FRC's Tony Perkins gets stymied in attempt to criticize gay adoption

An item in a Family Research Council email, via President Tony Perkins, caught my eye because of how it was phrased:

Yesterday morning, I appeared on Fox News for a discussion (that turned into a debate) of the Arizona law with a homosexual adoptive father. His first comments were that law was driven by "religion" and by "animus" against homosexuals. It was downhill from there. Remember, this law is silent about homosexuals and treats them no differently than any other person wanting to adopt who isn't married. No qualified person is precluded from adopting, although a number of states have made rational arguments as to why homosexuals should be. It's stunning how adept homosexual activists have become at playing the "victim" -- even if it means using kids as pawns. Adoption is about children -- not childish activists.

Perkins was talking about a debate on Fox News which took place on Easter Sunday between him and Bernard Whitman of Faith in America about Arizona's new adoption law. This law gives preference to married heterosexual couples.

There is a reason why Perkins had such a negative view of the debate. To put it mildly, he stunk. Whitman stuck to his point that "religious-based bigotry" is behind the push to make it more difficult for same-sex couples to adopt children.

Meanwhile, Perkins was left stammering with the same inaccurate talking point about "decades of social science" claiming that children do best in a two-parent heterosexual household. Whitman countered that inaccuracy by mentioning the studies which say that same-sex households are good environments for children. Of course Whitman could have said that none of the studies Perkins referred to even looked at same-sex households, but it was better that he didn't.

By not doing this, Whitman made Perkins address the argument on his terms, i.e. making Perkins address the existence of same-sex households.

And Perkins did this by pathetically citing a vague Australian study claiming that same-sex households are a danger to children. I call it pathetic because Perkins didn't give an pertinent details as to when this study was published or who published it.

Perkins was finally reduced to trying to talk over Whitman.

Basically when faced against someone who knew what he was talking about and didn't back down in the face of his lies, Perkins came across as weak . . . very weak. But judge for yourself:



Hat tip to LezGetReal.

Maggie Gallagher called out for giving misleading testimony at DOMA hearing

Religious right figures giving misleading testimony during Congressional hearings isn't a new occurrence, but this one needs to be shouted about from the rooftops.

According to Equality Matters, the witnesses speaking for DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) during the April 15 Congressional hearing gave incorrect testimony on several occasions. I invite everyone to take a look at the section, but the one which stands out for me is a statement made by the National Organization for Marriage's Maggie Gallagher.

She claimed that social science proves that the best place to raise children are in homes with biological, married parents as opposed to same-sex households:

Transcript:

GALLAGHER: From what we know from the social science evidence, marriage protects children to the extent that it increases the likelihood they are born to and raised by their own mother and father in a low-conflict, enduring relationship. We know this because, frankly, children do not do better under remarried parents than they do with solo mothers on average, which means that it is not simply a set of legal benefits that we can transform. It is the extent and way to which marriage as a legal and public institution helps to protect a particular kind of family that it helps to protect children or fails to protect children.

However, according to Equality Matters, in her written testimony, Gallagher cited a study on heterosexual single parents:

We know this from the social science evidence showing that children do no better, on average, in remarried families than they do living with single mothers. 1 Marriage protects children to the extent that it helps increase the likelihood that children will be raised by their mother and father.

[…]

1 See Sara McLanahan & Gary Sandefur, Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Harvard U. Press 1994) (“In general, compared with children living with both their parents, young people from disrupted families are more likely to drop out of high school, and young women from one-parent families are more likely to become teen mothers, irrespective of the conditions under which they began to live with single mothers and irrespective of whether their mothers remarry or experience subsequent disruptions.”). [Statement of Maggie Gallagher, Hearing on “Defending Marriage,” 4/15/11]

Equality Matters went on to use the words of Judith Stacey, Professor of Sociology and Professor of Gender and Sexuality at New York University to call out Gallagher and others on the right who inaccurately use studies on the heterosexual family dynamic to demonize same-sex parenting, and by proxy, marriage equality:

According to the child protection discourse that Professor Wardle, Maggie Gallagher, and others deploy, social science research demonstrates that legalizing same-sex marriage poses dangers to children and families… In particular, claims that research establishes the superiority of the married heterosexual-couple family and that children need a mother and a father conflate and confuse research findings on four distinct variables - the sexual orientation, gender, number, and the marital status of parents… Unfortunately, opponents of same-sex marriage, like Maggie Gallagher and Professor Wardle, and even some advocates, draw selectively, indiscriminately, and inappropriately from research findings about all four variables to address questions the studies were not designed to, and are not able, to illuminate.

[…]

Opponents of same-sex marriage draw on a third body of literature in which researchers have achieved an unusual degree of consensus. Most family researchers agree that, all other things being equal (which, of course, is almost never the case), two parents are better than one. Research indicates that children raised in single-parent families are at greater risk of various negative outcomes (e.g., dropping out of school, delinquency, unwed teen pregnancy, substance abuse, etc.) than children raised in comparable two-parent families. All of this research, however, as Maggie Gallagher acknowledged, has been conducted on heterosexual-parent families. Moreover, this research generally compares children in married-couple and single-parent families, thereby confounding the effects of the number and the legal status of parents. None of the research cited to demonstrate the importance of fathers (or mothers) examines the adjustment of children raised by same-sex couples. Moreover, this research does not indicate that it is the gender or the sexual orientation of the absent parent that is responsible for the different outcomes of children raised in single versus two-parent families. Rather, most researchers conclude that the number and economic resources of parents as well as the disruptive effects that parental desertion or divorce can inflict on children's lives account for these differential risks. N12 [University School of Quinnipiac Law Review, via Lexis, emphasis added, 2004]

Gallagher has done this sort of thing before. In in January of last year, she distorted a study on child abuse to make the case that children in married biological homes do better to protect children from abuse than children in same-sex households.

The distortion comes because the study in question - the one she cited - didn't even look at children in same-sex households. We know this because Gallagher even admitted at the time that same-sex households wasn't a category in the study:

All the other family structures studied (which does not include same-sex parent families probably because these are such a small part of the population), but does include solo parents, other married parents (remarried primarily), single parents living with a partner, cohabiting parents, and no parents.

Please bear in mind that at that same April 15 Congressional hearing,  Gallagher said it was unfortunate that people misinterpret things she says as a condemnation of "gay people" and "their parenting skills."

If Gallagher wants people to not think that she is condemning "gay people" and "their parenting skills," then maybe she should stop being so deceptive in her testimony.

Boehner's lawyers withdraw from DOMA case and other Monday midday news briefs

Boehner's DOMA lawyers have withdrawn from the case - Hot damn! This is huge! What caused them to drop the case? The news of the $500,000 cost? The "vetting process?" Or maybe us "mean, nasty, pushy homosexuals." One guess whom the religious right, especially NOM is going to blame.

BREAKING: John Boehner’s $5 Million Attorney Drops DOMA Defense - ThinkProgress gives more details.

Reactions to the news - And reactions to the decision, courtesy of Pam's House Blend.

American Experience to focus on the Stonewall Uprising - The event that gave birth to the modern lgbt equality movement. This should be required viewing for everyone especially our young lgbts. Know your history, boys and girls!

Equal Time for 'Traditional Values' - Nasty, sneaky business going on in Texas. If it's successful, watch it go nationwide.

Lil B’s “I’m Gay” Album Title Results In Death Threats - Strange . . . just strange.

Reports: Eddie Long is close to settlement in sexual misconduct lawsuit

Reports are coming out that Eddie Long, pastor of the megachurch New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, is close to settling a case with four young men who filed a lawsuit last year claiming that he coerced them into sexual relationships.

This comes months after Long made a huge announcement in front of his congregation that he intends to fight charges:

Judge Johnny Panos said lengthy negotiations might soon bring the civil lawsuit involving New Birth Missionary Baptist Church Bishop Eddie Long to a close. Long has denied the allegations.
Panos said Friday that lawyers for both sides began meeting Monday and have spent a total of more than 60 hours in face-to-face negotiations.

The irony of this entire thing is, of course, the fact that Long is known for speaking out publicly against lgbt equality, especially marriage equality. According to blogger Rod2.0Beta:

In addition to being one of the nation's most prominent pastors, Long is also among the most vocal critics of gay rights and same-sex marriage in the Black church. In December 2004, one month after voters approved an amendment to the Georgia state Constitution that banned gay marriage, Long led a 25,000 person march against gay rights and marriage equality.

And according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Long has also been very vocal in expressing his anti-gay opinions:

"Men can look attractive when they are dirty," writes Bishop Eddie Long in his 1997 book I Don't Want Delilah, I Need You! "We see sweating, dirty, hardworking men on television all the time and we say to one another, 'There's a macho guy.'"

Despite this affinity for sweaty, macho men, Long is one of the most virulently homophobic black leaders in the religiously based anti-gay movement. His book, subtitled What a Woman Needs to Know, What a Man Needs to Understand, appeared in the midst of a roaring growth period for Long's New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia, Ga., near Atlanta. During the mid-'90s, it swelled to over 18,000 congregation members, men and women who worship in a multimillion-dollar complex that's the size of most major universities, spread out on 240 acres of land.

Much of what appears in I Don't Want Delilah was espoused in the videotaped "Back to the Future” sermon Long gave when his church was still small.

"It is the most unattractive thing I have ever seen, when I see women wearing uniforms that men would wear, and women fighting to get in the military!" Long shouted to his congregation then. "The woman gets perverted to turn towards woman … and everybody knows it's dangerous to enter an exit! And everybody knows, lady, if you go to the store and buy these devices [marital aids], it's Memorex! It ain't real!"

Even if there is a settlement, this will no doubt leave a huge stigma that will no doubt follow Long for the rest of his ministerial career.

Whatever the case may be, there is one good thing about this entire hot mess. I seriously DOUBT that Long will be saying stuff like the following for a loooooong time:




Related post:

Eddie Long scandal - Chronology of what has happened and where we are now

Eleven examples of NOM's bigotry

Maggie Gallagher, National Organization for Marriage

Editor's note - This is a repost of a February piece I wrote regarding Maggie Gallagher and NOM. I am presenting it again because it needed to be updated and also we need to be reminded of Gallagher and NOM's duplicity.

These days, it's relatively easy to be a talking head on news programs.

Just find some sucker with a lot of money willing to fund you,  created an organization with an important sounding name, give yourself an important sounding but meaningless title (senior fellow, research analyst, president, etc.), and they'll practically be beating at your door.

An incident recently on Fox News more than demonstrates that point. Not long after Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama Administration would no longer defend DOMA, Fox News personality (you really don't think I'm going to call her a journalist, do you) Megyn Kelly had National Organization for Marriage head Maggie Gallagher on her show to whine about how evil this decision is for families.

Of course Gallagher's definition of families never seems to include lgbt families, leaving a lot of people out.

Nevertheless, Kelly allowed Gallagher to push her usual silly talking points, including one about how gays are inaccurately being compared to black people in terms of civil rights.

I sincerely hope that in discussing the DOMA decision - and hopefully this piece - no one falls for the divide and conquer technique of this person - Gallagher - who cares as much about the black community as she does the lgbt community.

And that level of care is zero.

What Gallagher and Kelly did were evasive tactics, much like other tactics Gallagher seems to have mastered when talking about gay marriage. Give her five minutes and she will try to pivot the conversation from the same-sex households negatively affected by her activism to how she and others like her are supposedly unfairly called "bigots" for supposedly simply trying to "protect marriage."

Okay, let go on that angle. Let's break down the acts of Gallagher and NOM and pose the question - are these the acts of a bigoted, homophobic organization or people simply trying to "defend marriage:"

November 20, 2009 - Signer of Manhattan Declaration wanted to jail gays and lesbians - By signing an anti-gay document, The Manhattan Declaration, Gallagher and NOM affiliates themselves with folks who want to jail lgbts.

February 1, 2010 - Maggie Gallagher commits 'sin of omission' to make case against marriage equality - Gallagher cites a study to bash gay marriage and gay parenting, even though the study had nothing to do with either concept.

March 8, 2010 - TinyU-R-Gay: @NOMupdates limits gay lives to less than 140 characters/years - A NOM tweet actually pushing the lie that gays have a short life span.

June 14, 2010 - National Organization for Marriage: Gays Were Never Hunted Down and Murdered Like 'Jews, Christians, and Blacks' - NOM is found to be affiliated with Louis J. Marinelli during its failed summer for marriage tour. Amongst other things, Marinelli claims that gays want to molest children. When Marinelli's words became public, NOM claimed that the organization had no affiliation with Marinelli. However certain links posted as an update to the story demonstrated that NOM did have an affiliation with Marinelli. Editor's note - earlier this month, Marinelli disavowed his work with NOM as well as many of the things he said in the past about lgbt. He is now a supporter of marriage equality.

A Teabagger fails miserably in refuting racism charge

In all honesty, I don't believe that the entire tea party movement is racist. I believe it's a naive movement which allowed itself to be co-opted by the wealthy powers that be, but that's another argument entirely.

What I do believe, however, is that the tea party movement houses vindictively racist elements who can't get over the fact that an African-American is president or that the United States is becoming more multicultural. I also believe that those who have sense in the tea party movement know this but are afraid to admit so for fear that it would reduce the credibility of their entire movement.

However, this video speaks for itself. This is an authentic teabagger, Grady Warren, griping about how unfair it is to brand the tea party movement as racist. However, I don't think his argument will fly when you listen to what he has to say. If you can listen to the entire piece, then you deserve an award.



As much as I hate to remind folks, this video was done before the 2010 midterms, where thanks in part to folks like Warren, the Republican Party took over the House of Representatives and several state governorships. So any thing that's happening now, i.e. the problems with unions in Wisconsin, the Republican Party trying to make Medicare into a voucher system, insane anti-abortion legislation, is solely on the shoulders of folks like Warren.

See what happens when reasonable people don't vote like they should.


Big hat tip to a Facebook friend of mine of who pointed out this video.

Know Your LGBT History - My Beautiful Laundrette

To those who claim that an actor playing a gay character is a career kiss of death, I present Exhibit A of how wrong you are.

My Beautiful Laundrette (1985) is a stunning movie on so many levels. It came out in 1985 - a time when lgbt affirming movies were rare.

It featured an interracial relationship between middle class Pakistani man (Gordon Warnecke) and working class white man (Daniel Day-Lewis) in 1980s Great Britain.

Warnecke is tasked with taking a run down laundrette and making success out it during the backdrop of Britain's international politics and conflicts between whites and Pakistanis.Lewis decides to help him.

Now the beauty of the relationship between the two, as far as I'm concerned, is the fact that it was already in existence when the film begins.

And another thing is how the film doesn't shy away from showing the two being affectionate - and not in a gritty, "we gotta have sex before we explode" manner, but in a loving, realistic way.

Lastly - and you know I have to reveal this - the movie has a happy ending.

Now about that idea that playing a gay character is the" kiss of death," if that were the case, Daniel Day-Lewis's career would have been over when this movie came out.

But as it is, he is one of the most acclaimed actors in Hollywood today with two Oscars under his belt.  This isn't surprising when viewing My Beautiful Laundrette. Lewis's talent shines through big time.

The following clip are scenes from the movie featuring Warnecke's and Lewis's characters. Check this movie out. It's a good one:




Past Know Your LGBT History Posts:

Fighting 'gay zealots' costs $29.95 and other Friday midday news briefs

Arrest Made in “Ex-Gay” Custody Case - It's a small step but it brings Janet Jenkins closer to her daughter.

Hate group lies about House DADT hearings - The Family Research Council just can't help itself.

Dobson-, FRC-backed campaign: Gay activists are 'zealots' who'll bring 'the destruction of Western Civilization' - For $29.95 you too can fight the "zealots." These turkeys have more ways of getting money out of people than all five of my exes put together.

Barber: Obama And Democrats Are "Anti-God" - I almost miss the days when Matt Barber concentrated solely on "gay sex."

Defense of Marriage Act: Attack the law, not the lawyer - Good points but it's still $500,000 partly authorized by a man (Speaker Boehner) who claims that the country is "broke."

NOM tells blatant lie about encounter with GetEqual

Part of the National Organization for Marriage's game plan is to exploit the "gays are angry bullies who are threatening Christians" angle. Go to their blog (if your stomach can take it) and you will see this angle consistently repeated.

Or better yet, listen to a speech or read something written by NOM chairperson Maggie Gallagher and count how many times the word "bigot" comes up. Or "racism." Or "hatred."

You can almost make a drinking game out of it.

It is a deliberate attempt by Gallagher and NOM to shift attention away from the same-sex families who are discriminated against because they aren't allowed to marry.

And it's like I said in another piece - when you can paint your opponent in less than flattering light, it helps you win the battle.

The thing about the lgbt community is that those who oppose our equality make it easy for us by their words and actions to paint them in a less than flattering light (even though sometimes we don't take advantage of it.)

However, it's not that easy for NOM to do the same to us since - even though a lot of us are angry at the basic dishonest of the group and its tactics - the lgbt community doesn't tend to go off the deep end like a Peter LaBarbera or Matt Barber.

So NOM has to lie, just like it did regarding the encounter Gallagher had with a member of GetEqual before last week's Congressional hearing on DOMA.

To hear the story from Brian Brown, NOM's President, Gallagher faced the equivalent of a rabid wolf (I took the liberty of highlighting the pertinent phrases below):

Just before testifying . . . Maggie was accosted by a similarly angry gay marriage advocate who wanted to get an "ambush" interview and engage in a little fire and brimstone moral condemnation of Maggie for standing up for marriage.

Now, folks don't usually publish "ambush videos" made by the other side on their own website or newsletter, but I think Maggie did such a wonderful, graceful job of responding to this one angry dude that I want you to see it and judge for yourself.

The video Brown is speaking about is Get Equal's Michael Dixon presenting Gallagher with the "Anita Bryant" award for her part in trying to stop marriage equality.

But as Brown says, look at the video:



Vicious, just vicious. Dixon looks like he is ready to hit Gallagher with a pair of brass knuckles. And by saying that, I am being highly sarcastic.

Angry dude? I don't think so. Seems to me that the only person who got angry on that tape was Gallagher.

Granted, I'm not one for a tactic like this. However in this case, it was very useful not only unnerving Gallagher (she was forced to republish an old piece on lgbt teen suicides as a way of diverting the conversation from what Dixon asked her about), but also in showcasing the absolute phoniness of NOM's game plan.

Painting Dixon as an "angry dude" is not only a stretch, it's a blatant lie. But for NOM, it's par for the course.

Related post:

NOM wants to paint LGBT ‘crazy’ (I can prove it) - According to former NOM member Louis J. Marinelli, the attempt to paint the lgbt community as angry people is a standard NOM tactic. Marinelli says Brown specifically asks for pictures showing lgbts in a negative light.

Hat tip to Goodasyou.org

Ex-gay group, Peter Sprigg trying to cause anti-gay havoc in Maryland schools

Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council

A situation is brewing in a Maryland school district which demonstrates not only the duplicity of the so-called ex-gay movement, but also the Family Research Council.

From the webpage Teach The Facts:

 . . .  the MCPS Citizens Advisory Committee for Family Life and Human Development voted to make some minor changes to the sex-ed curriculum. These changes were actually recommended by a previous citizens advisory committee and rejected by the district in 2007, and now a new committee has asked the Superintendent again to recommend to the Board that they modify the curriculum.

Last year the Maryland chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics sent a letter to the Montgomery County Public Schools noting that some statements that had been recommended for inclusion in the curriculum were rejected, and urged the Board of Education to consider adding the material. The letter was partly a reaction to an anti-gay fake pediatric group contacting the school district. The statements are:

* Homosexuality is not a disease or a mental illness (teachers currently can only say this in response to a question)

* Sexual orientation is not a choice and the American Medical Association opposes "therapies" that seek to change sexual orienation that are premised on the assumption that people can or should change their sexual orientation

* Children raised by same-sex couples do just as well as those raised by heterosexuals, and are no more likely to be homosexual

* Children who have fleeting same-sex attractions may assume incorrectly that they are gay or lesbian. Mere fleeting attraction does not prove orientation.

* Homosexuals can live happy, successful lives; they can be successful parents

The citizens advisory committee voted 9 to 3  . . .  to add these recommendations to the curriculum, removing the words "can or" from the second item.

Naturally some folks aren't happy about this. An ex-gay group, PFOX (Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays) claims that the statements are bashing ex-gays, even though none of the statements say a word about "ex-gays."

PFOX told the American Family Association's One News Now:

. . .the initiative for the statements appears to come from David Fishback, the advocacy chair of Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). That group, says PFOX, "actively supports hate against the ex-gay community" -- and Fishback, the group adds, "has a long history of ex-gay bashing."

Of course PFOX conveniently didn't go into detail just what PFLAG has done to "support hate against ex-gays."

However on its webpage, PFOX says the following about Fishback:

Fishback is the discredited chairman of an earlier Committee which had drafted controversial lessons on homosexuality and condom use that the School Board threw out after a federal court ruling in a lawsuit brought by PFOX. The School Board’s attorneys at that time had reviewed and rejected the statements. Fishback’s illegal curriculum cost Montgomery County taxpayers over $36,000 in legal fees.

However, according to Teach The Facts, Fishback:

chaired a citizens advisory committee that developed a comprehensive sex-ed curriculum for our county. The school district in the end decided not to adopt the curriculum as part of a legal deal to prevent a lawsuit, and also reformed the committee with all new members, including its chair, in accordance with the same settlement agreement. The curriculum was not "illegal" in any sense whatsoever. PFOX and other nutty groups won a temporary restraining order against implementation of the curriculum, and the school district bargained with them to prevent a lawsuit, so they could move forward improving the curriculum.

The site also says the following about PFOX and the legal fees allegedly caused by Fishback:

. . . it is ludicrous for PFOX to say that Fishback cost the county $36,000 in legal fees, when they themselves were the suers.

But the most interesting part of the story comes with the inclusion of another party. From the same article in One News Now:

Peter Sprigg is senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council and a member of the board of directors of PFOX. He represented PFOX on the advisory committee and tells OneNewsNow he was offended by most of the statements -- especially the one condemning individuals who seek therapy for unwanted same-sex attractions.

. . . according to Sprigg, the other statements praise homosexuals as "successful parents" with children who "do just as well as those raised by heterosexuals," and that "homosexuals can live happy, successful lives."

The other statements, says the PFOX representative, "were basically presenting a rosy picture of life as a homosexual without presenting some of the counter-evidence or counter-facts about this lifestyle."

Sprigg said he plans to voice his disapproval at the next school board meeting.

Of course Sprigg didn't go into detail about said "counter evidence." Nor did he say just how he will voice his disapproval at the next school board meeting.

One has to wonder will he repeat the statements that led his organization (the Family Research Council) to be named as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Statements such as:

• Homosexuals molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals,

• Same-sex parents harm children, or

• Homosexuals don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals.

It would be interesting if he did, seeing that these statements have been refuted or debunked numerous times, including by the SPLC in this piece.

Or will Sprigg cite distorted pieces he wrote, especially one called The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality.

The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality is rife with numerous errors including:

1. Ten Myths repeats the lie that the Robert Spitzer study proves that homosexuality is changeable, excluding the fact that Spitzer has said on more than one occasion that his research was being distorted.

2. Ten Myths utilizes the work of  the organization National Association for  Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). The website Truth Wins Out calls NARTH  a discredited "ex-gay" fringe organization that peddles fraudulent "cures" for homosexuality.

3. Most importantly, Ten Myths intentionally distorts information to make it seem that negative behaviors, i.e. drug and alcohol abuse, are indicative of the lgbt orientation. The pamphlet accomplishes this by citing data in regards to the lgbt community and such negative behaviors while omitting the fact that much of the data places the blame on homophobia for these negative behaviors.

A more detailed break down of Sprigg's errors and deceptions in The Top Ten Myths of Homosexuality is in this Huffington Post article.

As one can see, religious right groups cause chaos not only on the nationwide scene, but also on local scenes.
Sometimes the lgbt community and our allies tend to miss what can happen on these local scenes and it has the potential of coming back to haunt us.

I hope the folks in Montgomery County who support the new sex-education curriculum will not let this happen.

Religious right obsessing over 'Glee' and other Thursday midday news briefs

Apparently your "friend" and mine, Porno Pete LaBarbera is still obsessing over the television show Glee and how the People for the American Way's Right-Wing Watch called out his naked paranoia over the show:

You can always count on Pete for a laugh.

And in other more important news briefs:

Tennessee Senate Committee Passes “Don’t Say Gay” Bill - A bad bill from a crappy lawmaker advances. Please kill this thing.

A statewide 'marriage' group pushing 'ex-gay' propaganda: NY edition - But I thought the "ex-gays" just wanted to be left alone.

Focus On The Family Pushes Back Against Criticism Of Their Anti-Anti-Bullying Campaign - The only thing Focus on the Family accomplished with their "Day of Dialogue" nonsense was a big push back against its nonsense. Subsequently, the organization trying to play defense. The Day of Silence, meanwhile, was again a huge success.

Rock Hill gay beating prompts SC hate crime bill - Saving the best for last. My state of SC desperately needs a bill like this.

National Organization for Marriage's questionable tactics go across six states

Maggie Gallagher, head of NOM

For an organization supposedly dedicated to the moral high position of "protecting marriage," the National Organization for Marriage seems to have a problem with doing things by the book.

The group has gotten into trouble in several states regarding skirting disclosing its finances, as well as its tactics.

Now one can add Minnesota to that last. According to the Minnesota Independent:

When the National Organization for Marriage and the Minnesota Family Council spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on ads promoting a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions last fall, the groups should have reported those expenditures, according to a complaint filed with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board earlier this month. The complaint, which focuses on ads launched throughout the 2010 campaign cycle in support of gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, asks for financial penalties as well as an audit of NOM’s spending in Minnesota.

The filing by Common Cause Minnesota alleges that the Minnesota Family Council — and in particular its lobbyist, Tom Prichard — failed to report lobbying expenses related to several ads. Since the ad urged the public and legislators to act on legislation, in this case a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, it constitutes lobbying, the group argues in the complaint. The ads in question include references to an actual bill, SF120, and were created and distributed in partnership with NOM.

There seems to be a pattern going on here:

• NOM goes to a state to fight against marriage equality.

• Their efforts are successful because of their mysterious finances.

• They leave the community in shambles with neighbors angry at neighbors over their positions.

• Lastly, questions are raised regarding NOM's questionable tactics regarding mostly finances.

According to the nomexposed.org, this pattern regarding questions raised over NOM's finances is a pattern which took place also in:

Maine:

NOM remains under investigation by the Maine Ethics Commission for failing to register with the state as a ballot question committee and refusing to disclose the donors to its campaign to overturn Maine’s marriage equality law in 2009.

NOM provided more than $1.8 million of the $3 million spent by opponents of marriage equality to pass Question 1 – but it illegally failed to disclose where the money came from. Public disclosure laws create transparency by informing voters who is behind a campaign effort. Maine’s law does this by requiring that any funds raised to support or oppose a ballot question be made public.

NOM flouted this law, first by soliciting funds from donors to overturn marriage equality in Maine, and then by refusing to disclose the contributions. As a result, NOM deliberately hid from the public almost two-thirds of the total money the Yes on 1 campaign spent to run its deceptive campaign to overturn marriage equality.

Based on an initial complaint filed by Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate, the Maine Ethics Commission launched a formal investigation into NOM’s fundraising tactics in late 2009. NOM has refused to cooperate with the state inquiry each step of the way, stonewalling requests to turn over documents to the Ethics Commission. The Commission’s executive director defended the inquiry in February 2010: “NOM donated almost $2 million in support of the referendum. The Commission needs to understand how NOM solicited the funds in order to determine whether campaign finance reporting was required.” In June 2010, the Ethics Commission unanimously denied NOM’s latest request to dismiss the state investigation into the organization’s finances.

Rhodes 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.”

. . . Shortly after NOM filed the suit, a federal judge gave the organization one week to refile – calling the lawsuit “disorganized, vague and poorly constructed.” According to the Boston Globe, the judge said the relevant allegations were “buried” in the lawsuit.

California:

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:

In 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:

In 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.”

If this sort of thing was to happen in one or two states, eyebrows would be raised. But this is six states here.

Perhaps it's time for a national investigation into NOM's finances and tactics.

Mob attack on SC student breeds more hatred, more anger

This story is ballooning into something awful. And what it worse for me is the fact that Winthrop University - the university that the student attended - is my alma mater:

The brutal attack of a gay teenager by a group of men at a Rock Hill gas station has a Winthrop University professor warning gay students to "act straight."

The warning comes after 19-year-old Joshua Esskew was beaten by a group of at least eight men at the Spot Convenience Store on 990 South Cherry Road on April 9th. Esskew believes the attack happened because he is gay.

The attack has sparked an investigation by the FBI and the York County Sheriff's Office, who are hoping to identify the men who attacked Esskew. Images of the attack, which was caught on surveillance video, have been released to the public, in hopes of identifying the men.

Esskew says when he was walking to the gas station when someone yelled a derogatory homosexual comment at him. Words were exchanged and when he turned back around, someone hit him in the head with a 40-ounce malt liquor bottle.

He was then beaten by at least eight men for nearly 15-seconds, being kicked and punched by the group.

The attack has angered many in the community, including professors and student advisors at Winthrop University.

“I’ve got to let my students know [about the attack], so when they’re out and about in Rock Hill they act straight,” said Kelly James who teaches sociology and criminology at Winthrop University.

James is also the advisor for GLoBAL, Winthrop University's Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender ally league. She says the attack has her worried about students' safety in Rock Hill and she welcomes the federal involvement in the investigation.

She feels South Carolina laws don’t go far enough in protecting those who are the victims of targeted violence like this.

“The legislators aren’t interested in it," James told WBTV's Steve Crump. "There’s been grassroots activism, but there’s been no change in the system.”

And the thing that makes it worse? The professor in the clip, Kelly James, is being attacked by others for her comments. But her comments about "acting straight" were taken out of context. (Alvin's note - for some reason, I could not embed the video featuring those comments. So go to this link to see the video of the story including James's comments)

From WBTV 3:

. . . In an email to us today, Ms. James says, “ I am receiving hate mail at work and on Facebook because of the way you presented a part of a sentence in my comments to you. I thought you understood that I meant it was ridiculous that I would have to tell my students to act straight, that I meant it ironically. “

. . . This is the whole paragraph that the soundbite was clipped from for the broadcast story:

Kelly James says, “But, my first thought was that, “I’ve got to let my students know’ so that when they are out and about in Rock hill that they, you know, act straight, And that’s a sad lesson in 2011 to be teaching young people. I mean, it’s been off the books as a mental illness since 1973.”

Steve Crump used a few soundbites from Ms. James in his broadcast story and felt that he had portrayed, in the story as a whole, her sentiments on the story correctly. However, time restraints, a daily part of newsgathering, resulted in using a portion of the comment. In the interest of being fair to Ms. James and to our readers, I have decided to not only include the full paragraph from which the bite was excerpted, but to include the entire interview so that readers can understand all of her statements.

The following is the raw interview:



Folks, whatever the case may be, this is not the time to attack each other. Certainly a lot of anger has been created because of this awful attack. But I doubt that Ms. James meant any harm by her comments. It would be easy for folks to go into an expository about what she said and how what she said harms lgbt students, wouldn't it?

Well in this case, discretion and discernment are two words we should remember. James is not the villain here, so let's give her the benefit of the doubt.

We need to be angry at those who committed this crime and not our allies.

Related post:

SC gay man attacked by mob

'Glee is demonic' . . . or why do the lgbt community waste such good material?

I'm going to do something different today. Rather than midday news briefs, I want to spotlight a couple of posts in an attempt to make a point.

I get beleagured at members of the lgbt community who say that we should ignore the ramblings of various religious right figures. That mentality of "if you ignore it, then it will go away" contradicts so many realities.

No matter how much the lgbt community ignores them, the religious right isn't going away. They have been at their lies for over 30 years. And it was because we didn't built up a suitable countermeasure to their "homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle" lie during the heydays of the 1980s and early 90s (and the heydays of discredited researcher Paul Cameron) that we find ourselves bending over backwards to beat back that line of thinking.

What some of us fail to realize, or rather will not realize, is that the lgbt community is in the middle of a war and we have to approach it as such. Granted, I am not talking about one of violent conflict, but that of charged rhetoric designed to either appeal to people's common sense or exploit their ignorance and fears.

And so far, the religious right have scored significantly in their lying rhetoric that the lgbt community is "trying to force acceptance of our supposed lifestyle while at the same time recruit children."

The truth is that these folks knowningly lie about legitimate science or produce some of the most outlandish statements which can be seen as Freudian slips or windows into their homophobic  minds.

Take for example this recent exchange between Peter LaBarbera of the anti-gay Americans for Truth and Linda Harvey of the equally anti-gay Mission America. To make a long story short, in this exchange, they accuse the lgbt community and the popular television show Glee of using "demonic manipulation" to create gay children:

Harvey: These people are masters at demonic manipulation; I mean I have to put it that way, because that is what the homosexual agenda directed to that age group does. Kids don’t know what they’re going to turn out to be, kids can be secretly wondering and doubting if they are homosexual without a parent ever knowing. Because of A) what they get in schools, and B) what they get on the Internet.

LaBarbera: And then Hollywood, I talked about at our conference about this Glee kiss which is just, as I said at the conference, it shocked my soul. This romantic Glee kiss between two teenage boys depicted on the show, popular characters, one of the most popular if not the most popular TV show that young people watch, and here they had a romantic kiss between two teenage boys, I thought, what, how many young men and boys decided right there that they’re gay?

When I read stuff like that, I say don't ignore it. Put on page one of every lgbt blog. Send it to your friends and the lgbt press.

By all means, don't ignore  Maggie Gallagher and her ridiculous fumblings at Congressional hearings. Don't forget the Family Research Council and its clumsy attempts to deflect the Southern Poverty Law Center's correct charge of it being a hate group.

But LaBarbera and Harvey represent the true homophobic face of the religious right which should be given equal focus -  that face is self-righteous, claiming to speak for God but underneath it all bearing craziness that doesn't come from knowing God but succumbing to stupidity.

The most important part of a rhetorical war is the ability to paint your enemies as irrational. So why should the lgbt community ignore it when those who oppose us gives us so much good material.

So with that in mind, I want to spotlight several posts of some of the nastiest, crudest, most outrageous things said about the lgbt community from members of the religious right:

Religious right having gay sex fantasies even during Obama's SOTU address - During President Obama's recent State of the Union address, the only thing a certain religious right spokesman could think about was a gay soldier "rubbing his back."

Peter LaBarbera - the self-destruction of an anti-gay activist - And how can any denunciation of the religious right be complete without the complete story of "Porno" Pete LaBarbera

Something Guaranteed To Piss You Off , Something guaranteed to piss you off - The sequel - In the 1980s, a man named Dick Hafer published a comic book called "Death Style" which supposedly showed actual depictions of just how nasty, raunchy, and filthy lgbts are. As you look at it now, you will either be shocked or laugh. But remember this - on the back page of that comic book are individuals who vouched for the veracity of that hot mess, including a former Congressman (who was in office at the time) and the Concerned Women for America (who as far as I know never renounced what it said at the time)

The 'Complete' Words of love? A reminder of what some people really think about the lgbt community - And one of my magnum opuses - Some of the most ridiculous, homophobic things ever said about the lgbt community featuring Jesse Helms, Donnie McClurkin, and that black minister who said that if the Klan opposed gay marriage, he would ride with them. His name doesn't deserve to be repeated.

Hat tip to People for the American Way's Right-Wing Watch

Malaysia ships 66 children to ex-gay camp

As the following ugly incident demonstrates, our struggle isn't just about white gay men. It isn't about what's going on in New York or San Francisco. It isn't simply about marriage equality or DOMA or DADT or ENDA. It isn't simply about "tolerance" (I hate that word). The lgbt struggle for equality is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural universal struggle for basic dignity:

Malaysian authorities have admitted sending 66 teenage boys thought to be gay to a camp to learn “masculine behaviour”.

An official from Terengganu state said the boys, aged between 13 and 17, were identified by teachers as having effeminate mannerisms.

This week, they are being sent on a four-day “self-development course” in the hope of dissuading them from being gay or transgender.

State education director Razali Daud told The Associated Press that the camp was designed “to guide them back to the right path in life before they reach a point of no return. Such effeminate behavior is unnatural and will affect their studies and their future.”

He added: “We can’t force the boys to change, but we want them to know what their choices are in life. Some effeminate boys end up as a transvestite or a homosexual, but we want to do our best to limit this.”

Officials said the boys were invited to the camp and were not compelled to go.

Luckily, this act has received much deserved criticism:

A Malaysian ‘gay cure’ camp for effeminate teenagers should be abolished, the country’s women’s minister says.

Shahrizat Abdul Jalil said that the decision, by the state of Terengganu, violates the Children’s Act and would damage the boys.

“The experience of being singled out on the basis of perceived characteristics is an extremely traumatising experience, particularly for adolescent teens,” she told the Malaysia Star.

. . .A spokeswoman for the The Joint Action Group for Gender Equality said the camp was disturbing.

“The act of identifying and singling out boys who behave effeminately is highly discriminatory,” she said.

Sexual rights campaigner Pang Khee Teik said the move was homophobic and work not ‘cure’ any gay or trans children.

“All the students will learn from these camps is that they are expected to behave a certain way,” he told BBC News.

“And in order to avoid further ridicule, perhaps they will learn to pretend better. In the end, we are only teaching them how to be a hypocrite.”

Maggie Gallagher shucks and jives her way through the DOMA hearing

Equality Matters has listed the top five moments from Friday's DOMA hearing. The moments are very telling in terms of how unnecessary DOMA is and the mindset of those trying to defend it.

But the best moment comes when Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) questions National Organization for Marriage head Maggie Gallagher on the idea of same-sex parenting:



At 2:29 - 2:41 , Gallagher admits that "there are some gay people who are wonderful parents." She also says that she thinks its unfortunate that people misinterpret things she says as a condemnation of "gay people" and their parenting skills."

But as Equality Matters points out:

This “interpretation” might have something to do with Gallagher having called homosexuality “an unfortunate thing” which represents “at a minimum, a sexual dysfunction.” Or perhaps it has to do with her decision to assert that gays and lesbians are “committing several different kinds of very serious sins.”

Also, Gallagher's past other comments and actions haven't been as conciliatory to the idea of same-sex parenting as she tried to make herself seem during the hearing.

In 2004, she wrote the following about same-sex marriage and parenting:

Marriage is our most basic social institution for protecting children. Same-sex marriage amounts to a vast social experiment on children. Rewriting the basic rules of marriage puts all children, not just the children in unisex unions, at risk. 

During this interview with the site Ignatius Insight in October 2005, Gallagher said the following regarding same-sex parenting:

In my opinion, judging by the standards of kinds of evidence that are used in the larger family structure debate, we know almost nothing about how the children fare. There’s been about 35 to 50 studies, but there’s not a single study based on nationally representative data that follows children from birth raised by same sex couples and can tell us how they do in adulthood.

More recently, in January of last year, she distorted a study on child abuse to make the case that children in married biological homes do better to protect children from abuse than children in same-sex households.

The distortion comes because the study in question - the one she cited - didn't even look at children in same-sex households. We know this because Gallagher even admitted at the time that same-sex households wasn't a category in the study:

All the other family structures studied (which does not include same-sex parent families probably because these are such a small part of the population), but does include solo parents, other married parents (remarried primarily), single parents living with a partner, cohabiting parents, and no parents.

I don't think any us lodging criticisms against Gallagher and NOM has misinterpreted any of her words when it comes to marriage equality or "gay parenting skills."

But in sidestepping Rep. Quigley's questions, you simply have to give Gallagher points for chutzpah.

Bear in mind that I said "chutzpah," not integrity or honesty.

By the way, that story she tells about being labeled as a bigot by a radio show host in Maine starting at 3:47. Another complete lie on her part.

FBI investigating mob attack on SC gay teen and other Tuesday midday news briefs

FBI investigating possible ‘hate crime’ attack on South Carolina gay teen - Good!


Leader of Maine’s Yes on 1 Campaign Admits to Lying - He is going to regret admitting this . . . at least if the lgbt community is smart enough to constantly remind folks of it.


Family Research Council launches FRC U; for gays, the 'R' & 'C' are superfluous - Family Research Council University? What is that? The name of a new horror movie?

Media ask court to unseal gay marriage trial tapes - Uh oh. The pro-Proposition 8 forces wanted the tapes of the trial - that they lost - sealed. Their insistence has gotten media associations - including the Associated Press - interested in what exactly are on those tapes. I say release them!

Chely Wright: 'I'm A Grand Ole Opry Outcast Now I'm Gay' - This ain't good at all!


John Boehner: Justice Department Should Pay House GOP To Uphold Defense Of Marriage Act - Proof that Boehner has lost his fricking mind.

National Organization for Marriage breeds ignorance

More times than not, you can always tell the usefulness (or lack thereof) of an organization by some of the people who chooses to support it.

That being the case, what do the following videos say about the National Organization for Marriage?








And the following tweet is from a NOM supporter who isn't happy with Louis J. Marinelli's support of marriage equality:

Granted, Maggie Gallagher and company will probably say that I am judging them unfairly based on a few clips, but one wonders just how many other supporters of NOM out there are either like this or even worse.

But even if were only this few acting out, what does it say about NOM for attracting such an "interesting element?" So much for the lie about "decent Americans standing up for marriage."

Videos from Prop 8 Trial Tracker.

A minister takes on the Black church for the crime of 'spiritual abuse'

A very good Facebook friend of mine, Gerald Palmer, sent me something he wrote regarding how the Black church treats lgbts of color. In his essay, So You Want Real Talk On Homosexuality? I Don't Believe That You Do, Minister Palmer (a heterosexual ally of the lgbt community) brings up at least six points for the Black church to ponder:

It becomes harder and harder to defend the Black Church when it comes to her mistreatment of her gay brothers, lesbian sisters and transgender brothers and sisters.

We act like starving coyotes as we attack no other issue the way in which we attack homosexuality.

We attack no other group of people the way in which we attack the LGBT community.

We have the nerve to cry about social justice, discrimination and prejudice when we have our own group of second class citizens in our churches and communities.

We use the gifts of our gay brothers and lesbian sisters and then throw them away like spiritual trash.

Our ministers beat down our gay brothers with their words; but behind close doors many are beating down their doors to have sex with them. Oh yes, you stand on your feet while the prophet is speaking with disgust on them sissies and homos; but you don't realize he is actually talking about himself with so much anger and disgust.

Real talk on homosexuality? You want it? Here it is.

1. Nobody chooses to be gay or straight. We don't choose our sexual orientation, our sexual orientation chooses us.

2. Your disgust of our LGBT brothers and sisters has nothing to do with God but more to do with man.

3. The scriptures do not support your stance against homosexuality.

4. Your negative views on homosexuality have been shaped by racism and negative views of black sexuality.

5. God has no problems with homosexuals; you do.

6. The problems that many gay people face have more to do with their mistreatment by the church than it does with them simply being gay.

Minister Palmer says that points 7 - 10 are coming soon. I personally can't wait.

Palmer is also the author of The Church Has AIDS: Essays on Sexuality, Sexual Orientation, Taboos, and the Black Church. The book:

explores the social issues and stigmas that fuel the HIV/AIDS pandemic in the African American community. Minister Palmer looks at religious based heterosexism and religiosity and it's impact over such issues as sexuality and sexual orientation in an upfront and in your face manner.

I say the Black church and the Black community in general needs more ministers like Palmer.

Gay marriage = Satan? and other Monday midday news briefs

Jackson: Gay Marriage Part of a "Satanic Plot" to Destroy the Family - The religious right needs to get a new conduit into the black community. This one seems to be broken.

Speaking of which, the radio show which Jackson made that "interesting announcement" isn't exactly known for it's candor when inviting certain guests on. Witness the following post from a while back - Bradlee Dean and Paul Cameron - when disgustingly vile homophobes meet

NOM's Brian Brown Threatening Former Staffer Louis Marinelli for Speaking Out Against Organization - Now just what would NOM be scared of?

TWO Calls On Uganda To Investigate Anti-Gay Activist Martin Ssempa On Possible Charges of Extortion, Perjury, and Fraud - Apparently the "poo poo pastor" Martin Ssempa allegedly paid a gay man to say he is "ex-gay" and also make up a story about gays recruiting children. Interesting in that it's the second charge of conspiracy against Ssempa. Last year, he and a bunch of other pastors were charged with trying to falsely "label" another pastor as gay. These developments are important because Ssempa is one of the main voices pushing for that awful "kill the gays" bill in Uganda.

'Defend Marriage' hearing doesn't go well for 'marriage defenders'

According to the Washington Blade, Friday's Congressional hearing on "defending marriage" got very contentious because Democratic lawmakers not only posed tough questions to witnesses, but also because they questioned the credibility of the hearing itself:

In testimony before the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, (Maggie) Gallagher, NOM’s chair and co-founder, said marriage should restricted to one man and one woman because such unions are the only kind that can produce children and because state voters by referenda have affirmed 31 times that marriage shouldn’t be extended to gay couples.

“Marriage is the union of husband and wife for a reason: these are the only unions that create new life and connect those children in love to their mother and father,” Gallagher said. “This is not necessarily the reason why individuals marry; this is the great reason, the public reason why government gets involved in the first place.”

. . . Following her opening statement, Gallagher bore the brunt of tough questioning from Democratic lawmakers during the question-and-answer session of the hearing.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, asked Gallagher if the children of Jen and Dawn BarbouRouske, a married same-sex couple from Iowa who were present during the hearing, should have parents who can receive the full protections of marriage or if she considers these children “expendable.”

“I think no children are expendable,” Gallagher replied. “Gay people have families that are not marital families, but they are families. I myself was an unwed mother, so I have firsthand experience with being in a family that’s not a marital family. I don’t think you need to have a message of stigmatization and exclusion to protect to an ideal.”

Nadler, sponsor of DOMA repeal legislation in the House, interrupted Gallagher, saying “the whole point” of DOMA is stigmatization and exclusion, and pressed Gallagher further on why the institution of marriage benefits when same-sex couples are excluded.

Lawmakers even challenged Gallagher regarding NOM's finances:

Nadler continued to question Gallagher on NOM’s involvement in 2010 Iowa campaign that successfully ousted three justices from the state Supreme Court who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. The lawmaker asked Gallagher, who estimated that NOM contributed between $600,000 and $650,000 to the campaign, why she would criticize the Justice Department for allegedly making a political decision while her organization politicized the judicial process.

“The National Organization of Marriage is political advocacy organization, and so I think it’s appropriate for us to be politically involved in ways that Department of Justice is not,” Gallagher replied.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), a co-sponsor of the DOMA repeal bill, asked Gallagher whether reports were true that her organization contributed $1.9 million to the 2009 campaign in Maine to abrogate the states’s same-sex marriage law. Opponents of same-sex marriage succeeded in nullifying the marriage law in the state before gay couples could marry there.

“I don’t have those figures in front of me, but we were involved in the [effort],” Gallagher said. “But that’s probably on the order [of our contributions].”

One thing about the hearing not widely known was the fact that there were no witnesses called to defend the Obama Administration's decision to no longer defend DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act).

And some members of the committee questioned the judgment behind that:

What bothers me about this hearing at this subcommittee is that the Department of Justice is not present,” Conyers said. “I was informed that they were not invited. … We have one of the leaders of the country, Ms. Gallagher, who’s raised hundreds of thousands of dollars against judges … but there’s nobody here from the Justice Department.”

In response, Franks said the Justice Department would be invited to come during an upcoming hearing in May before the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee on the DOMA decision. Upon further questioning, Franks maintained the panel was fair because its makeup included witnesses on both sides of the issue.

But Franks’ response apparently didn’t allay the concerns of Conyers, who said he hopes Congress can hear the Justice Department to respond to the criticisms of Gallagher.

More at the Blade

Related post:

Is the Family Research Council finally a 'damaged' brand?