Vote for MarriageNC ad filled with misrepresentations and false views

Vote for MarriageNC has come out with another ad in an attempt to push that awful anti-marriage equality amendment, Amendment One, in the state:




These folks sound reasonable, don't they? Especially the African-American pastor Patrick Wooden.

Don't buy it.

Wooden's comments is sprinkled throughout the video, but I took note to 1:13 - 1:55 of this video when he claims that those on his side of the argument aren't trying to impose their views on anyone. He also attempts to make it seem that gays do not face discrimination. And he also claims that he is not opposed to gays doing well in America.

Wooden's "I don't have any animus against the gay community" inference is a total misrepresentation. Remember his comments in January about gay men needing diapers:

Transcript:

Wooden: The God of the Bible made the human sperm, the God of the Bible designed it and it was not designed to be emptied into an area that is filled with feces, there is nothing for it to germinate with, it will most certainly mean the extinction of the human race. My belief is that if the medical community would just step forward and just would share with the American people what happens to the male anus, the problems that homosexuals have with their rectums, the damage that is done, the operations that are needed to sew up their bodies if you will, and how many of the men don’t even give these stitches time to heal before they are back out there practicing that wicked behavior. Some are bleeders, men who are not turned off by ingesting the feces of other men.

Not only did he not back off that statement, but he made the following claim about gay men, cell phones, baseball bats, and gerbils:

Transcript:

Wooden: I do not back off or back down from my statements at all. I was giving anecdotal examples that I am personally aware of that have happened as a result of men who have given themselves over to this lifestyle. One man past away, a friend of mine shared this information with me, that where what used to be his anus had become a gaping hole and he literally died in diapers, he literally lost control of himself. There are examples of men who have stretched their anuses, their sphincter muscles so that they could fit objects into themselves that once the sphincter muscle is stretched too much it will not contract. Because the truth is, despite the anger of the homosexual community, the anus is not a vagina. A vagina, a woman can give birth, God so designed it, the hips release can give birth to babies and things return back to normal. The anus doesn’t work that way; this is one of the reasons why many male homosexuals place larger and larger objects in their rectums.

. . . I know of a case where in a hospital a homosexual male had a cellphone lodged in his anus and as they were operating on him the phone went off, the phone started ringing! There’ve been instances where men have put bats, baseball bats, in their rectums!

In spite of what he claims in the Vote for MarriageNC video, Wooden is not motivated by a need to "protect marriage."  Wooden is motivated by homophobia disguised as Christian beliefs.

And he is not the only person in the video hiding his true views. Pastor Mark Creech also tries to make faux reasonable arguments with opposing marriage equality. But according to Jeremy Hooper from Goodasyou.org, Creech has said the following about gays:

"In fact, let me go on record with Tim Mertes in saying I also believe homosexuality is "impure," "dirty," and "disgusting." [SOURCE]
…
"Once again the Sodomites press upon the door of restraint to knock it down. America is presently the victim of an attempted sexual assault by the gay agenda — an attempted homosexual gang rape of our culture — the effort to sodomize our society! The great question is whether the majority of Americans who believe homosexuality is wrong and injurious for the nation, will continue to allow for its victimization, or whether they'll use the system of government God has so graciously granted to fight back." [SOURCE]
...
"To contend homosexuality or other sexually alternative practices are as worthy of special protections as religion is like saying feculence is as important to one's person or the culture as food. [SOURCE]
...
"While certain personality traits, familial relationships, early childhood experiences, possible sexual molestation, etc., may provide fertile soil for homosexuality to grow, these factors are not the primal issue. Homosexuality is not the result of biology! It is not caused by a deficit in the relationship with the same-sex parent! It is not caused by a failure to bond with one’s same-sex peers or any other outside influences! It is caused by something radically wrong with the human heart! It is caused by the principle of sin!"
…
"The real cause of homosexual desire or activity is the idolatrous instincts of the human heart." [SOURCE]
...
"Few sins have done more of late to wreak havoc among God's people as homosexuality." [SOURCE]

The fact that these supposed Christian people chose to hide their true views about homosexuality in the ad says volumes about their lack of honesty. Reading and hearing these views says more about why they actually support Amendment One.

Make no mistake about it. Amendment One is not motivated by a need to "protect marriage." Amendment One is motivated by homophobia and ignorance wrapped up in a Biblical shell.

But when you pull off that shell, we are still talking about homophobia and ignorance.

The following posts speak the truth about Amendment One:


North Carolina’s Amendment One: 10 facts you need to know

North Carolina residents - 'Amendment One is a bad idea'

'Mormon students create controversial 'It Gets Better' video' and other Monday midday news briefs

Students from Mormon-run Brigham Young University have created their own "It Gets Better" video and it is causing controversy. According to the Associated Press(by way of Think Progress), by posting the video, the students could face excommunication from the church and expulsion.

And even some in the gay community have voiced a sort of opposition. One viewer of the video wrote me to say:

I find it a disturbing video and am surprised that the Its Get Better people allowed the Mormon church to highjack the project, since I fear that this video is more likely to lead to more suicide than to prevent suicides. One young person, in particular, seem in great pain and needs help--and not the kind of help he is likely to get from a Mormon psychiatrist.

My personal feeling is that anyone can and should be able to benefit from the "It Gets Better" message. But what do you think:




In other news:

Can anyone force National Organization for Marriage to follow the law? - A fellow blogging buddy of mine, Scott Wooledge from Daily Kos pushes the very apt theory that NOM is enters every state fight against marriage equality knowing that it will violate the state's disclosure laws.

‘Bully’ Rating Lowered To PG-13 - Very good news indeed!

Meet Todd Starnes, Fox’s Mouthpiece For Anti-Gay Hate Groups - I read this piece only once because it got me so angry. Just plain demagoguery.

High School Student Finds Strength to Come Out as Transsexual - I love and admire the strength of the next generation.

'Desert Outlook,' New LGBT Magazine, Launched By 'The Desert Sun,' Features Dianne Feinstein And Hank Plante - Good luck to them cause we need more media outlets talking about our issues. The ones we got sometimes get bogged down with frivolous stuff.

PBS spotlights gay persecution in Uganda

Let's not forget the awful situation for our lgbtq brothers and sisters in Uganda:

Watch In Uganda, Gays Face Growing Social, Legal Hostility on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

Know Your LGBT History - Oliver Sipple

Oliver Sipple is a gay former Marine who will be remembered for two things - saving President Gerald Ford's life from an assassin's bullet and how the media attention from his act destroyed his life:




The following, according to Wikipedia, is the rest of the story. And it's not a happy one:

The police and the Secret Service immediately commended Sipple for his action at the scene, as did the media. The news media portrayed Sipple as a hero.

Though he was known to be gay among members of the gay community, and had even participated in Gay Pride events, Sipple's sexual orientation was a secret from his family. He asked the press to keep his sexuality off the record, making it clear that neither his mother nor his employer knew he was gay. The national spotlight was on him immediately, and Harvey Milk responded. While discussing whether the truth about Sipple's sexuality should be disclosed, Milk told a friend: "It's too good an opportunity. For once we can show that gays do heroic things, not just all that caca about molesting children and hanging out in bathrooms." Milk reportedly outed Sipple as a "gay hero" to San Francisco Chronicle's columnist Herb Caen in hopes to "break the stereotype of homosexuals" of being "timid, weak and unheroic figures". Several days later Caen wrote of Sipple as a gay man and a friend of Milk speculating Ford offered praise "quietly" because of Sipple's sexual orientation. Sipple was besieged by reporters, as was his family. His mother refused to speak to him. Gay liberation groups petitioned local media to give Sipple his due as a gay hero. Caen published the private side of the former Marine's story, as did a handful of other publications. Sipple then insisted to reporters that his sexuality was to be kept confidential. Later, when Sipple hid in a friend's apartment to avoid them, the reporters turned to Milk, arguably the most visible voice for the gay community. The reporters had already labeled Sipple the "gay ex-Marine" and his conservative mother disparaged and disowned him when she found out about his sexuality. Milk's precise role in the outing remain somewhat cloudy as Sipple's active participation in the gay community suggests that his sexuality would have been revealed and reported even if doing so was seen as unethical. According to Harold Evans, "[T]here was no invitation to the White House for Sipple, not even a commendation. Milk made a fuss about that. Finally, weeks later, Sipple received a brief note of thanks."

Sipple sued the Chronicle for invasion of privacy. Of President Ford's letter of thanks to Sipple, Milk suggested that Sipple's sexual orientation was the reason he received only a note, rather than an invitation to the White House. Sipple filed a $15 million invasion of privacy suit against Caen, seven named newspapers, and a number of unnamed publishers, for publishing the disclosures. The Superior Court in San Francisco dismissed the suit, and Sipple continued his legal battle until May 1984, when a state court of appeals held that Sipple had indeed become news, and that his sexual orientation was part of the story.

According to a 2006 article in The Washington Post, Sipple went through a period of estrangement with his parents, but the family later reconciled with his sexual orientation. Sipple's brother, George, told the newspaper, "[Our parents] accepted it. That was all. They didn't like it, but they still accepted. He was welcomed. Only thing was: Don't bring a lot of your friends."

'Catholic Church sacrificing poor in fight against marriage equality' and other Friday midday news briefs

Catholic Church Cuts Funds To Immigrant Group Because It Doesn’t Discriminate Against Gay People - So much for "religious liberty."

Catholics clash over helping the poor, hewing to doctrine - And it's not just that group. Nine other groups in all are being hurt by this stringent nonsense.

Christian Groups Take Issue With Anti-Bullying Laws - Apparently protecting gay youth is a "plot" to mind control all youth into being gay.


The left's activist facts continue to attack poor Brian Brown - Cause apparently we on the left forced the National Organization for Marriage to write up a plan to exploit the disagreement over marriage equality between the black and gay communities. How did we do that? Why mind control. We are not all concentrated on children.

“Day of Dialogue” from Focus on the Family is Sacred Discrimination - It's almost that time of year again. The annual religious right attack on the "Day of Silence." Oh brother.

Attempt to roll back marriage equality in Washington state causing problems

The attempt to roll back marriage equality in Washington State is raising some eyebrows because of the full-tilt way the Catholic Church has involved itself:

The two bishops of the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle, in a letter to the faithful, say they will deploy parishes to collect signatures for Referendum 74, a measure for the November ballot designed to roll back same-sex marriage in Washington.

While asking that signatures not be collected on Easter Sunday, the bishops described the issue as “critically important” and said information on the signature drive is being sent to pastors throughout the Western Washington diocese.

The letter is signed by Archbishop J. Peter Sartain and Auxiliary Bishop Eusebio Elizondo. Sartain testified against marriage equality at a Washington State Senate hearing earlier this year.

In their letter, the bishops specifically deny that refusing marriage to same-sex couples equates to discrimination — an argument made by Gov. Christine Gregoire, a Catholic, in arguing for marriage equality.

. . . State Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, a Catholic and long-partnered gay man who sponsored the same-sex marriage bill, described the bishops’ deployment of parishes to gather signatures as “fairly reprehensible.”

“To use church resources, in advancing a measure that promotes discrimination, is incredibly disappointing,” Murray said. “As a gay person, and a Catholic, I can understand their refusal to perform (gay) marriages. Using the church in promoting a referendum . . . is very disappointing.”

The bishops noted that, under the state’s domestic partnership law (which the Catholic Church lobbied against), same sex couples “already enjoy the rights and privileges of married couples.”

Anne Levison, a former judge and co-owner of the Seattle Storm, and leader in the marriage equality campaign, responded that the bishops’ letter is a case of clerical error.

“Of all institutions, the Church should understand why domestic partnerships can’t replace marriage,” said Levinson. “Marriage is so much more than a collection of legal rights. The essence of marriage remains the same whether the two people are straight or gay or lesbians: Two people affirming their love and commitment to each other.”

A statement in the letter caught my eye:

In their letter, the bishops specifically deny that refusing marriage to same-sex couples equates to discrimination — an argument made by Gov. Christine Gregoire, a Catholic, in arguing for marriage equality.

“Treating different things differently is not unjust discrimination,” the bishops claim. “Marriage can only be between a man and a woman because of its unique ends, purpose and place in society. The word ‘marriage’ isn’t simply a label that can be attached to different types of relationships.

That phraseology of "treating different things differently" has been uttered several times by former National Organization for Marriage head Maggie Gallagher.

Just more ammunition for those of us who think that NOM is a sham group created and backed by the Catholic Church.

But there will be more on that later  . . .  

NOM won't stop exploiting African-Americans and lying about it

When an organization has been discovered to be deliberately exploiting hostilities between the gay and black communities on the subject of marriage equality, will that group:

a. deny that the allegation is true

b. say that the allegation is true while apologizing

c. claim that the discovery of the allegation is a plot while continuing to attempt to play the gay and black community like pawns, this time in a fundraising appeal.

The organization in question is the National Organization for Marriage, so you can guess the answer, And if you can't, the following photo posted on NOM's blog today should give you a clue:

It's a big turn from what former NOM head Maggie Gallagher said last night during a debate at Washington and Lee University in Virginia against gay author Andrew Sullivan:

Gallagher insisted that while the language in the memos was inappropriate, NOM’s racial strategies were acceptable.

“What NOM has actually done is go across the country and reach across lines of race, party, and color and religion to work with people who believe marriage is the union of a husband and wife for a reason,” Gallagher said.  “I don’t think that’s a racist or unethical strategy at all.”

Gallagher also said she didn’t like the language in the memos because it suggested that minority leaders only opposed gay marriage because of NOMs efforts.

“I think it’s disrespectful to the African and Hispanic leaders who have stood up because they oppose gay marriage in fights across the country,” Gallagher said. “For us to suggest that they are doing so as a result of being manipulated by white, suburban, Republican girls like me [is wrong].”

Don't let Gallagher's sad talking points fool you. Remember the wording of the documents:

“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks — two key Democratic constituencies,” reads one document. “Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party. Fanning the hostility raised in the wake of Prop 8 is key to raising the costs of pushing gay marriage to its advocates and persuading the movement’s allies that advocates are unacceptably overreaching on this issue. Consider pushing a marriage amendment in Washington D.C.; Find attractive young black Democrats to challenge white gay marriage advocates electorally.”

 
Gallagher continues to play this paragraph off like a minor blip, an unfortunate choice of words. But it's much more. There are too many words in this paragraph for it to be looked upon as a minor blip. Those words outline a deliberate strategy.

And every time Gallagher opens her mouth in a sad attempts to soothe shock over this, she only makes it worse.  She claims that NOM's goal  was to "go across the country and reach across lines of race, party, and color and religion to work with people who believe marriage is the union of a husband and wife for a reason."

If that was truly the goal, then words or phrases which denotes "togetherness" and "unity" would have been in the document.

Instead, the document talked about "wedges" and "fanning hostility."

It is insulting to think that African-American leaders or any leaders of any ethnicity can be manipulated. And Gallagher and NOM should be ashamed of themselves for attempting the manipulation.

Hat tip to Jeremy Hooper.

'NOM demands investigation of the Human Rights Campaign' and other Thursday midday news briefs

NOM's latest attempt to save face? Accusing HRC of 'stealing' or 'working with a criminal' - Can you see the beads of sweat on Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown's face as they worked on this desperate press release. No doubt the religious right (and the right in general) will give this mess play, which will work in our favor.

Anti-Gay New York Senator Volunteers As Spokesperson For NOM’s Race-Baiting - Meanwhile, NOM's wedge plan goes on.

EA defends itself against thousands of anti-gay letters - It's just a video game, folks. Man, it must be nice to have thousands of sheep to control.

Oklahoma Church Welcomes Gays, Speaks Out Against ‘The Cobbler Passages’ Condemning Homosexuality - Amen!

Chile Passes Anti-Discrimination Law Following Daniel Zamudio's Death - It's kind sad when change has to come from such an awful incident rather than on its own.

Gay student receives apology after being publicly embarrassed by school official

The following is a true story to remind folks how far our community has come. There was a time that a gay youth wouldn't be brave enough to make such a public statement, to say nothing about being defended by so many people after said incident:

An assistant principal at Fullerton Union High School took to the school's public address system Wednesday and apologized for pulling a student off the stage of the school's so-called Mr. Fullerton competition after the young man made remarks in support of gay marriage.

The student, who was participating in the annual light-natured pageant, was asked by judges what he hoped his future had in store.

He reportedly replied that he hoped to find a partner and marry him if gay marriage were legal, according to a report in the Orange County Register. The student has not been identified.

Fullerton Joint Union High School District officials on Wednesday criticized the assistant principal, whose name hasn't been released, saying that the "matter was not handled appropriately." Supt. George J. Giokaris said in a statement that the "matter should have been handled privately."

The assistant principal met with the student, asking him if a public apology would make the situation worse for the student or embarrass him, the district said. The student told him it would be all right.

So on Wednesday, the district said the assistant principal apologized to the student by name and to the rest of the school community, acknowledging that he had handled the situation inappropriately.

The district, citing the confidentiality of personnel issues, declined to say whether any  disciplinary action against the administrator was taken.

What's inspiring about this story is how the young man's fellow students took the initiative to protest what they felt was an unfair action. Most likely, what they did led to the apology:

Friends of the student protested by passing out nearly 200 letters addressed to the assistant principal asking, "Where do you see yourself in 10 years?"

The letters included space for protestors to write a personal message. Senior Blake Danford, who helped organize the protest, said the group plans to deliver them to the assistant principal later in the week.

"This is an entire situation about bullying," Danford said.

Stories like this no doubt scares the religious right because it means quite simply in spite of all of their money, their connections, and their lies, they won't win in the end.

Change is coming and at the head of that change is the next generation, opening doors and stamping down ignorance.

I say bring it on.

Homophobic tweets made into a powerful, hard-to-watch PSA

This is a difficult PSA to watch. And it's supposed to be:



 From Equalitopia:

Charlotte Moore from Raleigh, North Carolina has created a PSA against homophobia after the Twitter hashtag #ToMyUnbornChild attracted homophobes to publicly announce that they would murder their child if he or she was gay.

#ToMyUnbornChild became a trending topic on Twitter a few weeks ago, and while most people used it to write loving tweets to their future children, some homophobes decided to do just the opposite.

@Homophobes, a Twitter account that retweets homophobes to expose their ignorance, published an article of 100 extremely homophobic tweets, which gained quite a bit of attention around the web.

Charlotte Moore was inspired, and decided to write and direct a PSA using the tweets. The video was produced by Brian Lee and Nick Heim.

From the video’s description:

I got the idea on a Thursday. By Sunday, we — me, my boyfriend, and whatever friends we could find to help us — had it filmed.

It’s easy to dehumanize hate speech online because we’ve gotten so used to seeing it. We tell ourselves that it’s the product of trolls, of random, anonymous strangers.

Except they’re not. They’re real people. Many of them will be parents. And some of their children will be gay.

'Minnesota students rebel against anti-gay lecture' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Minnesota Catholic High Schoolers Not Happy With Mandatory Marriage Discrimination Lecture - A story both sad and empowering. And it's got NOM's dirty fingerprints all over it.

Holy week in Maryland: Hide the eggs, not the naked politicking - And the Catholic Church is pushing other nonsense in Maryland.

Another few laps: Reports of Prop 5′s demise are premature (& proof Minnery knew he was spreading false information) - The tale of Prop 5's defeat in Anchorage, AL (which I posted about this morning) is getting more and more interesting.

Rep. Steve King Proposes A Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Approach To Gays In The Workplace - Because after all, why would gays want to talk about their families or have pictures of their loved ones at their desk. Heterosexuals don't do that. Oh wait . . .

Liberian Leaflets Call for Vigilante Actions Against Gays - How nice. A gay 'hit list' in Liberia.

Pro-gay ordinance defeated in a strange web of controversy

It's never my pleasure to report bad news:

Anchorage voters rejected a proposed ordinance to add legal protections for gay, lesbian and transgender people in a chaotic municipal election fraught with ballot shortages and high voter turnout in many precincts.

With more than 90 percent of the precincts reporting late Tuesday, 58 percent of voters had voted against Proposition 5, the equal rights ordinance that was far and away the most controversial and emotional component of this spring's election.

As of late Tuesday, neither side was claiming victory nor conceding defeat.

. . . An unexpectedly high turnout, with some polling places running out of ballots, resulted in a large number of votes that might be on "questioned" ballots, which have to be counted by hand. The final results may be days or longer away, said municipal clerk Barbara Gruenstein.

Reports began circulating late in the day Tuesday that some precincts were running out of ballots because of heavy turnout. By 7 p.m. -- an hour before polls were to close -- lines were long at many polling places and extra ballots were being rushed to precincts that had run out

There is more chaos to this story than meets the eye.

Alaska's LGBT blog, Bent Alaska was tweeting that there are several precincts in which every ballot is being challenged.

Jason Lamb of Channel  2 News is also tweeting about some strange incidents, including voters being turned away and also a possibility that folks who did not live in Anchorage voted on Prop 5.

The vote on Prop 5 was a definitely emotional, which the opposition exploited in the following ads:





Even NOM jumped in by sending a tweet to voters in Alaska to vote against Prop 5. It was a bizarre tweet, seeing that Prop 5 was a city-wide vote, not a state vote.

It also signaled the fact that NOM seems to be butting into other aspects of opposing gay equality rather than simply opposing marriage equality.

Beware of the evil queen

Late April Fool's Day joke simply because I've run out of stuff to write about and I'm tired so allow me to change into The Evil Queen and pray you don't have to see her again:




Yes this is a preview of the upcoming Snow White and the Huntsman and also of my new winter wardrobe.

'NYT, Star-Ledger blast NOM for homophobic, racist tactics' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Be a Real Maverick: Stand Up For Equality - Lambda Legal files lawsuit on behalf of student who wants to make a true testimony about Jesus as it pertains to the gay community.

Tony Perkins: Pride Flag In Afghanistan Camp Threatens ‘Military Security’ - Only in the screwed-up world of the Family Research Council and Tony Perkins.

'Times' Editorial calls NOM's approach 'poisonous'; 'snake oil often is,' I add - Sweet! The New York Times blasts NOM's divide and conquer strategy.

Star-Ledger’s opinion about NOM - And so doe the Star-Ledger in New Jersey.

Fox News Lauds “Bully” Documentary After Condemning Anti-Bullying Efforts - Talking about speaking with a forked tongue.

NOM continues to use African-American leaders as sad pawns

I'm sort of stealing this post from my online friend Jeremy Hooper. But I think he won't mind.

The subject of irony seems to be lost on the National Organization for Marriage. That would explain its latest action:

On the post, NOM says the following:

Media elites seem to imagine NOM is responsible for the wedge between blacks and gays on the issue of gay marriage.

But the reality on the ground in North Carolina and so many other places is that black church leaders are bravely standing up for what they think is right. It is insulting for the elite media to imply they are NOM puppets, just like it would be arrogant for anyone at NOM to imagine we are responsible for this show of support.

It's a classic case of NOM trying to shift the blame. But trying to cite Wooden as an example of black pastors standing on their own to attack marriage equality contradict NOM's talking points.

NOM faces 'headline' embarrassment at religious right publication

Jennifer Morse of NOM's Ruth Institute thinks that NOM's race-baiting is a good strategy.

How much in trouble is an organization if a piece written to help shield it from scandal actually brings more embarrassment on its head?

That's a question for the National Organization for Marriage.

This morning, the American Family Association's One News Now attempted to push a piece which I guess was supposed to help NOM quell the controversy started last week after secret documents revealed that the organization was attempting to "drive a wedge" between the gay and African-American community over the subject of marriage equality.

The piece was nonsense - simply the head of a NOM affiliated organization (Jennifer Morse of the Ruth Institute) whining that NOM's strategy was genius and that there was a "double standard" when it comes to criticizing tactics of those who support marriage equality and those who oppose it. Morse did not go into detail so to when have marriage equality supporters ever been caught admitting to playing communities like pawns and One News Now omitted the fact that her organization was affiliated with NOM.

In other words, it was standard b.s. - that is except for the headline of the piece, which raised quite a few eyebrows:

NOM Bigoted For Using 'Divide And Conquer'

Later in the day, One News Now changed the headline to read:

Left rips NOM for 'divide and conquer' tactic

Now we don't know for sure what exactly happened, but knowing how NOM likes to keep tight control on its product, I am sure that there was a very interesting phone conversation between the headquarters of NOM and that of One News Now.

And I bet a few words were said.

If that's true, I doubt that those words did any good because the new headline seems to convict NOM for its homophobic race-baiting as much as the old one did.

This being the case, it's an unusual thing we have just witnessed.

This is probably one of the few times in the history of journalism that a headline was changed because it revealed truth.

Related posts:

NOM continues sad attempt to quell 'race-baiting' scandal

Why has NOM's chairperson been silent during scandal?

'Maggie Gallagher fails to NOM's defend homophobic 'race-baiting' during interview' 

Civil rights legend calls out NOM for homophobic race-baiting
  
NOM's evasion of race-baiting scandal is as bad as the controversy itself

Maggie Gallagher offers another bad explanation for NOM's race-baiting

'What NOM implied about white gay men and black babies' and other ways it played divide and conquer game

NOM leaders express pride in sleazy divide and conquer strategy

NOM's deliberate manipulation of black, gay communities is nauseating

Court documents prove NOM's plan to divide black, gay communities

'Homophobia hurts children' and other Monday midday news briefs

Watch: 15-year-old Bull City resident’s video of church members opposing Amendment One - Awesome video by the way:



In other news

Minn. for Marriage chooses 'cold and hungry' pic to illustrate cold and hurtful claims - Don't you just love hate the way these so-called traditional marriage cartels imply nasty things about gay families?

On Being Gay In Medicine: A Leading Harvard Pediatrician’s Story -Stories of homophobia from a gay pediatrician.

Democrats Ask Boehner To Back Off His ‘Direct Assault’ On Gay Veterans - Stop defending DOMA, Boehner. It's going to embarrass you.

NCTE Releases Trans “Know Your Rights” Health Care Guide, Celebrates LGBT Health Awareness Week - Something we all should read.

NOM continues sad attempt to quell 'race-baiting' scandal

Jennifer Morse

Editor's note - it's one of those two post mornings. After reading this piece, scroll down and read how NOM's 'Dump Starbucks' campaign is continuing to backfire on the organization.

Last Monday, confidential documents were released which revealed detailed plans by the National Organization for Marriage to "drive a wedge between blacks and gays."
In part, the document said:

 The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks - two key democratic constituencies. We aim to find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; to develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; and to provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party.

Since that time, NOM has been attempting to  distance itself from the documents. Former NOM chair Maggie Gallagher said the following during a recent interview on MSNBC:

It’s insulting to suggest that these African-American or Latino leaders are standing up because NOM is manipulating them. Obviously the only reason anyone stands up for marriage at this point in this culture is out of principle because we believe it’s a good thing.[...]

We didn’t cause or create this, and frankly if we could get together with the gay community, and take the idea that it’s bigoted or discriminatory to stand up for marriage off the table for black people or for white people, we’d be happy to do it.[...]

But in a piece in American Family Association's One News Now, the head of an organization affiliated with NOM actually embraces the documents and whines about a "double standard."

NOM faces criticism over anti-Starbucks form letters

As a part of its sad anti-Starbucks campaign, the National Organization for Marriage has encouraged its supporters to write send letters to the editor of their respective newspapers.

But apparently some newspapers journalists are not appreciative of a certain aspect of these letters, i.e. the fact that these are form letters. Mike Kirby, editor of The Sun Chronicle  blasts NOM and those who send such letters:

. . . there has been a battle over same-sex marriage going on in Rhode Island, so it perhaps came from a group in opposition there - but there has been a national controversy over Starbucks.

Why has NOM's chairperson been silent during scandal?

Why has NOM chair John C. Eastman (left) has been silent during this week's scandal while former chair Maggie Gallagher (right) has been spinning her heart out to explain it away?

We've all missed one fact during the scandal this week involving the revelation of confidential documents leaking the National Organization for Marriage's plans for homophobic race-baiting and other eyebrow raising tactics to stop marriage equality.

Where in the heck is NOM's chair, John C. Eastman?

We've read statements from NOM president Brian Brown and its former chair, Maggie Gallagher -  statements which were obviously coming from a sad attempt to spin this controversy into a minor blip or the fault of the gay community.

And we've seen Gallagher on MSNBC furthering that bad spin.

But throughout the entire thing, we have yet to hear or see NOM's present chair Eastman.

In September of last year, NOM announced that Gallagher was stepping down as chair to focus on specific and outside projects and that Eastman was taking her place. The organization lauded Eastman's credentials as former Dean of Chapman University Law School in California and is the Founding Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a public interest law firm associated with the Claremont Institute.

But since then, Eastman has been pretty much a ghost. And that is his prerogative. Some board chairs are very hands-off.

However, for a controversy of the magnitude we have been seeing (and I think that we will be hearing more as time goes on), isn't it strange that not only has NOM's chair been conspicuously silent, but its former chair has been the leading face and voice in trying to quell the controversy?

I think that there is more to Mr. Eastman's absence than meets the eye.

Photo from LGBTQ Nation.

Know Your LGBT History - Gay Rights, Special Rights

This week, the National Organization for Marriage has come under fire for the revelation of its strategy to divide the gay and black communities on the subject of marriage equality.

But NOM isn't the first religious right entity to do this. The following video put out by Jeremiah Films in 1993  was called Gay Rights/Special Rights.





This video is best described as a "hot mess," juxtaposing the 1963 March on Washington with the 1993 gay rights march on Washington after Clinton was elected. It was created to exploit the fear and ignorance of the African-American community regarding the lgbtq community, as demonstrated by this partial transcript (transcript does not match video footage):

Lester James (Afro-American): [The high-handed attempt on the part of gay and lesbian movements to highjack the 1964 Civil Rights Act in order to try to give national credence to their immoral lifestyle is an offence to Black America.]

Emanuel McLittle : [There are few people willing to stand up and rebut this whole notion that there is any kind of comparison to the ....]

SOUND RETURNS

Emanuel McLittle :... sexuality of homosexuals, and the skin tone (FADE TO A BLACK MAN IN THE 1963 CIVIL RIGHTS MARCH) of Black people. It is a horrendous lie. (CUT TO EMANUEL MCLITTLE) Black people are not born ... choosing to be Black. [But] {the} homosexual[s] on the other hand, despite what all of them seem to want to (CUT TO TWO WHITE MEN, IN WHITE SHIRTS AND BLACK BOW TIES, KISSING) indicate to us, choose their homosexual lifestyle[s].

(CUT TO A SCENE OF THE US SUPREME COURT WITH THE FOLLOWING TITLE ACROSS IT "TO QUALIFY FOR MINORITY CLASS STATUS: THE GROUP MUST HAVE SUFFERED ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION").

Commentator: The group must have suffered a history of discrimination resulting in the lack of ability to earn an average mean income, obtain [an] adequate education, or enjoy cultural opportunities. (CUT TO A SPLIT SCREEN, WHITE MEN ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN, BLACK MEN ON THE RIGHT SIDE) Compare these results of a nationwide survey reported in The Wall Street Journal between homosexuals and African Americans regarding, (FADE TO THE TITLE ON SCREEN "AVERAGE HOUSE INCOMES: HOMOSEXUALS $55,430; AFRICAN AMERICANS $12,166") average household incomes, (CHANGE THE TITLE TO "PERCENTAGE OF COLLEGE GRADUATES; HOMOSEXUALS 60%; AFRICAN AMERICANS 5%") .. percentage of College graduates, (CHANGE THE TITLE TO "PERCENTAGE OF PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS: HOMOSEXUALS 49%; AFRICAN AMERICANS 1%") percentage of those holding professional managerial positions, (CHANGE THE TITLE TO "PERCENTAGE OF OVERSEAS VACATIONS: HOMOSEXUALS 66%; AFRICAN AMERICANS 1%") ... percentage of those who have taken overseas vacations. (CHANGE THE TITLE TO "EVER DENIED THE RIGHT TO VOTE: HOMOSEXUALS: NO; AFRICAN AMERICANS: YES") Have either African Americans [or homosexuals] ever been denied the right to vote? (CHANGE THE TITLE TO "EVER FACED LEGAL SEGREGATION: HOMOSEXUALS: NO; AFRICAN AMERICANS: YES") ever faced legal segregation? (CHANGE THE TITLE TO "EVER DENIED ACCESS TO PUBLIC RESTROOMS HOMOSEXUALS : NO; AFRICAN AMERICANS : YES") ever denied access by law to public drinking fountains and restrooms? (CHANGE THE TITLE TO "EVER DENIED ACCESS TO BUSINESSES AND RESTAURANTS: HOMOSEXUALS: NO; AFRICAN AMERICANS : YES") ever been denied access by law to businesses and restaurants?

(CUT TO JAN RICE, A BLACK WOMAN, WITH TWO OTHER BLACK WOMEN).

Jan Rice : Their high income, (FADE IN TITLE "JAN RICE, COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS") their education, their, their current status in society, compared to the mean, (FADE OUT TITLE) or the median, income in, in minority families today there's just, there's no comparison. So for them to want protection under this law, {is to try to} [and to try to further] beat down the minorities and further lessen their chances of equal protection and equal chances at jobs, I just think is ludicrous.

Gay Rights/Special Rights also feature an interview with former US Senator Trent Lott years before his controversial defense of former segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond. Talk about your ironies.
 
Past Know Your LGBT History posts:

'Maggie Gallagher fails to NOM's defend homophobic 'race-baiting' during interview' and other Friday midday news briefs

Just watch for yourself as Maggie Gallagher tries to defend NOM's homophobic race-baiting strategy. Compare what she says in this interview with her spin in my post from yesterday:




Meanwhile . . .

Matt Barber says #glaadcap profile is 'out-of-context, cherry-picked'; prove it, tough guy - And let's not forget yesterday's gem:




The fact of the matter is that the religious right can run to Tucker Carlson's rag all they want and lie but we have the facts on our side.

And Pat Robertson makes 37... #glaadcap - That things he said about gays and demons really put him over.

The National Org. For Marriage has become the first organization on the CAP list - And this listing is brought to you by the words "inapt" and "vituperative."

In other news:


Kentucky T-Shirt Controversy Reveals Conservative Intent To Discriminate And Stigmatize - Great catch of the hypocrisy of the religious right by Zack Ford.

Anchorage Non-Discrimination Ordinance Ahead In Polls As Negative Ads Attack Trans Community - It's always fun to watch homophobia backfire.

Civil rights legend calls out NOM for homophobic race-baiting

Civil rights legend Julian Bond gives Anderson Cooper the best reason why the National Organization for Marriage's race-baiting scandal should piss off everyone:

 It's one of the most cynical things I've ever heard of or seen spelled out in this way. The idea that these people are just pawned that can be played with -- that black people who oppose gay marriage, that  black people who support just can be moved around like pieces on a chess board. It's scary.

Regardless of how anyone feels about marriage equality, to be used as a pawn or a chess piece is not only wrong because it strips you of your humanity and dignity.

Related posts: 

Court documents prove NOM's plan to divide black, gay communities

NOM's deliberate manipulation of black, gay communities is nauseating

NOM leaders express pride in sleazy divide and conquer strategy

'What NOM implied about white gay men and black babies' and other ways it played divide and conquer game

Maggie Gallagher offers another bad explanation for NOM's race-baiting

NOM's evasion of race-baiting scandal is as bad as the controversy itself

NOM's evasion of race-baiting scandal is as bad as the controversy itself

Brian Brown of NOM

The National Organization for Marriage's president, Brian Brown, has responded today specifically to the race-baiting scandal which has engulfed the organization:

"Let me be the first to say that the tone of the language in that document as quoted by the press is inapt. Here's something I know from the bottom of my soul: It would be enormously arrogant for anyone at NOM to believe that we can make or provoke African-American or Latino leaders do anything. The Black and Hispanic Democrats who stand up for marriage do so on principle—and get hit with a wave of vituperative attacks like nothing I have ever seen. We did not cause it, nor can we claim credit for these men and women's courage in standing up in defense of our most fundamental institution: marriage."

Do those talking points sound familiar? They should if you read this blog. This is what NOM founder Maggie Gallagher said in the comments section of a National Review blog post she authored (the same blog post in which she asserted that the controversy was the subject of a slow news day):

Let's put up the comparison, shall we (emphasis on the important portions is done by me).

Brian Brown today:

"Let me be the first to say that the tone of the language in that document as quoted by the press is inapt. Here's something I know from the bottom of my soul: It would be enormously arrogant for anyone at NOM to believe that we can make or provoke African-American or Latino leaders do anything. The Black and Hispanic Democrats who stand up for marriage do so on principle—and get hit with a wave of vituperative attacks like nothing I have ever seen. We did not cause it, nor can we claim credit for these men and women's courage in standing up in defense of our most fundamental institution: marriage."

Maggie Gallagher just a few days ago:

"The documents used language which I would call 'inapt' - - in part because it's tremendously vain to think that I or NOM or any other white Christian conservative can manipulate black and latino church leaders. I don't think so. They speak out of their own convictions and become subject to tremendous vituperative for doing so."

You have to be kidding me! If they expect this to be some sort of credible explanation of NOM's attempt to drive a wedge between the black and gay communities, then Gallagher and Brown failed.

Almost word for word, these two folks say the same thing. 

 Apparently the leaking of the confidential documents detailing NOM's plan of divide and conquer got members of the organization scared witless. 

How else can you explain this sadly cobbled explanation? It's bad enough when one of them says it because it doesn't even address the point of NOM's discovered plan. But when both Gallagher and Brown repeat the same explanation almost word-for-word, there is a certain disturbing robotic function to it. It's like they are reading from a script. There is nothing real about this explanation. It's plastic.

It simply demonstrates cynical  and rushed planning devoid of integrity or honesty, much like the original plan which got NOM into trouble in the first place.

Chris Matthews' defense of hate group leader reveals sad problem

In a totally awesome move, Faithful America confronted Hardball host Chris Matthews on why hate group leader Tony Perkins is an invited guest on his show:

Last weekend, Faithful America members from the Boston area confronted Chris Mathews at a book signing in Framingham, Massachusetts about his track record of inviting Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on Hardball as a representative of Christian voters. FRC was named a hate-group by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2010 for spreading hateful lies and junk research about the LGBT community — and in part because of an incident in which a senior FRC staffer said on Hardball that there should be “criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.”

Matthews, who just received Human Rights Campaign’s Ally for Equality award, responded by falsely claiming that Perkins has never “pulled that homophobic stuff on my show,” and insisting that “every time he’s on he’s challenged.”

That’s just not true. After SPLC named FRC a hate group, Matthews invited Perkins on to defend his organization. Perkins took the opportunity to repeat his false accusations that gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children, and said “the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a risk to children.”

Since that November 2010 appearance (which did include SPLC Senior Fellow Mark Potok), Perkins has appeared on Hardball six times — and neither Matthews nor any of his guests have brought up Perkins’ long record of spreading hateful anti-gay lies.

Instead, Matthews has gone out of his way to give credibility to Perkins, calling him an “honest conservative” with “true views” whose conscience he trusts. Viewers who trust Matthews’s judgment and honesty come away with the impression that they should do the same of Perkins.

Asked to stop inviting Perkins on the air, Matthews accused the Faithful America members of “trying to silence people” — a curious charge given that he recently urged his fellow MSNBC anchors to stop booking Franklin Graham because of Graham’s persistent false attacks on the President’s faith.

To me, this has never been about silencing anyone. The confrontation was necessary because it exposes how Matthews is symptomatic of a huge problem the media has when it comes to religious right groups. There is little talk about how they use junk science and cherry-pick legitimate science to reach their hateful conclusions about our community.

I have a serious problem with journalists putting people like Perkins out there to repeat his talking points while interjecting every now and then with a trite question. Or, in the case of Matthews, giving him some type of credibility as a voice or expert.

In the case of Matthews, it is especially bizarre for him to give Perkins any type of adulation. You see,  days after the November 2010 appearance on Hardball, Matthews personally on the air clarified  that Perkins did not receive his information about gay men and pedophilia from a credible source.

In other words, Matthews, after having to call into question the veracity of a guest's statements, has invited the same guest (Perkins) back on his show six times.And whether Perkins and Matthews talked about gay issues during those times is irrelevant. On the other hand, maybe it is relevant that they did not.

If Matthews makes it a point to avoid mentioning gay issues to Perkins, then that means he knows what Perkins says about the subject won't be credible. Wouldn't that cast a huge shadow on Perkins' credibility when it comes to commenting on other issues?

And why avoid the issue anyway? I say invite Perkins back as long as there is a discussion on several things that he and his organization has said and done, including:

 - Saying that gay young people “have a higher propensity to depression or suicide because of that internal conflict; homosexuals may recognize intuitively that their same-sex attractions are abnormal.”

- Distributing a pamphlet that erroneously depicts gay men and lesbians as physically and mentally ill pedophiles who can be cured.

-Distributing a pamphlet that begins by likening the logic behind same-sex marriage to the logic behind man-horse marriage (complete with horse graphic)

- Comparing gay people to terrorists (at 0:31 mark): “[B]ack in the 80s and early 90s, I worked with the State Department in anti-terrorism and we trained about 50 different countries in defending against terrorism, and it’s, at its base, what terrorism is, it's a strike against the general populace simply to spread fear and intimidation so that they can disrupt and destabilize the system of government. That's what the homosexuals are doing here to the legal system.”

- Calling the It Gets Better project "disgusting," claiming it tells children "that it's okay to be immoral" and constitutes a "concerted effort to persuade kids that homosexuality is okay and actually to recruit them into that lifestyle."

- Paying $82,500 to use the phone bank of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke for an election run-off.

The lgbtq community isn't trying to silence Perkins. I, for one, just want Matthews and other journalists to ask  pertinent questions.

Related posts:

MSNBC won't run ad against hate group leader Tony Perkins

Rejected ad on anti-gay hate group becomes massive hit

'Black leaders blast NOM's homophobic race-baiting' and other Thursday midday news briefs

African American Leaders Condemn NOM’s Race-Wedging As Artificial And Exploitative - Good. And let's get more on board.

Family Research Council Prays Against 'Homosexual Tyranny' - Oh to hear what God is thinking of such prayers.

NOM Seeks 'Glamorous' But 'Noncognitive' Celebrities To Promote Its Anti-Gay Marriage Agenda - "Noncognitive" means stupid.

Garlow Says Satan is behind 'The Radical Gay Homosexual Agenda,' then Demands Gays 'Dial Down the Rhetoric' - In other words, "How dare gays raise hell when I verbally bash them!"

City Gets Thanks for Support Against Marriage Amendment - Good for Duluth!

NC Money Bomb Day 4: more support than ever while opponents fear human-dog, human-ice cream nuptials - Meanwhile in North Carolina, the folks against that awful Amendment One definitely came to win!

Maggie Gallagher offers another bad explanation for NOM's race-baiting

Maggie Gallagher of NOM

The more Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage tries to explain away the organization's race-baiting scandal, the deeper she digs the hole.

She registered comments on an National Review blog post she authored (the same blog post in which she asserted that the controversy was the subject of a slow news day) but her insensitive answer left a lot more questions:

So Gallagher is saying "The controversy is nothing because the documents outlined detailed what NOM was going to do in 2009 and 2010. Where is the evidence that we actually did those things during that time?"

It's a flippant answer and extremely evasive. Particularly because nothing in the document said that NOM would cease this plan of playing the black and gay community against each other.

And particularly because Gallagher omitted what NOM did in 2011 to drive a wedge between the black and gay communities.

Equality Matters lays out at least five of these acts, including implying that white gay men are taking black babies from their families and producing and releasing a video titled “Will the Black Church Rise Up in New York For Marriage?”

Gallagher has a history of giving flippant and evasive answers when caught in wrongdoing.

In 2002 and 2003 when she was a syndicated columnist, she received over $20,000 from the Bush Administration to push its Healthy Marriage Initiative. During that time, she wrote columns in favor of this policy and also testified in front of Congress for it.

And she never at the time revealed the payment she had received. When confronted with this information, Gallagher said:

"Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it? I don't know. You tell me. ...frankly, it never occurred to me."

She also said:

"I should have disclosed a government contract when I later wrote about the Bush marriage initiative. I would have, if I had remembered it. My apologies to my readers."

In that controversy and in this one, Gallagher seems be trying to turn the tables by asserting herself as a calm grandmother talking to children raising much ado about nothing.

It's an insulting thing to assert and its even more insulting that Gallagher thinks that she can get away with it.

Hat tip to Jeremy Hooper for the copy of Gallagher's comments.

Editor's note - yesterday, it was reported that Gallagher was avoiding an interview on MSNBC about the controversy. However this is inaccurate. MSNBC directed her to the wrong studio.