being done.

I like the fact that we are singleminded and determined to grab what belongs to us.

But sometimes we miss out on a lot.

When I read these articles and columns and see how those town hall meeting protests were coordinated via astroturfing, I have to wonder if the lgbt community gets what we are up against.

These same entities that are now focused on President Obama have been fighting us for years and will continue to do so after this situation with health care passes. And with some of the same methods they are now using to try and make President Obama's life a living hell.

This is a perfect opportunity to study their methods. All good battle plans involves studying "the other team." But for some reason, the lgbt community will not do this. Instead, a lot of us minimize the power of the religious right and the right-wing in general.

We tell ourselves that they are "prejudiced" or "ignorant" so as to make ourselves feel superior towards them.

We think that hurtling the words "haters" and "bigots" or marching in angry crowds are going to get us over.

And we miss the big picture because we need to embark on more than these lazy efforts.

While we are name-calling or marching and chanting, people like Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity will be distorting our viewpoints from coast to coast.

People like Peter LaBarbera will be filming our actions with misrepresentations in mind.

And right-wing bloggers, columnists at Town Hall, and phony news articles on sites like One News Now will take incidents out of context to spin the image of "angry, pushy homosexuals."

The right-wing noise machine is so ingrained that until we attack it at the roots, all of our actions (i.e. marches, protests) will be used against us.

President Obama will survive this feeding frenzy. But I just hope that the lgbt community will learn as much as he does about the "nature of the enemy."

The Christian Medical & Dental Associations - another group, another batch of lies

Via this blog entry, I am officially announcing a new undertaking. From time-to-time, I intend to look at the material of various "legitimate medical groups" affiliated with the religious right in order to see how they view lgbt issues. It's nothing big, just something worth knowin.

Last month, I took a look at a supposed legitimate medical group, the American College of Pediatricians, and made the case that the organization is a phony group which acts a conduit for laundered religious right inaccuracies about the lgbt community.

As my entry today will prove, the American College of Pediatricians isn't alone when it comes to smearing the lgbt community under the guise of concerned physicians.

The Christian Medical and Dental Associations (CMDA) claims to have been in existence since 1931. It is made up of two groups; the Christian Medical and Dental Associations.

There is nothing wrong with a group of Christian medical professionals getting together and forming a group.

But there is something seriously wrong when these medical professionals put their beliefs above their work. And after reading the mission statement of this group, I can't help but to wonder about that:

The Christian Medical & Dental Associations exist to motivate, educate, and equip Christian physicians and dentists to glorify God by:

•living out the character of Christ in their homes, practices, communities and around the world;
•pursuing professional competence and Christ-like compassion in their daily work;
•influencing their families, colleagues, and patients toward a right relationship with Jesus Christ;
•advancing Biblical principles in bioethics and health to the Church and society.

Please note that there is nothing in this mission statement about fulfilling the needs of the patient.

It gets worse because now I get to the crux of why I have a blog entry on this group.

The Christian Medical and Dental Associations has a mission statement on homosexuality, addressing the sexual orientation on a Biblical, medical and social level.

I am going to skip the Biblical level because it is purely subjective. Religious beliefs are complex. However homosexuality on a medical and social level should be addressed using facts.

And the CMDA clearly does not use facts because its Biblical view has tainted any discussion of homosexuality on these levels.

According to the CMDA, homosexuality is not good on a medical or social level for several reasons, including:

•Some homosexual acts are physically harmful because they disregard normal human anatomy and function. These acts are associated with increased risks of tissue injury, organ malfunction, and infectious diseases. These and other factors result in a significantly shortened life expectancy.

On a social level:

•Homosexual relationships are typically brief in duration. Homosexual behavior is destructive to the structures necessary for healthy marriages, families and society. Men who commit homosexual acts have a high incidence of promiscuity, child molestation, and sexually transmitted infections. Homosexual behaviors burden society with increased medical costs, increased disability, and loss of productivity.

•Homosexual behavior can be self-propagating. Some homosexual groups and individuals engage in active recruitment. A child who is sexually molested has an increased likelihood of later engaging in homosexual acts. There is also an increased incidence of homosexual activity among children raised by same sex couples. Adoption into such environments puts children at risk.

You read that right. The CMDA is pushing the religious right line about the lgbt community (i.e. gay men have lots of ugly sex, get a lot of diseases, have a short life span, put children at risk.)

The CMDA has a lot of information regarding the lgbt community in its Issues and Ethics section.

And much of this information is highly suspect, including Homosexuality & Psychiatry: Testimony of Psychologist George Rekers.

Rekers, a former professor at the University of South Carolina and a founder of the Family Research Council, has testified against the lgbt community in adoption cases.

In 2004, he was an expert witness in a case involving gay adoption in Arkansas. The state had banned gays from adopting in 1999. In January 2005, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy White ruled against the state of Arkansas. Furthermore, he called Rekers' testimony "extremely suspect." He also accused Rekers of testifying solely for promoting his "own personal agenda."

In 2008, Rekers was also an expert witness in a case defending Florida's gay adoption ban. Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman ruled against the state. In her decision, she said "Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy."

In addition, Rekers uses the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron in much of his data.

The CMDA also uses the work of Cameron, particularly in the piece, The facts about gay adoption: What you need to know.

In addition, the CMDA relies on the standard lies about the lgbt community which I have talked about in my blog entry, How religious right groups distort legitimate research to demonize the gay community, including the distortion of the 1997 Canadian study to claim that gay men have a short lifespan and the distortion of a book published in the late 70s to make judgements on present day sexual behavior of gay men.

But there are two final things you should know about the CMDA.

First, according to its webpage, the group has a voice in the media and in Washington:

CMDA experts have been featured in such national media as CNN, NBC, MSNBC, FOX NEWS, Washington Post, Washington Times, LA Times, USA Today, Christianity Today, National Public Radio, Janet Parshall's America, Prime Time America, America's Health Network and The Odyssey Channel.

CMDA also represents its members as a trusted voice in the nation's capitol. Members interested in public policy have opportunity to provide bioethical expertise and testimony for legislators. CMDA experts testify before the US Congress, provide Supreme Court briefs on bioethical issues and conduct grassroots campaigns to promote life-honoring legislation at the state level.

Secondly, according to Ministry Watch.com, CMDA has a total revenue of $9,973,611 with net assets of $12,261,643.

In addition:

CMDA sponsors student chapters at two-thirds of the nation's medical and dental school campuses. CMDA provides discipleship and outreach programs and assists students in integrating Christian principles with professional practice.

If none of this scares you, then you need to check your pulse.

It's relatively easy to have loud protests, but what can you do when those who lie about you make stealthy entries into circles of power and influence as well as equip future generations with more distortions?

Other related blog entries:

The American College of Pediatricians and the Laundering of Junk Science

Homophobic 'researcher' Paul Cameron in all of his repulsive glory

How religious right groups distort legitimate research to demonize the gay community

'Pro-family' phony would consider banning Native Americans from adopting children

Obama and DOMA, May we all experiment with 'sexual sin,' and other Monday midday news briefs

Obama administration says marriage law unfair - Obama is sure to catch hell from both sides for this one.

No "Dead Queers" means No Discrimination: Anchorage, AK Ordinance 64 - Who knew there had to be a "sacrifice" for folks to accept the fact that lgbts are discriminated against.

Donor Names Of Wash. Anti-Gay Ref. To Remain Public - The good news.

Projection: R-71 likely to qualify - The bad news.

Experimenting with sexual sin - Another "gays are trying to indoctrinate children" lie courtesy of One News Now and Peter LaBarbera.

Why gay marriage is a TERRIBLE idea

This video gives a perfect reason why gay marriage isn't a good idea:



Don't you just love the "tongue-in-cheek" stuff?

AP: Mormon fight against gay marriage has damaged the church

An article today via the Associated Press is expressing the idea that the Mormon church's fight against gay marriage, particularly its role in the successful passage of Proposition 8 in California last year, has extremely damaged the church by putting it at odds with many of its own members:

Last year at the urging of church leaders, Mormons donated tens of millions of dollars to the "Yes on 8" campaign and were among the most vigorous volunteers. The institutional church gave nearly $190,000 to the campaign — contributions now being investigated by California's Fair Political Practices Commission.

After the vote, many gay rights advocates turned their anger toward the church in protests and marches outside temples that singled out Mormons as the key culprits in restricting the rights of gay couples.

That constituted a setback for the faith, argued Jan Shipps, a professor of religious history and a Mormon expert from Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.

. . . Church representatives don't discuss public relations strategies or challenges publicly, but at a semiannual conference in April, church President Thomas S. Monson seemed to be clearly feeling a post-Prop. 8 sting.

In an era of "shifting moral footings," Monson said, "those who attempt to safeguard those footings are often ridiculed, picketed and persecuted."

That argument doesn't wash for Linda Stay, whose ancestors were early Mormon converts. Stay said she was doubly transformed by Prop. 8. She and her husband, Steve, finally quit the church — along with 18 other family members and a few close friends — and became gay right activists.

The St. George woman's family, which includes two gay children, will play a central role in a documentary film, "8: The Mormon Proposition" currently in production. Stay's son, Tyler Barrick, married his boyfriend in San Francisco on June 17, 2008, the first day gay marriage was legal in California.

The entire article is here and is an excellent read.

Personally, I can't say that I feel sorry the Mormon church. Ethically and legally, it had every right to interject itself into the Proposition 8 battle.

It's obvious that the church didn't think that it would have to deal with a backlash. But with all things you do, there are consequences. And when you move to take rights away from people (especially solely on the grounds of your religious beliefs), you really should expect a backlash.

In short, the Mormon church is getting what it deserves.

From the Archives: Message to the religious right

My most popular post of all time was written in the aftermath of California passing the anti-gay Proposition 8:

I keep hearing all of this nonsense about us lgbts attacking people, about us using intimidation and violence to oppress people, about us somehow being ugly aggressors.

Newt Gingrich (who wrote the book on deceptive messaging during his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives) actually accused us of being "secular fascists."

Gingrich's attack on us seem to be the prevailing theme with those on the other side of the Proposition 8 argument.

And I think there needs to be some historical perspective on this matter.

True, Proposition 8 has galvanized our community. We have become a bit more politically engaged in our anger. That is a good thing.

However, any display of violence on either side of the argument should never be tolerated.

Nor should letting the religious right frame the moment.

I have a few questions to people like Newt Gingrich, Bill O’Reilly, Chuck Norris, Gary Bauer, Peter LaBarbera and the rest who are trying to push this "gay intimidation" image.

Where were you in the late 1970s when Anita Bryant accused us of trying to “recruit” children?

Where were you in 1983 when Paul Cameron accused gay men of stuffing gerbils up our rectums and castrating children? Or afterwards when he went from state to state pushing his phony research papers all designed to make us the boogiemen of American society?

Where were you when Jerry Falwell exploited the AIDS crisis to generate more money for the Moral Majority? Or when those dying of AIDS were cast out of their communities and excommunicated from their churches?

Where were you when Colorado passed that law in 1992 that basically said cities in the state had absolutely no right to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination?

Where were you when over the course of 20 years all of those phony “pro-family” groups told lies in front of federal and congressional state houses in attempts to beat back pro-gay laws or spread discredited research that gave “upstanding, moral” families the perfect excuse to put their gay sons and daughters out on the cold streets?

Where were you when organizations like Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, the Traditional Values Coalition, and Focus on the Family unconsciously gave reasoning for groups of roaming thugs to bash our heads in, chase us out in heavy traffic, beat us to bloody pulps with nail embedded boards, and hang us from fences on dark and lonely roads?

How is it that you can dare call us aggressive when for over 30 years, you have done everything in your power to make America hate and fear us?

How it is that you can dare infer that we don't have a right to get just a tad angry when for over 30 years, you have done everything in your power to make us hate and fear ourselves?

Every lie, every indignity, every attempt to dehumanize the lgbt community has brought us to this point. The Proposition 8 vote was the last straw in a chain of indignities that stretch as long as Jacob's ladder.

This ain’t just about marriage. Nor is this a single moment in time.

We are not the aggressors. We are learning to fight back.

When I was coming out, it wasn’t the fact that I was gay that bothered me more than the knowledge that so many had already written my life for me; told me who I was, what I liked, what I didn’t like, and even where I was going after I died.

Worst of all, they had the nerve to tell me that I had absolutely no rights to the words "values," "family," "tradition," or "honor."

And you know what the saddest thing about this is? I was not alone. Hundreds of thousands of lgbts went through the same experience. It was our "rite of passage."

So while I may not have a media spin machine behind me and therefore very few will give a damn about what I say, while I may not be a member of a religious think tank who is presently working to use this moment to again dehumanize lgbts, and while I may not be considered as a "leading gay talking head," I am an American, a human being, and a child of God.

Therefore, I will never forget what has brought me to this point of outrage.

And I will do my best to make sure that this country never forgets either.

Lastly, I will do my best to make sure that YOU never forget.

As an added bonus, click on to the original post and read the 100+ comments of agreements, disagreements, and downright insults this post garnered.

Know your lgbt history - Sanford and Son

Sanford and Son is a favorite classic television show of mine.

That is except for one episode, which is one of the nastiest, most homophobic things I have seen on television.

In some ways, it's worse than that Police Woman episode, Flowers of Evil, with the three lesbian murderesses.

Via a case of circumstances, Fred Sanford (Redd Foxx) is led to believe that his son, Lamont (Demond Wilson) is gay.

And when he investigates, confusion happens and Lamont now thinks that Fred is gay.

It's a nasty episode on so many levels. The word "homosexual" or "gay" is never said (except for the name of the gay bar in the center of the confusion - The Gay Blade).

Also, the gay sexual orientation is something treated like it should be avoided rather than celebrated. And to make it all worse, there are two examples of stereotypical gay characters seen in the episode. If you blink, you miss them.

Take it from me when I say blink as much as possible.

"Luckily," the situation resolves itself.

That is if you want to call it a resolution. I call the ending of this episode the real abomination.







Past Know Your LGBT History postings:

Know your lgbt history - In Living Color

Know your lgbt history - Cleopatra Jones and her lesbian drug lords

Know your lgbt history - Norman, Is That You?

Know your lgbt history - The 'Exotic' Adrian Street

Know your lgbt history - The Choirboys

Know your lgbt history - Eddie Murphy

Know your lgbt history - The Killing of Sister George

Know your lgbt history - Hanna-Barbera cartoons pushes the 'gay agenda'

Know your lgbt history - Cruising

Know your lgbt history - Foxy Brown and Cleopatra Jones

Know your lgbt history - I Got Da Hook Up

Know your lgbt history - Fright Night

Know your lgbt history - Flowers of Evil

The Jeffersons and the transgender community

The national conversation the lgbt community needs and clips for a slow news day

A national conversation about the intersection of race, sexuality and gender is on deck - HRC begins a much needed discussion in our community. I will post more on this later but right now, check out this hit from Pam's House Blend.

And if you want to see the report, print it out, download it, etc - go here.

Utah Paper Rejects Gay Wedding Blurb - Color me surprised.

Okay, it's a slow news day today. With that in mind, allow me to play the following clips designed to lift your spirits and make you laugh:

Anti-gay group NARTH makes a complete fool of itself

The old adage "it's better to be thought of as a fool rather than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" would apply to the anti-gay group NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality).

NARTH recently put out a press release criticizing the APA (American Psychological Association) for its decision to come out against ex-gay therapy.

Part of the press release reads as follows:

NARTH appreciates that the APA stressed the importance of faith and religious diversity. Unfortunately, however, the report reflects a very strong confirmation bias; that is, the task force reflected virtually no ideological diversity. No APA member who offers reorientation therapy was allowed to join the task force. In fact, one can make the case that every member of the task force can be classified as an activist. They selected and interpreted studies that fit within their innate and immutable view. For example, they omitted the Jones and Yarhouse study, the Karten study, and only gave cursory attention to the Spitzer study.

And this is where the fun starts. NARTH cited several studies to back up its claim about reparative therapy. However some of those studies weren't on the up-and-up. According to the site Truth Wins Out, the Jones and Yarhouse study had many flaws:

•Jones and Yarhouse originally sought 300 participants, but after more than a year of seeking to round up volunteers, they had to settle on only 98 participants.

•During the course of the study, 25 dropped out, and one participant’s answers were too incomplete to be used.

•Of the remaining 72 only 11 reported “satisfactory, if not uncomplicated, heterosexual adjustment.” (direct quote). Some of these 11 remained primarily homosexual in attraction or, at best, bisexual, but were satisfied that they were just slightly more attracted to the opposite sex, or slightly less attracted to the same sex.

•After the study ended, but before the book was finished, one of the 11 wrote to the authors to say that he lied — he really wanted to change, had really hoped he had changed, and answered that he had changed. But he concluded that he hadn’t, came out, and is now living as an openly gay man.

•Dozens of participants experienced no lessening of same-sex attraction and no increase in opposite-sex attraction, but were classified as “success” stories by Jones and Yarhouse simply because they maintained celibacy — something many conservative gay people already do.

•The study purposely declined to interview any ex-gay survivors: people who claim to have been injured by ex-gay programs and who have formed support groups such as Beyond Ex-Gay. Despite — or because of — this omission, the authors of this study make the unfounded claim that there is little or no evidence of harm resulting from unproven, unsupervised, unlicensed, and amateur ex-gay counseling tactics.

In short, the study design was so flawed that no mainstream, peer-reviewed, mental-health journal would publish it. And the study’s supposed success stories were gay celibate individuals who adopted false labels to direct attention away from frequently undiminished same-sex attraction.

Furthermore, NARTH distorts the Robert Spitzer study. In 2001, psychologist Robert Spitzer published a controversial study that seemed to claim that small number of people can change their orientation from gay to heterosexual.

In 45-minute individual telephone calls with 143 “ex-gays” and 57 “ex-lesbians,” Spitzer asked them 60 questions dealing with their feelings and behavior before and after they allegedly changed their orientations. They also talked about their strategies, feelings and motives for changing. Many of these individuals were referred to Spitzer by “ex-gay” groups.

When Spitzer’s findings were made public, the anti-gay industry lauded him, making sure to mention that he was one of the principle people who led the American Psychiatric Association’s 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses.

Spitzer himself went on record declaring that he was “appalled” at how his work was being simplified. He also published a column in the May 23, 2001 edition of The Wall Street Journal. He said that “complete change is uncommon.”

In addition, in a 2006 interview with the Los Angeles Times, Spitzer said that he now believes that some of those he interviewed for his study may have been either lying to him or themselves.

But the piece de resistance of stupidity of NARTH's press release is the following:

With regard to possible negative effects of therapy, as in all provisions of psychological care, the possibility exists that the client may not be happy with the outcome. We believe the report indirectly supports the findings published in the current Journal of Human Sexuality that reveal no significant ill-effects of therapy.

Now just what is the Journal of Human Sexuality? Why it's a booklet that NARTH itself publishes. From the Box Turtle Bulletin:

The Journal of Human Sexuality is actually a booklet published by NARTH themselves. In fact, it’s structured more like a book than a journal, with only one article whose title matches the title on the front cover. This journal is billed as “volume 1,” and was, according to its acknowledgment, conceived back when Joseph Nicolosi was still president at NARTH. At this rate, I would expect volume 2 to show up sometime in 2011.

This is very similar to another stunt pulled by George A. Rekers in 1996. He too created a one-off journal, also called The Journal of Human Sexuality which seems never to have made it to a second volume. It looks like NARTH decided to recycle Rekers old idea.

And as for this new journal’s “peer reviewed” status? Well, I guess when you have a paper written by an anti-gay activist posing as a therapist, and you send that paper off to other anti-gay activists posing as therapists, all of whom are members of your tight little NARTH club with no possibility of an actual independent review taking place, then maybe I would have to concede that the effort was “peer reviewed.” Unfortunately, that’s not the definition accepted by the scientific community.

This publication is not a dispassionate study of changes in sexual orientation. It is a cannon-blast of anti-gay animus in a long 94-page screed, a veritable anti-gay propaganda omnibus touching on all sorts of unrelated subjects including HIV/AIDS, alcohol and drug abuse, violence, psychiatric disorders, and “promiscuity as the new social norm.” As far as anti-gay propaganda goes, there’s little that’s missing here.

So you have a bogus group putting out a bogus press release which cites bogus information.

I almost feel sorry for NARTH but then I realize I shouldn't.

After all, the group worked hard for their ridicule. And when anyone works hard for something, they should receive it.

It's the American Way.

Why I DO NOT support October's national equality march

Those who are consistent readers of this blog know that I do not support the idea of the national march that is to take place in October.

To me, it all has to do with misplaced priorities and our inability to channel our anger in the right direction.

No matter how it comes across, a national march is going to boil down to a huge group of us holding signs with useless catchy slogans, chanting, and then afterwards going back to our own communities (who many of us do not support as we should) without a clue as to our next course of action except for to group ourselves in our prospective cliques.

A national march will provide excellent photo ops (for us and the religious right) and evoke nostalgic memories of Stonewall, Queer Nation, and Act-Up but it will not address our present standing in the fabric of this country nor will it give us a plan for the future.

All it will do is show how angry we are.

Well I have news for everyone.

America knows that we are angry. America knows it because we have been telling it for the past 30 plus years. And now America is yawning because yet again we are planning to tell it.

A national march is a fast food solution to our problems. It will not:

give us new ways to combat ignorance and homophobia in our prospective communities,

educate gays, lesbians, and bisexuals on the needs of our transgender brothers and sisters and vice versa,

teach us to respect the generational, racial, cultural, social, and economic differences in the lgbt community.

address the fact that the lgbt community is evolving at a fast rate and past actions we took part in as "outsiders" will probably not apply now.

And lastly, I do not support the idea of a national march because I don't think it is being held for us. I see it as glorified street theatre for the bored.

And, to coin an old phrase, there lies the rub.

I don't want to use my anger at how I'm treated as a gay man as a performance piece. I want to harness it. I want to use it to make the world better for, if not myself, other lgbts.

Carrying signs and shouting slogans for the benefit of President Obama (but definitely not Congress because they won't be in session), the folks at home, or whoever may be watching television just isn't going to cut it for me.

I want something more substantial than a trip to Washington where I will be marching for a couple of hours.

My anger as a gay man, my love for my ENTIRE lgbt community, and my concern for its future (especially the future of our lgbt children) needs something more edifying and solution-oriented than just a day trip to Washington where I will mingle with other like-minded angry folks.

And frankly, until I see signs that a national march will provide this, I am going to do what I have been doing before this national march idea came about - stay home and support my lgbt community in my own way whether it be volunteering at the local center, attending fundraisers, writing on my blog, or talking one-on-one to those questioning their orientation.

It's not as glamorous as a national march in Washington, but right now, it's definitely more rewarding.

HRC supports national march, slurred student gets PAID, and other Thursday midday news briefs

Video: Hey kids, want some Candi? Ooh, not so fast, gay Johnny... - Check out this post from Goodasyou.org featuring an "interview" with Focus on the Family's Candi Cushman; that is if you can without being nauseated. Notice how she semantically puts lgbts on the opposite end of parents with school children, as if lgbt children aren't attending our nations schools or lgbt parents don't lead families. That's the false image Cushman and others like her try to push on America.

On-air wingnuts stoke 'Obama may round up Americans into internment camps' conspiracy - This has CEASED to be funny a while back.

HRC Statement on National Equality March in Washington - HRC backs national march. I am NOT in favor of this but I do respect the position HRC is in with this thing.

MN: Student Wins $25K Judgment For Anti-Gay Slurs By Teachers - From Joe. My. God., a feature on my new best friend. LOL

Report: Burundi Gays Suffer Under Harsh New Anti-Gay Laws - From Rod 2.0 Beta, awful news about my brothers and sisters in Burundi.

Paul Cameron enabler bares his lying teeth at ENDA

Coral Ridge Ministries writer Robert Knight has written an interesting(and I use that word very, very loosely)piece against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The gist of Knight's attack is the following:

ENDA is profoundly dangerous. It turns private sin into a public right and brings the force of government against morality itself. Any such law is a violation of our unalienable rights as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. To put it more simply, a statute that directly contradicts God's moral law is illegitimate. Laws embody and reflect morality, or they are not laws. They are tyranny. That's why so-called same-sex "marriage" laws are absurd and treacherous. Forcing citizens to accept a counterfeit as the real thing is an act of despotism.

ENDA adds not only "sexual orientation" but "gender identity" to federal workplace anti-discrimination law. Thus, it takes an ax to the idea that sexual behavior has a natural normalcy or any relation to morality. It falsely equates a changeable condition (sexual desire) with race and ethnicity. Worse, it turns traditional values into a form of bigotry punishable under the law.

So to Knight, ENDA should be opposed because homosexuality is a sin. Well I'm glad he cleared that up.

Whether Knight knows it or not, his attack on homosexuality as a "behavior" that should not be protected is really opening the door to declare that religious beliefs in the workplace should be not be protected because after all, religion is a behavior.

To tell the truth though, I am disappointed with Knight's piece. I can always count on Knight to go to extremes with opposing any anti-discrimination laws.

For example when he said the following in 2003 about Nashville's attempt to add sexual orientation to it's nondiscrimination code:

Few public officials and businessmen realize that when they allow the addition of “sexual orientation” to their nondiscrimination codes, they are tying their own hands when it comes to objecting to:

· A man in a highly visible sales job coming to work in a dress and high heels;
· A woman in a highly visible position coming to work in men’s clothes;
· A person of indeterminate sex who insists on using either the men’s room or the women’s room;
· A person of either sex who indulges a taste for extreme sexual promiscuity and pornography during working hours despite being charged with representing the company’s tone and character;
· A man who frequents prostitutes while on business trips and claims that it is none of the company’s business, regardless of the company’s public image.

Knight, who used to be employed with the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America, has on occasion manipulated facts in his written and verbal pieces. He also freely cited discredited researcher Paul Cameron, even citing Cameron data in front of Congress in an attempt to defeat ENDA.

From the site Wired Strategies under the section, Gays are diseased, die early, and are less productive than heterosexuals comes this:

"homosexual behavior is extremely unhealthy, contributing to the spread of AIDS, hepatitis A, B and C and other sexually transmitted diseases….A study of more than 6,400 obituaries in homosexual publications reveals that homosexuals typically have far shorter life spans than the general population. Other reports indicate that homosexuals are more likely to have drug and alcohol abuse problems. It is unfair to force businesses to pay the extra insurance expense and lost productivity that inevitably results from homosexual behavior." [Editors note: the source for this "research" is the discredited Dr. Paul Cameron - see below for extensive information about his extreme beliefs]
- Robert Knight, Family Research Council, testifying at ENDA Hearings, July 29, 1994 - committee on Labor and Human Resources, US Senate.

In my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, I recount meeting Knight and his "so what" answer when I pressed him about using Cameron's work even after he knew of the discredited researcher's reputation.

So naturally, Knight has no problem distorting the facts and conjuring up ugly images of "godless gays on the attack" when it suits his purpose.

But the fact that Knight didn't conjure up these false images against ENDA may mean that he and others on his side have already given up the fight against it.

Then again, knowing the religious right, they could be saving their ammunition until the time when the vote actually comes up.

What Harvey Milk would tell the lgbt community to do

Harvey Milk got his due today as his nephew, Stuart Milk, accepted his Presidential Medal of Freedom. The video is below:



It's interesting to me that a lot of lgbts have speculated what Harvey Milk would have said to President Obama had he been alive to accept this award.

I prefer to think that Milk wouldn't say anything to President Obama because he would be too busy talking to us.

I would like to think that he would tell us to not stop challenging those who won't give us our basic rights. And to do all we can to bring attention to the fact that we are human beings who deserve respect.

And I think he would tell us to continue to fight in every way possible, whether it be by this weekend's Kiss-In, fighting for ENDA, to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and to pass hate crimes legislation.

Personally, I would like to think that he would tell me to continue to go about my work exposing the distorted and discredited studies of the religious right.

But most of all, I think he would tell us to love and respect ourselves and each other because that is where it all begins. If we do not respect each other and ourselves, then we have no right demanding it from heterosexuals.

A gay bashing victim blames himself, militia groups are on the rise, and other Wednesday midday news briefs

A Victim Takes the Blame - Oh please. If people who flirt are allowed to be beaten up, then let me to arm heterosexual ladies with some bricks.

Officials See Rise In Militia Groups Across US - Pay attention, folks.

High-ranking Dems rub shoulders; Maine anti-gays rub desperation lamp - President Obama takes picture with Congressman Barney Frank and his partner. Apocalypse imminent.

Gay Sex Causes Swine Flu - Now I know some gay men can be pigs, but this is ridiculous.

Low-life teabagger protestor tears up poster of Rosa Parks at health care town hall - I guess they figured Rosa Parks was a Muslim Socialist Fascist Nazi Kenyan . . . oh never mind. These people are nuts.

And now, a double dish of crazy brought to you by those same folks who cannot stand the lgbt community:

Janet Porter Reveals The Coming American Genocide

Farah: Obama's Grandmother Was Really His Mother

I'm going to say this and I don't care who gets offended.

I haven't seen white folks this upset since the verdict of the O.J. Simpson trial. The election of Barack Obama as president has sent some of them off the deep end. And I think it's way past time to start praying that this situation doesn't end tragically for this country.

Religious right tries to smear Harvey Milk on his day of honor

I spoke too soon yesterday.

Religious right members won't even let us have one day or one honor for our people without throwing their ugly hands into the mix in order to mess it up.

Family Research Council spokesperson Peter(I would like to see gays exported from the United States instead of being imported)Sprigg has written a nasty piece (which I am sure will be picked up) for World Net Daily:

When President Obama today awards a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom to Harvey Milk, it may mark the first time in history that the nation's highest civilian award has been granted primarily on the basis of someone's sex life.

. . . But Milk is famous only for winning one election, being murdered – and having sex with men. In his "gay rights" stump speech, Milk once said, "Like every other group, we must be judged by our leaders and by those who are themselves gay." What can we conclude about the homosexual movement in America based on the life of Harvey Milk? I recently decided to find out by reading "gay journalist" Randy Shilts' 1982 biography of Milk, "The Mayor of Castro Street."

Spriggs proceeds to break down his version of Milk's sex life with the panache and tenacity of a repressed religious leader going into detail about gay sex to shocked parishoners.

Maybe he is taking lessons from his friend Peter LaBarbera.

And when Sprigg isn't grousing about Milk's alleged sex life, he launches other unsubstantiated charges against Milk - i.e. he was anti-lesbian, he faked a hate crime, etc.

It's almost sad, really.

Sprigg's attack on Milk is the equivalent of a racist mentioning the Watts Riot of the 1960s without talking about the conditions that led up to it.

Harvey Milk's Presidential Medal of Freedom will not be posthumously awarded to him for his "sex life." And to minimize how he positively affected the American experience reveals more about Sprigg's homophobia than Milk's "sex life."

Harvey Milk is receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom because he stood up unashamed to be who he was. He demanded that he not be tolerated, not be accepted, but be respected.

And he also demanded in his own way that lgbts not accept what homophobes give us but to take what belongs to us - our God-given right to pursue the American Dream.

I guess I should be angry at Sprigg, but I'm not. Nothing he or any of his cohorts can say will ruin this moment for me.

Harvey Milk was an American hero and today he will be honored as such. He will be the first (hopefully not the last) gay man to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Milk is not receiving this honor because he was a famous actor who happened to be gay, or a famous musician who happened to be gay.

And he is certainly not receiving this honor for his alleged sex life.

Milk is receiving this honor as a openly gay man who challenged the notion that lgbts are unhappy people with hedonistic lives. His honor puts all of us out of the darkness of the smoky bars and into the front room of the White House, if you will.

I happen to like that move.

Milk was a diamond and no amount of dirt can remove his luster or the luster of this moment.

So nice try, Sprigg. But no sale.