NOM lands in North Carolina, allies already pulling the pedophilia card

According to the North Carolina gay publication, QNotes, I have some interesting neighbors up north:

A referendum committee formed by several anti-gay religious groups is among the latest official campaign organizations set up for an impending ballot initiative on an anti-LGBT state constitutional amendment banning marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships for same-sex couples.

The committee, Vote for Marriage NC, was formed last week by a coalition of groups including the N.C. Baptist State Convention, Christian Action League, NC Values Coalition, a coalition of African American pastors and the National Organization for Marriage.

 . . . “We very much look forward to a dialogue with North Carolina voters about the importance of preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” Tami Fitzgerald, executive director of NC Values Coalition, said in a release. “The marriage amendment ensures that voters and not activist judges will decide the definition of marriage in our state. Marriage as the union of one man and one woman has served North Carolina well since before we were a state, and it’s time we respected the institution of marriage enough to protect it in our state constitution.”

Fitzgerald is a former lobbyist for the Christian Action League and N.C. Family Policy Council, groups affiliated with national organizations named as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Fitzgerald’s NC Values Coalition led the fight for legislative approval of the amendment, which came in September. The group has provided the new committee’s first $1,000 in funding.

 . . . “We are going to keep it on a positive note: keeping marriage as marriage and keeping it from being redefined,” she told the paper.

Of course we all know it means when anti-marriage equality folks say that they want to "keep the discussion on a positive note."

Should they accuse gays of wanting to corrupt children,  wanting to imprison Christians, or maybe both?

Luckily, however, QNotes is already starting to raise questions about the finances of this group in light of the fact that NOM continues to hide its donors - in violation of the law - in several other states. (Full discloure - this blogger is quoted in that article).

As for "positive discussion," according to Pam Spaulding, that nonsense has already been thrown out of the window after a debate yesterday on a radio show between two African-American community leaders - Dr. Patrick L. Wooden, Sr. of the Upper Room Church of God in Christ in Raleigh, NC who supports the amendment and Rep. Marcus Brandon (D-60, Guilford County), who opposes it

I'm willing to bet that Wooden is a part of that newly-formed coalition. According to Pam, Wooden made a number of interesting statements:

He stated statistics (providing no source) that gay men in relationships have 8 partners outside of relationship. Too bad no one asked him about Herman Cain’s fidelity. (Editor's note - Wooden is distorting the Netherlands study which looked at casual relationships between gay men in the years before gay marriage was legalized in that area. It excluded lesbians and gay men in monogamous relationships).

He compared same-sex marriage to pedophilia.

. . . My favorite howler from Wooden: ”They are going to have to teach anal sex in the public school classroom” if gays can marry.

In contrast, Brandon came off as reasonable (hell, a badly bleating horn would come off as reasonable compared to Wooden):

Marcus Brandon did an excellent job of addressing the hypocrisy of the religious objection, noting Wooden has not called for an amendment to ban adultery and divorce, two sins that are in the Bible, as well as throwing back in Wooden’s face charges that the black civil rights movement has nothing to do with LGBT rights, saying ‎“these are all false arguments; Rosa Parks was tired because she was treated differently…That is what the civil rights movement was about.”

Whatever the case may be, the question of marriage equality in NC is heating up. And it would do the gay community well to start preparing now. As idiotic as Wooden sounded, he was getting those statistics from somewhere. And we are probably going to be hearing more of them.

It's not going to be pretty. But then again, the best victories are never pretty.

What about the gay members of Eddie Long's church?

The situation with Eddie Long and his wife continues to get interesting. Long is the minister of the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in GA embroiled in a scandal which led to him paying off four young men who claimed that he sexually coerced them. Yesterday, Long's wife said she plans to file for divorce. She then retracted the statement.

Now, it has been announced that the plans for divorce is on again.

It's a sad situation regarding hypocrisy in the black church which no one wants to address. The black church will knowingly embrace gang members, drug dealers, people who have sex outside marriage while attending church. But an upstanding openly gay or lesbian is enemy number one to it. To this day, there is have been no adequate discussions on this conundrum.

Long's scandal is also a case of possible kismet. He benefited immensely from his very public stances - including a huge rally - against marriage equality, even to the point of conveniently getting some of that "faith-based initiative money" doled out by the Bush Administration.

Long's ministry received over $1 million.

But now Long is losing more than just money. He has lost his name, his reputation, and standing.

However, there are victims in this situation in which no one is talking about - the African-American gay and lesbians members of Long's church and other churches like his.

Let's focus on them for a change.

The following interview is from when the scandal began with a gay member of Long's church. It's hard to watch, particularly when he states the reason why many gay men still attend the church.

His words underscore the fact that the reason why black gays and lesbians flock to negative environments like Long's church because it's difficult for them to find any support or positive reinforcement in regards to their sexual orientation from any other place - even those which are supposed to be "gay-friendly."

The interview with this young man should send a message to the lgbtq community at large that we need to do more to embrace our all of own, even those who don't fit the stereotypical "white-bread" supposed normal definition of being gay in America:



Related posts:

Eddie Long wants his money back

Eddie Long's accusers speak out even after settlement

Anti-gay pastor Eddie Long's fifth accuser in lawsuit

Eddie Long scandal underscores failure of the black church

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

Know Your LGBT History - Shameless

One of the problems with having to deal with negative gay images on television and in the movies is that it taints efforts to push three-dimensional images.

No one is completely good nor evil, and the images we see should reflect that. However when a group is faced with having to see nothing but negative images, it makes them hypersensitive to the point that they rail against any image deemed negative while totally forgetting that a good two-shoes image of the gay community is as debilitating as a negative image.

With that in mind, I bring you Shameless, a Showtime television drama which is based on a British drama of the same name.

It tells the story of a dysfunctional family led by an alcoholic father. All of the characters are interesting, to say the least.

However for the purpose of this blog, I want to focus on one of the children, Ian.

Ian (Cameron Monaghan) is a 15-year-old gay young man working at a grocery store. He is having an affair with his employer, the Muslim owner. He is also messing around with the local thug, Mickey.

He is a perfect example of what I was talking about earlier. Ian is a very complex character.  One could say that he is the anti-Glee character. No doubt, he would give both folks on the left and the right in this so-called culture war extreme palpitations.

I personally like the characterization. He is merely a young man dealing with life has thrown his way, whether it be a dsysfunctional family life, or a gay orientation.

The following clips shows several scenes in Ian's life, particularly his relationship with Mickey. The thing I really like about this relationship is how it's not sugarcoated. Pay special attention to 2:30 to 4:10. Some folks may find it a bit intense:



Past Know Your LGBT Posts:

'NOM pushing phony google polls' and other Friday midday news briefs

NOM Fail: 'What sound does cash make?' edition - The irony is rich. NOM attacks Cuomo for getting campaign donations due to his push for marriage equality while it continues to hide ITS donors.

Nicolosi Retracts Claim of Gay Cure through Antidepressants - Another anti-gay lie down the drain.

Minnesota for Marriage pushes “polls” via web ads - So NOM is now pushing phony push poll ads in Minnesota. Love what that secret money can buy. Of course the goal of these ads is not to gauge response but to push NOM's phony talking points into the minds of Minnesotans.

Anti-Gay Justice To Georgia: ‘You Can’t Discriminate’ Against A Transgender Person - Holy smokes! You have to read this one.

AFA Warns That Same-Sex Marriage Leads to Building, Car and Dog Marriage - Ugh, I say. UGH!

'Porno Pete' tries to besmirch World AIDS Day

Yesterday was World AIDS Day and while there were much necessary information put out there, there was also some unnecessary nonsense.

Our friend, Porno Pete LaBarbera is exploiting the day to whine about the supposed "high risk" of being gay.  It's really nothing we haven't heard before. We all know it's his obsession with gay sex.

And following that obsession, LaBarbera is into demonizing gays and throwing out his idea of what exactly gay sex is rather than solving the problem. Let's break down the fallacies of his points:

1. LaBarbera:  

Recognize HIV/AIDS as a predominantly “gay disease” in the USA (as some LGBT leaders like Matt Foreman have admitted)

Problem - LaBarbera distorts Foreman's call for gays to do more to stop AIDS. What Foreman said is no different than what Phil Wilson, executive director of the Black AIDS Institute, wrote in this brilliant piece, part of which reads:

There are many reasons why we are so disproportionately impacted by AIDS. But, chief among them is that we've not taken ownership of the AIDS epidemic and responsibility for ending it. Many of us continue to believe that AIDS is someone else's problem. Even as our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, get infected with HIV, develop AIDS and die.

I get the sister from the Black Philanthropy conference's concern about stigma and image. But we can't be more concerned about 'our image' than we are about our lives. Having a raging epidemic run through our community unchecked is actually the last thing we need.

Wanting something to not be so is not the same as it really not being so or doing something about it. AIDS in America today is a Black disease ... unless we do something about it.

Or when Julian Bond said the following:

It is time for the African-American community "to face the fact that AIDS has become a black disease" and find ways to defeat it, the chairman of the NAACP said at the international AIDS summit.

This speaks to another point. LaBarbera cites a CDC fact sheet on AIDS which shows that new infections are higher among young black men than they are among younger white men.


2. LaBarbera:

Stop pretending that all lifestyles are at equal risk for AIDS – because HIV is NOT behaviorally- or lifestyle-neutral. Instead, teach students in school health classes the DOCUMENTED REALITY that certain behaviors, especially male homosexual sex, are especially high-risk for contracting HIV (and other STDs like hepatitis).

 LaBarbera conveniently omits the reasons why people are at risk. The CDC flyer which LaBarbera cites above also says that lack of proper information and social discrimination leads some MSMs (men having sex with men) into high risk behaviors. LaBarbera seems to be saying "stop gays from having sex" when the problem is a bit more complex than that.

Religious right group posts article celebrating passage of anti-gay Nigerian bill

Apparently the Alliance Defense Fund isn't too busy trying to keep graduate students from having to learn about counseling gays.

The right-wing organization is also all about passing along articles celebrating the persecution of gay and lesbians abroad.

From its webpage is the following:

Nigeria: Citizens Celebrate Ban of Same-Sex Marriage

All Africa Global Media: Nigerians have continued to celebrate the banning of same-sex marriage by the Senate, commending senators for outlawing what they regard as abnormality and a licence for immorality.

The link in question is to a very biased article about the recent decision by the Nigerian Senate to outlaw marriage equality. The bill also outlaws gay advocacy and public displays of same-sex affection

According to the AP:

Under the measure, couples who marry could face up to 14 years in jail, and witnesses or anyone who helps couples marry could be sentenced to 10 years behind bars.. 

The article cited by the Alliance Defense Fund only quotes supporters of this bill. They call gay marriage something that is degrading and detestable. The article even admits that the bill is to discourage homosexuality and also that the idea of imprisoning gays and lesbians is a good thing.

The irony is stark.

At the same time the Alliance Defense Fund is claiming to defend graduate students against religious persecution, the organization seems to be celebrating the actual persecution of gays and lesbians.

What would Jesus do, indeed.

'Marriage equality will lead to women marrying computers?' and other Thursday midday news briefs

Maryland, Marriage, Appliance: 'What's to stop a woman from marrying a computer?' - You aren't reading this wrong. An anti-marriage equality spokesperson actually said that marriage equality could lead to women marrying computers. Good Lord.

Maryland Religious Leaders Launch Anti-Marriage Equality Coalition - And speaking of those same zany folks from Maine . . .

Obama On World AIDS Day: We Need To Do More To Show Young Black Gay Men ‘That Their Lives Matter’ - You damn right we do!

CPAC And The Religious Right Kiss And Make Up - At the expense of GoProud. GoProud is that conservative gay group always whining about the "Gay Left." As you can see, GoProud has it arrow aimed at the wrong target.

Imagine a world without AIDS

I can't talk. I won't talk. All I can do is pray:



A big hat tip to Vision Video Productions

Family Research Council: DADT repeal could lead to military approval of bestiality

The Family Research Council should really give up the ship regarding gays in the military.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed and according to Marine Gen. James F. Amos, a top marine official who was initially against it, the repeal is working just fine.

God forbid, however that the Family Research Council is letting go. From an email by the group and its president, Tony Perkins:

The dust is finally starting to clear over the rubble of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal, and our military is beginning to see what's on the horizon: a campaign to radicalize the country from the Pentagon out. It started by toppling the barrier to open homosexuality. And it continues with an assault on marriage and religious freedom. Now, in its rush to accommodate the Left, Congress may have inadvertently opened the door to even more perversion. As part of the Defense Authorization bill, liberals are pushing to make sodomy a legal activity under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). In its haste to make gay sex an official part of military life, the Left could be unintentionally repealing the ban on bestiality too. Article 125 of the UCMJ, which Democrats are targeting, clearly states: "Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy."

Don't you just love how Perkins uses conditional words in the sentence "In its haste to make gay sex an official part of military life, the Left could be unintentionally repealing the ban on bestiality too."

That gives him an out to say "hey, I am just speculating" when someone calls him and FRC on the nonsense behind the statement.

Well before he even begins, let me just say:

"Tony, you aren't speculating. You are bullshitting You all lost this one. Get over it."

Will gay students be 'collateral damage' to the cause of 'religious liberty?'

The lgbtq community would do well for itself to pay attention to two lawsuits fueled by religious right organizations. From an article in today's Augusta Chronicle:

An attorney for a graduate school counseling student told federal judges in Atlanta on Tuesday that the student’s First Amendment rights were violated when professors at Augusta State University sought to punish her for her biblical views on gay rights.

ASU put Jennifer Keeton on academic probation for saying it would be hard for her to work with gay clients, and threatened to expel her unless she attended events such as Augusta’s gay pride parade, Keeton’s attorney Jeff Shafer told the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Keeton initially sued ASU  when she was expelled from its graduate student program because she refused to take part in a mediation program. It required her to read material about counseling gays and increase her exposure to the gay community. The mediation program was set up after Keeton said that she would tell gay potential clients that their orientation was wrong and then try to help them "change" their sexual orientation.

Her lawsuit was struck down by U.S. District Judge Randal Hall last year. Hall said that the university had every right to set requirements for students. Hall also said that Keeton provided no proof that she was discriminated against because of her religious faith. According to The Augusta Chronicle in an article at the time:

In an Aug. 11 hearing, ASU professors testified that the plan was not a punishment for voicing her beliefs, but a tool to teach Keeton how to counsel clients while not imposing her views.

"All three professors testified that they never told (Keeton) that she was required to change her religious beliefs in order to stay in the counseling program," Hall wrote.

He noted that Keeton did not testify at the hearing nor present any witnesses in support of her motion.

Hall said Keeton's unwillingness to adhere to the school's viewpoint-neutral code of ethics set by the American Counseling Association constitutes a refusal to complete the curriculum.

Keeton is now appealing this ruling. Today's article goes on to say that she allegedly told other students that she was interested in practicing "conversion therapy," or therapy which claims to change someone's sexual orientation. It also said that there was some concern that since Keeton was scheduled to practice in middle and high schools as a part of her degree program, her views could pose problems to students.

Keeton's case is very similar to that of Julea Ward, who was removed from Eastern Michigan University's counseling program in 2009 because she did not want to counsel to gays for the same reason as Keeton. She is also studying to be a guidance counselor. She sued EMU but lost last year for the same reason as Keeton. Her case is also being appealed.

The counseling programs by Eastern Michigan University and Augusta State University are guided by a code of ethics by the American Counseling Association. It is this code which both universities say are at odds with  Keeton and Ward. It forbids counselors from discriminating in their practices or imposing their view on potential clients.

Interestingly enough, the same anti-gay organization, the Alliance Defense Fund, is handling both Keeton and Ward's case. David Kaplan,the chief professional officer for the ACA, had this to say about the Alliance Defense Fund:

"The driving force behind this is the Alliance Defense Fund. They are specifically looking for legal cases, not just in counseling, to promote their agenda"

In both the Keeton and Ward case, it is being demanded that the university counseling programs in question give allowances based on someone's religious beliefs, even though these allowances would be against the code of ethics which govern these programs.

What's more, these are cases in which both defendants have expressed a desire to be school guidance counselors.

It leaves me asking one question.

If universities can be successfully sued by individuals who don't want to learn about counseling to gays on the grounds of "religious beliefs,"  what would stop middle and high schools from being sued by individuals who may not be hired if they state that they will not counsel gay students on those same grounds?

Where would that leave the lgbtq students who would undoubtedly be collateral damage to this supposed adherence to "religious liberty?"


Related post:


Why I get a nagging feeling every time I hear the phrase 'religious liberty'

'NOM's embarrassing loss in Iowa is punctuated' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Exclusive: Secret Conference Held to ‘Save Exodus International’ from Ruin - This, my friends, is MAJOR.

Iowa’s Republican House Speaker Says He Won’t Bring Up Marriage Repeal In Next Session - And NOM's embarrassing defeat in Iowa is complete.

Fischer Wonders How Many Men Died Of AIDS Because Of Barney Frank - The gay community can always count on Bryan Fischer to allow us to be morally superior.

Welcome Beck: NJ state Sen. embraces history's right side - An adversary becomes an ally.

Anti-Gay Russian Lawmaker: ‘The Issue Of Same-Sex Love Is Somewhat Like The Jewish Problem’ - Homophobia, anti-Semitism, racism. It's all the same.

The families they don't want you to see

It always amazes and angers me that every time organizations like Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, or the National Organization for Marriage talk about the importance of families, they conveniently omit same-sex families.

And always amazes and angers me to count the times we allow them to get away with it:

CA religious right group channeling Anita Bryant to stop pro-gay law

SAVE California is the one of the organization behind attempts to derail SB48, the law which would push for lgbt-inclusive public schooling.

This is what the organization is trying to emphasize about SB48:

Believe it or not, it gets worse.

On its webpage, SAVE California has links to all sorts of junk science, including the fraudulent Facts About Youth organization which tried to push such claims as gay men "sexualize" feces into America's schools and other discredited work about homosexuality and pedophilia from junk science researcher Paul Cameron.

I guess we know what route that organization is going:

 The truly vile lies never die, do they?

Hat tip to Goodasyou.org

'Nigerian Senate pushing awful anti-gay bill' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

African-American Pastor Rebukes NOM’s Anti-Gay Bigotry - A welcomed smack down to the charge about gay men adopting black children.

Walker Appointee: Wisconsin Law Doesn’t Protect Gays From Harassment - Ugh.

Nigerian Senate Passes Anti-Gay Bill After Increasing Penalties - This is terrible and the bill also outlaws public displays of affection and advocacy. And folks, don't get stupid by thinking this is solely a problem in Africa. Remember that it wasn't long ago that Paul Cameron was spreading his lies in Moldova, a European country.

Tennessee Tea Party Calls Barney Frank ‘Perverted Sodomite POS’ - I'm guessing that they are glad that Frank is retiring.

Religious right spokesman omit facts about AIDS to smear gay men

Peter Sprigg

The Family Research Council anoints its spokesperson Peter Sprigg as a professional on matters of the lgbtq community, which also means the health of those in this community.

However, through his statements, we see the danger in giving this charlatan a degree of credibility. This is what he said recently about how to solve the AIDS crisis:

It was encouraging to read Michael Gerson’s column in The Washington Post recently on scientific advances which raise the prospect of “Putting AIDS on the road to extinction.” He is right to say, “Religious conservatives have no objections to treatment and are neither shocked nor alarmed by circumcision.”

However, he ignores two huge “elephants in the room.” The first is the role of behavior change in reducing infections. A Ugandan AIDS prevention official wrote in the Post in 2008 about his country’s success in dramatically reducing AIDS prevalence through use of the “ABC” message—“Abstain” from sex until marriage, “Be faithful” to your spouse, and “use Condoms” only if you fail at A and B. Gerson celebrates that the cost of treatment is now less than $350 per person; but Sam L. Ruteikara noted, “Our successful ABC campaign cost just 29 cents per person each year.”


Gerson noted that circumcision has reduced “the risk of transmission from women to men,” and that early treatment reduced “transmission to a heterosexual partner.” This may be encouraging for Africa, but is less so at home, where the CDC reports that “more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV” are men who have sex with men (MSM), “the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily.” Discouraging anal intercourse and sex with multiple partners—practices not unique to homosexual men, but more prevalent among them—are part of “the only morally acceptable strategy” to help America share in the end of AIDS.

It doesn't take a palm reader to figure out that Sprigg seems to be less worried about solving the AIDS crisis and more about blaming on alleged gay male sexual habits.

Perhaps I wouldn't question Sprigg's credibility if he had cited all of the information from the CDC report he used to draw his conclusion. Particularly the following:

Stigma and homophobia may have a profound impact on the lives of MSM, especially their mental and sexual health. Internalized homophobia may impact men’s ability to make healthy choices, including decisions around sex and substance use. Stigma and homophobia may limit the willingness of MSM to access HIV prevention and care, isolate them from family and community support, and create cultural barriers that inhibit integration into social networks.

Racism, poverty, and lack of access to health care are barriers to HIV prevention services, particularly for MSM from racial or ethnic minority communities. A recent CDC study found a strong link between socioeconomic status and HIV among MSM: prevalence increased as education and income decreased, and awareness of HIV status was higher among MSM with greater education and income.

What Sprigg did was an offense he has committed before (in his pamphlet The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality), i.e. take information a credible source to form a negative theory about gays, but making sure to omit crucial parts of that information which would destroy his theory.

Sprigg is no expert and those attempting to fight the scourge of AIDS should disregard his opinion.

The Thanksgiving Video War Massacre - competing messages about marriage equality over the Thanksgiving holiday

Maggie Gallagher handed the lgbtq community a victory over the Thanksgiving holidays in what turned out to be a contest of dueling videos.

Did I say contest? A contest would mean that two equal entities would be competing for superiority. What happened last week was a massacre.

Gallagher began the contest with a video she put out giving supposed tips on how to handle discussions of marriage equality during Thanksgiving. By tips, I guess Gallagher meant repeating the same tired talking points about people on her side of the argument unfairly being labeled as "bigots" and making false platitudes on respectful discussions while all the while folks on her side paint lgbtqs as folks seeking to corrupt children and (stop me if you heard this one) attempting to destroy the "special uniqueness of marriage being between one man and one woman:



To say that Gallagher's video wasn't popular would be an understatement. To say that she created the youtube version of Battlefield Earth and Plan 9 from Outer Space (two motion pictures renowned for how bad they were) would be more to the point.

Some folks have said that her delivery wasn't exactly comforting. Also, Gallagher simply didn't say anything we haven't heard before. If her aim was to tug at hearts, then my guess is that she used how the Snow White's wicked stepmother wanted to tug at her heart as a model.

And forgive for saying so because I am certainly not trying to rag on Gallagher's looks but the way her hair would bob in her face when she made what she thought were emphatic points totally distracted from her message. All the while Gallagher was talking, I kept thinking about that scene in the motion picture Valley of the Dolls when actress Pattie Duke was singing at a telethon and her dancing caused her necklace to bob and weave as if it took a life of its own.

Gallagher's video alone was poor, but the artificiality behind it was made evident due to another youtube video. This video, from Australia, featured  real situation where a gay couple meet, share time and family crises together, and then eventually get married:



The difference between the two videos speak for themselves. One featured a polarizing talking head repeating tiresome talking points behind a bland backdrop while punctuating her points with annoyingly flopping hair which didn't say "traditional marriage defender" but rather screamed "camp."

The other video featured a real-life situation involving a gay couple sharing time together, crises together, and finally wanting to share their lives together.

There was no competition.

Now there are some who call me biased for how I have criticized Gallagher's video. Well the facts bear me out. Gallagher's video, while at present time seen by less than 30,000 people, is tanking badly in terms of support.

In comparison, the Australian video has been seen by over 1 million people and has a vast number of supporters.

The simple fact of the matter is that this was a head-to-head competition and Gallagher's video lost because she didn't have an argument.

The other video simply didn't need one. It merely showed love, commitment, and devotion - all of the qualities which should make up a marriage.

All of the talking points in the world can't compete with that.

'Barney Frank's best youtube moments' and other Monday midday news briefs

Barney Frank Will Not Seek Reelection In 2012 - By now you have heard that Barney Frank, a Congressional powerhouse and a hero to us younger lgbtqs is retiring. Aw hell. But in all honesty, the brother deserves his rest. Thank you Barney.

Barney Frank’s best YouTube moments - The quality which made Frank such an awesome figure was his honesty and director candor, whether it be about his sexual orientation or dealing with trifling folks. The Washington Post counts down his best moments caught on youtube. Pay special attention to how he deals with folks who attack his sexual orientation.

GOProud On Barney Frank's Retirement - Meanwhile, the conservative gay group GoProud calls Frank an embarrassment. Barney Frank spent decades in valued service in Congress and being an excellent role model for the lgbtq community. All GoProud does is kiss up to a GOP base which hates its guts. If the group did as much work trying to change the Republican party from within than wailing at the supposed "Gay Left," it would have some degree of credibility.

Don't Ask Don't Tell: Top Marine Says Service Embracing Gay Ban Repeal - Don't tell the religious right. It would ruin their day. Then again, feel free to tell them.

I've never seen a Youtube video with 0% like... - Maggie Gallagher's silly Thanksgiving video is TANKING!

Prop 8 supporter fears the courts

With California's Proposition 8 looking very likely to be decided by the Supreme Court, supporters of it are not liking their prospects. Right now, the case is headed towards Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal:

Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, suggests the Ninth Circuit judges will not side with supporters of traditional marriage.

"It doesn't look very good there," he warns. "Stephen Reinhardt, he's heading up this three-judge panel, he's the ultimate judicial activist." And Thomasson is not sure about how Justices Michael Daly Hawkins and Norman Randy Smith will vote on the merits of the case.

. . . Thomasson argues that this is an issue that should have never been taken to a federal court "because marriage is a state jurisdiction."

Ultimately, he says the court must decide whether the definition of marriage is something that should be decided at the state level.

We all know why Thomasson fears the courts. Probably because if the judges did look at the merits of case, Prop 8 supporters would continue to lose. At the very best, their case was weak. Many of those pushing for the law demurred when it came to testifying as to why the law was needed. They only could get two witness. One, David Blankenhorn, under cross examination made the case against Prop 8. Also, during closing arguments, proponents of Prop 8 said that they didn't need any evidence to prove their case.

Thomasson's whine speaks to what scares those against marriage equality the most. They like to sound the horn and cry "let the people vote" because they have the means and the money to manipulate that vote. They have enough pull to spread false stories about gays and children across any state, as well as cite junk science to prove their points.

In a court of law, however, things are different. In the words of David Boies, one of the lawyers who defeated Prop 8 in courts:

"In a court of law you've got to come in and you've got to support those opinions, you've got to stand up under oath and cross-examination," Boies said. "And what we saw at trial is that it's very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens of the right to vote [sic] to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature, or in debates where they can't be cross-examined.

"But when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away. And that's what happened here. There simply wasn't any evidence, there weren't any of those studies. There weren't any empirical studies. That's just made up. That's junk science. It's easy to say that on television. But a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court you can't do that.

Thomasson fears the simple fact that in the courts, where is there is no room for distortions or lies, the folks defending Prop 8 will continue to come up short.

And they deserve to.

Hey T.I., violence against gay children is NOT funny

I cringe to write about this, but it's necessary.

A rapper by the name of T.I. is pulling the "gays want to shut down everyone who disagrees with them" card.

T.I. said the following in an upcoming issue of Vibe magazine:

Man, I will say this, the funniest joke I ever heard Tracy (Morgan) say during a stand-up was, ‘C’mon man, I think gay people are too sensitive. If you can take a dick, you can take a joke.’ [Cracks up laughing.] That shit was funny to me. And it’s kind of true.’

While T.I. makes clear that he supports anyone’s sexual preference, he then connects, in his opinion, a current oversensitivity among gay people with a consequential and ironic offense of the First Amendment. “They’re like,‘If you have an opinion against us, we’re gonna shut you down.’ … That’s not American. If you’re gay you should have the right to be gay in peace, and if you’re against it you should have the right to be against it in peace.’

Earlier this year, comedian Tracy Morgan got into trouble due to a viciously nasty comedy routine about gays. Amongst other things, Morgan said he would stab his son if the child was gay.

The best reasons for marriage equality that you will ever see

So that you folks don't think that I'm totally immersed in raising hell with the religious right, I present to you an absolutely stunning, stunning ad from Australia on why marriage equality is important.

It is to the point, universal, and says it all.




Have you seen the ad? If so, stop weeping and spread it to the far corners. EVERYONE has to see this.

This anti-gay video clip will leave you COLD

I hope everyone enjoyed their Thanksgiving. I had a nice quiet time, but back into the breach, as they say.

I saw this video clip on youtube merely minutes ago and I just have to share it with you. It's from the documentary Stonewall Uprising.  It is from the 1960s when a Dade County, FL police detective was lecturing an auditorium full of children about the so-called dangers of being gay.

And it speaks for itself in regards to our history, our heritage, where the lgbtq community has come from and where we are now:




Just think. There are people who, right now at this present age, want us to go back to that nightmare.

Maggie Gallagher's paper trail refutes her lies

Former NOM head Maggie Gallagher (and now it seems a member of a new group, American Principles Project's Culture War Victory Fund) is out with a video on supposedly how to "handle the same-sex debate at Thanksgiving."

It should be called How Maggie Gallagher continues to lie about the motivations of those on her side.

Watch the entire video if you have the stomach for it. But for my money, the most telling part comes at .44

Gallagher:

"Most of us who believe that marriage is the union between a husband and a wife have no interest in shaming those who disagree with us. We understand that most people can disagree on extremely important moral issues."

Then she proceeds to claim that the gay community is unfairly labeling folks on her side of the argument as bigots. It's the same one-note argument she has continued to push:

"If you don't think two men in a union isn't a marriage, you are a bigot, like people who wanted to hold back African-Americans . . ."

But again, Maggie, you continue to demonstrate why you were a piss poor spokesperson for NOM.

In other words, your claims of victimhood don't mean a thing when there is such a huge paper trail of hateful comments, mailings, and flyers which NOM distributed about not just same-sex couples, but the gay community in general.

Such as the following flyers:

And let's not forget the slanderous comments and posts made about the gay community by NOM - all taking place when Gallagher was chairperson:

NOM Still Promoting Bogus Link Between Pedophilia And Homosexuality


NOM Promotes Calling “Sodomy” The “Cancer Version” Of Heterosexuality


NOM Newsletter: Gays Are Engaged In “Jihad,” Want To “Take Away Your Rights”


NOM Links Homosexuality To Pedophilia (Again)


NOM President Claims Marriage Equality Will “Normalize Pedophilia”

One of the most annoying things about Gallagher is the absolute nerve of how she tries to make folks believe that NOM is only interested in reasonable discussions about marriage equality when the organization has been guilty of labeling the gay community as sick, diseased perverts out to harm children and cause general mayhem. And a lot of this labeling took place when she was chairperson of the group. I'm hard pressed to believe that she didn't know about this.

So Maggie, spare me talks about reasonable discussion. And please stop saying that folk like yourself aren't interested in shame those of us who support marriage equality.

And most of all, please stop whining that folks on your side of the spectrum are unfairly being labeled as bigots.

Basically your words mean nothing because we have the paper trail to refute you.

Hat tip to Equality Matters.

'Tap water makes you gay?' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

A Message from a Moderator at Ruthblog - More about the Ruth Institute debacle I blogged about this morning.

Should Truth Wins Out Sue PFOX and Greg Quinlan for Defamation? - The lie is UGLY and Besen should press Quinlan on it.

Social Workers See Gay Parents As Important In Adoptions - Well we KNEW this.

Mayor Warns that Tap Water is Turning His Town Gay - Speechless. I still say if this were true, then the mayor is a dummy. MARKET the tap water!

Fire Kills 15 Transgender Indians in Delhi - We need to pray for all those caught in this tragedy.

A blogger too obnoxious for NOM?

From Equality Matters comes a shocker - blogger too obnoxious for even the National Organization for Marriage:

Over the past two weeks, Equality Matters has told you about a number of outrageous comments made by Ari Mendelson, a blogger for the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) Ruth Institute.

On November 14, Mendelson ranted against LGBT-inclusive curricula in California public schools, writing that the “ENTIRE STATE has had its public schools ruined” by “LGBT propaganda.”

On November 17, Mendelson  promoted a column calling gay activists “more loathsome” than “jihadi terrorists” and warning that gay activists “should not be able to go out in the streets for fear of being spat upon by decent people.”

Today, the Ruth Institute announced that it would “no longer allow Ari to have posting privileges” on its blog, adding:

His sarcasm has gone over the line and we don’t care to be associated with it...  We will stick to reporting on all aspects of the marriage issue in a civil way.

The Ruth Institute taken away Mendelson's posting privileges and has eliminated several of his past posts, totally disassociating themselves from him.

I'm of the personal opinion that whatever reason Mendelson was dismissed, it had nothing to do with civility or any idea that the folks behind the Ruth Institute has developed a conscience. I'm sure that a personal argument fueled this.

And if you do think that a new found idea of civility is behind this controversy, Equality Matters wants you to think again:

Unfortunately for NOM, however, Mendelson’s hate-filled blog posts are just the tip of the iceberg.

Here’s just a sampling of less-than-"civil" anti-gay rhetoric being promoted at NOM’s Ruth Institute on a daily basis, none of it written by Mendelson:

• “It Gets Better” Project “Aggressively Promotes Deviant Sex ”
• “Anal Sex Is Icky”
• “Evil” ACLU Is Trying To Expose Kids To Gay Porn, Is the “Devil’s Law Firm”
• Normalizing Homosexuality Is “Sexual Anarchy”
• "All Laws” That Allow Gay Couples To Raise Children Are “Wrong”
• Pedophilia Being Normalized Because “They’ve Seen Homosexuals Get Away With It”
• Homosexuality Is Unhealthy, It Doesn’t Get Better
• Gay-Friendly Shows Are A “Destructive” Influence On Society
• Same-Sex Couples Are Taking Children Away The From African-American Community
• Homosexuality Is Responsible For Penn State Scandal
• Lawrence v. Texas Caused The Penn State Scandal

U.S. Supreme Court hands NOM a huge loss

No, the Supreme Court didn't give the National Organization for Marriage the BIG slapdown - hopefully that comes later. But the court do the following:

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a request by Protect Marriage Washington that the state be blocked from releasing further copies of Referendum 71 petitions while PMW appeals an earlier Federal District Court decision that ordered their release.

The request had been made to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy who apparently referred it to the entire Court. Justice Alito alone would have granted an injunction and Justice Kagan “took no part in the consideration or decision”, making this a 7-1 decision.

“This means that we can once again release these public records,” said Katie Blinn, the state elections co-director.

In 2010 the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against Protect Marriage Washington in an earlier phase of the same case, Doe v. Reed. At that time, PMW was trying to strike down all public records laws across the country that give the public access to initiative or referendum petitions once those petitions are submitted to the state. In the current phase of the case, PMW is asking for a special exception to keep only R-71 petitions secret.

Referendum 71 was the 2009 ballot measure that PMW used to try to repeal Washington’s domestic partnership law. In November, 2009 over 53% of the Washington electorate voted to approve Referendum 71, making Washington the first state in the nation to vote affirmatively in support of comprehensive relationship recognition for LGBT families.

Hat tip to Pam's House Blend.

'Gay parents = serial killers?' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

BYU newspaper letter compares gay parents to serial killers - As vile as this is, a community response and a public pushback is necessary. There are some folks who have a hateful opinion of our families. We need to make clear that while respect somone's freedom of speech, if that person calls us out with lies and smears, we will answer back with truth and dignity.

New FRC Pamphlet Obsesses Over ‘Homosexual Conduct’, Ignores Gay People - Kudos for Zach Ford regarding his takedown of the Family Research Council newest junk science pamphlet. He doesn't get as clinical as I do, but he more than adequately does the job in exposing the distortions.

Teen in gay-student slaying case agrees to 21-year prison term - This sad case is finally over at least for the public. This is a tragedy which shows the extent of hate and homophobia. My heart goes out to EVERYONE caught up in this.

Audio: If you show up with your same-sex spouse, you're victimizing Maggie Gallagher and Jen Roback Morse - They attack us, disrespect our families and our relationships, but yet WE are the bad guys? Okay.

TWO Special Report: The Call Detroit – A Slick Political Rally Disguised As a Religious Revival - A sad case of how the religious right tries to rope in the black community.

Liberty Counsel: Aggressive Gay Agenda Seeks To Push Children Into Gay Relationships - Okay folks, this is not offensive. It's so ridiculous that it becomes comical.

Family Research Council whines that no one wants to debate 'homosexual' issues

Peter Sprigg

In dealing with the fact that it is an officially declared hate group, the Family Research Council pulls the shuck-and-jive argument that it is being attacked by people who don't want to debate gay issues. This following missive came in a recent email

The harms associated with homosexuality include serious physical and mental health problems. Pro-homosexual activists have begun to demand that no debate on the issue of homosexuality be permitted.

Of course we all know that this is a lie. The fact of the matter is that aside from appearing on friendly locations such as Fox News, neither FRC's president, Tony Perkins, nor its spokesperson, Peter Sprigg, will put themselves in a situation to clearly debate FRC's stance on the gay community.

Of course we all remember what happened the last time Perkins went on a head-to-head debate on the issue. It was last year on Hardball against the Southern Poverty Law Center's Mark Potok.

Close to the end of the show, Perkins cited research  from a group which supposedly proved a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. On a later show, Hardball's host, Chris Matthews, acknowledged that Perkins' citation wasn't exactly unbiased.

Since that time, it has been increasingly obvious that Perkins and Sprigg have avoided in depth discussions on FRC's claims about the gay community or the methods FRC uses to reach its conclusion about the gay community.

All the group has done was to whine that it is "being silenced" from the so-called intolerant gay community because it is merely standing up for traditional values.

Who knew that "traditional values" meant avoiding debate while whining about not being to have one?

The bottom line is that a lot of us want this debate. In fact, we look forward to it. I personally would like an answer to several of these questions:

1. What makes Peter Sprigg a policy expert when he clearly has no expertise in the issues he is talking about?

2. Why does the Family Research Council continue to pursue the false homosexuality/pedophilia connection even at the point of distorting legitimate studies to make the claim?

3. Why did the Family Research Council remove several anti-gay studies from its webpage claiming that the studies contained "outdated" material and then sneak them back on years later?

4. Why does the Family Research Council continue to distort legitimate studies to attack the gay community such as the 1997 Oxford study on the supposed gay lifespan and the study done by Robert Garofalo on gay youth and negative behavior?

5. Why does Peter Sprigg cherry-pick work from pro-gay sources to demonize the lgbtq entire community?

6. Why didn't the Family Research Council acknowledge that it pushed a fraudulent video on GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network) and was forced to walk it back?

7. Why does the Family Research Council continue to cite the work of the discredited Paul Cameron, a junk scientist who claims, amongst other things, that gays stuff gerbils up their rectums ? (FRC used Cameron's work in Homosexual Parenting - Placing Children at Risk - endnote 60  - one of the studies it removed from its webpage and then surreptitiously placed back - see question 3.)

Of course none of these questions will be answered because FRC really doesn't want a debate. If we were to have a debate, then the truth about FRC would come out.

And that plain truth is that the Family Research Council is a group deliberately exploiting people's values and fears in order to bear false witness against the gay community for political gain.

In other words, contrary to the organization's whine, the debate on gay issues is a debate FRC can't afford to have.

Related post:

16 reasons why the Family Research Council is a hate group

A religious right lesson in fear and entitlement

No message can go through without an eager audience and when it comes to religious right lies, the audience sometimes tends to bend over backwards to be receptive.

Witness the firsthand account by Ana Beatriz Cholo of a meeting of folks seeking to overturn SB48, the newly passed California law which mandates that classrooms teach about the contributions and roles of lgbtq figures in age-appropriate classes.

I will showcase the comments made by several folks at the meeting, making sure to include some explanation behind what they really mean:

 I drove an hour and a half to hear Karen England, Stop SB 48's main proponent, discuss their failed campaign and what their next steps are in stopping "the homosexual agenda." England is the executive director of a "pro-family" organization called the Capitol Resource Institute. As England put it that night, it's one thing to live with same-sex marriage. After all, even some hardcore conservatives might say with resignation, "Well, that's in their home. Live and let live."


"But now you're talking about bringing it into our schools; you're messing with our kids," England continued indignantly. "Kids need to learn their ABCs, not about transgendered people."

Please notice how England omits the fact that same-sex families have children attending these schools. She also omits the fact that lgbtq children are attending these schools. Her words are exploiting the notion that gays are "recruiting" children because apparently we don't have any of our own (a huge lie).  Also notice how she intentionally pushes the notion of "transgenders corrupting children."

Another woman identified herself as a school employee. She works in her school's print shop and said she had a conversation with the assistant principal about the new law in recent weeks.


"I won't print that stuff for the children," she said she'd informed the administrator, referring to LGBT-related materials that might end up coming her way. "I will walk," she'd told him. The administrator had tried to dismiss her concerns, but she made it pretty clear that she would rather quit her job than allow gay people to be humanized.

She will quit her job and walk right into a new gig with the National Organization for Marriage as their latest phony defamation victim, even though her rights would not be violated by simply doing her job. She doesn't know what the materials will be but yet has made it up in her mind that she will not print them, as if she is entitled to do so.

An elderly man said his worse fears were medically motivated. "The gay community has a lot of health issues that straight people don't have."

We've all heard this before. One wonders if the man brought up the "gay bowel syndrome" lie.

So what do you do when you're up against such nonsense. Engage those you can, waste no time getting into useless arguments with those who won't listen, but above all, put the truth out there consistently.

Satan, pedophilia, the gay community, and other Monday midday news briefs

DeMint Accuses El Salvadorian Ambassador Of ‘Promoting The Homosexual Lifestyle’ - Ah yes Sen. Jim DeMint from my state of South Carolina. The man who is afraid of the possibility of a gay president. The man who attacks the idea of unmarried female and gay teachers. The man who is the single reason why I laugh when I am encouraged to call my Senators to get their support for pro-gay legislation. Seriously though, who uses the phrase "promoting the homosexual lifestyle" anymore?

Audio: NOM's 'marriage defamation' star spent weekend conflating homosexuality and pedophilia - Don't listen unless wanting to "purge."

NOM: Decriminalizing Gay Sex Helped Cause Penn State Scandal - Yep. THAT'S the ticket.

Whitemarsh passes human relations ordinance with ease - Some good news for a change.


Liberty Counsel: Satan Plants The Seed Of Homosexuality - Here we go again.

Petty lawsuit + lots of money, religious right spin = big problems

From the American Family Association's One News Now:

A pro-family attorney says officials of one California school district were biased when they wouldn't allow a parent to be involved in her child's education.

The Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) filed legal briefs with the California Court of Appeal, arguing that San Jose Unified School District officials broke the law by refusing to acknowledge Norina Mooney's request to make changes to a pro-LGBT event at her daughter's school.

The lawsuit stems from a "Rainbow Day" event at Castillero Middle School that addressed the issue of lesbian, "gay," bisexual, and transgender bullying. Mooney asked the school district to place a request on the agenda that would recognize other minorities who are affected by bullying, but the superintendent and board president refused. PJI filed suit in June to protect parents' rights to participate in such decisions, but a Santa Clara County judge rejected the case without comment, prompting appeal.

And of course as you can read, and will probably read more, this is not the end of the story. I'm guessing that this faux controversy will continue and, as with other cases in the past, we will be bombarded with religious right spin portraying this woman as a so- called innocent parent stymied by the so-called gay agenda.

The fact that the lawsuit was dismissed without comment because it was petty means absolutely nothing.  Nor does the comment from San Jose Unified School District that the the school district doesn't have the ability to ask schools to change school-wide events mean anything also.

This isn't about bullying or parents. This is yet another attempt to undermine the gay community under the guise of morality. As long as there are religious right groups with unfettered finances to pursue such petty lawsuits, as long as there are enough right-wing publications eager enough to publicize the one-sided drivel of these groups, and as long as there are enough ignorant morons out there whose homophobic bias outweighs their common sense and who will comment about the evils of the so-called gay agenda even when they know that the situation they are commenting about is false, we should expect more phony moral panics like this.

2011 Transgender Day of Remembrance

May the day come soon that commemorations like this are never again needed: