Analyzing and refuting the inaccuracies lodged against the lgbt community by religious conservative organizations. Lies in the name of God are still lies.
Minnesotans United for All Families — a coalition opposing the state’s proposed anti-gay constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman — has discovered that proponents of inequality are having a hard time finding Minnesotans who oppose same-sex marriage. Yesterday, the anti-gay group released its first video of 2012, but rather than interviewing actual residents of the state, the commercial is “full of stock images“:
Minnesotans for Marriage is no doubt following the lead of the organization it's teaming with to stop marriage equality in the state - the National Organization for Marriage.
In October of last year, Jeremy Hooper from the site Goodasyou.org caught the organization stealing photos from past Obama rallies and using them to boost the number of its followers.
If there ever was a incident which demonstrates the National Organization for Marriage's absolute cluelessness, it would have to be the video above. In it, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, while in Iowa, was asked to respond to the fact that Rick Santorum supports a Federal Marriage Amendment.
I guess the organization was attempting to portray Wasserman-Schultz as "intolerant," but what ended up happening is that NOM gave her a perfect plateau to state her points in a clear and concise manner.
If the attempt was to embarrass Wasserman-Schultz and gain sympathy for their side of the argument, NOM failed miserably.
The sermon from two years ago by Roosevelt Wright Jr. at the Tabernacle Baptist Church is kinda conflicted. On one hand, the minister spreads all sorts of inaccuracies about gay men (i.e. imply pedophilia), but on the other hand, his words reveal the duplicity going on in the black church.
Rick Fitzgibbons is accused of distorting research
Another researcher has come out complaining about how a religious right "expert" distorted her work to stigmatize the lgbtq community.
According to Box Turtle Bulletin, Rick Fitzgibbons of the NARTH (the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) wrote a piece about same-sex adoption. In the piece, Fitzgibbons cited the work of Seton Hall professor Dr. Theodora Sirota to make the case that children in same sex households are not raised better than children "in stable homes with a mother and a father."
To support his denunciation of same-sex adoption, Fitzgibbons offers this summary of Sirota’s research:
Researchers interviewed 68 women with gay or bisexual fathers and 68 women with heterosexual fathers. The women (average age 29 in both groups) with gay or bisexual fathers had difficulty with adult attachment issues in three areas: they were less comfortable with closeness and intimacy; they were less able to trust and depend on others; and they experienced more anxiety in relationships compared to the women raised by heterosexual fathers.
The problem is not with what Fitzgibbons said; it’s what he left out: The gay and bisexual fathers in Sirota’s study were married to the mothers.
Dr. Sirota’s article is about the impact of a homosexual father raising a girl in a heterosexual marriage. It has nothing to do with same-sex couples, nothing to do with same-sex adoption at all.
Or as Dr. Sirota says in her letter:
. . . no conclusions about gay or lesbian fitness to adopt children or quality of active gay parenting can be drawn from the findings of my research. No conclusions about the well-being of children who are or were actively raised by gay or lesbian parents can be drawn from the findings of my research.”
While NARTH is looked upon as experts on the lgbtq community in religious right circles, the mainstream scientific community pretty much ignores the groups's research and with good reason.
The website Truth Wins Out calls NARTH a discredited “ex-gay” fringe organization that peddles fraudulent “cures” for homosexuality.
According to Truth Wins Out, several NARTH members have been embroiled in controversies including:
Gerald Schoenwolf, PhD, a member of NARTH’ “Scientific Advisory Committee,” who wrote a piece on the group’s website that seemed to justify slavery
NARTH psychiatrist Joseph Berger, MD, another member of its “Scientific Advisory Committee,” who wrote a paper encouraging students to “ridicule” gender variant children.
Also, according to Truth Wins Out:
NARTH’ co-founder, Joesph Nicolosi encourages male clients to become more masculine by drinking Gatorade and referring to friends as “dude”. NARTH therapists have been known to practice rubber band therapy, where a gay client is made to wear a rubber band and snap it on his wrist when sexually stimulated. It is a mild form of aversion therapy meant to “snap” the client out of the moment of attraction. NARTH members have also been known to practice “touch therapy”, where a client sits in the therapist’ lap for up to an hour, while the therapist caresses him.
In 2010, another member of NARTH, George Rekers, resigned from the organization after caught coming from a vacation overseas with a "rentboy."
Unfortunately the distortion of legitimate scientific work by religious right experts is not done solely by NARTH. Other groups have gotten into trouble over this sadly overlooked aspect of the so-called culture wars. Over the years, there have been 11 other complaints from researchers about how their work was being distorted by religious right and so-called "pro-family" groups, including:
Six researchers of a 1997 Canadian study (Robert S. Hogg, Stefan A. Strathdee, Kevin J.P. Craib, Michael V. Shaughnessy, Julio Montaner, and Martin T. Schehter), who complained in 2001 that religious right groups were distorting their work to claim that gay men have a short life span.
The authors of the book Unequal Opportunity: Health Disparities Affecting Gay and Bisexual Men in the United States (Professors Richard J. Wolitski, Ron Stall, and Ronald O. Valdiserri), who complained that their work was being distorted by Focus on the Family.
University of Utah professor Lisa Diamond, who complained that NARTH (the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality), a group which also share board members with the American College of Pediatricians, distorted her research on sexual orientation.
Dr. Carol Gilligan, Professor of Education and Law at New York University, who complained that former Focus on the Family head James Dobson misrepresented her research to attack LGBT families.
Dr. Kyle Pruett, Ph.D., a professor of child psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine, who has also complained that Focus on the Family distorted his work.
Dr. Robert Spitzer, Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, who has consistently complained that religious right groups distorted his study to claim that the LGBT orientation is easily changeable.
Judith Stacey, Professor of Sociology at New York University, who has had to, on more than one occasion, cry foul over how religious right groups distorted her work on LGBT families.
Greg Remafedi, Professor at the University of Minnesota, who has complained several times about how religious right groups such as the American College of Pediatricians and PFOX have distorted his work, all to no avail. The American College of Pediatricians refused his request to remove his work from their site.
In 2010, John Horgan, a science journalist and Director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, became the 11th researcher to complain.
Last year, Tom Minnery, a spokesman from Focus on the Family, was dressed down by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) during a Congressional hearing for deliberately misrepresenting a study. Minnery initially used the study to claim, as Fitzgibbons did in his misrepresentation, that same-sex households are inferior to two parent mother/father households.
After Bruising Loss In Iowa, Bachmann Bows Out - I personally never really shared the amusement of Bachmann that my fellow bloggers did. To me, she proved that demagogues come in both sexes. A hateful woman who didn't care if what she said wasn't true and when told of the fact, she doubled down on the lie. Now if only she would leave Congress.
Regardless of who won the primary last night - Romney actually won by eight votes but Santorum got the momentum, the National Organization for Marriage is patting itself on the back for supposedly contributing to Ron Paul's third place victory.
NOM ran several ads against Paul because he would not sign its silly marriage pledge. Today, the organization is crowing hard:
NOM congratulates Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney for their photo-finish in Iowa. Both these candidates, along with Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann are champions for traditional marriage. It’s especially satisfying to see Senator Santorum, a longtime friend and champion for the family, come from behind to mount such a successful campaign. The strong showing by both Santorum and Romney shows that supporting marriage is not only the right thing to do, it is the politically smart thing to do. This is a lesson that Ron Paul may be learning the hard way. Paul suffered a big loss by finishing third in Iowa, a state he was expecting to win. NOM aired television and online ads that were highly critical of Paul’s unacceptable stance on marriage, including his belief that civil marriage should be abolished altogether. No doubt our ads, along with tens of thousands of telephone calls and grassroots work with our thousands of supporters in Iowa were a factor in Ron Paul’s poor showing. We will continue to point out Paul’s unacceptable views on marriage to voters in upcoming states.”
Actually the idea that Paul was supposed to win isn't necessarily true. Romney was ahead in the polls.
But we know that ignoring the truth is a NOM specialty.
Now aside from the self-back slapping, NOM is also taking time out to declare Santorum as the next big thing. Try not to get nauseated as you read the following from former NOM head Maggie Gallagher calling Santorum a Catholic hero:
Rick Santorum gave a magnificent speech tonight. It was an expression, a flowering in a way I do not think America has seen in my lifetime of Catholic culture. He made his economic message more than a question of self-interest -- he made it a moral cause. He connected the dignity of every human life, with the dignity not only of work, but every human being who is made in the image of his Creator to be a creator -- a worker, and not just a consumer.
God bless him, God bless him. This is a serious fight.
Not to be outdone, another NOM employee - Thomas Peters (who wrote that ill-timed column claiming that the marriage equality push failed in NY days before it actually passed) said the following:
For many voters, tonight was the first time they got a chance to see Rick Santorum as a real contender, after he has spent the past months quietly canvassing every county in Iowa. Tonight viewers of his speech were reminded that hard work and aspiration pay off. Santorum said tonight he learned these essential lessons from the example of his grandfather and father.
He was inspiring, effective, while sounding fully like himself. He contrasted his positions with both the Democrat and Republican establishment, arguing that "cutting taxes is not enough." He offered more: for America to reach its full potential, he said, it must embrace the values that made it into the great country it is. American values, Santorum said, which are not shared by those who currently occupy the White House.
The National Organization for Marriage loves to push the mantra "don't mess with marriage" as a way of falsely claiming that gays want to disrupt the institution.
However, according to Think Progress, the mantra has been turned not only on NOM but others who would supports its efforts:
The GOP presidential race will shift to New Hampshire after today’s Iowa caucuses, where Republicans in the legislature and Catholic leaders have pledged to repeal the state’s 2009 marriage equality law — despite overwhelming public support for the measure. This morning, the state’s leading newspaper, the Concord Monitor, debunks the arguments against same-sex marriage and calls on lawmakers to “leave the law alone“:
• Marriage is between one man and one woman. This is more of a declaration than an actual argument. In fact, it’s a declaration of bigotry. After all, who gets to define marriage? Those already married? Without a compelling reason to deny marriage to gay people, a statement like this is hard to take seriously.
• But marriage has been restricted to heterosexuals for thousands of years. Many traditions outlive their usefulness. Slavery was an ancient practice too, after all. So was barring women from participation in politics. Once upon a time, people with disabilities were routinely locked away in institutions. Mercifully, times change.
• Marriage is for procreation. In many cases, yes. But infertile, straight couples marry all the time. So do those uninterested in having kids. Those past their child-bearing years aren’t forced to divorce. Having children isn’t the only thing that brings couples together.
• Same-sex couples don’t do as good a job raising children. There are all sorts of good parents and, alas, a wide variety of bad ones, too. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Nor is there a legislative push to ban other sorts of truly bad parents – child molesters, bank robbers – from marrying. No doubt each of New Hampshire’s 424 legislators has among his or her constituents gay couples raising children just fine. Examples that disprove this worry are easy to find.
You really should read the rest of the editorial. It is a definite take down of all of the phony arguments against marriage equality
By tomorrow morning, the Iowa Republican caucus will be over and my head will stop throbbing from overkill.
The big story seems to be Rick Santorum (who probably never met a same-sex relationship or family he approved of) is moving up in the polls. I refuse to say "surging" because that term has been overused as it is.
It's looking like this uptick is due to Romney still making folks uneasy and how Santorum appeals to the so-called evangelical crowd.
And the one group who seems to be thrilled for Santorum is the National Organization for Marriage. Check out its last five posts:
Don't be fooled by NOM's "Santorum fever." He is clearly the flavor of the month (like Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, etc.,etc). Regardless of how he does in Iowa, it will be his single moment in the sun.
And when Santorum's moment is up, count on NOM to slink to the candidate in the lead while omitting it supported anyone else.
One of the wildest, mind blowing experiences I ever had was attempting to watch the motion picture The Lion in Winter (1968) for the first time.
It was originally a 1966 play which was made into a motion picture starring Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn. It received three Oscars, including one for Hepburn for Best Actress. From Wikipedia:
Set during Christmas 1183 at Henry II of England's château in Chinon, Anjou, Angevin Empire, the play opens with the arrival of Henry's wife Eleanor of Aquitaine, whom he has had imprisoned since 1173. The story concerns the gamesmanship between Henry, Eleanor, their three surviving sons Richard, Geoffrey, and John, their guest, Philip II of France (the son of Eleanor's ex-husband, Louis VII of France), and Philip's half-sister, Alais, who has been at court since she was betrothed to Richard at age 8, but has since become Henry's mistress.
The Lion In Winter was a classic example of palace intrigue done in hyper mode. There are so many twists and turns that it would be best for one not to root for one character because the character would veer off in another direction and betray your sympathies by revealing themselves to be cold and venomous.
The scene below is a perfect example of this. King Philip (Timothy Dalton) and King Henry are bartering over allegiances and property. Henry outmaneuvers Philip, or so he thinks.
Philip has one trump card he plays - his relationship with Henry's son, Richard. It's a nasty scene. Imagine entering into a gay affair just so that you could use it to hurt the man's father in the future:
Historically, it is not known whether or not Richard (who later became Richard the Lion-Hearted) and Philip had an affair. However, history does hint that Richard have been bisexual at the very least.
Note at the end "Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed." Note also that One News Now used the author's byline (Andrew Welsh-Huggins); the Washington Post article provides his twitter address so I would suggest contacting him directly and pointing out their rewrite. He may not be happy to see how his article has been rewritten. Welsh's email address is awelsh@ap.org. He's also on Facebook.
I think that it's more than appropriate for those of us concerned with how the AFA dehumanizes the gay community to register our disapproval of such tactics. I also think that it's more appropriate to notify other parties who are unfairly being used to further that aim.
The following is my letter:
Dear Mr. Huggins,
I am a reader who wanted to notify you concerning a possible violation of AP policy as it pertains to the reproduction of its articles.
The American Family Association reprinted an article you wrote after giving it a rewrite to push an anti-gay agenda.
This is what you wrote:
Girls seeking abortions in New Hampshire must first tell their parents or a judge, some employers in Alabama must verify new workers' U.S. residency, and California students will be the first in the country to receive mandatory lessons about the contributions of gays and lesbians under state laws set to take effect at the start of 2012.
The American Family Association changed it to the following:
Girls seeking abortions in New Hampshire must first tell their parents or a judge, employers in Alabama must verify new workers' U.S. residency, and California students will be the first in the country to receive mandatory pro-homosexual indoctrination under state laws set to take effect at the start of 2012.
Not only is the article given a homophobic spin, but your byline remains, making it appear as if you are aware of this breach of objectivity. I sincerely that for the sake of your personal integrity as a journalist and that of the AP as an unbiased new sources that this breach doesn't go unanswered.
As 2011 comes to a close, it is time yet again count down those special moments in which the religious right and other assorted members of the anti-gay industry made complete asses of themselves on video:
5. Brian Brown gets laughed at on Fox News - In 2011, a curious thing happened to the National Organization for Marriage. As the organization battled against marriage equality in several states - successfully in Maine and unsuccessfully in New York - NOM's leaders seemed be slowly backing away from giving interviews and having debates on news programs.
Now it could be that they were shying away from the press so they didn't have to answer ever growing questions about NOM's finances. But one could also point out the simple fact that as NOM's people gave more interviews and took part in more debates, their argument became less credible.
NOM's president, Brian Brown, emphasized this point. Now in his defense, Brown had a bad year which was accentuated by a picture of him crying when the state of New York passed a marriage equality law and a later video of him pushing a reporter out of a Newt Gingrich fundraiser.
But for my money, Brown's less-than-finest hour came in August when he was debating the issue of marriage equality on Fox News and not only was his points shot down by the host of the program, John Stossel, but also by the audience. Now seriously, if you are a conservative who can't get positive play on Fox News, you might as well quit your gig:
In all honesty though, it was Brown's own fault. He repeated his talking points in a delivery so wooden that he looked less like a so-called defender of marriage and more like a third rate actor auditioning for the sequel to The Stepford Wives. The Stepford Bigots maybe?
4. GLSEN spanks the Family Research Council - In August, the Family Research Council attacked GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network) in a video, claiming that the organization distributed an explicit sex guide to school children in 2005.
But not only was the claim false, it was debunked overa year before FRC made it. So GLSEN sent FRC a cease-and-desist letter from its lawyers saying (and allow me to paraphrase here):
"Look suckers! You are telling a straight up lie and if you don't correct this, we are going to have so many lawyers up your behind that FRC will be funding GLSEN for years to come."
Like any other bully when stood up to, FRC backed down hard, changing the video to the following below:
As you can see, it now tells folks to go to a new video, which is an edited version of the original video.
But while FRC was quick to send out a new version of lies, the organization ignored the Christian tenet of apologizing to those you have wronged. All of this was done silently and without any acknowledgement by FRC of what it had done to GLSEN.
3. Al Franken humiliates Focus on the Family - In July during a Congressional hearing, Senator Al Franken became the idol of many in the lgbtq community when he publicly called out Focus on the Family's Tom Minnery for distorting a study in order to badmouth same-sex households:
Those on the right whined that Franken unfairly attacked Minnery, but who cares what they think. The big take away was that it was the first time that a member of the religious right was publicly caught and dressed down during a Congressional hearing for their common practice of cherry-picking and misrepresenting studies to demonize the lgbtq community.The only reason why this video doesn't rank higher is because it was wasn't Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council who was dressed down. He is long due for the numerous times he has cherry-picked studies.
2. Maggie Gallagher's Thanksgiving insult - In September, Maggie Gallagher stepped down as chairwoman of NOM. She claimed that she wanted to devote time to other projects. I personally think it was because she became such a polarizing figure whose public persona actually worked against her argument. Since that time, Gallagher kept a pretty much low profile. That is until November when she pushed the following video tips on supposedly how to "handle the same-sex debate at Thanksgiving."
And I imagine those who stood on Gallagher's side of the marriage equality argument rolled their eyes and wondered just why did she feel the need to grab the spotlight.
Now I got into a little trouble concerning the video when I made the following statement:
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.
To reiterate, I wasn't attacking Gallagher's physical appearance, only the campy quality of the video. To tell the truth, I rather liked Gallagher's appearance. Her hair was on point, the pearls were fierce, and girlfriend was rocking that faux Chanel suit. However, from what I hear in regards to her salary (and not just with NOM but also with past groups), I doubt that the suit was fake.
This is NOM's second video on the countdown. When both videos are combined, they make a point about the organization. Brown's video demonstrates why NOM will lose in the end. The points he made about marriage are false, coming from a boardroom rather than any place of truth. Gallagher's video reveals why the organization is having success in some places even though its argument is below weak.
Someone is funding NOM, majorly. We don't know yet. But sooner or later, the truth will come out.
1. Poor Rick Perry - Maggie Gallagher's Thanksgiving monstrosity would have been number one if it weren't for Rick Perry.
Poor Rick Perry. At one time, the long-time Texas Governor was seen as the conservative savior, i.e the one who could defeat Obama in 2012. However after a series of gaffes, Perry was seen as less of a political genius and more of a beneficiary of Texas complacency.
Then came the following video in which Perry tried to regain his footing by pulling the "prayer in schools" and anti-gay cards at the same time:
The sad thing is that a while back, an ad like this would have probably gone over big. But unfortunately for Perry, the ad did the opposite.
This video didn't just yell "desperate." It screamed it with the volume of a virgin in the middle of his first orgasmic experience. And I won't even mention his Brokeback Mountain jacket.
Bishops Say Rules on Gay Parents Limit Freedom of Religion - An excellent breakdown of claims from the Catholic Bishops that they are so-called "victims" of the push for lgbtq equality. And the comments section is simply BRUTAL as the readers aren't buying their explanations.
FRC Hosts Michael Brown to 'Explain the Homosexual Agenda'- Hold on to your hoolahoops. We have YET ANOTHER phony anti-gay expert on the horizon. And he will be making his presence known in North Carolina also. Long story short - Michael Brown is a grandstanding so-and-so who wants his piece of the anti-gay pie of notoriety. Like so many others, he pushes the same lies about our community, including how we are "plotting" to take over America. So many nuts, so many lies.
Watching Jamaica - Thank you Box Turtle Bulletin for reminding us to keep an eye our for our brothers and sisters in Jamaica.
The American Family Association's One News Now is known for being a fraudulent news sources by often creating a story around the erroneous comments of anti-gay leaders or telling only one side of an incident (making sure to make the gay community look at fault).
But the audacity goes even farther. One News Now has on occasion been inaccurately manipulating AP articles to put the gay community in a negative light:
Girls seeking abortions in New Hampshire must first tell their parents or a judge, some employers in Alabama must verify new workers' U.S. residency, and California students will be the first in the country to receive mandatory lessons about the contributions of gays and lesbians under state laws set to take effect at the start of 2012.
. . . A California law will add gays and lesbians and people with disabilities to the list of social and ethnic groups whose contributions must be taught in history lessons in public schools. The law also bans teaching materials that reflect poorly on gays or particular religions.
Girls seeking abortions in New Hampshire must first tell their parents or a judge, employers in Alabama must verify new workers' U.S. residency, and California students will be the first in the country to receive mandatory pro-homosexual indoctrination under state laws set to take effect at the start of 2012.
. . . Also in California, a new law will add homosexuals to the list of social and ethnic groups whose contributions must be taught in history lessons in public schools.
One News Now - and the AFA in general - does seem to have a goal in mind. But it's obvious that this goal does not entail correctly informing or educating its readers.
I do a lot of talking about the need to focus on issues and interests of the lgbtq community of color.
Now, I want to back up all of my talk by focusing on an outstanding movie, Pariah:
A world premiere at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival, the contemporary drama Pariah is the feature-length expansion of writer/director Dee Rees’ award-winning 2007 short film Pariah. Spike Lee is among the feature’s executive producers. At Sundance, cinematographer Bradford Young was honored with the [U.S. Dramatic Competition] Excellence in Cinematography Award.
Adepero Oduye, who had earlier starred in the short film, portrays Alike (pronounced ah-lee-kay), a 17-year-old African-American woman who lives with her parents Audrey and Arthur (Kim Wayans and Charles Parnell) and younger sister Sharonda (Sahra Mellesse) in Brooklyn’s Fort Greene neighborhood. She has a flair for poetry, and is a good student at her local high school.
Alike is quietly but firmly embracing her identity as a lesbian. With the sometimes boisterous support of her best friend, out lesbian Laura (Pernell Walker), Alike is especially eager to find a girlfriend. At home, her parents’ marriage is strained and there is further tension in the household whenever Alike’s development becomes a topic of discussion. Pressed by her mother into making the acquaintance of a colleague’s daughter, Bina (Aasha Davis), Alike finds Bina to be unexpectedly refreshing to socialize with.
Wondering how much she can confide in her family, Alike strives to get through adolescence with grace, humor, and tenacity – sometimes succeeding, sometimes not, but always moving forward.
The “truth” is that AIDS is an “elective” disease. It STOPS the day guys quit sticking it to each other. And for the tragedy of women and children infected… THAT stops the day their gay husbands and fathers stop cheating on them. Anyone need MORE education, science or funding to understand THAT?
It's Official: Gay Is the New Black - I'm not hot on the title but I love this piece written by a black woman, by the way. An excerpt reads:
The civil rights issue of our time is gay marriage, and the key players in our country's most significant civil rights movement are on the wrong side of it. The black church has taken on a new role: oppressor.
Today, the American Family Association's One News Now is singing the praises of Congress:
The U.S. House has passed a resolution that calls on the government of Turkey to end repression of the remnants of ancient Christian and pre-Christian civilizations and return the property taken from them.
House Resolution 306, spearheaded by Representative Ed Royce (R-California) and Howard Berman (D-California), was recently passed by a huge majority, calling on the State Department to raise the issue. Aram Hamparian of the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) tells OneNewsNow the persecution has been going on for many centuries.
. . . The more serious persecution occurred early last century.
"They were largely seized during the period of the Armenian genocide, which started in 1915, which was an effort to wipe out the entire Christian population of the Ottoman Empire. And it very nearly succeeded in doing that," the ANCA executive director laments. "Armenians and Syrians, Greeks, Pontians and others represented over two million of the citizens of the Ottoman Empire, and today they represent less than one percent."
About a million and a half people were killed, and now only a handful of churches exist, compared to thousands that were in Turkey prior to the alleged genocide. Turkey denies the latter and has lashed out at the House for passing the resolution.
Speaking out against persecution and genocide are good things for any person or any nation to do.
However, One News Now isn't exactly consistent with this stance. Earlier this month, the publication featured an article raising holy hell when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke out against anti-gay persecution which is presently taking place in foreign countries:
The Obama administration has announced it will begin considering how countries treat homosexual citizens when determining allocations of foreign aid. The Associated Press reports it is the first U.S. government strategy that deals with "human rights abuses against gays and lesbians abroad." Speaking in Geneva, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said "Gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights." Sitting among her audience were representatives from several nations where homosexuality is considered immoral.
The announced policy, according to Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel Action, "displays the arrogance of the Obama administration."
It is "frankly offensive," says the attorney, that President Obama "feels compelled to export American culture's decline in morality, and export that immorality to other nations that are trying to adhere to traditional principles relative to human sexuality."
Barber also notes that the administration is apparently ignoring the fact that foreign nations -- like the United States -- are sovereign countries. He adds that the U.S. is "using essentially blackmail and the purse strings" of the nation to force countries to change their moral principles.
Someone should ask One News Now - and the author of both articles, Charlie Butts - just what is the difference between anti-Christian and anti-gay persecution.
I'm pretty sure that in the eyes of God, there is no difference.
According to today's issue of North Carolina's Charlotte Observer, one of the proponents of the upcoming referendum to outlaw marriage equality in the state, Rev. Mark Harris, the head of the state's Baptist Convention, wants a "civil debate" over the issue:
"But I hope we can express our positions - keep the conversation to the facts and our principles - and do it in a civil way," Harris, 45, said. "It doesn't mean I'm going to change someone else's position or they're going to change mine. "But in America, we all ought to be able to express ourselves without things getting out of hand."
Now generally when those against marriage equality claim that they want a "civil debate," the lgbtq community and our allies bristle because we know that in the past when these folks call for "calm" and "rationality," it's usually before they pull out all sorts of sundry claims about the gay community.
But I believe Harris when he says he wants a civil debate. However, I also believe that this issue has gone way past out of hand and a perfect example of this is the image below:
This is the actual graphic that the North Carolina Family Policy Council, the leading anti-equality group in the Tar Heel State, is running in its quarterly publication in order to scare citizens into voting for the state's proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Maybe it's just me, but civil debates on marriage equality don't necessarily encompass images of an assassin targeting newlyweds.
If Rev. Harris truly wants a rational and civil discussion on the issue, he needs to have a serious talk with his allies.
Editor's note - The image can be clearly seen at this link on page. 13.
Recently, Saturday Night Live got into trouble for a very crass skit which made fun of the transgender community.
The real shame of the entire controversy was the fact that in the past when the comedy sketch show parodied the lgbtq community, the skits were not only hilarious but made astute mockery of the social values at the time.
Such at the classic commercial above, Schmitts Gay, which poked fun at beer commercials featuring a heavy duty emphasis on half naked women.
The commercial featured Adam Sandler and the late Chris Farley.
This month, thousands of families submitted photos, joining Zach and his family in sending out this simple holiday greeting.....and creating this video and online campaign called "Love Makes a Family."
It would appear - and this is speculation on my part - that the National Organization for Marriage is trying to pull a public relations trick under all of our eyes.
First we learned about NOM's tax return from 2010. On Dec. 12, The Washington Independent published an article pointing out, amongst other things, that:
. . . just two individuals contributed more than $6 million to the organization’s political arm – accounting for about two-thirds of NOM’s 2010 revenue, while single donations below $5,000 covered only 8 percent of reported revenue.
Increasingly virulent and frequent attacks from the same-sex marriage lobby have depleted our emergency funds, and we need your help!
As 2011 draws to a close, everyone at the National Organization for Marriage is excited about the election year ahead, which we believe will be full of huge victories for traditional marriage.
But unless we raise additional funds quickly, we will be faced with hard decisions about where to begin scaling back our efforts for next year. NOM does not have the resources to accomplish everything we need to do...and with the many new and critical marriage battles upcoming in 2012, this is the exact wrong time for us to have to scale back.
One of our most generous donors has offered to MATCH—dollar for dollar—every single gift we receive between now and New Year's Day, all the way up to one million dollars!
On the heels of that post comes this announcement - on Dec. 22 - of the alleged success of that campaign. NOM is well on the road to raise $1 million in an amazingly short amount of time:
I might point out that the comments section of the Dec. 20 post announcing the campaign is empty. No "you all do important work so I am going to send in this amount" or "I'm not sending any of you a penny." No one was voicing an opinion either way.
Also, the Dec. 20 post was neither favorited nor was it twittered out. If NOM's request for funds went viral, you certainly couldn't tell.
In comparison, NOM's initial "we need funds" post was twittered 39 times.
Small guess what the next announcement coming from NOM's president Brian Brown will be - something huge and elaborate trumpeting about how "so many people felt that NOM's work was important that they dug deep in their pockets to help the organization."
I wouldn't be surprised if Brown would conveniently receive a letter from an anonymous donor which he will release on the blog. And I wouldn't be surprised if that donor said something like "he/she never gave to any organization before" or "he/she is a liberal but feel that gays are going too far."
Bottom line - When I read about NOM's initial plea for money a while back, I smelled a rat. And it's the same stink I smell when it comes to this campaign.
How much does anyone want to bet that NOM had that million all of the time (probably due to that small cartel of big time donors) and is trying to pass it off as a spontaneous donation from its so-called "numerous followers" who appreciate NOM's work.
Based upon NOM's past attempts to pull the wool over people's eyes, nothing would surprise me.
Top 10 "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Repeal Lies That Never Came True- You know those problems that some folks predicted would arise with the repeal of DADT? Today marks a full year since Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed and there have been NO problems.
In case you haven't noticed, there is a controversy brewing concerning an upcoming ABC sitcom called "Work It."
"Work It" tells of two unemployed men so desperate that they dress as women to get jobs. Some members of the lgbtq community have called the show offensive to the transgender community.
The Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation have both joined together in denouncing the show. GLAAD has even come out with a full page ad denouncing the show.
Now many have talked about it but very few have actually seen the show. So below is the promo. What do you think?
Personally I found the show to be in poor taste and simply not funny. Don't get me wrong. Men impersonating women (or women impersonating men) isn't necessarily an offensive subject for comedy in and by itself. Two Academy Award winning movies, Some Like It Hot and Tootsie, come to mind.
But sometimes when an entertainment piece is walking a fine line between uproariously funny and downright offensive, things like script-writing, three-dimensional characterizations are important.
This is where this show fails big time. The characters are one-dimensional and from what I see, the storyline is even poor.
My guess is that even without the controversy, "Work It" will fail.
Today on Fox News, presidential candidate Rick Santorum (no friend to the lgbtq community) talked about how he would attempt to appeal to gay voters:
"Well, look, I have nothing against gay people. They have rights of every other citizen. But what they did in Iowa and what some are trying to do -- not all gays -- but some are trying to do is change the laws of this country with respect to what the definition of marriage is," Santorum said. "We have a public policy disagreement. I know there are a lot of gays who are strong on national security and believe in lower taxes and getting this economy moving, and welcome them to join our campaign."
. . . "Well, you know -- you know, we can have a public policy discussion that says that, you know, certain things -- our laws should be certain ways without seeing it as a personal attack. It's not a personal attack. It's what we believe is best for the country," he responded. "And I believe what's best for the country is to give children their birthright, which is the best opportunity for them to have a mother and a father. ... There are a lot of other important relationships, and I don't dismiss other relationships as important. But there's one essential relationship that's necessary to give children their birthright."
Now I could wax philosophically about why the host of the program, Greta Van Susteren, didn't press Santorum on the reality of same-sex families.
But then I can guess why she didn't. After all, it is Fox News and girlfriend likes that big salary.
However, Santorum's omission of the reality of same-sex families is a problem which needs to be mentioned.
Why do folks like Santorum - those who call themselves Christians, evangelicals, or whatever - seem to always refuse to acknowledge the fact that same-sex families exist and that these families are raising children?
Sure they will talk about how the "social science" says that the best place for a child is a home with a mother and a father. And of course when they say that, none of these so-called reputable journalists with their gigantic salaries will question them on whether or not these studies ever compared same-sex households to opposite-parents households - because these studies generally don't.
And none of these big-named journalist will question folks like Santorum on the existence of single-parent households.
They just let them talk and let them set the phony narrative that somehow same-sex households with children simply don't exist when in fact there are millions of them in this country.
Santorum's need to omit these homes says a lot about his Christian character than any speech he can make.
Or lack thereof.
In short, the gay community is not stupid. We know that Santorum has an aversion to us and our families. We know that he doesn't like us and because of that, we just don't like him.
NOM’s Top Ten Biggest Gaffes Of 2011- Equality Matters has come up with the National Organization for Marriage's top ten biggest blunders of 2011. I hope you enjoy the list as much as I did:
