Analyzing and refuting the inaccuracies lodged against the lgbt community by religious conservative organizations. Lies in the name of God are still lies.
This piece ran on June 4 of this year. It may seem funny but notice the subtle similarities between the Chick Publications (the creator of the awful comic seen below) and the implications raised by Maggie Gallagher and the National Organization for Marriage that marriage equality will be "forced on children."
And notice how neither entity wants to acknowledge the existence of lgbt children and same-sex families that include children.
Maybe it's just me but marriage equality coming to New Hampshire seems to have left some members of the religious right a bit dazed.
One News Now has yet to report on it and my usually reliable anti-gay Peter LaBarbera hasn't said a word yet.
Even Focus on the Family have been strangely silent.
But not everyone is silent.
Someone alerted me to this tract from Chick Publications. Chick Publications is a site that publishes cartoon gospel tracts. You may have seen these various tracts in a doctor's office or at the bus stop.
It is an old tract (it was created in 2004) and while it does not address marriage equality in New Hampshire per se, it's safe to say that the creator doesn't exactly care for gay marriage at all.
The following are some snippets from the tract:
Judge for yourself but I tend to think that minus the little imps, this is exactly the argument the religious right uses against marriage equality.
It's not exactly a logical argument when drawn out, is it?
For today's edition of Know your lgbt history, I wanted to feature something different, eclectic and semi-empowering.
Not too many people are aware of this but the motion picture Diamonds Are Forever (1971) is probably the gayest, most campiest movie in the James Bond series.
It's one of my favorites, although seeing how it fits into the James Bond chronology, campy wasn't necessarily a good way to go.
Diamonds Are Forever came after On Her Majesty's Secret Service starring George Lazenby who took over the role of James Bond from Sean Connery.
I won't even talk about the behind-the-scenes drama that led to Lazenby not doing another James Bond movie and producers wooing Connery back for one last go at Bond.
The onscreen drama was enough. At the end of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Bond has just become a groom but quickly became a widower when villain Ernst Stavro Blofeld machine-gunned his bride.
Diamonds Are Forever should have been what later Bond movie License to Kill was - a movie devoted to vengeance. Instead, only the first five minutes was devoted to Bond finding and killing Blofeld.
Then he proceeded to stop diamond smugglers.
And by the power of strange screenwriting, it turns out that he didn't kill Blofeld after all (who do you think was leading the diamond smuggling operations?)
I won't rehash the plot. I just want to focus on my favorite James Bond henchmen, Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint.
Wint (jazz musician Putter Smith) and Kidd (actor Bruce Glover) are definitely a gay couple, as seen by the end of the first scene after they put a scorpion down the back of a diamond smuggler and blow up a helicopter.
Subtlety is not this couple's strong suite and they cut a path of destruction, killing everyone who is a part of the diamond smuggling operation per instructions of Blofeld who will be using the diamonds as a part of a new plan of world conquest.
Although I find their deaths insulting - particularly that of Mr. Kidd, I still have a guilty pleasure of watching the two wreak havoc.
A True Hero Gets an Apology- It's about time. What happened to Alan Turing was a damn shame. Usually you should get more respect when you help save your country.
Expect to hear that lie played over and over again, despite this little bit from the nonpartisan Politifact which says Wilson was wrong when he called the President a liar:
When we look at all of this evidence, it seems that health reform leaves in place the status quo on illegal immigration, and certainly does not provide any new benefits particularly for illegal immigrants. We hope to look at this issue more in the days ahead, because some hospitals are concerned about recouping their costs for treating illegal immigrants, and we're curious to know more about that problem and how it might or might not be solved by reform.
The best argument that we find that health reform would help illegal immigrants is that some might be able to purchase the public option — if it passes, and it might not — on the new health insurance exchange. They would purchase that at full cost. Obama said, "The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally," which Wilson said was a "lie." Actually, Obama can make a pretty thorough case that reform doesn't apply to those here illegally. We don't find the public option argument enough to make the case that Obama "lied." We rate Wilson's statement False.
Of course who gives a damn about truth when you can exploit a polarizing talking point for yourself, eh Mr. Wilson.
And for those shaking their heads at the unbelievability of it all, welcome to the world where lgbts have existed for years.
Despite the debunking of so many claims of the religious right regarding lgbts (i.e. we have a short life span, we molest children, the vast majority of us spend a considerable amount of time bumping uglies with each other), these claims continue to be pushed as fact.
In other words, Wilson (and mostly the Republican party because I really don't think Wilson created this talking point on his own) is attacking the President the same way the religious right attacks lgbts; by pushing a headless monster.
A headless monster is an idea that has been debunked but refuses to die because of the stubborness of those repeating the claim and the gullibility of those believing the claim; such as the lie that "Obama's health plan protects illegal immigrants because Democrats shot down bills that specifically hinder them."
For those who like to note comparisons, this is pretty much the same lying argument we heard about hate crimes legislation, i.e. "hate crimes legislation will supposedly protect pedophiles because there are no amendments in it specifically barring pedophiles."
I've covered the pushing of headless monsters for over three years now and I'm starting to feel like a character in one of those George Romero zombie movies.
All in all, it's inane but it's also Washington politics. Even as I speak, the wheels of manipulation are turning. Although in this case, I don't think it is going to benefit conservatives.
As long as Wilson continues to desire the spotlight, Republicans are going to look like the mean-spirited partisan hacks that they are and at the same time they may unite folks behind the President's plan.
After all, nothing unites people more than the prospect of getting teed off.
But for now, I suggest the President do what I have done and what all lgbts have done all these years.
If Peter LaBarbera wants to know why he is losing credibility even with members of the religious right, then he doesn't need to look any further than his one-sided feud with blogger Joe Jervis.
A few days ago, LaBarbera ran a piece about the firing of actress Patricia Mauceri. Mauceri claimed that she was fired from the soap opera One Life to Live because she objected how her character would behave in a pro-gay storyline.
Yesterday, he took his "Mauceri is a victim of gay hate" factoid to an attack on blogger Joe Jervis, the author of the blog Joe.My.God.
Apparently LaBarbera put attention on some not very nice comments coming from readers about Mauceri.
Jervis got wind of it and posted something about LaBarbera. And now LaBarbera has posted something else about Jervis.
If that isn't bad enough, LaBarbera features a huge picture of Jervis while a picture of Mauceri clings on the edge like someone trying to sleep in the same bed as a mattress hog.
And it's not the first time LaBarbera has gone after Jervis, as this link demonstrates.
Notice how LaBarbera makes sure to describe Jervis in such illuminating tones as "Aethist homosexual blogger Joe Jervis" or "Leatherman Joe Jervis."
Peter, shouldn't this be about Mauceri and not Jervis?
I mean sooner or later, people are going to start to talk.
Now I'm not saying or implying in any way that LaBarbera has a thing for Jervis. But as you all can see, he does have a habit of veering off into strange territory.
Somewhere, Matt Barber is laughing his behind off.
Conservative Christian Furious That God Loves Gays - Far be it from me to channel the words of self-righteous anti-gays but if they have a problem with the fact that God loves us then their argument is with Him and not us.
'Judicial activism' alive and well at 3rd Circuit - One News Now must not like Matt Barber. That is the only explanation for this inexplicable article which seems to go out of its way to make him look like a bully. The article is talking about a case, which according to One News Now, says "A federal appeals court has ruled that an effeminate homosexual can pursue a claim that he was targeted for harassment on the job because of his mannerisms."
The thing is that the article does not even talk about the case, but allows Barber to pontificate in the ugly fashion like he usually does.
It's the classic case of letting someone cut his own throat.
Yes this is an lgbt blog, but it also a South Carolina blog.
And let's face it - in light of all that's happened recently in this state regarding the hypocrisy of those who espouse "family values," (hello Governor Mark Sanford) I simply have to comment on the latest embarrassment, i.e. Rep. Joe Wilson.
The immediate reaction is one of shock and outrage from both sides of the aisle over his verbal attack on President Obama during his speech.
However, at Free Republic (where they would find reasons to lock up Little Red Riding Hood but set the wolf loose), things are slightly different: Did our President really lie? What aspect of Obamacare was the POTUS being less than forthright? Why was Wilson so compelled to make an outburst? Was he totally frustrated with the complex and ever-changing legislation, with the lack of communication with the Marxist-leaning Democrats? If Wilson was correct, then should you and your fellow Democrats explain themselves better and apologize to the American people?
And Joe Wilson was on the verge of a fund raising boom himself for stating the truth. I even saw one posting here linking to his fund raising site. Unfortunately, by apologizing, he will probably not now get that boom and is being denounced by both sides.
Wilson will reap $$$$ ten-fold over Miller when the donations are counted . Bout’ time someone stood up to this “ brown clown “ !
The apology: "While I disagree with the President’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility.” Not for calling him a liar. I have no problem with that.
He’s lucky the Obamunists didn’t have him removed from the room and shot.
No apology for calling a spade a spade.
Way to go, guys.
I hear that Wilson's challenger has benefited greatly from this controversy. In the long run, though, I doubt this will have a long-term effect on Wilson. To some in this state, he will probably looked at as a hero.
Also, when we elect national representatives in this state, we keep them like luggage. And you know some people just can't get rid of luggage, no matter how beat up and broken down it is.
No doubt when Rep. Joe Wilson ran for the late Floyd Spence's seat, he wanted to make history.
You got your wish, Rep. Wilson.
You will be remembered for an absolutely ugly outburst during President Obama's speech on healthcare. An outburst so nasty, so rude that I'm actually going to watch Glenn Beck, read Michelle Malkin, and the posts on Free Republic to see just how they will justify it.
You will remembered for an outburst so nasty, so rude that it got teabaggers feeling sorry for the president.
And though you probably feel like a real dummy (because that's what you looked like - a real dummy), take solace in a few facts:
You were man enough to give an apology without making yourself into a martyr, some oddballs will actually think of you as a hero, and your name will be on the lips of probably every black pastor in the state.
Although on second thought, that last point may not be a good thing. They'll probably rehash your negative comments when Strom Thurmond black daughter, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, went public about her father.
But cheer up. You and other officials of this state have given me a good response to make the next time someone asks me why as an lgbt do I remain in South Carolina.
Actress Patricia Mauceri says she was fired and abruptly replaced for objecting to a gay storyline because of her religious beliefs.
Mauceri played the recurring role of Carlotta Vega on "OLTL" for the last 14 years. But when she objected to how the writers wanted her deeply religious character, a Latina mother, to handle a storyline involving homosexuality, she objected. And for that she claims she was fired.
Mauceri, 59, a devout Christian, told FOX News that character Vega's gay-friendly dialogue was not in line with the character she helped create by drawing on her own faith.
"I did not object to being in a gay storyline. I objected to speaking the truth of what that person, how that person would live and breathe and act in that storyline," she said. "And this goes against everything I am, my belief system, and what I know the character's belief system is aligned to."
And of course before the entire story has come out, the vultures (i.e. Peter LaBarbera and company) have made Mauceri an example of what could happen if ENDA passes:
Reverse Discrimination? How’s this for a timely story for Labor Day — highlighting the current reality that Christians and traditionalists who oppose homosexuality are more likely to be fired or disciplined for their beliefs than homosexuals are for “being gay.” TAKE ACTION: Call your Congressman and Senators next week (202-224-2131; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them to oppose ENDA — the Employment Nondiscrimination Act — which would federalize “sexual orientation” law and greatly expand government power to promote the “gay” agenda. ENDA would become a tool for the Left to use the state to force Christian and moral-minded business owners to promote and subsidize homosexuality and transsexuality against their will.
That's right. According to LaBarbera, forget the fact that you are a hard worker. If your boss finds out that you are an lgbt, then that should be reason enough to fire you.
But I digress. Naturally, LaBarbera is going to milk this situation for all it's worth, even posting a few nasty anti-Mauceri comments from a pro-lgbt blog.
Interestingly enough, it's a blog (Joe. My. God.) that for some reason constantly grinds LaBarbera's gears. He has mentioned the blog a few times this year.
Well since I'm not a psychiatrist, I will not speculate about that.
I personally think that people have sense enough to know that lgbts are not monolithic and a few ugly comments on a blog are not indicative of the entire community in general.
To think that would be the same as thinking that every "deeply religious person" opposes homosexuality. I guess that's what got Mauceri in trouble.
If LaBarbera really wants to read ugly comments, he should read what the folks on Free Republic said about President Obama's daughter Malia.
Really though, seems to me that the details of the story (i.e. the gay storyline) is immaterial. This situation has nothing to do with ENDA. Here we have a soap opera actress who has been reminded that she does not have the juice of a Susan Lucci or Erika Slezak. She is not a writer and she took it upon herself to refuse to play a character as it has been dictated to her by the writers and was penalized for it.
Was it fair? Maybe not. But that's life.
But to exploit the situation in order to justify discrimination against lgbts is wrong. Period.
David Mixner, long-time gay activist, best selling author, and a member of the Bill Clinton Presidential transition team, has written a piece talking about why lgbts should support a march:
Are you really happy with the progress we have made over the last eight months with this Administration and Congress? Are you really happy with the progress we have made on the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)? Do you think that the leaders of our political parties have embraced marriage equality and our God given rights, benefits and protections that come with it? Are you content, relaxed and happy with where we are at this moment in history in the struggle for freedom?
Think very carefully about the above questions. Then make plans to come to Washington, DC on October 11th to march with thousands of your brothers, sisters and straight allies for freedom.
If you are like me, then most of you will be unhappy about any of the questions above. Almost NOTHING has been done in the last eight months by the president or Congress to take us dramatically closer to freedom.
It's an interesting piece that resembles a Sunday morning sermon. And that is the major problem I have with it. It, like the proposed march, is high on platitudes and hyperbole, but vague on courses of action. I wrote a response which I posted his blog:
I am still leaning against the National March. And to answer David's question - no I am not happy but with how things have been going for lgbts for a while now even BEFORE this administration took over. And that is the point of my disagreement. What took us so long to be angry. And why is our anger not directed against those who have maligned us?
I keep hearing all of these vague things- "a march will show how angry we are," "a march will energize us."
We've been angry for a while and America knows it. Should we be so consumed with again demonstrating our anger for the benefit of the public media. And what will we be energized to do? Are we going to go back and organize in our communities with a spirit of togetherness? Are we going to support our community organizations? Or are we going to assemble in our little cliques like we always do?
And I don't like the hypocrisy of the entire thing. We want to march to show our anger at how the Obama Administration is moving on our issues. Yet we can't dedicate as much energy to combat the lies of the religious right. Obama is not the one we should be angry at. It's those organizations that continue to lie on us. Let's be real. If ENDA was passed, if Don't Ask, Don't Tell was passed, if we got hate crimes legislation, could this community successfully fight against the religious right driven backlash that is sure to follow? Or would we so busy celebrating that when it does come, we run around like chickens with our heads cut off?
Forget the march. There needs to be a total overhaul on what exactly are we fighting for and who we should be angry at.
That is the way I have felt from the get-go and as we get closer to October, nothing said or done has changed my mind. And I'm not a stubborn, rigid person. Don't get me wrong; if the march does anything positive for the community then I will be one of the first to acknowledge it. However, I would like to see something a bit more concrete than just gathering together, holding signs, and "showing anger."
This year, there is a good chance that Congress could pass a transgender-inclusive ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act).
However, not if the American Family Association can help it.
I found some talking points from the religious right group regarding ENDA. They are nothing more than evasions and appeals to fears about "gay sex" and "men invading women's restrooms."
I am posting the talking points and including a refutation with each one:
AFA - ENDA (H.R. 2981 - H.R. 3017 - S. 1584) has been changed from the "gay-only" version the House passed in 2007 to include language banning job discrimination based on "gender identity" as well as sexual orientation - complete with special protections for the transgendered. It would mean your child's teacher, if he were a male but "felt" like a female, could go into the women's bathroom.
Refutation - There have been many transgender-inclusive job discrimination bills passed statewide and citywide (including my city of Columbia, SC) but there has NEVER been a case of a man "claiming to feel like a female" invading women's bathrooms.
AFA - ENDA is aimed at providing heightened protections for a particular sexual behavior - homosexuality. It would grant special consideration on the basis of "sexual orientation" that would not be extended to other employees in the workplace.
Refutation - Potential employees are already federally protected in the case of race, religion, gender, and national origin. Adding sexual orientation does not single out gays and lesbians any more than gender singles out solely women or men.
AFA - ENDA violates employers' and employees' Constitutional freedoms of religion, speech and association. The proposed legislation would prohibit employers from taking their deeply held beliefs into account when making personnel decisions. This would pose an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into people's lives.
Refutation - Translation: If a manager at a restaurant has a "deeply held belief" that homosexuality is a sin, he or she should have the right to fire an lgbt employee; at least that is what the AFA believes. However "deeply held beliefs" are no excuse for discrimination of any stripe. Also one could argue there is already "federal intrusion" in people's lives with the protections in the cases of race, religion, gender, and national origin.
AFA - ENDA would approvingly bring private behavior considered immoral by many into the public square. By declaring that all sexual preferences are equally valid, ENDA would change national policy supporting marriage and family.
Refutation - By private behavior, AFA is implying sexual behavior. ENDA says nothing about sexual behavior. If "national policy supporting marriage and family" is changed, then it is a good thing. Not all families are heterosexually-oriented. Also, several states already offer lgbts the right to marry. A national policy regarding families and marriage should embrace this change rather than adhere to someone's narrow view of family and marriage.
AFA - HRC claims that ENDA does not apply to religious organizations, but the 2007 version of the law only provided a religious exemption for religious positions that were involved in actual teaching or proclamation of doctrine. Such a limited exemption, some pro-family legal experts argue, would mean that a Christian school that was hiring a secretary, janitor or football coach would not be allowed to reject a homosexual who applied for the slot.
Refutation - That's simply not true. This version of ENDA has a more detailed explanation of religious exemptions (Section 6).
This was the same detailed exemptions included in the 2007 version of ENDA. An article in the Roundtable of Religion and Social Welfare Policy described the exemptions as followed:
"ENDA has three subsections with specific exemptions for religious organizations. The first says the law will not apply to a religious organization or educational institution that has a "primary purpose" to teach religion or spread doctrine. This would include houses of worship, parochial schools, and religious missions.
Institutions that would not be wholly exempted by this first subsection include schools, universities, hospitals and social service agencies operated by religious organizations but that do not have a primary purpose of teaching religion.
The second subsection excludes employees whose "primary" duty is to spread religious doctrine and involves spiritual teaching or ministerial governance. This would include chaplains and teachers of nonreligious subjects, even if they work at institutions that are not exempted such as hospitals, social service agencies or universities.
With respect to other employees, the third subsection says the religious institutions that are not exempt may still require workers to conform to the institution's religious beliefs about sexual orientation. For example, the bill would allow a religiously-affiliated hospital to refuse to hire or to fire doctors and nurses who engage in same-sex conduct."
Even with these talking points, the battle to pass ENDA is still half done. As we have seen with the health care town hall meetings last month, it's not just about having the correct information, it's about the ability to be able to get your information out there and define the argument.
And the religious right with their allies on the blogs and Fox News won't make this easy.
If the lgbt community and our allies are to get ENDA passed, we have to not only know how to counter the lies but be able to weave our way through the intricasies of how these lies are spread.
The implications of a 'Harvey Milk Day' observance - The religious right don't like the idea of a "Harvey Milk Day" observance. Who knew? Note to SaveCalifornia.com president Randy Thomasson - we already have crossdressing exercises in schools. They are called "powder puff football games" and "spirit week opposite days."
Obama: AIDS ED Doesn't Work -- Kill it & Save Billions - I'm all for "if you don't succeed, try try again," but give it up, Paul Cameron. Who in the hell takes you seriously? Or would even admit to taking your seriously?
Social architect/activist Cleo Manago participated in a candid debate on homosexuality in Black communities, civil rights and attitudes behind Black resistance to affirming homosexuals at Al Sharpton’s National Action Network’s 2009 Summer Conference held in Atlanta, GA. Manago was joined by author/activist Kevin Alexander Gray, and National Action Network’s Director of Health & Wellness, Tony Wafford.
According to Manago, “often when I have these discussions in the Black community, someone gets up talking about production, to produce or to not produce being the measure of who deserves the most rights or who deserves the most respect, which is not logical because most sex people have, including heterosexual sex, is not to reproduce.”
Manago further went on to discuss that while HIV is killing us [the Black community] it’s difficult getting heterosexual men involved in part based on myths, judgments and under-discussed issues around manhood in the Black community.
For those interested, here is the link to the speech President Obama will be giving to our nation's children.
Oh yeah, real evil stuff there with all that talk about reaching for the stars, never giving up even if you fail, and always keeping your focus on your goals.
Expect the anti-Obama spin to remain on the optional lesson plans (which I don't see the problem with suggesting that students write out ways to help THEIR president improve education) or the lie about how "Obama was forced to revise his speech."
I would have loved to hear such words of encouragement coming from the President or anyone. And I was lucky to get those words of encouragement from my mother, teachers, and friends.
Those words were a better experience of encouragement than the one I had when I was four-years-old.
At the time, I lived in Pennsylvania. My brother and I was invited with a group of inner city youth by a predominantly white church group to have lunch at a theatre and see movies.
The first movie was some oldie about the Harlem Globetrotters with Dorothy Dandridge.
The second movie was a lovely gem of the macabre (shown here in preview form) called The Burning Hell:
I have since seen this documentary at two other stages in my life.
As a 38-year-old looking at it on youtube, it amazes me how people thought that showing children this movie could do anything positive for their well-being.
As a nine-year-old seeing it at another church's revival meeting, I wondered what in the world was all the fuss about.
However, as a four-year-old (at the time I first saw the movie), it scared the hell out of me. Ugly memory that was. And totally exacerbated by the fact that many of us children were too scared to leave. I wonder what those lovely Christian people would have done if we tried.
And by the way, we did get lunch. A nasty peanut butter sandwich, an orange, and a carton of warm milk that they gave us when we boarded the bus for home. And that was after the prayer of "accepting Jesus and hoping that if we died that day, we didn't end up in hell."
Wasn't that lovely? It gave me something to think about between such childhood functions as reading comic books and watching Schoolhouse Rock.
The entire experience served me well, though. It put a kernel of doubt in my head about man's interpretation of God's word. This kernel blossomed and ended up being a saving grace when I had to deal with my gay sexual orientation.
Now I ask you all in light of how I was a victim of "proper encouragement" by members of the Christian community, is President Obama's speech to children really a bad thing?
Editor's note - By the way, you can see the entire "The Burning Hell" video here on youtube.
UPDATE - This is funny. At the conservative blog, Hot Air (how aptly named), they are of course either panning the speech or trying to push the "it's not the speech but the instructional materials" lie. But every now and then comes a moment of truth. One person said the following:
I can’t help wondering if the fact that he’s black and you’re all white doesn’t have a teeny-tiny bit to do with that deep deep reservoir of resentment.
(name withheld) on September 7, 2009 at 3:10 PM
The response:
How the hell do you know we’re all white, a$$wipe?
Screw you and the bloody donkey you rode in on, you scum sucking bastard.
(name withheld) on September 7, 2009 at 6:17 PM
To the conservatives complaining over the President's speech - if some of you feel like dummies because of your response to the speech, then guess what?
To the rest of the American people, you look even worse.
Three year ago today, I began my blog, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters. Initially it was to serve as publicity about my book (of the same name). However, the blog has taken a life of it's own. What I wrote three years ago is as relevant today as it was then:
There are a bunch of organizations in this country who thrive on ignorance, fear, and a sense of entitlement.
They refer to themselves as "pro family" and even members of the gay community regard them as the religious right
With all due respect, I don't see them as that. They are an anti-gay industry who seeks to gain political power by building on the religious beliefs and ignorance of people of faith. And they have been pretty successful.
Central to this success are their so-called studies on the gay community. In order to prove that gays and lesbians should not have any protection of laws, they have created a written and oral pattern of deception that is not only blatant in its attempts but shameful in its audacity. In their zeal to prove the worst about the gay community, the anti-gay industry runs roughshod over science and truth. They have created a houses of pseudo-scientific studies based on distortions, lies, headless monsters, and legitimate studies taken out of context , which are then pushed by fake experts, Ph.D.s, conservative columnists and bloggers, and ignorant people of faith all willing to sacrifice their integrity on the altar of an alleged higher calling.
We know the claims these studies make:
gays have a short life span gays molest children at a higher level than heterosexuals lesbians abuse their partners at a high level gays are more violent and are prone to crimes gays are promiscuous and cannot handle the concept of marriage.
For two years, I have studied the methodologies of so-called "pro family" groups (i.e. Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, the Traditional Values Coalition, etc) and am glad to say that their claims are rooted in lies, outright deceptions, and legitimate studies with portions cherry picked out.
In 2007, I will publish my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, detailing just what how the anti-gay industry propagandizes about the gay community. Through this blog, I will publish some of my findings and update everyone as to the progress of my book. I will update this blog on a weekly basis.
Now I must emphasis that I am not attacking anyone's religion. I respect a Christian's right to believe that homosexuality is an abomination. I also respect the right of the Boys Scouts of America to prohibit gays from serving as members. Of course I also believe that if the organization had any integrity at all, it should refuse any form of public monies because some of this money is derived from gay sources via taxes. And isn't accepting money from those who you feel will not conform to your moral code just as bad as allowing them in your group.
But I digress.
What I am saying through my book and my blog is that distortions and lies in the name of God are still distortions and lies. And anyone who knowingly uses them and can still refer to themselves as a person of faith needs to examine themselves.
If anyone wants to read past postings, check out the Best of Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters to the right of this blog.
Aesop once wrote a fable about a hungry wolf who saw a lamb by a river bank. The wolf wanted "justification" to eat the lamb. He threw all sorts of charges of impropriety at the innocent creature but the lamb refuted them all.
Finally the wolf says, "You claim to be innocent, but I know you are lying so to hell with it." And then proceeded to devour the lamb, proving that when people want to do evil, they will use any excuse to justify their behavior.
In the case of President's Obama's speech to children on Sept. 8, it seems that the excuse is to "protect the children."
This recent controversy over President Obama's speech is nonsense. We all know it and we should say it loudly and often.
And not only that, it demonstrates just how some on the right, especially the religious right, operate.
Those who are making all of this noise about the President's speech claim that they have no arguments with it per se but with the "lesson plans" that accompany it, especially the part about advising children to write on how they can help the President.
The whine about the lesson plan is a big con. And it's an old one.
We all have seen this "I don't mind the big idea but the little details scare me" con before.
Remember when certain areas of the country (i.e. counties in Maine, Florida, etc.) were trying to pass transgender-inclusive gay rights bills?
The people opposing the bills claimed that they didn't have a problem with the "spirit of the bills," but that they left a huge opening for "sexual predators" to invade women's bathrooms and locker rooms.
That, of course was an evasive tactic.
What someone on their side of the argument did was look through the bills until they found a loophole that they could exploit. And they did this because they were too cowardly to publicly say that they didn't want transgender-inclusive gay rights bills to pass because they don't like homosexuality.
To say this would have left them open for the charge of bigotry.
But saying that they didn't support transgender-inclusive gay rights bills (or as they termed them - "bathroom bills,") because they would cause harm to children was a more advantageous tallking point.
So now in the case of President Obama's speech to children, we are seeing a foul case of deja vu.
These folks (Michelle Malkin, the conservative radio show hosts and bloggers, the religious right, elected officials in Florida) who started the nonsense about Obama's speech to children don't like the President, period. No matter what he does or says, he will remain on the very top of their crap list and they are going to do their best to undermine his efforts at all turns.
If he were Moses and parted the Red Sea for them to cross, they would be complaining about how the soles of their feet got wet.
But they don't want to openly say "we don't want the President to give this speech because we just don't like Obama."
Therefore we are saddled with this "I'm scared that President Obama will be indoctrinating children because the 'lesson plans' of his speech give me pause" talking point that will be repeated continuously without a good challenge by the liars on Fox News and other television programs with anchors too cowardly to challenge it for fear of looking "liberally biased."
Just like the case of the alleged "bathroom bills," someone looked through the plans of the President speech and found a loophole in which they can hang their lies on.
Evasive loopholes will continue to exist until someone has the courage to plug them up.
Before I begin with this week's Know your lgbt history segment, I would like to point something out that caught my attention. If you want to skip it, then pan down to the Know Your LGBT History segment on Windows - the worst off-kilter lesbian movie I have ever seen.
At the National HIV Conference this week, the Centers for Disease Control said the following:
Gay and bisexual men account for half of new HIV infections in the U.S. and have AIDS at a rate more than 50 times greater than other groups. . .
. . . Gay and bisexual men account for half of new HIV infections in the U.S. and have AIDS at a rate more than 50 times greater than other groups, according to Centers for Disease Control & Prevention data presented at the National HIV Prevention Conference this week in Atlanta.
This is bad news to almost everyone except for our friend Peter LaBarbera, who naturally used this news for his own benefit:
The issue in this ongoing “culture war” is not the cause of homosexual “orientation” — or merely the legality of “same-sex marriage.” It’s homosexual behavior itself — and whether government should promote it or discourage it, or be neutral. I say discourage it, since the evidence keeps pouring in that conduct which has been proscribed as immoral down through centuries of Judeo-Christian tradition is also highly dangerous. Now if the CDC will only stop blabbering on about “homophobia” and start telling the truth — that the rectum is not a sexual organ, after all, and that we must take tough measures against “gay” promiscuity — America will become a healthier place.
Never mind that he shows his ignorance by taking in part of the CDC's statement and ignoring the part that doesn't suit his agenda.
The "blabbering about homophobia" that LaBarbera alludes to is this part of the article that he conveniently omitted in his attack on lgbts:
Many conference speakers, including ranking officials with the CDC, said getting rid of stigma, including homophobia, against those with HIV/AIDS is also a crucial part in reducing incident rates.
LaBarbera also omitted this part of the article:
( U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen) Sebelius also noted that gay and bisexual men, as well as African Americans and Latinos, continue to be hardest hit by the disease in the U.S. Steps are being taken by the Obama administration to target these populations specifically, she said.
“We’re targeting our efforts at high-risk groups like African Americans. Today, African Amer-icans make up just a tenth of the population. But they account for nearly half of new HIV infections. One in 30 African-American women will be diagnosed in her lifetime. One in 16 African-American men will be diagnosed with HIV. In 2005, the CDC reported that in five major cities, almost half of all African-American gay men were HIV positive. The situation is also dire for Latinos,” she said.
“Think about that. Imagine if it were half the straight white women in Atlanta. Wouldn’t we be calling this a national emergency? Shouldn’t we be?” she said to a cheering crowd.
I know LaBarbera wouldn't dare denigrate the Latino and African-American community for their unfortunate rate of HIV infections in the same manner that he denigrates the lgbt community. Not to worry, though. I'm sure enterprising racists will talk about the supposed "inferiority" of blacks and Latinos.
After all, you just can't keep hogs away from the trough, whether they be racists or homophobes.
Sorry about that for those expecting a Know your lgbt history segment. Now onto it . . .
Know your lgbt history - Windows
It has been said that Windows (1980) is such a bad movie that it will never make it to DVD. Hell, it's hard to find it on VHS.
And those who say these things are absolutely correct. I never thought it was possible to see a movie that simultaneously disgusted and bored me.
The repulsiveness starts off before you even have time to get acquainted with the characters.
Talia Shire plays a woman who is attacked when she is entering her apartment. The intruder makes her partly disrobe and, while holding a knife to her neck and mouth, makes her say "sounds" in a tape recorder.
The scene is disgusting. Why the intruder does this to her is even worse. He was paid by Shire's friend, played by Elizabeth Ashley, to make Shire do these things. She paid the man to commit the crime so that Shire would run to her for support. When this doesn't work, Ashley just listens to the tape of Shire's violation to the point where she can repeat the entire sequence by memory (and you just know that she will).
As you can guess, Ashley is secretly in love with Shire. When Shire moves to another apartment, Ashley commences to spy on her from telescope in a loft across the way. As Shire slowly begins a romance with a detective investigating the case, Ashley begins to go insane, using a knife to "express herself" on Shire's cat, neighbor, and the psychiatrist who is starting to recognize her insane behavior.
First of all, what's with off-kilter women in movies? Why can't they just use a gun? Do they always have to attack people with knives. And not just any knife, but one of the long, slender knives that you just know was not made to cut meat.
Anyway, Windows was highly controversial. That and the fact that it was just a hideously made movie sunk its chances at the box office.
There is so much to dislike about this movie. For one thing, it just didn't make any sense. Ashley's character was rich, vivacious, and even has a sexy breezy way of talking.
Shire's character was meek, mousy, plain, and jumped at her own shadows. To make matters worse, Shire resurrected a bunch of those ugly berets she wore in Rocky.
Shouldn't it have been the other way around with Shire chasing after Ashley?
Secondly, the plotlines are dumb. The intruder who forces Shire to make all of those ugly sounds is caught because he is a cab driver and Shire just happens to be his fare later in the movie and recognizes his voice.
Thirdly, and maybe this isn't a bad thing, for a violent movie about a crazed lesbian who likes to get knife happy, we see almost no violence.
We know that Ashley is attacking people with her trusty knife because of reaction shots (although I saw the movie on youtube and maybe the poster excised the violent scenes).
At the very least, you would think to expect a knockdown, drag out fight between Shire and Ashley. It doesn't happen. All Ashley does is verbally repeat the sounds of Shire's violation until the police come. Meanwhile Shire just looks at her and wonders no doubt how in the hell did she get saddled in such a nasty movie.
The following are clips from Windows:
Now if you want to see the entire movie, you can go to the youtube file here.
The Labor Day weekend holiday is upon us and wouldn't you know it? Peter LaBarbera does something nutsy.
The WWE has Wrestlemania.
The NFL has the Superbowl.
And Peter LaBarbera has Folsom Street Fair.
You can set your watch by it. Every time the San Francisco street fair rolls around, LaBarbera provides his version of publicity for the event by "condemning it." Then he goes to event, making sure to take pictures of alleged gross acts and providing "loving commentary" even sometimes informing us on the exact length of time those "freakie deakies" in said picture took to do the deed.
This year, LaBarbera takes the following quote from conservative radio so-and-so Michael Savage to make a ridiculous point:
“San Francisco is a microcosm of the illness called liberalism. It’s the least tolerant city in the country. It’s the meanest city in the country.”
I don't know about that. A city which hosts an alleged butt-naked festival doesn't necessarily strike me as intolerant.
But Michael Savage is the same person who lost his television show on MSNBC after telling a caller that he should catch AIDS and die.
So I guess if anyone knows about intolerance, it's him.
The Folsom Street Fair isn't exactly my cup of tea but apparently a lot of people (gay and straight - funny how LaBarbera always tries to omit the "heterosexual perversions" at Folsom) seem to enjoy it.
And in all honesty, LaBarbera seems to enjoy it too.
One of these days, somebody is going to take a picture of him attending these fairs. I wonder what he wears while in attendance, that is if he is dressed at all.
Editor's note - Never mind about that last sentence. Just writing it made me ill.
The folks in Maine are learning the lessons from the Proposition 8 mess in California very well. The above ad makes it two for two when it comes to hitting the message on why marriage equality is important.
And on a personal note, thank you everyone who sent me kind words of encouragement during my fit of depression. And thank you if you didn't send me any emails and such because I know you were praying for me.
A friend of mine nailed down the basic reason for my bad mood:
omg, Alvin. From what I can see you need to stop reading the racist rhetoric on that ignorant website! It can't be good for the psyche.
She was talking about my post of the satirical site Christwire but girlfriend had a point. For three years, I have blogged nonstop about religious right distortions. This year as an effort to remain relevant, I started posting three times a day rather than one and at least once on Saturdays and Sundays.
My constant taking in of religious right dogma has been slowly killing my spirit and driving me nuts.
Apparently the mess involving Harry Jackson and his efforts to stop marriage equality in D.C. was the straw that broke this lovely camel's back.
If my depression kept up, I envisioned myself ending up like a character in one of Roman Polanski's early movies, laying catatonic in a messy room somewhere surrounded by corpses and rotting rabbits.
Don't get me wrong (finally I get to the good stuff), I am going to continue Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters but I've also decided to devote the upcoming Labor Day weekend to spending a considerable amount of time in bed with something with aloe vera and shea butter smeared across my face while I indulge in a huge quart of butter almond ice cream while watching some awful z-rated 80s horror movies involving nubile white women being chased by a weirdo wearing a paper bag.
I will rise from my throne on a few occassions to either corrupt the innocence of a young man or play Lolita with an older, desperate man (with me being Lolita).
Come Tuesday, I should have my fire and firm back.
One thing to remember, though. If listening to and reading religious right dogma can warp the mind of an proud, intelligent, self-confident (and very attractive) gay man to the point of depression, just imagine what it can do to the minds of young folks who have not come into their own as adults.
The online encyclopedia site Wikipedia defines a Pyrrhic victory as "a victory with devastating cost to the victor."
Those pushing for a referendum against in Washington state on expanded domestic partnership benefits should keep that in mind. Though they have won a major battle, the victory could lead them to lose the war.
A Washington judge yesterday rejected a challenge to the referendum, Referendum 71, based on a technicality - the challenge was not filed in the right county. He, however acknowledged that those challenging Referendum 71 has adequate evidence to prove their case: Among the problems the judge cited: Tens of thousands of signatures may have been invalid because declarations on some petitions - attesting that voters signed knowingly, and were not paid or wrongly induced to provide their signatures - were left blank or simply rubber-stamped moments before being turned in.
Since 2006, Reed's office accepted such petitions under legal guidance from the state attorney general, noting that the state law merely requires the declarations to be printed on the back of signature petitions - it doesn't require the declarations to be signed.
(King County Superior Court Judge Julie)Spector questioned that analysis.
"This essentially renders the declaration requirement meaningless," she wrote.
. . . And finally, Spector noted, some people were apparently lied to by signature gatherers, who told them, for example, that the expanded domestic partnership benefits would force public schools to teach that same-sex marriage and homosexuality are normal, even over the objections of parents.
"It is unclear whether a signature-gatherer can swear that an individual signer has signed the petition 'knowingly' when the signature-gatherer has allegedly misrepresented the contents of the petition," the judge said.
So basically the anti-gay forces now have a victory but another one like it could sink them.
Now barring any decision by those against the referendum to re-file a challenge, Referendum 71 will go on the ballot, but with the stigma of lies and fraud.
And it could be a boon for those looking to defeat the referendum if they take advantage of it via commercials and the like.
So this all begs the question, does the accusation of one or two wrong-headed and furtive man-on-man encounters actually make you gay? Couldn’t it be a mistake? If you have a great record fighting against the gays, doesn’t it cross out a few moments humping a younger man against the wall of some hotel room? This debate is far from settled, but it is an important one for the conservative party today.
That was all I could read before I choked in a fit of laughter. You can read the rest if you want (God help you).
Just in case you are interested, other postings on Christwire are the following:
Editor's note - I changed the title of this piece to further convey the depressive funk I've been under since the situation I am talking about in this post caught my attention. I know I am wandering into dangerous territory with the headline and the subject in general. I would sincerely hope those responding here and other places that this post may appear not take the easy road to offer polarized opinions. I hope I haven't.
I went to bed depressed Tuesday night and when I rose from my troubled sleep to post on my blog, my depression hadn't abated.
It got to the point where I was considering not posting anymore. I'm still halfway considering that option.
My mental malaise started when I was looking at anti-gay Stand for Marriage site emanating from Washington, D.C.
Jackson sent out a statement Monday stating that he and other opponents of same-sex marriage would file an initiative request with the elections board Tuesday.
If approved by the board, the initiative would give District residents an opportunity to vote sometime next year on whether to legalize same-sex marriage in the District. Jackson, who says he believes that most city voters oppose same-sex marriage, is hoping his proposal will slow efforts by the D.C. Council to legalize those marriages
. . . In May, Jackson filed a request with the elections board to hold a referendum to block the council bill allowing same-sex marriages performed in others states to be legally recognized.
The elections board, in a strongly worded ruling, blocked Jackson's referendum request. The two-member board cited D.C. elections law, which prohibits a vote on a matter covered by the Human Rights Act. The 1977 act outlaws discrimination against gays and lesbians and other minority groups.
Jackson has affiliated himself with the group Stand For Marriage, which seems to have the tendrils of the National Organization for Marriage all over it.
What has gotten me depressed to almost the point of exhaustion is the language used on the Stand For Marriage webpage:
Marriage Matters! With wealthy gay activists mobilizing all across the country to legalize homosexual marriage, there's never been a more important time to preserve and protect marriage in the District of Columbia once and for all.
I highlighted that phrase "wealthy gay activists" for a reason. It's a code word to the African-American community for "rich gay white men."
Black people have had to deal with negative code words throughout our entire history. From "outside agitators" to "welfare queens" to "reverse discrimination," code words were a way for enterprising exploiters to appeal to the lower instincts of people without being overtly racist.
Or in this case, homophobic.
In the same skillful manner white racists used code words to tell people that integration and giving the African-American community the right to vote would lead to destruction of so-called pure communities and the wholesale raping of white women by "big black bucks," Jackson and his group are implying that "rich gay white men" are trying to ruin marriage and, via osmosis, destroy the black community.
To make matters worse, one of the members of Jackson's group, Rev. Walter Fauntroy, was director of the Washington Bureau of Dr. King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Fauntroy also served as D.C. Coordinator of the Historic March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963 and coordinator of the Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March in 1965 as well as the Meredith Mississippi Freedom March in 1966.
Fauntroy has no doubt had to deal with the ugly power of "code words" in the past. Not only that, but working so closely to King means Fauntroy had to work with Bayard Rustin, an adviser to King, the main coordinator of the 1963 March on Washington, and an openly gay African-American.
Harry Jackson is an opportunist whose desire is for fame and notoriety. Fauntroy should know better.
Whether Fauntroy is aware of what's happening with the language of the site is not know. But what is apparent is that some African-Americans are attacking the lgbt community via the same tactics that were used to deny them their rights not so long ago.
And if this isn't bad enough, ultimately these African-Americans will be hurting their own people, i.e. lgbts of color.
There is a saying that goes "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Jackson and his group, and especially Fauntroy, proves that there are some who intentionally put themselves in this situation.
It will be my blog's three year anniversary this Sunday and this situation with Jackson's group makes me realize that sometimes no matter how hard you try to do the right thing, nothing changes.
No matter how many times you try to right the wrongs in the best way you know how, some wrongs are never righted and on top of that, new wrongs are committed.
Pretty soon, you feel like a dog chasing its tail.
