Analyzing and refuting the inaccuracies lodged against the lgbt community by religious conservative organizations. Lies in the name of God are still lies.
Remember when homophobe and supporter of the Uganda "kill the gays" bill Scott Lively complained in January about how he was being "persecuted for his Christian beliefs? Remember how in that same month some folks on the right - particularly Peter LaBarbera ran to his defense against us supposed mean-spirited activists who pointed out how Lively's rhetoric may have led to the needless murder of Ugandan activist David Kato?
This following video putS everything in a new perspective. It's allegedly Lively giving a talk about homosexuality while in Uganda. But regardless of where it took place, what Lively says gives serious room for pause for anyone who would call him a "Christian activist." It should give serious room for pause for anyone who call Lively a decent human being:
Dem Poll: Majority Oppose Defense of Marriage Act, Support Obama Position - Yeah I know that it's an HRC commissioned poll so some folks will scream bias, but check out the scenario here - The GOP is forced to unpopular action by its "base," - action which is opposed by a majority of Americans. DOMA has become Terri Schiavo.
Focus on the Family does not like President Obama's focus on preventing bullying. The main reason of course is because the needs of lgbt youth are talked about and as we know, anything which deals with lgbts in a positive manner gives organizations like Focus on the Family "the vapors."
Focus on the Family has spoken out against President Obama's actions.
However, as Jeremy Hooper from Goodasyou points out, it's not just how the organization wants everyone to sidestep the needs of lgbt students when it comes to stopping bullying, it's who the group is calling to assist in it's subterfuge:
The Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber.
Now for those who do not know, Barber isn't just anti-gay. He expresses opposition to the lgbt community sometimes in a manner so vindictive that he can give Fred Phelps pause. Hooper breaks it down a little:
And let's not forget the following tweets in which Barber shows his "love" for the lgbt community (Editor's note - you may see a message saying the Barber is "protecting his tweets." Kinda proves my point, doesn't it?):
January 14, 2011: “Look pal, you won’t be able to ‘ask’ or ‘tell’ if you don’t get your hand off my knee! http://yfrog.com/h4d67zoj
January 25, 2011: Soldiers, does your foxhole buddy have your back or want to rub it?
January 29, 2011: Drudge:”Man Subjected To Body Cavity Search At Traffic Stop.” Other News: “Barney Frank Waves Down Police in Traffic.” http://tiny.cc/spo05
January 30, 2011: DADT repeal implementation underway. “Slap fighting” & “tickle parties” to be added to special forces training. http://tiny.cc/jfcdx
January 31, 2011: She-male model stirs Brazil fashion show. In other news: Man buys Rolex & discovers it’s a knock-off. http://bit.ly/gxcfVW
January 31, 2011: SNL skit mocking Tranny inanity has homosexual activists fuming (warning: a little crude) http://bit.ly/ewYd0A
February 1, 2011: Queering the Marines: From morally upright 2 immorally down-low. From semper fidelis 2 limp-wristed fellas http://bit.ly/fBcuqH
February 25, 2011: The homofascist bullying & brainwashing begins: “Combat troops to get gay sensitivity training:” http://bit.ly/dKqh4b
A little advice to Focus on the Family - if you are going to speak against President Obama's anti-bullying initiative, perhaps its best not to seek aid from a man whose comments sound like they have been uttered from your typical school bully.
One has to give it to the National Organization for Marriage. In a very short time, the organization led a coalition of religious folks to stop the gay marriage vote in Maryland. This included having speakers in front of the legislature, booking itself on many local programs, mobilizing churches, and promising a huge amount of money (one million dollars) to sway legislators on future vote regarding marriage equality. Not bad.
An article earlier this year in the Iowa Independent may give a reason as to why it has been easy for NOM to be successful. In the words of a famous rapper - "cash rules everything around me:"
Three-quarters of the funding for the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a 501(c)(4) nonprofit dedicated to opposing same-sex marriage, comes from just five sources, according to its most recent 2009 990 form filed with the Internal Revenue Services.
“The National Organization for Marriage has emerged as the nation’s only major national grassroots organization dedicated to protecting marriage,” said NOM’s president and founder, Maggie Gallagher, in July 2009. NOM describes itself as “the nation’s only grassroots organization focused on the threat to marriage at state and local levels.” NOM Executive Director Brian Brown said in a January 2010 press release, “NOM’s goal is a national grassroots organization that can make a difference in all 50 states, as needed.”
However, at least in terms of funding, its donations are quite concentrated. According to its 2009 990 form (PDF) obtained by the Human Rights Campaign, NOM received $7,106,388 in donations in 2009. Three donations of $2.4 million, $1.2 million, and $1.1 million constituted 68 percent of its total donations. Two additional donations of $400,000 and $150,000 mean that three-quarters of its funding came from just five sources.
Donations to 501(c)(4) organizations are not tax-deductible and organizations do not have to disclose their donors.
It's fascinating to me. Of all of the things I have written and said about religious right groups (including the Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council, etc), I don't think I have ever had to focus on their finances. But questions about money and how the organization tries to skirt finance laws seems to be NOM's Achilles heel.
No doubt the organization will claim that all inquiries about its finances are made in an effort to undermine its work against marriage equality. Perhaps. But that doesn't take away from the fact that NOM has a problem being truthful about its finances.
According to the webpage nomexposed.org, in the span of four years, NOM's budget went from a little over $500,000 to $10 million.
And during that time, while the organization have had huge victories in places like California, Maine, and Maryland, it also left many raised eyebrows regarding its ethics and financial disclosures in those places as well as in Rhode Island, Washington State, and Iowa.
Lastly, we must remember that the chairman of NOM, Maggie Gallagher herself is no stranger to ethical impropriety. In 2005, it was discovered that she received over $40,000 from the Bush Administration to promote its marriage initiatives, which she did in her supposedly objective column published in various newspapers throughout the country.
After the discovery, Gallagher said she didn't disclose the payment (again over $40,000) because "she forgot."
It's doesn't take an Einstein to realize that beneath its veneer of supposed respectability and morality, there seems to be another, more unsavory side of NOM.
And rather than blow our stacks at the organization's success, or make cute side comments about its members, maybe it's time for those of us in the community who are adept in such things to put our shoulders to the grindstone and start uncovering all of NOM's secrets.
At the very least, it will be a new goal for me.
Related:
Nomexposed - more people need to not only join AND study this site
New Birth reduces jobs and salaries- Rumor control has it that his church is reducing salaries and laying folks off in anticipation of the mediation's possible settlement.
And just in case you need a recap in terms of how we got here with Eddie Long - here it is.
During last week’s legislative session in Maryland when lawmakers were pondering the idea of gay marriage, a few black lawmakers took the time to not only criticize gay marriage but also the notion of lgbt equality in general.
We’ve all heard the hurtful sayings before - “you can’t compare gay rights to black civil rights because you can hide being gay,” “gays and lesbians were never oppressed in the same manner in which blacks were oppressed,” etc., etc.
It would be an awful generalization to say that all in the African-American community have these beliefs. In Maryland many African-Americans, including Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo, publicly supported marriage equality.
However, statements voiced by some Maryland lawmakers unfortunately stand out and not in a good way. In answer to these comments, I could go on about the many lives either crippled and lost at the hands of gay bashers like that of Matthew Shepard, or the wholesale genocide of lgbts by the Nazis in German, or the suicides of lgbt youth such as Tyler Clementi, or the present day usage of junk science by religious right groups to demonize the lgbt community.
But why bother. I’ve reached the point where I hate having to do it.
It’s sad how no one ever talks about how this tug of war between the African-American and lgbt community over equality can negatively affect us lgbts of color. For me personally, it’s an awful psychological rending, a forced dividing of myself into two halves which have no business separating in the first place.
And as a gay man, I especially hate it. I hate the idea of us lgbts having to put the history of our oppression on some sort of display. I hate the notion that lgbts are put on a witness stand where we have to list how many times we have been beaten, disrespected, or denied our basic humanity in order to somehow prove our “worthiness.”
It always leaves me wondering are the scars of the lgbt community deep enough? Is our humiliation painful enough? Have we shed enough blood to suit those who would judge on us on those things?
Don’t get me wrong. I am all for understanding the aesthetic differences between the African-American struggle and lgbt struggle for equality. But there comes a time when we must recognize the folly of this constant struggle over whether the two are similar.
And that time is now.
It distresses me to no end that on the subject of lgbt equality, some African-Americans are taking on the guise of those who oppress them.
Those who oppressed (and continue to oppress) African-Americans have the belief that somehow blacks are inferior and will never measure up. Therefore they figure that black people are not deserving of certain basic rights. What’s more awful is how they use the Bible to justify their discrimination.
Now, it seems that some African-Americans have told members of the lgbt community that their suffering is inferior and will never measure up. And therefore, the lgbt community are not deserving of certain basic rights. And guess what? They too use the Bible to justify their discrimination .
It’s a nasty, stupid game. And those who choose to play it should know better.
Being oppressed is not a status symbol. Being oppressed is not a mark of achievement. It should never be used as a pedestal to somehow judge whether or not a group of people are “worthy” of being treated like basic human beings.
Some religious right figures are giddy over comments by an English historian regarding gay rights. From One News Now:
Homosexual activist David Starkey, who is an atheist, participated in a debate on BBC about bed-and-breakfast owners hauled into court when they refused homosexual couples based on their religious beliefs. "The way to do that is not to bound them, not to fine them," he stated. "It is for them simply to put up what seems to me to be a quite proper notice in a small privately run hotel which says, 'We are Christians and this is what we believe.'"
The activist says forcing someone to accept the homosexual lifestyle against their religious beliefs is "a new tyranny."
"Being nice and sweet about gays isn't wholly a good thing -- it really isn't," Starkey stated. "We live in a world of intense difficulty and plurality, and just having a hang-me-down, reach-me-down imposed morality is a very bad idea."
Two things are fascinating about that - Starkey has been described by Wikipedia as a English constitutional historian, a radio and television presenter, and a specialist in the Tudor dynasty and Tudor period. He is openly gay but that hardly makes him an activist. Of course that's in the real world. In the world of the religious right, any lgbt not in the closet is an "activist."
Secondly it's highly ironic that Starkey's comments about "forced morality" is being applauded by the same folks on the forefront of the battles against gay rights, women making choices about their own bodies, etc - and all because of the morality they want to impose on others.
The grand irony is that these folks want to attach Starkey's comments about situation with a privately owned business in another country (I'm not aware of all of the details regarding this controversy) to situations in America, which at times involve public tax dollars.
Like the Ocean Grove Pavilion for example.
The Ocean Grove Pavilion was a piece of property owned by a religious group in New Jersey. When a lesbian couple tried to use the pavilion to have a civil union ceremony, the group said no, citing religious beliefs against homosexuality.
The lesbian couple sued and won and just like that, the religious right had a new cause celebre, i.e. new so-called victims of gay rights overreach.
However, religious right groups repeating the story about this so-called injustice always omitted the fact that the religious group was getting tax breaks on this piece of property. And one of the requirements of the tax breaks was that they couldn't discriminate on who could use the property.
The real question here is how much should people be allowed discriminate based on personal religious beliefs. Should this ability to discriminate be applied in cases where tax dollars are spent? Or how about in cases regarding business owners or service providers in general?
Just how much consideration should someone's "deeply held personal beliefs" be given over someone else's right to be able to find a place to live or attain necessities?
Lastly, if we open up the doors of anti-lgbt discrimination on the grounds of "personal religious beliefs," then why not open the doors of racial discrimination? Or gender discrimination?
Strangely enough, these questions never seem to come up when religious right groups whine about how their rights are being taken away.
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 alwaysdoes 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:
Numerousstudies 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.
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."
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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 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."
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.
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.
