Peter Sprigg PROVES why a defense of DOMA will fail

The rhetoric of the religious right used to drive me crazy because it's carefully tuned to distract and deceive.

Take for example the talking points of Peter Sprigg from the Family Research Council. Today, he debated Freedom To Marry's Evan Wolfson on CNN. He said the following:

You’re not mandated to have kids if you get married but it makes no sense to extend the benefits of marriage to a type of relationship that is incapable of ever creating children. That undermines the whole purpose of the institution and it sends a message to society that, no, children don’t need a mother and a father.

And that’s simply false, the social science shows that children do best when they have a mother and father.

That's the old "gays and lesbians shouldn't marry because their relationships can't create children" dodge. And then Sprigg adds the claim that social science says that children are better suited in a home with a mother and a father.

Of course, like he always does on these occasions (I don't know why no one ever directly challenges him on this), Sprigg omits the fact that these "social science" studies only looked at two-parent homes in comparison to one-parent homes and same-sex households never factor in.

Though Wolfson didn't call Sprigg out, he did cite the common sense fact that many children being raised do well without the "mother and father" dynamic.

The web page Think Progress does Wolfson better:

Numerous studies have shown that children with same-sex parents show no significant differences compared with children in different-sex households. In fact, a recent study published in the journal Pediatrics, concluded that “children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior.” The researchers also found that “children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.”

Reading that made me come to the simple realization of why folks like Sprigg have been successful in voting measures, but not in the courts. Talking points like his are naturally suited to sway folks because they are quick and catchy - albeit not altogether truthful. In spite of what Sprigg and folks like him may claim, those talking points don't come from basic ideas of morality and truth.

They are statements cynically crafted in board rooms by spin doctors who care less about America's moral survival than their fat paychecks.

They don't appeal to people's logic, but rather to their emotions. And in the courts, they just don't hold water. Or as Equality Matters puts it about the Prop 8 decision last year:

In Perry v. Schwarzenegger,  the 2010 federal court decision that ruled California's Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional, Judge Vaughn Walker dismissed concerns about the impact marriage  equality would have on procreation and the traditional family. Again, Judge Walker found that these arguments could not prove even a "rational basis" for marriage discrimination.

It's definitely something to remember the next time Sprigg is able to finagle an appearance on a news program in spite of his history of deliberate inaccuracies.  While he no doubt drives many lgbts to distraction with his ability to distort with a smug face, it's helpful to remember that smugness can't get you over when you have a habit of lying without impunity.

Sooner or later, you get caught. And when Sprigg's time comes - and when the Family Research Council's time comes - there is going to be a lot of champagne popping.

Kansas thumbs its nose at the Supreme Court and other Thursday midday news briefs

Boehner Announces Defense of DOMA - Surprising NO ONE. Go ahead and waste our money.

Gallagher Reveals Her Best Defense Of DOMA, But It's Already Been Rejected - Here is a little preview of how the court case for DOMA may go.

Kansas lawmakers stop repeal of law criminalizing gay relationships - That's right. Forget the Supreme Court's overturning of the sodomy laws.

Sign the Petition Demanding that Apple Remove Exodus’s Bigoted iPhone App - Freedom of speech has nothing to do with peddling potentially harmful bad science.

Religious right whining about 'threats' in Maryland

Regardless of how the marriage equality vote in Maryland will turn out, one thing is certain. The National Organization for Marriage and those against gay marriage in Maryland seem to be operating on fumes right now.

How else can one explain a recent article coming from the American Family Association's One News Now. The article pushes a phony assertion that the lgbt community and its allies engaged in "threats" to get the votes. The main snippet says the following:

Derek McCoy of the Association of Maryland Families says unscrupulous practices are being used to pressure lawmakers opposed to homosexual marriage to vote differently than their conscience. "We know those practices to be everything from threatening people's chairmanship, to one young man who was a delegate that changed his vote and then went back and changed it again because he already had had people starting to call his donors and asking for refunds from his campaign money."

McCoy is referring to the recent brouhaha regarding delegate Sam Arora who campaigned on the fact that he would support gay marriage in Maryland. Arora knocked on doors, sat down with same-sex families, and accepted donations while expressly saying that he supported marriage equality.

Then after the election, he announced that he changed his mind and would not support gay marriage.

Naturally the members of the lgbt community who supported him, who introduced him to their families, who told him their life stories and why this piece of legislation is important were furious.

And some in fact did ask  for their donations back. This led Arora to change his mind again and support the bill.

But I fail to see how this situation reaches the level of  "unscrupulous practices" that were alluded to in the article. Don't citizens have a right to contact their lawmakers and voice their support or displeasure?

Also, McCoy - and the article - conveniently forgot to mention NOM's recent pledge to spend $1 million defending Democratic senators voting against the gay marriage bill and opposing Republican senators who vote for the bill.


Seems to me that if McCoy thinks citizens contacting their lawmakers resembles "unscrupulous activities," then an organization - an out-of-town organization - using the power of the purse to sway legislators should really rank up there on the "threat chart."

Why is NOM hiding where it gets its money?

As the vote on gay marriage in Maryland gets closer, the National Organization for Marriage is throwing out threats and promises to legislators:

The National Organization of Marriage (NOM) today announced that it will form the “NOM PAC Maryland” in the state. NOM pledges to spend at least $1 million in Maryland to support Democratic State Legislators who cast their votes to defend the traditional marriage and oppose any Republican Legislators who vote to redefine marriage.

“It’s become quite clear in recent days in Maryland that the Democratic leadership and the same-sex ‘marriage’ lobby will resort to any tactic, including threats and intimidation, to coerce Democratic legislators to support their agenda,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM. “We want to be sure those courageous Democrats who cast their vote of conscience in favor of marriage will have a strong supporter if the radical gay activists come after them in their next primary election.”

The NOM PAC Maryland is similar to a PAC formed in New York by NOM, which successfully defended Democrats who supported marriage, despite a major effort by pro-gay marriage advocates to defeat several Democrats in their primaries who had stood up for marriage. In fact, NOM supported candidates like state senator Ruben Diaz, won by larger margins than before their votes against same-sex marriage.

NOM PAC Maryland will also oppose in their primaries any Republicans who support gay marriage. The PAC announced that it will target for defeat State Senator Allan Kittleman in his expected race for Howard County Executive.

That's all well and good because every group has a right to form a PAC. But the key question here should be where is NOM getting its funds. Eyebrows should be raised due to the fact that NOM fights tooth and nail to keep secret just who is funding the organization. It recently lost a case in Maine regarding its financial backers. You will remember last year, NOM successfully spearheaded a referendum against gay marriage in that state.

NOM is of course appealing that ruling. But the Maine case is only one in a series of hijinks NOM has pulled to keep secret its list of financial backers.

From nomexposed.org comes a list of questionable tactics NOM engaged in:

Rhode Island: In September 2010, NOM filed suit in Rhode Island seeking to spend thousands of dollars on TV and radio ads for and against gubernatorial and General Assembly candidates – all free from the state’s reporting requirements. NOM is framing the issue as a matter of free speech. In its court filing, NOM says it intends to “engage in multiple forms of speech in Rhode Island” in advance of the November 2 elections, “including radio ads, television ads, direct mail and publicly accessible Internet postings.” Rhode Island law permits “independent expenditures” from organizations like NOM – but forbids these groups from coordinating any strategy or ads with candidates. Republican gubernatorial candidate John Robitaille stands to benefit most from NOM’s ads – he opposes same-sex marriage.

California: In California, NOM was a major player in the multi-million dollar effort to eliminate marriage equality, contributing more than $1.8 million to the effort to pass Prop. 8 and maintaining deep ties with ProtectMarriage, the campaign organization established to support the initiative.

In January 2009, NOM and ProtectMarriage sued the California Secretary of State in federal court to avoid disclosing Prop. 8 donors. California law requires campaign committees to report information for any contributors of $100 or more, which is then made publicly available. Donor disclosure is uniformly required across the country for federal, state and local campaigns and is widely accepted as a vital means to ensure that elections are conducted transparently and fairly.

Rather than follow the decades-old California Public Records Act, NOM suggested that it was entitled to a blanket exemption. NOM falsely claimed that its contributors had been subject to threats, reprisals and harassment. Serious scrutiny of these claims has revealed only isolated incidents, questionable reports and, more often than not, legitimate acts of public criticism typical of any hard-fought campaign.

Iowa:  NOM’s pattern of evading campaign laws prompted a strong written warning from the state ethics agency.

NOM spent a staggering $86,000 in 2009 in a single legislative special election, part of its effort to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would reverse the state Supreme Court’s unanimous decision recognizing marriage equality. NOM asked its supporters to contribute to the Iowa campaign in a nationwide email by saying that “…best of all, NOM has the ability to protect donor identities.”

The email and subsequent complaints prompted a letter from the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Finance Board stating that state law requires disclosure of political contributions solicited for the Iowa campaign. The board’s director and counsel wrote to NOM that he wished to “avoid potential problems in light of questions the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board has received concerning a solicitation statement made by your organization” and warned that the “independent expenditure process in Iowa is not a vehicle to shield political contributors.”

Washington State: NOM and its allies waged a coordinated legal battle to hide the names of those who signed the petition to qualify Referendum 71, and those who donated to the campaign to eliminate Washington’s domestic partnership benefits. In doing so, NOM lawyers attempted to dismantle the nation’s public disclosure system as it currently exists until the U.S. Supreme Court rejected their claims.

On the same day that NOM’s lawyers sued to overturn Maine’s campaign finance laws, a mysterious group called “Family PAC,” represented by the same lawyers, sought to circumvent Washington’s campaign contribution limits and keep secret the names of donors to the campaign. The lawyers cited false claims of harassment directed at supporters of Prop. 8 in California as justification for hiding their donors.

The judge rejected the NOM lawyers’ claims, stating that, “The State has a real and vital interest in showing the money trail… I do not believe it is in the public interest for the court to intervene and change the rules of the game at the last minute.”

NOM’s lawyers took a second case, challenging Washington’s public records law that permits inspection of referendum petition signatures, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court – and lost.

And let's not forget about the salaries of NOM leaders:

In its first year of operation, NOM paid nearly 14% of its budget to Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher. The subsequent year, when NOM’s budget increased significantly, Brown and Gallagher both received larger paychecks, though it represented a smaller percentage of NOM’s overall budget at just 5%. Brown is now paid over $130,000 and Gallagher nearly $27,000. As president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Gallagher makes an additional $125,000 per year – an amount that’s over half of the organization’s total budget.

Additionally, NOM seems to be attempting to hide a $166,000 consulting payment to Common Sense America. While it appears on the version of their Form 990 available from the IRS, they have removed it from the version of the Form 990 that NOM makes available through their website. Common Sense America’s registered agent is Maggie Gallagher’s son Patrick and Brian Brown sits on the Common Sense America’s board.

Gallagher’s $125,000 salary in 2007 as president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy was roughly 51% of revenue and 35% of expenses, a ratio that was called “out of the ordinary” by an analyst with Charity Navigator, a respected, independent charity evaluator. The analyst reported that a charity CEO’s salary of 35% of expenses is “very large” and “rarely do we see anything quite as large.”

There have been rumors that NOM is a front for either the Catholic Church or the Mormon church. I am not aware of the details of these rumors,  so I won't go into detail about them. However, one thing is clear. NOM is hiding something and for an organization which talks about morality and traditional values, it certainly isn't practicing what it preaches.

President and First Lady take stand against bullying and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Obamas release anti-bullying video on Facebook - Awesome thing to do from the President and the First Lady. I couldn't figure out a way to embed the video so this is the link to the story.

GLSEN Lauds Bipartisan Introduction of Safe Schools Improvement Act (S.506) in Senate - Speaking of ways to protect our youth, more awesome news from GLSEN.

Victory! Corpus Christi, Texas High School Allows Gay-Straight Alliance on Campus - More good news! Why not?


MARYLAND: House Delegate Comes Out In Advance Of Marriage Equality Vote - Okay maybe I am overdoing it with the happy news but ain't nothing wrong with a lot of good lgbt news. And yes I know that "ain't" isn't a word. And by the way, still keep your finger crossed on Maryland.

How would you react if you saw gay or lesbian soldiers harassed for showing affection?

The ABC news program What Would You Do sets up imaginary scenarios which show people's reaction to situations deemed controversial. It's not like Candid Camera in that it garners people's feelings about the important issues of the day instead of using said situations to elicit comedy.

 Recently What Would You Do set up a scenario in which first two gay soldiers and then two lesbian soldiers "attracting attention" in restaurant by merely showing each other some affection. The reactions are both empowering and absolutely infuriating:

Maggie Gallagher ducks questions, insults young voters, and affirms gay marriage during interview

Recently on a Maryland talk show, News Talk with Bruce DePuyt, Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage was interviewed regarding not only marriage equality in Maryland but also the decision by the Obama Administration not to defend DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) in the courts.

She threw out a lot of comments and talking points but tripped herself up a few times and actually affirmed gay marriage on one occasion.

Some quick points about the interview:

At 2:12, Gallagher said she is sure that if the bill is passed in Maryland allowing same-sex marriage, a referendum would overturn it. She claimed that NOM's internal polling shows that folks support stopping gay marriage 54 to 38 percent.

Of course Gallagher did not reveal that NOM got into a bit of trouble with that poll. According to Erik Hartley of the Capitol Newspaper, NOM posed the question in a specific way to get more support on their side of the issue:

 . . . NOM asked it this way: "As far as you personally are concerned, should marriage be between a man and a woman, or should it also be available to same-sex couples?"

Hmm. Why the phrase "as far as you personally are concerned"? Perhaps to appeal to people's visceral discomfort with gay people? Note that the question does not ask about the proposed law; it asks about values -- "as far as you personally are concerned" -- and how you think the world "should" be.

A more factual based poll actually showed that Marylanders favored gay marriage.

At 3:22, Gallagher says that it's not a good idea to ask young voters what they think about gay marriage. Her exact words were:

On an issue like marriage, it's not a good idea to poll the 18-year-olds and do what they think. I think we need some grownups here.

Of course she said this because a majority of young voters favor marriage equality. Gallagher's comments are spooky in that she echoes an ongoing trend to potentially disenfranchise young voters.

At 3:55, DePuyt point blanks asks her how has gay marriage hurt the institution of marriage in general. It leads to an excellent exchange in which Gallagher makes the case for marriage equality by acknowledging that gay marriage is a relationship between two loving people.

When DePuyt makes her aware of what she has done, Gallagher not only backtracks but implies that gay couples are not monogamous. And then she pulls out the "polygamy" card.

And if that's not enough, she pulls out the "gay marriage will lead to awful consequences for the rights of Christians" card by citing a case in Great Britain of a couple who were told that they could not be foster parents because they would not "affirm" homosexuality.

However, that case (in which some lgbts have actually voiced support for the couple) has nothing to do with gay marriage. According to Robert Piggot of the BBC:

The court discriminated between kinds of Christianity, saying that Christians in general might well make good foster parents, while people with traditionalist Christian views like Mr and Mrs Johns might well not. Such views, said the judges, might conflict with the welfare of children.

In other words, the court was concerned about potentially placing an lgbt child in a home which would not affirm that child.

Then Gallagher brings up a recent situation in Illinois in which the state is investigating whether or not religious groups can turn away gay foster parents. Gallagher terms this as a "result" of the civil unions bill which just passed in that state.

She omits the fact that the state is merely investigating  because these groups are receiving public funds.

In another snippet of the interview,  viewer (a good friend of mine) sent in a question which Gallagher could not answer. It has to do with an infamous claim on a mailer which NOM sent throughout Maryland claiming that gay marriage is being "taught to kindergartners" in Massachusetts.

Gallagher's answer (or non-answer) speaks for itself:

:

Gallagher claims that "gay marriage advocates" are saying that this claim isn't true, but again she is not being honest.

The original assertion that this claim is untrue came from the Pulitzer-Prize winning site PolitiFact, which said the following:

Bottom line: The National Organization for Marriage mailing says that Massachusetts public schools teach kindergartners about gay marriage. The wording, including the present tense verb, gives the impression this is happening now, in many schools.

But the group’s only evidence is two incidents five years ago. It’s possible that somewhere, in one of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts, other kindergartners have been taught about same-sex marriage. But NOM couldn’t cite any other examples. We find its statement False.

Gallagher continues to stumbles through an answer, telling DePuyt that he should ask NOM's president Brian Brown about the claim.

But shouldn't she know the answer? She may not be NOM's president, but she is speaking for the organization and therefore should have considerable knowledge of whatever talking points the organization pulls out to imply about the so-called negative consequences of gay marriage.

And by the way, she doesn't even say what's wrong with children learning about gay marriage or same-sex households (which by the way they do anyway because many of their classmates come from same-sex households).

All in all, Gallagher's interview amounts to lies, fear tactics, and bad hypothetical points.  And like all of the other times, these lies, fear tactics, and bad hypothetical points may yield success for her and NOM. But based on how she stumbled through parts of this interview, Gallagher may soon need to seek a new line of work.

Wouldn't that be nice?

Related posts:

Maggie Gallagher addresses NOM's claim about gay marriage and children

Arora controversy has National Organization for Marriage scrambling for cover

Lgbt community hit with betrayal in Maryland?

National Organization for Marriage continuing to spread false claim about gay marriage and children

PolitiFact catches anti-gay group NOM in a huge lie about gay marriage and children

NOM needs to stop peddling in fantasy and face reality about same-sex families 

It's always about 'the booty' to the religious right and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Pay attention folks. While we are giving fact filled testimony about why marriage equality is important to us while at the same time debunking religious right talking points:

Full text of my Colorado Senate committee testimony on civil unions (Daniel Gonzales of Box Turtle Bulletin)

The opposition is giving wild testimonies about sex and "the booty:"

Colorado Senate committee hears testimony about the human anus (Rosina Kovar, an at-large director for the Eagle Forum)

So what's the problem again?

And in other news (if you haven't gotten too nauseated as of yet):

Massachusetts: Worcester NAACP elects openly gay man to serve as its president - TELL me that this isn't so cool!

The Most Deranged ‘Ex-Gay’ You’ve Seen Since The Last One You Saw - Second verse, same as the first - an "ex-gay" blaming their personal decisions to abuse drugs, etc. on the lgbt orientation.

WA bill recognizes out-of-state same-sex marriages - Not bad. Not bad at all.

NOM routinely denies personal animus. Their commenters say otherwise - Cause you just KNOW that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were gay.

Porno Pete LaBarbera channeling Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck has nothing on "our friend" Peter LaBarbera when it comes to insane conspiracy theories.

For example, examine his take on a recent article about lgbt legislators. The article clearly states that the election of these legislators is helping to garner success for the lgbt community in the fight for gay marriage:

Of America's 7,382 state legislators, only 85 are openly gay or lesbian. They are, however, playing an outsized and often impassioned role when the agenda turns to recognizing same-sex couples with civil unions or full marriage rights.

In Hawaii and Illinois, gay state representatives were lead sponsors of civil union bills signed into law earlier this year. In Maryland and Rhode Island, gay lawmakers are co-sponsoring pending bills that would legalize same-sex marriage. In New York, a gay senator, Tom Duane, is preparing to be lead sponsor of a marriage bill in his chamber later this session.

. . . The gay lawmakers have impact in two important ways. Their speeches, often evoking personal themes, can sometimes sway wavering colleagues, and they can forge collegial relationships even with ideological foes through day-to-day professional and social interaction.

And LaBarbera knows who is "to blame" for this situation - the media. According to him:

. . . the media instead plays up stories of homosexuals to push that agenda. "It's really emotional manipulation," he exclaims. "They're saying that you should make decisions on public policy just because they're positively embracing homosexuality. We all know people who are embracing sin -- yet we don't change our view of the sin because of that." He cites such things as pornography, alcohol, and drug abuse.

LaBarbera adds that members of the liberal press also display hypocrisy by painting homosexuality in a positive light, but lambasting ex-"gays" who have been able to leave the lifestyle through a relationship with Jesus Christ.

That's right. Never mind the fact that these legislators are talking one-to-one with their colleagues about the need for pro-lgbt legislation, never mind that they are bringing a much-needed perspective in their floor speeches, and never mind that they are presenting their partners and families in important social interactions.

To LaBarbera, the successes of lgbt legislators is the "fault" of the media spinning a conspiracy so diabolical that it could have only hatched out of the mind of a James Bond villain. 

The irony is that the title of the article  featuring LaBarbera's ramblings is More evidence -- media 'playing up' homosexuality.

It's evidence alright - evidence that LaBarbera obsesses about gays and lesbians than most people that I know. And evidence that the man needs help.

It's not really his fault though. In order for him to keep up his shtick, LaBarbera can't entertain the notion that lgbts are normal human beings rather than some pawns in a plan to "destroy" American values.

If he did entertain this notion, his head would probably explode.

Related post:

Peter LaBarbera - the self-destruction of an anti-gay activist 

Religious right trying to get troops to undermine DADT repeal

You know the religious right just won't let the DADT repeal die without a fight. The queen of irrelevancy, Elaine Donnelly is trying a new tactic:

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, says she has already heard from a number of service members who are upset that the lame-duck session of the 111th Congress passed a bill to repeal the 1993 law banning homosexuals from military service. President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen must still certify that the new law will not adversely affect troop morale and unit cohesion.

It is unfortunate, says Donnelly, that military personnel are not permitted to speak freely about the issue. Consequently, she has created a special area on her website for service members to express their concerns about the new policy.

"There is a location on the site called 'Confidential Contact.' Anyone can go there," she explains. "There is a place there to indicate military service. We never repeat names and we can convey messages on behalf of anyone on active duty service to anyone in Congress. They can also directly write their own member of Congress, but there are some issues that are bigger than individuals.

And I will bet a steak dinner on what happens next. Donnelly's site will get several (anonymous of course) comments magically mirroring religious right talking points regarding why DADT shouldn't be repealed.

I bet we will even hear nonsense from some "unknown" military men and women about how they are being "sexually harassed" by gay and lesbian troops and how their commanding are either looking the other way or siding with gay and lesbian troops.

Or even worse, they will claim that the commanding officers are the gay and lesbians doing the harassing.

And all of this will lead to a "coincidental" hearing about the so-called hidden dangers of getting rid of DADT.

Which of course will lead to a vote by House Republicans to somehow stop or slow down the implementation of DADT's repeal.

It's a variation of the "get rid of Planned Parenthood" plan - tacky but effective.

A rabid homophobe steps away from 'retirement' and other Monday midday news briefs

Scott Lively Warns of “Outbreak of Homosexuality” In Moldova, Part of a “Secret Plan By the Homosexual Powers of the EU” - A bloodsucking homophobic snake never retires, no matter how many times he claims to.

Santorum: Obama Will "Eviscerate" Freedom By Supporting Gay Rights - So much santorum dripping from one person has to be unhealthy.

Gay Legislators Having Impact In Marriage Debates - Some good news for a change.

Boehner launches effort to defend gay-marriage ban - Surprising NO ONE. But I am intrigued to learn just how will Boehner and company try to defend this monstrosity.

The truth about African-American voters and gay marriage

 A recent piece in The Root breaks down - or rather - tears apart assumptions about the African-American community and the subject of gay marriage:

According to The Root:

A report indicates that black voters who don't support same-sex marriage will vote for candidates who do. This spells opportunity for white LGBT activists, if they're willing to take heed.

Basically the article seems to be saying that it's not that the black community does or doesn't support gay marriage, it's just that it's not on the top of the list of concerns to many black voters:

Focused far more on job creation, health care and education than on gay marriage, black voters aren't supporting conservative candidates simply because they oppose LGBT rights. Instead, they are voting for progressive pro-LGBT candidates -- despite disagreeing with their pro-LGBT platforms.


"The truth is, we just don't see blacks voting against a candidate based on [his or her] support of gay marriage," says Patrick Egan, assistant professor of politics and public policy at New York University. "We actually don't see this becoming an important issue for voters of any race."

Lastly, the article gives a little advice to those pressing for gay marriage - something which many lgbts of color have been saying for the longest - don't take the black voter for granted because of assumptions. Include black voices in your messaging:

As in Maine's successful 2009 marriage-equality repeal, national white LGBT leaders will undoubtedly "parachute" into Maryland to help direct the ballot battle. But this time, black voters -- and leaders -- must take central roles in defining the battle's narrative.

This was the case in the successful 2010 campaign to secure marriage equality in Washington, D.C.; pro-LGBT black voices and faces must now be front and center if a similar campaign comes to Maryland. And white LGBT leaders will have to step aside and let this happen.

"One of the reasons the D.C. campaign was so successful is that black voters -- including religious voters -- saw folks like themselves supporting marriage equality," explains Lanae Erickson, deputy director of the Culture Initiative at the Third Way. "Just as important: Many [white] LGBT leaders went out of their way to ensure that these [black] activists were heard."

Maggie Gallagher addresses NOM's claim about gay marriage and children

In my last post, I talked about National Organization for Marriage's Maggie Gallagher attempt at covering her tracks in regards to claims of racism she lodged against those angry at Maryland legislator Sam Arora.

Gallagher had initially implied that the anger of the lgbt community over Arora's shift from supporting gay marriage was due to racism. However, this was not the case. Lgbt anger at Arora dealt with his backtracking on gay marriage even after he campaigned for and supported the issue.

In the midst of her efforts to wipe away her initial claim, Gallagher emailed me. I took that opportunity to ask her for a response on another matter regarding NOM's claim that gay marriage was being "taught" to kindergartners in Massachusetts because of that state's law allowing gay marriage.

The Pulitizer-Prize winning site PolitiFact had called NOM out in February after investigating and finding this claim to be false. However, NOM continued to push the claim, even to the point of sending out mailers last week in Maryland saying the following:

Massachusetts public schools teach kid as young as kindergartners about gay marriage. Parents have no legal right to object!

This was the initial claim - word for word - which PolitiFact said was false.

Gallagher's response to me was as follows:

Contact Brian Brown for NOM's response.

But personally I think deciding the two instances Politifacts says were offered (I don't know the details only what PolitiFActs claims happened) were insufficient might justify a finding of "unproven" but hardly shows it is "false."

Moreover in the court cases surrounding these incidents, all the major gay marriage groups argued that in fact parents have no right to prevent their children from being exposed to gay marriage in public schools.

We have never claimed the law will require teaching about gay marriage. We have only said that once it is the law, it will be taught in public schools.

In fact don't you think it ought to be?

Now in all honesty, there should be some fairness to Gallagher there. She is the Chairman of the Board at NOM, and not the operational CEO.

But still her answer to my response leaves a lot to be desired. It does appear to be misleading.

Arora controversy has National Organization for Marriage scrambling for cover

The situation with Maryland delegate Sam Arora which nearly derailed gay marriage in Maryland is fastly blowing up in the face of the National Organization for Marriage, the organization trying to prevent gay marriage from taking place.

Arora is the Maryland legislator first supported the gay marriage bill. He campaigned on it, raised money because of it, and engaged in discussions with lgbt families in terms of why this bill is important.

And for while he decided, even after all of this and publicly giving his support to the bill, to change his mind and vote against it.

Arora faced a serious firestorm from voters who felt betrayed, angry, and hurt at his shift. Because of this, he changed his mind again and said he will vote for the bill, while emphasizing that the question of gay marriage in Maryland should be the subject of a referendum.

Into this controversy stepped Maggie Gallagher, head of NOM, via a post on the organization's blog during Arora's initial change:

First, if Sam Arora is wavering under this media firestorm, he must be hearing from hundreds of constituents who do not want him to vote for gay marriage.

Secondly, as someone married to an Indian-American, I find it interesting that the gay marriage machine appears to be re-focusing its attacks from Black Democrats who oppose gay marriage to an easier target: Indian-Americans.

Tiffany Alston appears now to be off the hook regardless of how she votes.

Supporters of the Maryland gay marriage bill seized on Gallagher's comment, claiming that she was unfairly accusing those angry Arora of being racists. And they had a point. Nowhere in her post did Gallagher address the simple fact that the ire at Arora was solely because of his backtracking of an issue which played such a central part in his election.

Know Your LGBT History - Black Shampoo

To paraphrase Jane Fonda, there are a lot of things to say about the happenings of this week. But this isn't the time to say them.

What it's time for another segment of my Know Your LGBT History posts.

I apologize for today's post because it's as bad as last week's. However, again I reiterate how important it is for the lgbt community to understand how far we have come concerning images of ourselves on television and movies.

Today's post is about a little-seen blaxploitation movie entitled Black Shampoo (1976). Like many other blaxploitation movies (i.e. Blackenstein, Dr. Black and Mr. Hyde, Blacula) Black Shampoo is supposed to be a black version of a more widely seen movie.

In this case, it is Warren Beatty's movie Shampoo.

However this version has less to do with angst and relationships and more to do with violence and the glorification of the stereotype of the "big black buck."

John Daniels (who never had a starring role after this one because his acting was abominable) stars as the owner of a hair salon whose touch makes women so crazy that he generally ends up doing more than their hair, if you get my drift.

The conflict comes when he is trying to rescue his receptionist from the mob.

For the purposes of this blog, let's focus on one of his assistants, Artie. Artie is a stereotypical gay man - weak, flighty, and subject to all sort of abuse.

Naturally he also a living version of "Chekov's gun," in that you just know that he is only in the movie for something awful to happen to him. And it does at 1:14 of this trailer.

My gosh, we have come a looooong way:



Past Know Your LGBT History Postings:

Religious right group stoops to tacky images and other Friday midday news briefs

CWA: Obama the "Despot" is Discriminating Against Americans by Not Defending DOMA - It's so hard to take the religious right group Concerned Women for America seriously when they push drivel like this with pictures like the following:

And in other news:

Liz Hurley to play bisexual villainess in Wonder Woman reboot - That ought to be interesting.

Clashes Pit Parents vs. Gay-Friendly Curriculums in Schools - Cause lgbts don't have children attending America's schools. Yes that was sarcasm.

Harding University Attempts To Silence Gay Students’ Voices - Hot mess happenings at Harding University.

Gingrich Secured $200,000 For Iowa Judge Recall Campaign - These were the judges who overruled Iowa's law against gay marriage. I wonder how Gringrich would have felt if those judges supported adultery. Probably would have thrown them a fundraiser.

Lgbt community hit with betrayal in Maryland?

MAJOR UPDATE - Arora will grudgingly support the gay marriage bil. Thanks for the sour persimmons, cousin. Meanwhile, Maggie Gallagher continues to tackily push the "race card."

This is Sam Arora, a Maryland delegate who campaigned on the fact that he would vote for gay marriage.

He knocked on doors, sat down with same-sex families, and accepted donations (a list is here) while expressly saying that he supports marriage equality.

And now after he is in office, he is planning on changing his vote.

Naturally the members of the lgbt community who supported him, who introduced him to their families, who told him their life stories and why this piece of legislation is important are furious.


And some are asking for their donations back.

Now Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage is claiming that lgbt anger is strictly racism because, according to her, the lgbt community is ignoring another delegate who may switch votes.

She also claims that Arora is changing his vote because of, as she puts it, IMMENSE pressure from folks opposed to bringing gay marriage to Maine.

Arora has not given a reason why he is changing his mind. And based on NOM's past actions and statements, folks should take what Gallagher says with a grain of salt - i.e. every word dripping from her mouth is a lie including the words "and" and "the."

However, if the situation with Arora is true, this is a huge setback and betrayal.

Seems to me that if you campaign specifically on an issue and folks - along with their families - sit down and talk with you about how important the issue is, and they get a promise of support from you, then you should follow through with that promise.

It's just basic decency.

Now if Gallagher and company want to mark basic decency as one of the qualities they are willing to step over in pursuit of their goals, that is their prerogative.

However, Mr. Arora should aspire to something better.

This issue is not about racism. It's about lies, broken promises, and betrayals of constituents and their families.

Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post said it best:

The outrage directed at Arora is understandable. As is the sense of betrayal. He raised money from gays and lesbians based on his support for marriage equality. He secured the endorsements of Progressive Maryland and of Equality Maryland because of it. In fact, get a load of what he wrote as an addendum to his questionnaire for Equality Maryland:

I am a former law clerk to Attorney General Doug Gansler. I publicly supported his decision to recognize out-of-state marriage licenses for same-sex couples and immediately put out a release praising his findings. For me, it's simply a matter of equal rights under the law.

If this situation turns out the way it's trending, then NOM and Maggie Gallagher will have a lot to crow about. No doubt the spin will be how Arora "fought with himself" and "fought the slings and arrows of the radical homosexual movement to protect marriage."

I don't think that spin will work this time. There are some situations so ugly, so starkly monstrous that all of the spin in the world can't clean them up.

This looks like one of those times.


Folks, if you are going to write to Arora, Gallagher, or even vent, please be aware that this is one of those situations where Gallagher and company stalk pro-lgbt blogs looking for the ugliest comments they can pull to use against us. Don't let your anger allow you to be played.

500,000 hits later, a reminder to the lgbt community to keep on pressing

You will forgive me for not doing a usual post tonight. A little before noon today, this blog had its 500,000 visitor. That's over 500,000 readers in less than five years, which is not bad at all for a part-time blog which makes me no money at all. In commemoration of this, I want to repost my most popular piece, Message to the Religious Right. I wrote it in 2008, just weeks after we lost the Proposition 8 vote in California in response to Newt Gingrich claiming that our justified anger over the travesty was because lgbts are "secular fascists." I hope you all take this piece to heart and never lose your anger when things don't seem to be fair for us. But at the same time, never lose your hope. We are going to win this:

Message to the religious right - this isn't just about marriage, it's about history

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.

Black church leaders meet with lgbt community and other Thursday midday news briefs

Black Church Leaders Ask Forgiveness From the LGBT Community - The Root is an awesome site and this article NEEDS more coverage.

Ohio’s Radical Anti-Union Bill Also Has A Hidden Provision To Deny Equal Rights To Same-Sex Couples - SURPRISE! Why not kick everyone in the pants!

Now comes the part of the week day minute where FRC tells us how 'immoral', 'harmful', 'ungodly' we are - If I am praying with the Family Research Council, I want some lightning insurance.

Indiana's Jud McMillin: A Tale of Glass Houses & Rocks - NAAAAASTY but necessary. People who live in glass houses shouldn't touch sex arousal instruments.

Conservatives trying to use DOMA decison to drive between Obama and the black community

It's getting ridiculous how the religious right are trying to trot out their versions of "black leaders" to eviscerate President Obama over the Justice Department's decision not to defend DOMA in the courts.

It began last week when Mike Huckabee claimed that Obama's decision was alienating him from the African-American community - a charge which was hilarious to me because I never remembered Huckabee as a black leader.

Then we heard various rumblings from organizations such as the National Black Church Initiative (whoever they may be) and then religious right favorite Harry Jackson  - who was designated as The Most Influential Black Christian in America in the article which gave voice to his disapproval.

I personally never knew that there was a vote on that sort of thing.

National Organization for Marriage continuing to spread false claim about gay marriage and children

It is obvious that in its zeal to stop gay marriage in Maryland, the National Organization for Marriage is going full throttle for the jugular even at the expense of truth.

According to The Washington Blade:

The National Organization for Marriage has launched a series of attack mailers in Maryland, as a House committee gears up for a key vote on a measure to legalize same-sex marriage.

Several mailers target Sen. Jim Brochin, a Baltimore County Democrat and member of the Judicial Proceedings Committee, which approved the bill last month. Brochin initially supported civil unions instead of marriage equality. But he said he changed his position and supported the bill, in part, because of the harsh and intolerant-sounding testimony against the measure by some of its opponents at a public hearing in Annapolis on Feb. 8. NOM’s Maggie Gallagher testified at that hearing.

 One of the mailers is as follows:

One of the claim on the mailer reads:

Massachusetts public schools teach kid as young as kindergartners about gay marriage. Parents have no legal right to object!

However according to the Pulitzer Prize-winning news site PolitiFact, this claim is misleading.

During an investigation of the claim earlier this year, PolitiFact talked to:

• Christopher C. Plante, executive director of the Rhode Island Chapter of NOM,
• Kris Mineau, executive director of the Massachusetts Family Institute,
• Jonathan Considine of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education,
• the Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Curriculum,
• the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and
• Thomas Gosnell, president of the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts.

PolitiFact's conclusion about NOM's claim of kindergartners being taught gay marriage in Massachusetts is as follows:

Bottom line: The National Organization for Marriage mailing says that Massachusetts public schools teach kindergartners about gay marriage. The wording, including the present tense verb, gives the impression this is happening now, in many schools.

But the group’s only evidence is two incidents five years ago. It’s possible that somewhere, in one of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts, other kindergartners have been taught about same-sex marriage. But NOM couldn’t cite any other examples. We find its statement False.

Clearly the NOM is following the same game plan it played in California and Maine, i.e. spooking people by claiming that  "the gays are coming for their children."

If the organization's efforts bear success, expect NOM leaders Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown to step on the mantle of self-righteousness and falsely claim that they are helping people "stand up for marriage,  when in reality they are getting them to cower in fear at the thought of fictional gay boogeymen.

Related post:

Yes Maggie Gallagher, you are bigoted and NOM is homophobic. Here's why.

Media Matters catalogs Mike Huckabee's history of homophobia

Whatever our grievances are with President Obama, one person who the lgbt community does not need in the White House is Mike Huckabee.

I've written on his subtle yet nasty homophobia on several occasions. And now, Media Matters has catalogued Huckabee's sly way of interjecting his homophobic point of view into the conversation.

One thing the report makes clear - if Huckabee gets anywhere near the White House, the lgbt community had better learn how to moonwalk because that's how fast he will set back our struggle for equality. Some tidbits of the report include:

Politico reports that when running for U.S. Senate in 1992, Fox News host Mike Huckabee called homosexuality "aberrant, unnatural and sinful." Huckabee does not appear to have changed his anti-gay rhetoric since becoming a Fox News host, comparing homosexuality to drug use and incest, claiming that same-sex marriage is a threat to a "stable society," and promoting virulently anti-gay guests.

Huckabee Made Virulent Anti-Gay Comments As A Public Official

As A Public Official, Huckabee Called Homosexuality An "Aberration" And Condemned The Government For Supporting It Along With Pedophilia, Sadomasochism, And Necrophilia. In a 2007 appearance on Meet the Press, Tim Russert asked Huckabee about his assertion in a 1998 book claiming "it is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations - from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia." Huckabee responded that "all of these are deviations from what has been considered the traditional concept of sexual behavior." Russert also asked Huckabee about his assertion in 1992 that "I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle." Huckabee responded that "all of us are sinners." [Towelroad.com, 1/2/08]

In 1992, Huckabee Came Out Against Additional Funding For AIDS Research And Called For U.S. Government To "Isolate" AIDS Patients. From a December 9, 2007 Politico article:

Huckabee wrote on [an Associated Press] questionnaire that AIDS research was receiving an unfair amount of federal money. Instead, he said celebrities should pay for the research.
"In light of the extraordinary funds already being given for AIDS research, it does not seem that additional federal spending can be justified," Huckabee wrote, according to the AP.
"An alternative would be to request that multimillionaire celebrities, such as Elizabeth Taylor, Madonna and others who are pushing for more AIDS funding be encouraged to give out of their own personal treasuries increased amounts for AIDS research."
[...]
Huckabee also wrote that he wanted to quarantine AIDS patients, according to the AP:
"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague.... It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents." [Politico, 12/8/07]

 . . .

Huckabee Hosts Virulently Anti-Gay Guests In Segments On LGBT Issues 

Matthew Staver 

Huckabee Hosts Matthew Staver From Liberty Counsel. In his January 24, 2009, segment attacking Obama for including LGBT issues in the civil rights section in his website, Huckabee hosted Matthew Staver from Liberty Counsel and Liberty University.

Staver's Group Suggests Schools Should Encourage Students To View Homosexuality As "Temporary Sexual Confusion." From an April 7, 2010 post on Staver's website titled "Pediatrician Sets the Facts Straight about Sexual Orientation and Gender Confusion":

The letter reminds school superintendents that it is not uncommon for adolescents to experience transient confusion about their sexual orientation and that most students will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation if not otherwise encouraged. For this reason, schools should avoid developing policies that encourage nonheterosexual attractions among students who may merely be experimenting or experiencing temporary sexual confusion. Such premature labeling can lead some adolescents to engage in homosexual behaviors that carry serious physical and mental health risks.

There is no scientific evidence that anyone is born homosexual. Therefore, the College further advises that schools should not teach or imply to students that homosexual attraction is innate, always life-long, and unchangeable. To the contrary, research has shown that therapy to restore heterosexual attraction can be effective for many people.

It is not the school's role to diagnose or attempt to treat any student's medical condition, and certainly not the school's role to "affirm" a student's perceived personal sexual orientation. The "Facts About Youth" website counters the propaganda published by the pro-homosexual pamphlet called "Just the Facts," which is riddled with inaccuracies.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: "Public schools can harm students by suggesting that same-sex attractions are natural and unchangeable. Research shows that youth who experience sexual confusion often do so only for a temporary period. To suggest to a student that temporary sexual confusion means the person is homosexual can be damaging and harmful. The information provided by the 'Facts About Youth' website is invaluable for anyone who works with children." [Liberty Counsel, 4/7/10]

Staver Attacked Janet Napolitano For Appointing Gay Judges. In 2009, Staver's group announced an "Adopt A Liberal" program that "encourages people to pray for those in leadership to restore poor leaders to right thinking." One of the people targeted by Staver was Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. One of his major criticisms of Napolitano was that "Twenty percent of the state judicial appointments Napolitano made as governor were of homosexuals, reflecting her pro-homosexual agenda." [Liberty Counsel, 10/5/09, 10/5/09]

Staver Suggested Washington Mutual Collapse Was Related To The Company's Support For Gay Rights. In a September 29, 2008 post attacking Google for putting out a statement against California's Proposition 8, Staver's group stated "Of course, Google is not the only search engine available to consumers. Washington Mutual became an active supporter of the homosexual agenda. But today, it is no more. Corporate America has learned the hard way that anti-family policies are bankrupt in more ways than one." [Liberty Counsel, 9/29/08]

Janet Porter 

Huckabee Hosted Janet Porter To Criticize Anti-Proposition 8 Activists. Huckabee hosted Janet Folger (now known by her married name, Janet Porter) on the November, 15, 2008, episode of Fox News' Huckabee.

Porter Suggested "Homosexual Activists," Abortion-Rights Activists And The ACLU Are "Enemies Of God." From a WorldNet Daily column by Janet Porter:

To those who still believe that we should stay out of the cultural war, I have a question: How is that working out for you?

We now have two generations who are lost in the lies of humanism, evolution and homosexuality, facilitated into fornication and abortion, trapped in pornography and devastated by divorce. Congratulations.

If you're still having a hard time discerning what to do, here's a helpful hint: if you find yourself on the same side as the ACLU, homosexual activists, the baby killers and the enemies of God, chances are, you're on the wrong side .

Put the rocks down. Come out of the closet and bring your manger scene with you. Spend more time reading the Bible (and the news) than all those rock-throwing slander sites. Because all the people that they're targeting? They're the ones fighting to keep the Internet, the airwaves and the public square free. And if they're successful, they're also the ones who will keep the padlock off your closet door. [WorldNetDaily, 6/8/10]

The entire report is here. Read only if you have a strong stomach and a high tolerance to quick anger.

The lgbt community has to stop shooting itself in the foot and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Military Funeral Protesters - I never really followed this case because I could see the conclusion a mile away.

When protesting for my rights, please try not to be incredibly stupid and counterproductive - How the lgbt community tends to do counterproductive things Exhibit A. This is burning up the comment line on Box Turtle Bulletin. And please don't start with me about Stonewall and the Civil Rights Movement. My problem isn't the public protest in this case but more with the lazy belief that "gaining attention" by itself is a suitable tactic when we are up against groups who do a lot of strategizing and work behind the scenes. Everyone seems to want to figuratively show our asses in public but VERY FEW wants to do the hard work, the meeting with legislatures, the formulating of talking points, the smack down of religious right talking points and the educating in our community (which is sorely needed) in terms of why our issues are important. Oh wait. Let's wait for Lady Gaga to do it, then we will follow along.

Tempers flare over anti-gay bullying at Anoka-Hennepin school board meeting - Not bragging (oh yes I am) but some of my information was used during this meeting.

Bill that bans bullying of gay students stalls in Kentucky House - Ugh.

Someone call homophobe Robert Knight a waaaaaambulance

Okay, I admit it. One of the side benefits of the Obama Administration's decision not to defend DOMA in the courts is how it has sent the religious right into orbit.

One person in particular who doesn't seem to be happy is one of the original crafters of DOMA, Robert Knight. When he helped to craft DOMA,  Knight allied himself with the so-called major religious right groups like the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America.

But now, as a senior fellow of the American Civil Rights Union (what exactly is that anyway), Knight isn't too happy with the Obama Administration's decision.

I mean we're talking practically apoplectic:

Allow me to take off the gloves. As one who helped draft the first version of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), I regard Obama's order on Feb. 23 to Attorney General Eric Holder to abandon DOMA's legal defense as lawless, reckless, arrogant and a violation of his oath of office. I think it is an impeachable offense.

I'm just warming up.

Obama, like Hillary Clinton and countless other prominent Democrats -- and some useful idiot Republicans -- have been pretending to support marriage while doing everything in their power to undermine it.

First of all, I am so sure that the Obama Administration is shaking in its boots that Knight "took off the gloves" to get nasty.

Knight's piece gets funnier:

If you doubt what they intend, check out Brian Camenker's shocking exposé, "What same-sex 'marriage' has done to Massachusetts." Mr. Camenker, who heads the group MassResistance, is warning the nation that there will be no quarter for those who think homosexuality is wrong and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Putting Catholic Charities out of the adoption business was just the beginning, followed quickly by brainwashing children in government schools and denying people jobs

Way to Knight. Cite a known anti-gay hate group - Mass Resistance - and include some nonsense about brainwashing. The subtlety of  the brainwashing statement is hilarious, seeing that Knight has, on more than one occasion, accused the lgbt community of "going after children." And not necessarily to "brainwash" them if you catch my drift.