NOM trying to sidestep Minnesota disclosure laws

We can now add Minnesota to the list of states where the National Organization for Marriage is trying to fight disclosure laws in order to keep its funders secret.

According to the Minnesota Independent:

The groups behind a ballot measure that would put a ban on same-sex marriage in the Minnesota Constitution urged the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board on Tuesday to retain a rule that would allow corporations to make unlimited contributions in support of the ballot measure. The Minnesota Family Council (MFC) testified that it shouldn’t have to disclose any of its donors in the campaign to pass the amendment, while Minnesota for Marriage, of which MFC and the National Organization for Marriage are a part, brought in attorneys from the Citizens United Supreme Court case to argue that political spending by corporations on the amendment push should be shielded from disclosure laws.

. . . Tom Prichard, president of the Minnesota Family Council, argued that there should be no disclosure at all because donors to his campaign might be physically attacked by people who oppose the anti–gay rights amendment.

“To require groups, non profits like the Minnesota Family Council, to disclose their donors and make their donors names public would have a significant chilling effect on free speech. Even in Minnesota already it’s gotten heated in some respects,” he said. “The concern is harassment, property damage, a chilling effect. If I know I have to disclose my name, I’m not going to get involved with the Minnesota Family Council.”

. . .But the majority of the testifiers supported the board in changing its opinion on corporate disclosure.

Mike Dean of Common Cause Minnesota said, “Minnesota has a long history of supporting disclosure.”

. . .Matt Butler of the Minnesota Public Interest Research Group testified that his group supports full disclosure of corporate ballot measure expenditures.

Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, said, “Public disclosure is essential in a democracy,” and testified about some of the legislative initiatives that support disclosure for corporations.

The article went on to say that the board will take up the issue on June 30. This idea that NOM's donors should be made secret is bogus. And it's a part of a disturbing pattern:

• 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, NOM has fought to keep its donors secret in several places, including:


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.”

Why does NOM put up such a nasty fight in keeping this information from being disclosed? If NOM professes to be an organization devoted to truth and morality, then there simply can be no secrecy because secrecy gives an impression of wrongdoing.

I'm just saying . . .

Related post:

Is the Catholic Church overstepping its bounds in marriage equality fight?

NOM's no good, stinky bad day

I am presently in a hotel room in Minnesota gearing up, putting on the armor and making battle plans. God I love this stuff.

While I was on a plane to Minnesota, the National Organization for Marriage - and those opposing marriage equality - was getting a small degree of kismet for all of their nasty ramblings and such over the years.

First, to the surprise of no one, federal judge James Ware said no to the motion from Prop 8 supporters that the judgement against them by former judge Vaughn Walker should be overturned on the grounds that he is gay and in a long-term relationship:

In his 19-page decision – a response to the first attempt in the nation to disqualify a judge based on sexual orientation – Ware had a bigger message. Gay judges, he said, are just like minority and female jurists: They can be impartial, too, even in cases that might affect them.

"We all have an equal stake in a case that challenges the constitutionality of a restriction on a fundamental right," he wrote. "The single characteristic that Judge Walker shares with the plaintiffs, albeit one that might not have been shared with the majority of Californians, gave him no greater interest in a proper decision on the merits than would exist for any other judge or citizen."

. . ."The presumption that Judge Walker, by virtue of being in a same-sex relationship, had a desire to be married that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision, is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief," he wrote.

Of course folks are going to try to appeal it so I say go ahead, waste your money.

This ruling is like winning an Oscar after months of knowing that you are the front runner. You know you are going to win, but it's still nice as hell to stop on that stage and receive the award.

The second item pertains to New York. It would seem that all of NOM's hyperbole, lies, and playing groups against one another may backfire (finally) in the organization's face because at press time, the New York Senate is one vote away from allowing same-sex marriage in the state:

New York is within a single vote of legalizing gay marriage after a second Republican state senator said on Tuesday that he would support the measure should it come to the floor this week.

The senator, Roy J. McDonald, from the capital region, made his comments to reporters amid growing indications that Republican leaders would bring the bill to an up-or-down vote on Thursday or Friday.

Three other Republican state senators, speaking on condition of anonymity because their conference had not yet formally debated the measure, said they believed the bill was almost certain to come up for a vote and that it would likely pass, making New York the sixth, and largest, state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage.

The vote tally in the State Senate now stands at 31 of 62 members, with one more vote needed to approve the law. The Assembly has passed the measure several times before and is likely to do so again this week if the Senate moves ahead.

Let us all pray and keep our fingers crossed that this turns out excellent for the lgbt community. I think this could very well happen.

NOM's pathetic smear campaign against Judge Vaughn Walker

Editor's note - Today will be extremely touch and go while I travel to Netroots Nation. I was the recipient of a scholarship to attend the event and will be traveling by plane today to Minneapolis. Subsequently, I probably won't be posting as much today. However, when I get there, expect more postings than usual from me.

It's no clue where NOM stands on the attempt by Prop 8 supporters to vacate the ruling against the law by former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker on the grounds that he is is gay and in a relationship:

CitizenLink: Why Judge Walker Should Have Stepped Down

Justice Alito Recuses, Judge Walker Excuses

Second Legal Ethics Expert: Judge Walker Ought To Have Disclosed His Partnership with a Man

Ed Whelan on Prop 8 Opponents’ Anti-Black Bigotry Against Judge Deciding Motion to Vacate Walker’s Ruling

Apparently NOM is throwing everything at this case but the kitchen sink. However, it doesn't look good for them or the folks who want the judge to vacate the ruling:

At the end of Monday's 3-hour long oral arguments, District Court Judge James Ware said he hoped to have a written ruling on the motion to have Judge Vaughn Walker's Prop 8 ruling vacated "within 24 hours".

The bottom line issue: Did Judge Walker have a duty to recuse himself from the Prop. 8 trial or at the very least disclose he was in a same sex relationship. Prop. 8 lawyers say that left him "in the same shoes" as the two same sex couples before him, with a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case.

Both sides more or less stuck to their pre-trial briefing. Judge Ware homed in on whether the standard for recusal is subjective or objective -- and how a personal interest differed from a financial interest.

There was some fun back and forth with Judge Ware and Prop. 8 attorney Charles Cooper about relationships. Cooper asserted that people in a 10-year relationship like Walker's would "ordinarily have an interest in marriage." Ware: "Isn't that an assumption -- not all long term relationships lead to marriage." Cooper said only long term platonic relationships are not assumed to head toward marriage.

Ware asked repeatedly: "Do you have evidence Judge Ware was interested in marriage? Or are you saying the fact that he didn't disclose it is evidence that he wanted to get married." Then, "how does failure to disclose his relationship indicate he wanted to get married?"

Ware noted that Cooper never answered the question, which could well come back to haunt him.

Ware, who is African American, asked if a reasonable person thought a Black judge couldn't be impartial on a civil rights case was that sufficient for a judge to recuse? Cooper said it was not.

Then Ware asked: Is there anything about being in a same sex relationship that would cause a reasonable person to conclude that a judge could not be unbiased.

Ware also asked if a female judge who had been raped should have to disclose that in a trial about sexual assault.

The line of questioning strongly suggests Judge Ware will reject the Motion  to vacate Judge Walker's decision.

Here is the thing to remember, however - NOM is doing a lot of talking NOW, but why didn't the organization testify DURING the Prop 8 trial?

Probably because no intelligent judge would buy that "gays want to steal the innocence of children" trash that they funnel to voters.

Related post: 
  
Marriage Equality - Simple answers to NOM's complicated lies

How should we handle Tracey Morgan's mea culpa?

For whatever reason, Tracey Morgan is extending a huge mea culpa as a result of that ugly comedy routine he did last week:

GLAAD today spoke with Tracy Morgan following anti-gay remarks made during a recent performance in Nashville, Tenn. He also spoke out in support of LGBT people, marriage equality and against anti-LGBT bullying on Global Grind.com.

During a call with GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios and members of GLAAD's staff today, Morgan committed to meet this week in New York City with LGBT youth from the Ali Forney Center who have been hurt or left homeless by parental rejection as well as family members who have lost children to anti-gay violence. Those he will meet include Elke Kennedy, the founder of Sean's Last Wish. Elke's son Sean was killed by anti-gay violence in 2007 at the age of 20 in South Carolina, when another man called him a f*ggot and punched him so hard it broke his facial bones and separated his brain from his brain stem. Since that day, Elke has traveled more than 140,000 miles to speak in states across the country about hate violence and bullying.

Morgan also committed to participate in GLAAD's upcoming 'Amplify Your Voice' PSA campaign to combat anti-LGBT bullying.

Together with GLAAD and the Tennessee Equality Project, Morgan has said he will return to Tennessee next week where he will apologize to audience members who were offended by his remarks. Currently, legislation in Tennessee is pending that would ban educators from speaking about gay people in the classroom.

Morgan stated to GLAAD: "I know how bad bullying can hurt. I was bullied when I was a kid. I'm sorry for what I said. I didn't mean it. I never want to use my comedy to hurt anyone. My family knew what it was like to feel different. My brother was disabled, and I lost my father to AIDS in 1987. My dad wasn't gay but I also learned about homophobia then because of how people treated people who were sick with that. Parents should support and love their kids no matter what. Gay people deserve the same right to be happy in this country as everyone else. Our laws should support that. I hope that my fans gay, straight, whatever forgive, and I hope my family forgives me for this."

"Meeting with gay and transgender youth shunned by their parents and families who have lost loved ones to anti-gay violence is an important first step. These meetings will help Tracy better understand that no one should be treated differently or subjected to violence," said GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios.

I happen to know Elke Kennedy personally and she is an excellent advocate for lgbt youth. The big question how should the lgbt community handle this situation. I know there are some of us who won't accept Morgan's apology no matter how many times he apologizes or how heart felt his sentiments are.

But I am not one of them. There has been too much nastiness and hate as it is. Morgan's comments were ugly. Anger was felt because feelings were hurt. To many of us, his words brought back ugly flashbacks of being called names, being threatened (even by family members), and even thrown out of our homes by those we thought loved us.

However, this is the time that we show that no matter what was done to us, we have retained our basic humanity and our capacity for forgiveness.

So I think there should be less "screw you and your apology" comments to Morgan and more of ways in which we can come together to gain better understanding for not only ourselves but our children.

Maggie Gallagher speaks of same-sex households with a forked tongue

According to Jeremy Hooper, this is what National Organization for Marriage chairperson said to the Christian Post:

Gallagher comments, “Sex, babies and marriage are not just intensely personal matters – they are civilizational ones, too.” When you add children to the mix, the stakes are even higher.

“Children are our future,” says Gallagher. “When a civilization becomes sexually disorganized, it cannot seem to channel the erotic energy of the young into making stable, loving marriages in which to raise children.

“The result is a large increase in social problems, an increasingly large government that steps in to try to solve these problems, more suffering for children, and lower levels of happiness for adults, especially for women. If the trends continue long enough, it calls into question the capacity of the society or civilization to transmit itself into the future.”

But how does that gel with what she told a Congressional committee in April:



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."”

Gee Maggie, maybe folks "interpret" you as having animus gay parenting because you go off on nonsensical tangents about "sexually disorganized cultures."

And in other news:

GOP swings both ways on gay-marriage bill - If this article is true, NOM has a lot to be fearful of.


Today's Prop 8 hearing on relevance of Judge Walker's orientation & trial video release - Some people got too much time on their hands. A gay man can't be a judge? Ridiculous.

Family Research Council sneaking misleading studies back onto its webpage

Back in late 2008, I noticed the following studies missing from the Family Research Council's webpage: Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse,
The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality, and Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk 

I emailed the organization and received the following response in early 2009:

Thank you for contacting Family Research Council.

The papers that you inquired about have been removed from our website indefinitely due to the fact that they have outdated sources. However, we have other resources on our website that contain similar information, such as the
following:

Getting It Straight
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BK04A01

What's wrong with letting same-sex couples legally "marry?"
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01

Why Marriage Should Be Privileged in Public Policy
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS03D1

Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex 'Marriage'
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01

Alvin, we appreciate your interest in these important issues. Please let us know if you have any further questions or concerns.

Sincerely,
Kathy Athearn
FRC Correspondence

At the time, I was disturbed by the fact Ms. Athearn did not indicate which sources were outdated because the resources she gave me contained, not similar information as the removed studies, but the same information.

That is a moot point now because the studies in question have returned to the FRC webpage, albeit secretly.

Another opinion of Tracey Morgan's 'comedy' - from the grave

Tracey Morgan in 2011 about the possibility of his son being gay:

. . .he "better talk to me like a man and not in a gay voice or I'll pull out a knife and stab that little (expletive) to death."

January 28, 2005:

Three year old Ronnie Antonio Paris died of injuries after being beaten by his father, Ronnie Paris, Jr. Ronnie's father, Ronnie Paris, Jr., was convicted of second degree murder. News reports give us the impression Ronnie Antonio Paris' father was trying to make Ronnie Antonio tough and to teach him to fight, because he did not want Ronnie Antonio to grow up to be gay.

The brain trauma Ronnie Antonio received when he was being taught to fight appears to have been too much for his body. News articles indicate he stopped eating, wet himself and went into a coma. He died six days later.

Some shit just ain't funny.

Tracey Morgan, his defenders, and heterosexual privilege

Just when I think I was out - that I said I would no longer talk about the black vs. lgbt divide - they pull me back in.

The controversy in regards to comedian Tracey Morgan's nasty and ill-timed "comedic" routine - in which he used shockingly ugly homophobic terms to talk about lgbts and even talked about murdering his son if the boy turned out to be gay - has caused a lot of suitable controversy.

And now it has gotten worse. CNN journalist Roland Martin and comedian Chris Rock have chosen to defend Martin - both asserting the idea that Morgan is a comedian who thrives on being shocking so maybe there is too much made out of what he said.

Of course both of these individuals did not give Michael Richards the same courtesy for his infamous nasty tirade against African-Americans during his comedy routine. Martin gave a weak defense that Richards was out of line because he attacked members of the audience, whereas Morgan's vile comments came as a part of his comedy routine.

To me, that says Morgan's comments are worse than Richards because it means that they were planned, thus premeditated.

NOM doesn't want to talk about Minnesota money sources

A publication in Minnesota, the Southwest Minneapolis Patch, is investigating the money resources behind the 2012 vote to ban same-sex marriage in Minnesota.

The publication's article produced some very interesting details, particularly about the National Organization for Marriage's past actions to hide its funding sources:

A campaign finance watchdog group warns that the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which is allied to a state anti-gay marriage group, has worked to hide who funded their campaigns in the past.

The Minnesota Family Council (MFC), the state's leading anti-gay marriage group, estimated the cost of their campaign as between $4 and $6 million. If past campaigns in other states are any indicator, a large proportion of that funding will come from out-of-state funders through the National Organization for Marriage. MFC did not return requests for comment.

"NOM looks forward to supporting the campaign and lending our expertise and resources to those of allies in the state," said a press release from the group's president, Brian Brown, issued following last month's vote to put the issue in front of voters in the Minnesota House of Representatives.

NOM did not respond to repeated requests for comment about the organization's plans to raise money. While NOM has litigated in the past to avoid disclosing its donors, evidence occasionally emerges that large portions of its budget seem to come from church-affiliated organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus.

If Minnesota's 2012 campaign will be anything like Maine's 2009 battle over same-sex marriage, much of the money involved could come from out of state, particularly for groups opposing same-sex marriage.

Reports filed with Maine's campaign finance watchdog show that the Maine group leading efforts against same-sex marriage received the lion's share of its donations from large organizations outside of Maine, chiefly from the National Organization for Marriage and the Catholic Archdiocese of Portland.

To quote the words of Mike Dean of Common Cause Minnesota from the article:

"It's going to be a dirty, dirty campaign."

But if so, it will be par for the course for NOM. The organization's pattern is as follows:

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

• Their efforts are successful because of their mysterious finances and the ability to pass along distorted information thanks to 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.

Let's hope that Minnesota breaks the link in that chain.

Related posts:

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

Time for NOM to work it's 'gays recruit children' lies in Minnesota

Is the Catholic Church overstepping its bounds in marriage equality fight?

Know Your LGBT History - Charles Pierce

During eras where there were few positive lgbt portrayals on television and the movies, a female impersonator managed to not only stand out with performances that were not disrespectful to the community, but he also kept his integrity.

That man was one of my idols, Charles Pierce.

From Wikipedia:

Born in Watertown, New York, he began his show business career playing the organ and acting in radio dramas at station WWNY. He branched out into a comedy routine, attired in tuxedo, yet managing to evoke eerily convincing imitations of popular movie actresses. Eschewing the term drag queen, which he hated, he billed himself as a male actress.

Initially playing in small gay clubs, his fame spread. He took up residence in San Francisco, California, where his act became well-known to Hollywood stars. As he toured, his costuming became more elaborate, initially adding small props, later full costume and makeup changes. His imitations were imitated by other female impersonators, and his roles included Bette Davis, Mae West, Tallulah Bankhead, Gloria Swanson, Carol Channing, Katharine Hepburn, and Joan Crawford, which became the drag queen canon. His act was centered on wit rather than accurate mimicry, though it was often said that he looked more like Joan Collins than did Joan Collins herself.

He performed at many clubs in New York, including The Village Gate, Ted Hook's OnStage, The Ballroom, and Freddy's Supper Club.

He was a guest actor on an episode of TV's Wonder Woman and played a cross-dressing villain in an episode of Laverne & Shirley ("Murder on the MooseJaw Express"). Pierce also appeared on an early episode of the hit 80's TV sitcom Designing Women as a steward on a cruise ship. During the episode, he imitates Joan Collins (as the ship's waitress) and Bette Davis (as the ship's lounge entertainment). As Davis he quips: "Was that Joan Collins hustling the tables? One bitch on this boat is enough!"

He died in North Hollywood, California, aged 72, and was cremated. At his funeral, Carol Channing spoke and said, "He did Carol Channing better than I did."[1] His ashes were interred in the Columbarium of Providence, Forest Lawn - Hollywood Hills Cemetery in Los Angeles, California.

Here is Pierce during one of his shows:




And here is Pierce on the television show Wonder Woman:



And Laverne & Shirley (beginning at 1:00):




Past Know Your LGBT History Posts:

Are gays too angry? Ask Tracey Morgan, NOM, and the Catholic Church

You will forgive for dispensing with the usual news briefs today, but this has been on my mind:

You probably heard about the Tracey Morgan controversy. If not, let TMZ elucidate you on the situation:

According to reports, Morgan took the stage at the Ryman Auditorium (pictured above) and went off about gays -- saying, "Gays need to quit being p**sies and not be whining about something as insignificant as bullying."

He added, "Gay is something that kids learn from the media and programming."

When talking about the possibility of his son being gay -- Tracy said he "better talk to me like a man and not in a gay voice or I'll pull out a knife and stab that little n**ger to death."

Afterward, Tracy told the crowd, "I don't "f*cking care if I piss off some gays, because if they can take a f*cking d**k up their ass ... they can take a f*cking joke."

After the performance, the Ryman Auditorium issued a statement on the performance saying, "The Ryman Auditorium regrets that people were offended by statements made by Tracy Morgan during his June 3 appearance."

The statement continues, "The Ryman does not control the content presented by people appearing on its stage, nor does it endorse any of the views of, or statements made by, such persons."

It's not the first time Morgan has ignited controversy over homphobic material -- back in 2009, a bunch of people reportedly walked out of his show at Carnegie Hall after he said being gay was a "choice."

So far, no comment from Morgan's camp.

TMZ later added the following:

TMZ spoke with someone in attendance at the Ryman Auditorium ... who tells us Morgan's entire act was filled with offensive gay jokes ... explaining, "It was the worst thing I've ever heard ... so not funny."

As we previously reported, Morgan's June 3rd performance ignited a firestorm of controversy -- after he "joked" that he would "stab" his son for acting gay.

It's ironic that the Morgan controversy comes in the week where we have heard about an upcoming article in which a group of religious right figures are complaining that the lgbt community are somewhat "mean and intolerant."

NOM encouraging supporters to write 'artificial' letters to the editor

If you want a good indication of the artificial and hypocritical tactics of the National Organization for Marriage against marriage equality, check out the following:

The New York Legislature is expected to vote on a same-sex marriage bill in the near future as this year's legislative session comes to a close. Same-sex marriage advocates are pulling out all the stops in an effort to sway the votes needed to pass the bill through the Senate.

Take a public stand for marriage and urge others to join you by submitting a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. Simply use the form below and your letter will be sent to each of the newspapers in your city, as well as the larger, statewide papers.

Some ideas for topics to address in your letter include:

Gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose, but they don't get to redefine marriage for all of us.

The American people have spoken clearly and repeatedly about the definition of marriage -- and 31 times in a row, they have voted against same-sex marriage.

Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society, and we can't possibly anticipate all the unintended consequences that will follow if we change its definition. Therefore, any change should come slowly and with great caution.

Ours is a government of, by and for the people. Any decision on a question as important as the definition of marriage should be left to the people of New York -- not decided by a handful of elites and highly paid lobbyists twisting arms behind the scenes.

Groups like Catholic Charities and other religious organizations have already been denied tax exemptions and forced to give up their adoption services in states where same-sex marriage has been legalized. Such conflicts are only the tip of the iceberg.

Gay marriage advocates have repeatedly rejected any attempts to protect religious entities and employers from being forced to participate in a same-sex marriage regime. Why are they so adamant that religious believers must be forced to give up their religious liberty?

In other words, those opposing marriage equality don't even have to take the time to write personal letters in terms of how such legislation affects them. All they have to do write a letter (with the phony talking points laid out for them), and submit it to NOM who will relay that letter to newspapers.

Ideally, it's not a bad idea. Morally it strikes me as fake. It seems to me that the entire point of submitting a letter to the editor is to give your own personal opinion about a certain issue. Lgbts - particularly those involved in relationships and those couples with children - have given personal story after personal story about what it feels like when their relationships aren't protected or how they feel victimized by these campaigns to make them into second-class citizens.

But NOM encourages the disregarding of these personal stories. And at the same time, the organization is encouraging its supporters to use the editorial pages to make it seem that people are standing up for so-called traditional marriage by not talking about their personal lives, but using talking points (inaccurate talking points at that) dictated to them.

This underscores just how phony NOM's campaign is. It should also send a message to the proponents of marriage equality to keep fighting the good fight no matter how angry or discouraged they get.

Realness always wins out over artificiality.

Related posts:

NOM - anti-gay marriage amendments keep lgbt teens safe

Is the Catholic Church overstepping its bounds in marriage equality fight?

NOM - anti-gay marriage amendments keep lgbt teens safe

Oh Brian Brown, you make it so easy.

Sometimes I enjoy reading the posts from the National Organization for Marriage's president Brian Brown. My fellow lgbts and our allies tend to get angry at his basic lies (i.e portraying the entire lgbt community and those who support marriage equality as bullies while conveniently ignoring the how his group stoops to demonizing lgbts) and the "ha, ha, ha, we are protecting marriage and the gays are losing" tone his posts tend to take.

I choose not to fall for the subterfuge and mind games because that's all it is. Brown says what he says because he needs an excuse to raise funds (or rather pretend to raise funds. We all have an idea where NOM's money really comes from).

I would rather focus on the cluelessness of his words. They do more than enough to betray the absolute emptiness of Brown's position and those who believe as he does.

Last week he made a complete ass of himself and NOM by pushing a lie that students in schools were forced to learn about gender identity in schools without their parents' permission even though a video NOM put on its blog and a news story the organization linked to showed otherwise.

The question this week is can Brown top his nonsense from last week? Why of course he can:

The CDC released a report showing that teenagers who self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender engage in much, much higher rates of behavior suggesting social, emotional, or psychological distress, including smoking cigarettes, binge drinking, and attempting suicide.

The media and many experts were quick to say social stigma is the main culprit. Surely it plays a role.

But buried in the same report are data from two different states, Wisconsin and Massachusetts. One has had gay marriage since 2003, and the other has had a marriage amendment since 2006.

Which do you suppose is a safer place for LGBT teens?

The answer: Wisconsin by a mile. For example, about 25 percent of Massachusetts teens who self-identify as "gay" said they had missed schools because they felt unsafe, compared to 14 percent of Wisconsin teens. More than half (50.5 percent) of Massachusetts gay teens said they felt "sad or hopeless" compared to 29 percent of Wisconsin teens. Thirty-three percent of Massachusetts gay teens attempted suicide, compared to less than 20 percent of Wisconsin teens. Massachusetts gay teens were about twice as likely as Wisconsin gay teens to commit a suicide attempt serious enough to require medical care (15 percent to 8 percent). (By contrast, heterosexual teens in both states were about equally likely to have committed a suicide attempt that required medical care: around 2 percent.)

It's hard to be a gay teen, but if you are going to be one, it's much better to live in Wisconsin, a state which passed a marriage amendment by 60 percent, than Massachusetts, a state which has gay marriage.

First of all, I want to give Brown a little credit. Usually when religious right figures cite studies regarding homophobia and how it contributes to negative behavior amongst lgbts - particularly lgbt teens - they blame the negative behavior on the lgbt orientation, making sure to omit the part about how the homophobia plays a significant role (I'm talking to you, Family Research Council.)

Is the Catholic Church overstepping its bounds in marriage equality fight ?

The more the National Organization for Marriage fight against marriage equality statewide, the more it becomes clear just how deep the Catholic Church seems to be involved in the organization's efforts.

And now with the campaigns in New York and Minnesota, possibility is becoming a bit more disturbing. Today, Archbishop John C. Nienstedt, Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, wrote a piece called Marriage amendment deserves our support. Nienstedt is speaking about the amendment which will be voted on by Minnesotans in 2012:

Theologically, the definition of marriage predates any government or religious denomination. As we read in the Bible, it reflects God’s plan for man and woman to share in his creative power of bringing new life into the world (Genesis 1:27-28). This is ratified by Jesus himself in Matthew 19:8-9. It is a truth that is also evident in light of the natural moral law, which grounds our understanding of the dignity that belongs to each human person.

In addition, the very biological, not to mention spiritual, complementarity of the two sexes defines the reproductive nature of their relationship which, in turn, enhances the well-being and joy of that union. The enfleshed oneness of a man and a woman is indeed a communion of life and love.

Ironically, Nienstedt chose to end his piece by publishing, word-for-word a piece from Archbishop of New York Timothy Dolan called Marriage: the core of every civilization. New York is also facing a fight over marriage equality.

Nienstedt really shouldn't have bothered because Dolan's piece says pretty much the same thing as his:

“We are not anti anybody; we are pro-marriage. The definition of marriage is a given: it is a lifelong union of love and fidelity leading, please God, to children, between one man and one woman.”

“History, Natural Law, the Bible (if you’re so inclined), the religions of the world, human experience, and just plain gumption tell us this is so. The definition of marriage is hardwired into our human reason.”

I can't help wondering if the two archbishops wrote these pieces themselves or did they lend their name to press releases written by someone else?

Am I being paranoid? Maybe or maybe not. NOM is already rumored to be a bit more linked to the Catholic Church than a non-profit group should be. From the webpage NOM Exposed:

NOM is comparatively unguarded about its ties to the Catholic Church, acknowledging that its early funds in California came from “well-off Catholic individuals,” and NOM openly aligned with the Catholic Archdiocese in Maine. The largest known donation to NOM is $1.4 million from the Catholic fraternal organization the Knights of Columbus in 2009; that comes on top of the Knights’ $500,000 donation in 2008.

All three of NOM’s top leaders – Brian Brown, current president, Maggie Gallagher, founding president, and Robert George, board chairman emeritus – are Catholics. Additionally, NOM founding board member Luis Tellez, is a numerary of Opus Dei, a highly secretive Catholic organization. He lives in a house on the Princeton University campus that the Daily Princetonian has described as the hub of Opus Dei activities in the area.

NOM and the Catholic Church teamed up to fund almost the entire Maine campaign against same-sex marriage in 2009. According to the Bangor Daily News, “…$1.1 million of the $1.4 million raised by Stand for Marriage Maine in October 2009 came from a single source: the National Organization for Marriage. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland has poured more than $550,000 into the campaign to repeal the law, including more than $150,000 from its general treasury since October 1, 2009. The Portland diocese also collected more than $200,000 for Stand for Marriage Maine from bishops and dioceses outside of Maine.”

According to Jeremy Hooper of GoodAsYou.org, Gallagher appeared at “a ‘private meeting for Catholic clery’…at the request of Maine’s Bishop Malone” in Maine in September 2009 at the height of the Question 1 campaign.

At least a half-dozen Roman Catholic bishops met with NOM board chairman emeritus Robert George to discuss his 4700-word manifesto called the “Manhattan Declaration” that warned of civil disobedience if same-sex marriage or stem cell research were approved by the New York legislature. According to Church & State, the Declaration “also represents perhaps the most far-reaching effort to date to juice up the Religious Right by adding the political power and media respectability of the Catholic and Orthodox hierarchies.”

I'm certainly not trying to offend anyone who is Catholic but the subject of marriage equality isn't necessarily a religious issue. It's a state issue. The Catholic Church is not forced to marry same-sex couples.

Now as for the adoption mess (i.e. the Catholic Charities in Illinois which are suing for the right to use taxpayer money to discriminate against same-sex couples), I stand by the belief that the Catholic Charities shouldn't take state money if they aren't willing to follow state rules. There is nothing with the Catholic Charities pursuing private adoptions.

But the fact of the matter is this - I feel very uncomfortable when I think of the possibility of how deep the Catholic Church is putting itself into this state issue. I think people should vote as their faith dictates. But I have a serious problem with a church official using his office or name to marshal  large groups of people to vote in a particular way. And my problems become even more deep when I realize that the church where that official belongs is tax-exempt.

And the Catholic Church is rumored to be involved in efforts to hinder marriage equality via NOM in ways that may not ethical or legal. Perhaps this is why NOM has fought so hard against statewide disclosure laws.

An entity flexing its power over how large groups of people should vote while being exempt from laws which cover this sort of thing is a dangerous entity in terms of manpower and money. Moreover this entity's actions is a slap in the face to an American core belief - the right to vote as your conscience dictates and not be threatened via implied threats, be they physical (you are going to be murdered) or spiritual (you are voting against God's law and will go to hell for it.)

It's definitely a license to create havoc. You may not think it's a big deal but it is. In fact, it is a nasty precedent. Today it's marriage equality. Tomorrow it could be another issue decided, not by individual choice, but by spiritual groupthink.

The Catholic Church needs to be upfront with just deeply involved it is with the political fight of marriage equality. And if it has legally or ethically overstepped its bounds, then the Catholic Church needs to make amends.

You cannot defend morality through unethical actions.

Why 'ex-gay' pride month is a bad idea and other Thursday midday news briefs

Focus On The Family Leader: Why Not Have An Ex-Gay Pride Month? - Cause no one exciting would come to the events and the parades would be boring as hell!

Rick Perry’s Prayer Event Confirmed As Anti-Gay - To the surprise of no one, of course.

Related post - Perry's prayer event will put Christianity's worst on display

NYC: Another anti-gay rally, another civil marriage/personal faith obfuscation - Great. ANOTHER homosexuality is the tool of Satan reference. So much for the civil conversation, NOM.

Portland City Council Unanimously Approves Transgender-Inclusive Health Benefits - Good for Portland!

Rick Santorum demonstrates hypocrisy of 'intolerant homosexuals' lie

An upcoming article from the Associated Press will feature a host of religious right leaders whining their familiar refrain that they are in fact the victims of so-called lgbt aggression.

It's a nonsensical view. And the lgbt community can easily prove this by pointing to the comments of one of the religious right's favorite "joyboys" - presidential candidate and former Senator, Rick Santorum.

Yesterday, Santorum said that if elected, he would support a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage:

Santorum - Once people realize the consequence to society of changing this definition, it’s not that we’re against anybody. People can live the life they want to live. They can do whatever they want to do in the privacy of their home with respect to that activity. Now you’re talking about changing the laws of the country. and it could have a profound impact on society, on faith, on education. Once people realize that, they say, you know what, we respect people’s life to live the life they want to lead but don’t change how with that definition.

That "people can live the life they want to live but they have no right to mess with marriage" junk is the same stuff organizations like the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research peddles.

And it's a lie that reduces lgbt lives to that of sexual activity. Furthermore, these groups do not feel that lgbts can live the life we want to live, seeing how they interfere with our right to be free from discrimination and to raise children.

Funny I should mention that last part. Santorum has opinions about lgbts raising children:



Long story short - Santorum said that it is "common sense" that we should not "defy nature" just because "a certain group of people want to be affirmed by society."

It gets more interesting. In an interview earlier this year with Glenn Beck, Santorum responded to charges from former Congressman Alan Simpson that he makes cruel comments about lgbts by reiterating that "gay sex" should be outlawed:

Santorum - There were no “cruel, cruel” remarks. All I can ponder is that Alan Simpson is talking about a comment that I made, which I paraphrased, almost word for word, but paraphrased a Supreme Court justice in a case called Lawrence v. Texas, before that case came out, which had to do with, as you know, a Supreme Court case on the issue of sodomy, and I said that if you have -- if the Supreme Court changes the legal standard to say that sexual -- consensual sexual activity is now a constitutional right, then we open up the gates for all sorts of consensual activity.

 . . . It’s not homophobic. It’s a legal argument, and it’s a correct legal argument. In fact, that’s exactly what’s happening. We went from Lawrence v. Texas to now a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and they’re going into a constitutional right to polyamorous relationships. This is the slippery slope that we’re heading down, and I stand by it.

No matter how he tries to justify it,  if Santorum had his way, lgbts would be unable to marry, adopt children, or be free from criminal prosecution under trumped up "morals" charges.

The sad reality is that if Santorum had said these things about any other group - i.e. Latinos, those of the Jewish faith, African-Americans - he would be rode out on a rail.

BUT since his comments were directed to lgbts, the usual appropriate levels of shock and derision that come when folks make prejudiced and insensitive comments don't apply here.

Why is that? Or better yet, that fact that it is this way is a sad indictment on this country.

No person who has been as vindictive as Santorum has to lgbts deserves to be treated as a serious presidential contender.

And no one who supports his mess should be considered as victims when the subjects of their ire responds to being disrespected (albeit in reasonable manners).

Upcoming AP article will feature religious right crybabies

In an Associated Press article that was published then taken back, various religious right figures are whining that lgbts are picking on them.

The article was originally published Burlington Free Press but was taken back. The following note was left:

Editor's note: This story was mistakenly published on Wednesday on burlingtonfreepress.com ahead of Sunday's release date.
We regret the error.
Please check back on Sunday to read this story.

I can only hope that the article's author, David Crary, goes back and does more research because ThinkProgress totally panned it:

Rather than recognize the historic and systemic oppression and violence against the LGBT community, AP reporter David Crary instead gives multiple anti-LGBT groups (including several hate groups) a pedestal for propagating their lies. Here are the individuals Crary invited to whine that their bigotry is not well-received:

JIM CAMPBELL (Alliance Defense Fund): The ADF regularly spreads negative stereotypes about the LGBT community as part of their legal “defense” of Christian hegemony.
 

RICHARD BARNES (New York State Catholic Conference): The Catholic Conference has defended the vitriolic rhetoric of Sen. Rubén Díaz (D) and been a primary opponent of marriage equality in New York.

CHUCK COLSON (The Manhattan Declaration): In addition to signing the odious Manhattan Declaration (a willful commitment to ignore any laws that protect same-sex couples’ equality), Colson, a convicted felon from the Watergate Scandal, regularly condemns LGBT people.

ALAN CHAMBERS (Exodus International): Exodus International is perhaps the most dangerous anti-gay propaganda machine, reinforcing the harmful junk science that same-sex orientations are disordered and can be changed.

ROBERT GEORGE (National Organization for Marriage): Crary neglects to even mention George’s connection to NOM, let alone that he is, in fact, its chairman and cofounder. NOM regularly reinforces the victim meme by distorting supposed “consequences” of LGBT equality. It’s no surprise George helped draft the Manhattan Declaration.

Think Progress said that those representing our side - Evan Wolfson (Freedom to Marry), Fred Sainz (Human Rights Campaign), Evan Hurst (Truth Wins Out) and James Esseks (ACLU’s gay rights project) - was forced to play "defense."

I managed to read a little bit of the article before it was taken back and I liked what I saw. But ThinkProgress does have a point.

The lgbt community is forced to play defense too often. However, this isn't totally the fault of the news media.

When have you seen a good expose in the major lgbt magazines (The Advocate, Out, etc) detailing religious right lies?

When has the lgbt channel Logo ever covered this subject with as much fervor as they show episodes of RuPaul's Drag Race or reruns of Absolutely Fabulous? And don't even get me started about the idea for news segment strictly devoted to the lgbt community on this channel?

Our problem is that we expect the media to do the work when we should be the ones doing it - and before the right starts attacking us on a specific issue. We should be directing the media where to go and pushing their attention to stories and issues pertaining to the lgbt community.

Anything beats complaining after the fact.

NOM helping to push pedophilia, incest lies and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Rick Perry Proud To Stand With the Bigots At The AFA - Rick, your allies at the AFA aren't exactly helping your cause.

NOM giddily slides down Vicky Hartler's slippery slopes - Yes NOM is helping to push the pedophilia angle. And now incest is added to the mix.

And apparently NOM isn't above stealing videos to do this - NOM Endorses Hartzler's Anti-Gay Comments

Mitt Romney Suggests Activists To Blame For His Opposition To Gay Marriage - Someone want to be president REALLY BAD.

Anti-transgender bill defeated in Maine legislature - Not bad at all, Maine.

Homophobe attacks Old Navy for combating lgbt bullying, suicides

Here is an example of the nonsense I was talking about yesterday in regards to Texas governor Rick Perry's prayer event:

A nationally prominent retail store has announced it will sell "gay pride" T-shirts in support of presidentially proclaimed "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month."

Old Navy will sell rainbow-styled T-shirts as part of the its "Love Proudly: Pride 2011" campaign. The shirts reportedly went on sale June 1 and will be available at select stores throughout the country. Old Navy announced it will donate 10 percent of the proceeds to the "It Gets Better Project," a pro-LGBT campaign.

Gary Cass of DefendChristians.org says Old Navy is promoting a lifestyle that is in "complete rebellion against God."

"Rather just focusing on giving good products to their customers, they want to use their products now to advocate for a very controversial topic, much less a very immoral and very deadly topic," notes Cass.

Now I could say that it's very interesting that this article (by the American Family Association's One News Now) omits the fact that the "It Gets Better" project combats the issues of bullying and suicides amongst lgbt teens, but why bother?

I think it's relatively clear why this fact wasn't mentioned.

And I could say that Gary Cass is yet another charlatan in the conservative evangelical movement looking to make a name for himself by pulling the martyr card - although attacking Old Navy is a step up from defending the discredited Paul Cameron and churches who performed "exorcisms" on gay teens. And that this is the second time he has attacked the "It Gets Better" project

But again why bother?

Here is the point I want to make:

It's just a damn t-shirt, not the end of American society as we know it.

And it is yet another example of how far Christianity has fallen in this country and how far it will continue to fall until someone (preferably a true person of faith) steps up and calls out people who use the faith to divide and gain material prominence for themselves.

Perry's prayer event will put Christianity's worst on display

Texas governor, Rick Perry

Texas Governor Rick Perry will be holding a huge prayer event in August because apparently America is suffering a "moral crisis:"

PERRY: Right now, America is in crisis: we have been besieged by financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters. As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy.

Now the optimist in me says what heck. Prayer never hurts. And I have prayed many a minute after last year's mid-term election.

However, the cynic in me has several problems with this.

First of all is this the thousandth "moral crisis" America has been in? To hear some conservatives tell it, we are always in some sort of moral crisis. What are we - a country or a character in Biblical soap opera?

Secondly, what's the deal with Rick Perry anyway? Wasn't he all gung-ho a while back with talks about tea parties and secession?

Just when did he start waxing philosophical about God and prayer? Probably the same time folks began to figure out just how bad of an economic shape Texas is in. And I haven't even talked about the teachers' protest which recently took place.

But I am most reticent about Perry's "let's all come to Jesus" moment because he is partnering with the American Family Association.

That's the organization designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group due to its penchant for demonizing and passing propaganda about lgbts, Muslims, and others who don't fit into its narrow definition of Christianity.

NOM contradicts itself on gay parenting

Today, some Catholic Charities in Illinois (the dioceses of Springfield, Peoria and Joliet) announced that they are suing the state of Illinois for the right to exclude gay and lesbian couples from adopting and becoming foster parents even though they receive taxpayer funds for these services.

Naturally the National Organization for Marriage (NOM)'s blog is trumpeting the news as a case of "religious liberty."

As a matter of fact, in posts about gay adoption and foster care vs. religious groups receiving taxpayer dollars while discriminating against gays and lesbian, NOM has been careful in its attempts to portray the issue as one of "religious liberty," rather than religious groups discriminating on the taxpayers' dime (i.e. gays and lesbians do pay taxes).

This seems to be par for the course for NOM. According to Equality Matters, the organization has posted several pieces that speaks against same-sex parenting -  the implication being that a same-sex household supposedly" robs children of a chance to have a mother and a father:"

May 12: New Book: Psychologist Writes of Daughters' Father Hunger

May 17: Sociologist Brad Wilcox: The “Elite Wisdom” on Moms & Dads is Dead Wrong

May 19: Dr. Jenet Erickson on Why Having a Mother Really Matters

May 26: Canadian Sociologist on Why Mothers Matter

May 27: Gender Confusion over at Slate

But here is the interesting part about NOM's position on gay parenting: Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of NOM, said during a recent Congressional hearing that "there are some gay people who make wonderful parents." She also said she thinks its unfortunate that people misinterpret things she says as a condemnation of "gay people" and their parenting skills."

This is a heavy contradiction.

If Gallagher thinks that gays make wonderful parents, then why does her organization go out of its way to undermine gay parenting?

Harvey Milk Day turns kids gay? and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Save California: Harvey Milk Day Releasing A "Tsunami Of Perversity" In Order To Make Kids Gay - Sometimes the only thing you can do is to just let members of the religious right speak. It's highly entertaining.

Minn. For Marriage's chief lobbyist: Gays 'live in conflict with how we are made' - More homophobia from those wanting a "civil conversation" about marriage equality in Minnesota.

BTB Original Investigation: The True Story of George Rekers And “Kraig” - If only the George Rekers scandal took place BEFORE the homophobe ruined this young man's life.

More on Rekers here:

AC360 special report: "The Sissy Boy Experiment"

Rekers Responds In CNN’s “Sissy Boy Experiments” Tonight

Alleged incident of gay violence in New York looks contrived and phony

I was all prepared to write something about Texas Governor Rick Perry's phony call for the nation's governors and "Christian" leaders to pray for America because apparently we are in a "moral crisis" (again) but something from my "favorite" anti-gay activist caught my eye.

Apparently, Peter LaBarbera is promoting a video from a bizarre anti-gay group the TFP (The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property) Student Action - for info about that group, go here -  which supposedly shows the group protesting marriage equality in New York when a "pro homosexual activist" came rushing up to destroy their banner. LaBarbera prefaces the group's press release about the incident by saying the following:

Folks, we’ve seen this nasty brand of homosexual bullying and intolerance so often that we’re no longer shocked by it. Watch the TFP Student Action video as peaceful TFP members shout “Aggressor!” as this troubled man walks up and destroys their banner, in Fairport, New York. Imagine if a bunch of pro-family activists did this to a pro-”gay banner” banner! (CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN would be lining up to tell the story.)

The press release itself says the following:

As young TFP volunteers stood at the corner of Main Street and Church Street with signs, a pro-homosexualist hurled himself against the group’s thirteen foot long banner inscribed with “God’s Marriage = 1 Man & 1 Woman.” The banner, held by three volunteers, was knocked down and violently torn to pieces.

Watch video footage of the attack HERE.

The assailant also threatened to destroy the group’s cameras used to document their campaigns for moral values. “I’ll smash your camera,” he said.

Approaching another TFP volunteer who was holding a sign that read “Honk for Traditional Marriage,” the aggressor said: “Are you going to give me your sign, or do I need to rip it up too!?”

In a separate incident at the same demonstration, another supporter of “gay marriage” threw a beer bottle at TFP volunteer Michael Shibler from a moving vehicle. The glass bottle hit him on the forehead, causing it to swell and bleed. Local police are investigating both incidents.

“These bully tactics do not even slightly dampen my resolve to continue promoting the truth about marriage in charity. Our cause is noble and we will win,” said Shibler.

There are just a few things I have a problem with. First of all, while the video shows someone rushing up and ripping the banner, it has not made clear who this man is.

We don't know if the man is a "pro-gay activist" or just some random nut who doesn't like the group's outfits.

The second problem I have is the alleged incident with the beer bottle. This what the press release said:

In a separate incident at the same demonstration, another supporter of “gay marriage” threw a beer bottle at TFP volunteer Michael Shibler from a moving vehicle. The glass bottle hit him on the forehead, causing it to swell and bleed. Local police are investigating both incidents.

But look at the video at 1:37 when Shibler first announces that he was hit. Maybe it's my vision, but it doesn't look like to me that Shibler's forehead is swelling or bleeding. And the only thing we see of the incident is a bottle lying on the ground.

Now it could be that members of this group are being truthful about the incident.

But then again, look who is promoting it.

Peter LaBarbera does have a track record for trying to create moral panics about rampant homosexuals which turn out to be nothing more than incidents either set up by him or blown out of proportion by his fevered imagination - such as when he falsely claimed that GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) was promoting "gay sex" to teens on Facebook.

It's not accidental that the Southern Poverty Law Center declared his organization, Americans for Truth, to be an anti-gay hate group.

And  religious right groups have on occasion manipulated incidents of public chaos to demonize the entire lgbt community.

In 2008 after the Prop 8 vote in California, a video of a elderly woman getting a styrofoam cross ripped out of her hand during a protest of this vote was played continuously through conservative or right-wing channels as an example of how "violent" and "intolerant" gays were. Mike Huckabee even mentioned the incident on the ABC talk show "The View."

However, no one gave the entire story, i.e. the violence occurred after the woman, Phyllis Burgess, had knocked down a disabled man  in an attempt to get on camera.

By the time the entire story did come out, the religious right had gotten enough mileage to paint the entire lgbt community as mean-spirited and aggressive.

And that sounds like what's happening now. We don't know what exactly happened in the incident regarding the marriage equality protest. It could have been a incident of violence by a gay man. But then again, it could have been just random. And then again, it could have been staged.

And the beer bottle claim is extremely specious as far as I am concerned.

Folks should reserve judgement until the police investigation is done. That is if there is an investigation. According to TFP Student Action's press release, the police were called.

That's something we don't know for sure. But thanks to the press release, we do know for sure where to donate money (preferably $79 or more) to the group.

I'm just saying . . .

UPDATE - I left a message on the group's page asking for details. Naturally it wasn't posted.