'Fifth-grader not allowed to give speech supporting marriage equality' and other Friday midday news briefs

 Fifth-Grader Prohibited From Giving Speech Supporting Marriage Equality - Today, it's speeches about the topic. Will tomorrow bring children in same-sex homes prohibited from talking about their families? An ugly future to ponder but also a religious right dream. 
  
Express Delivery: The Regnerus “Gay Parenting” Paper Took The Fast Lane To Publication - Box Turtle Bulletin has come up with a theory about that fraudulent anti-gay parenting study which we should investigate more. What if it was created specifically to be used in the upcoming DOMA and Prop 8 cases?

APA Blasts Allegedly Biased Report on Gay Parents - Speaking of which, the American Psychological Association has just blasted that awful study.

COMMENTARY: South Africa’s “corrective rape” of lesbians - "Corrective rape" is how some countries maintain so-called "family values." Of course the religious right won't ever tell you that.  

Thorne-Begland 'humbled' by appointment as judge - Republicans in Virginia fail in their attempt to keep an openly gay man from being appointed as a judge.

 Leon Panetta, Secretary Of Defense, Salutes Gays In The Military - The loud popping you hear are a million anti-gay heads exploding.

NOM's flow chart reveals organization's empty arguments

I'm not saying that the National Organization for Marriage is ducking the heat regarding the recent fraudulent study bought and paid for by one of its founders and chairman emeritus Robert George, but I find it hilarious that NOM hasn't talked about the study on its blog as much as it did when the study first came out.

However, NOM is spotlighting a flow chart created by university research assistant (who shall remain nameless because with his name out there, NOM will no doubt claim that his life is being threatened even though no one will probably do so) on marriage equality. In all honesty, I have no idea what this young man's stance is on the issue. He could have created the flow chart as a class exercise.

NOM claims that the flow chart proves the duplicity behind marriage equality.

I disagree. The flow chart doesn't refute marriage equality, but it does reveal the empty animus of some of those who don't agree with marriage equality:

So according to this flow chart, marriage equality is similar to gladiator games and sterile couples can still procreate.

It has to be a joke, really. This chart is mere philosophical tripe which has no bearing on real world situations. It doesn't speak out the millions of same-sex couples who are leading happy lives and it certainly doesn't say a word about the same-sex couples raising children.

Best of all, what was the whole point of this thing? I would love to see someone present this trash in court just to see the judge either die laughing or choke in anger while espousing how his time has been wasted.

This is not to say that this chart doesn't have its uses.

It is nice to see the empty arguments of those against marriage equality in living color so they can be easily refuted.

By all means, please do so. And feel free to comment here.

When fake Christians attack - One News Now readers go crazy over refutation of bad study

On the phony news site, One News Now, there is a huge debate going on regarding that fraudulent study about gay parenting which just came out.

Like so many other things on that site, the article, Study: Youngsters of 'gay households' negatively affected, is laughably false.

Among other lies, the article says the study "is being hailed as the most scientifically credible study so far on the issue demonstrates that children are harmed by growing up in homosexual and lesbian households." The study has been roundly criticized by a host of social scientists for bad methodology and other falsehoods.

What makes the article even funnier is that it quotes only one source; not the author of the study, Mark Regnerus but Peter LaBarbera of the anti-gay hate group Americans for Truth.

I already talked about his comments this morning. What I want to talk about are the comments by some of those actually defending the study, particularly comments directed towards me.

Granted, these comments are not indicative of all Christians, but it should give you an idea of the hypocrisy of One News Now's readership.

My first comment:

Actually the study is not being hailed as very scientifically credible. It's been criticized for a lot of distortions - 1. 1. The Study Doesn’t Compare Married Gay Parents To Married Heterosexual Parents. 2.The Author Admits The Study Doesn’t Establish Causation Between Same-Sex Parenting And Negative Outcomes. 3. The Study Arbitrarily Ignores Overlaps In Its Subpopulations.4. The Study Doesn’t Accurately Define Gay And Lesbian Parents. 5. The Study’s Author And Funders Have An Agenda. A recent article says that young folks are abandoning Christianity in a large number. Can you blame them when those who profess to be Christians act in such a manner in which they approve of lies and distortions? Lies in the name of God are still lies.

Various responses:

Maybe true to a point but the Gays have an Agenda also.

Gosh, what a big sexy black gay man you are! Are you by chance into edging? If so, I can host. Piss-off with your blatant distortion of logic & facts, undoubtedly a result of too much anal poundage. (Editor's note - what the hell is "edging?")

Even if this study is biased it brings up the possibility of children being harmed in various ways at a much greater frequency in homosexual parented households versus heterosexual parented households. We should be doing what's best for the children not selfishly arguing to protect our sexual orientation viewpoint. If you are a hetero arguing against homos you are missing the most important point, children may be at risk and that trumps the orientation war. If you are a homo arguing against heteros to promote your GLBT agenda, then you are missing the most important point, children may be at risk and that trumps your orientation war. We should be demanding further investigations and unbiased studies for the sake of those innocent children who are harmed by adults daily. This study may or may not be biased, but it does focus on the effects the family environment has on children and if there is negative outcome we need to find ways to change that outcome. Stop the personal agenda garbage like the postings from Alvin A. McEwen and Rev. Anthony Smith. One of you seems to be supporting the "Gay" agenda and the other is supporting the "Christian" agenda and neither agenda addresses the emotional and physical harm to children.

My second comment:

Rev. Smith, all of what you say is irrelevant IF you and others on this site support a study which has multiple flaws and lack of honesty. Your words about accepting Jesus and Christianity are hypocritical if you abide by lies to get your message across.

Various responses:

Al-vin, you are still a pervert.

Actually the way to change the situation, is through Love and not preaching Judgement. God has given us Grace, yes which we have not earned because he loves us, but Rev don't you think you would gain more respect in your comments speaking from a loving view. Gay and Lesbian Life styles is sin like any other sin., and yes them raising children is NOT Healthy for the children, but God also has his hands on those children and through Love they will in the future pave the road to eliminate children being raised by Gays and Lesbians! God will balance this circumstance Ultimately he is always in control!

Alvin, don't tell me your queer too?

As I said before, not all comments from those defending the study are nasty, but they are certainly misguided. in that they are either defending or pushing aside the fact the details which have caused the study to be criticized.

How then can they talk to us about God and the supposed sin of homosexuality when they are embracing the sin of lying.

Editor's note - Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out has drawn up a petition asking that there be an investigation by the University of Texas to assess whether or not Regnerus's study was independent or was he in collusion with religious right groups. I think it's a worthy petition in view of the fact that National Organization for Marriage founder and chairman emeritus Robert George has ties with organizations who gave Regnerus a grant for the study (over $700,000) and also with one newspaper who publicized the study.


I've signed the petition and I think others should too.

'Discredited anti-gay researcher destroyed again' and other Thursday midday news briefs

Discredited anti-gay researcher Paul Cameron is obviously a glutton for humiliation. Every time he goes on David Pakman's show, Pakman destroys him. And of course this time, Pakman does it again.

Full story - Anti-gay junk science proponent shredded on the air (again) by David Pakman 

In other news:

 How CeCe McDonald’s Plight Exemplifies The Criminal Justice System’s Institutionalized Racism And Transphobia - THIS SITUATION needs more attention.

  Religious Coalition Endorses ENDA ‘As A Matter Of Justice’ - More proof that religion is not the opposite of the lgbtq orientation. It's just a matter of some folks boggarting all of the attention.  

Runnin’ For President Ain’t Nuttin But A Booty Call - Hilarious story of a Utah who thinks that openly gay presidential candidate Fred Karger is after her husband.

 NOM's Corporate Fairness Project uses Tom Strobhar for third time, pretends like he's someone else - Jeremy Hooper catches NOM in ANOTHER lie. 

Hate group leader loves NOM's fraudulent study

Peter LaBarbera

Editor's note - It's one of those two post mornings. After reading this post on how the recent fraudulent study on gay parenting has a new fan, pan down (and hold your stomach) to read how the Traditional Values Coalition continues to attack the transgender community).

The recent anti-gay parenting study by University of Texas researcher Mark Regnerus (which was bought and paid for by National Organization for Marriage founder Robert George) has been receiving a lot of deserved condemnation.

And now it has received praise which pretty much should have the same effect as the criticisms.

Our friend, Porno Pete LaBarbera of the hate group Americans for Truth has voiced support for it. However, what he says brings home the simple fact as to how deceptive and dangerous the study is:

LaBarbera says the University of Texas research is accurate and very thorough -- adding that states that encourage homosexual adoption are wrong. The study provides "very tragic data," he says.

"For example, you're more likely basically to get molested in a household led by two lesbians. You're more likely to have sexually transmitted diseases. You're more likely to identify as homosexual. You're more likely to be on public assistance," he lists.

"[And] you're more likely to have been forced to have sex unwillingly," he concludes. "Big difference [there] -- 8 percent in a normal household versus 31 percent in a household led by lesbians." In addition, one raised in a homosexual or lesbian household is more likely to have thoughts of suicide.

One would almost think that LaBarbera was practically drooling when he said these things. But his comments are false.

Again, let us repeat several facts about the study via Media Matters:

 1. The Study Doesn’t Compare Married Gay Parents To Married Heterosexual Parents.

2. The Author Admits The Study Doesn’t Establish Causation Between Same-Sex Parenting And Negative Outcomes. - Now this fact is very important because LaBarbera is accusing lesbian households of all sorts of negative outcomes on children. But Regnerus, the study's author clearly said:

I recognize, with Paul and Cynthia, that organizations may utilize these findings to press a political program. And I concur with them that that is not what data come prepared to do. Paul offers wise words of caution against it, as did I in the body of the text. Implying causation here—to parental sexual orientation or anything else, for that matter—is a bridge too far.

3. The Study Arbitrarily Ignores Overlaps In Its Subpopulations. 

4. The Study Doesn’t Accurately Define Gay And Lesbian Parents.

 5. The Study’s Author And Funders Have An Agenda. 

The sad fact of the matter is that Regnerus's study is bogus, but neither LaBarbera nor others who cite it (and I'm sure that there will be others) don't really care. As long as there is something on record to justify their prejudices against the gay community, that's all that matters to them.

Religious right group sees what it wants to see at ENDA hearing

At the recent Congressional hearing on ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act), Kylar Broadus, founder of the Trans People of Color Coalition, was the first transgender witness to ever testify for the bill. His testimony has been hailed as compelling as he talked about coming out, workplace harassment, and basic discrimination:



This is how the Traditional Values Coalition saw his testimony:

 

Sometimes, you have to let hate speak for itself.

Fraudulent study proves the danger of Fox News to the gay community

I have said it before and I will say it again:

The lgbtq community needs to keep an eye out on Fox News.

If you think the network has run roughshod over President Obama the four years he has been in office, you haven't seen anything yet.

Just imagine what it can do to us.

A perfect example is the following video featuring the recently published and discredited anti-gay parenting study bought and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage.

Fox News resident doctor Keith Ablow (who has a long history of homophobia and false information regarding the lgbtq community) is fawning over it, making sure not to mention any of the myriad of problems found with it. And while this is a small clip, I bet you my next paycheck that he didn't mention how NOM's founder and chairman emeritus Robert George served on the boards of the think tanks which paid over $700,000 in "grants" for the study to be conducted. And of course I bet he didn't mention that George served on the board of one of the first newspapers to push the study as factual. And also notice that there was no one interviewed who challenged Ablow:



Fox News is pushing a false study about the gay community unchallenged to millions of Americans.

That is dangerous.

NOM hiding ties to anti-gay parenting study

NOM's Robert George

While the National Organization for Marriage has been trumpeting a recent study which claims that gay households are inferior to heterosexual households when it comes to the raising of children, recent information has revealed that NOM has not been forthcoming as to how deep the ties the study has to one of the organization's founders.

 According to Wayne Besen of the group Truth Wins Out, the head of the study - University of Texas researcher Mark Regnerus, received a $695,000 grant from the Witherspoon Institute and a $90,000 grant from the Bradley Foundation.

Both of the Bradley Foundation and the Witherspoon Foundation are affiliated with Princeton professor Robert George. At the Witherspoon Foundation, he is a Herbert W. Vaughan Senior Fellow and at the Bradley Foundation, he is on the Board of Directors.

Robert George is also a founder and chairman emeritus of the National Organization for Marriage. 

It gets even more interesting.

Probably the first publication to trumpet the results of the study was Utah's Deseret News. Robert George just happens to be a member of that publication's board. He joined in 2010.

Interestingly enough, while the National Organization for Marriage ran several posts praising the study, no one from the organization even bothered to mention its ties to George. One would think that for the sake of disclosure, NOM could have mention that its founder and chairman emeritus had a huge hand in not only the study's funding, but possibly also its publicity.

Regnerus's study has received much criticism for its faulty methodology, but it appears that questions also need to be asked as to its ties with NOM because this collusion is not without precedent.

Last year, during its unsuccessful fight to keep marriage equality from New York, NOM members held a press conference claiming that "objective legal scholars"  said that marriage equality will negatively impact the rights of people who disagree with it.

Come to find out, however, that all of those "objective legal scholars" had ties with NOM, including . . . Robert George.

NOM, George, and even Regnerus have a lot to answer for. The only thing is will they be asked the right questions?

Related post:

NOM proves duplicity of anti-gay parenting study

NOM proves duplicity of anti-gay parenting study

Maggie Gallagher of NOM pushing faulty study.

The religious right and the lgbtq community are feuding over a recent study by Mark Regnerus, associate professor of sociology at University of Texas Austin's Population Research Center.

Supposedly, the study claims that married heterosexual parents are better than gay parents. Of course there are a great number of flaws with this study when it comes to methodology, Regnerus's credibility, and the groups who paid for it.

But what I have noticed is the duplicity of Regnerus and those who are pushing this study. From Deseret News comes this editorial, featuring a statement from Regnerus (I highlighted the most important parts):

Adult children of parents who have been in same-sex relationships are different than children raised in intact biological families on a number of social, emotional and relationship measures, according to research from the University of Texas at Austin.

Among other things, they reported lower income levels, poorer mental and physical health and more troubled current romantic relationships. The study found 25 differences across 40 measures.

The research does not address why the differences exist. It doesn't predict if changing attitudes that are more accepting of same-sex relationships will mean that children growing up today with same-sex parents will one day fare better in similar analysis. It doesn't address stigma or whether the difference is not the sexual preference of the parents but rather how stable the home life was, lead investigator Mark Regnerus, associate professor of sociology at University of Texas Austin's Population Research Center, told the Deseret News.


"Nor does the study tell us that same-sex parents are necessarily bad parents," he said in a written statement. "Rather, family forms that are associated with instability or non-biological parents tend to pose risks for children as they age into adulthood."

Of course I could point out that idea of "intact biological" families omit a lot of folks, including single parent families, but what strikes me is the contradictory claim. Regenrus clearly says that the study does not tell us that same-sex parents are bad parents.

But to hear the right talk, that's exactly what the study is saying:

Family Research Council:

In one of the largest peer-reviewed studies of its kind on parenting, researchers show that there are serious risks to being raised in a homosexual home--not the least of which are poverty, depression, and abuse

The Washington Times:

The lead of the article:

Two studies released Sunday may act like brakes on popular social-science assertions that gay parents are the same as — or maybe better than — married mother-father parents.

A paragraph close to the end of the article:

Mr. Regnerus cautioned that his study does not attempt to “undermine or affirm arguments” about gay rights, or link poor adult outcomes solely to gay parenting.

But if you want a demonstration of the duplicity of this study, you can clearly see it thanks to the National Organization for Marriage. NOM founder Maggie Gallagher wrote the following in The National Review (I highlighted the most important part):

On 25 of 40 outcome measures, adult children who reported their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship fared poorly compared to children raised by intact biological married parents. This should surprise no one. It doesn’t mean that gay parents are bad parents. Plenty of kids raised outside of intact married families do fine. Nonetheless, this new research tends to affirm that the ideal for a child is a married mom and dad.

Gallagher's organization, NOM, posted several blog entries about the study. And apparently some of the commentators totally failed to note what Gallagher said about how the study does not criticize gay parents:
 

Barb Chamberlan

Posted June 11, 2012 at 10:49 am | Permalink

It's great to see these actual studies being released and getting attention. Previous "studies" by Charlotte Patterson (a lesbian) and others are in fact little more than pro-gay propaganda. These previous "studies" are strong evidence that the APA is a political organization, not a scientific one.

OvercameSSA

Posted June 11, 2012 at 11:36 am | Permalink

Well, 14th, I think we should have a look at the research parameters, such as size of the studies, subject populations, and other sources of potential bias before you start screaming bias based on funding. The bias of the studies conducted by the pro-ss"m" "researchers" was clear. The smartest thing the researchers in the present study could do is conduct a squeaky clean study to rule out all bias; after all, we have thousands of years of marriage and the resulting advancement of civilization to be confirmed. Same-sex couples raising strangers' kids is social experimentation with the children serving as guinea pigs.

John N.

Posted June 11, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

Just look at the box and it tells you everthing you need to see. Every comparison in the box proves the case for mom/dad. When you see the trolls come on here and harp the same old points you begin to see it is all about them and their lustfull sex acts with no regard for children.

OvercameSSA

Posted June 11, 2012 at 11:12 am | Permalink

In other words, allowing children to be raised by same-sex caretakers is a social experiment in which the children are guinea pigs. But no worries, as long as the same-sex couple is happy, right?

Barb Chamberlan

Posted June 11, 2012 at 11:54 am | Permalink

The children are also political pawns used by same-sex couples to try to prove to the world how great they are as caretakers. Get one "researcher" (Charlotte Patterson) with an agenda to interview her lesbian friends and the children in their possession. Write a bogus "study" and all of a sudden lesbians are far superior parents to anyone else. My personal observations of gay and lesbian frienimies serving as child caretakers have shown their "parenting" skills to be dubious at best. But, of course, I'm not a "scientist," nor am I attempting to publish my "studies" in scientific journals.

leviticus

Posted June 11, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

SSM extremists out with their spin. The rock solid peer reviewed study clearly shows the harm done to children because of homosexual relationships.

John N.

Posted June 11, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

This is not a NOM side show. This organization is putting children first. There maybe always selfish same sex parents putting their sex lives above children but we do not need to reward this perverse behavior with the honor of marriage.

Long story short - on top of everything else wrong with Regnerus's study, there is a deliberate obfuscation on his part as to its objective. He claims that the study does not criticize gay parenting, but that's exactly what it does. Why does Regnerus feel to deny the conclusion that his "research" supposedly reached? Because he knows that there is no need. He, Gallagher, and the rest can hold up their hands and plead innocence while their "ground troops" can spin the study to demonize gay parenting.

It's duplicity plain and simple. The gay community has seen it before because it is permeated in all of the religious right arguments against our community.

"We don't hate you. You are not bad people. Your lifestyle is just bad."

I would almost respect Regnerus, Gallagher and the rest a bit more if they were as honest as those who follow NOM's blog.

Almost, I said. But not quite.

ENDA hearing and blowback proves need for pro-gay legislation

Today, Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee held a hearing on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). ENDA would outlaw employment discrimination in the cases of sexual orientation and gender identity.

And the hearing featured a first:

Kylar Broadus, founder of the Trans People of Color Coalition, discussed his experiences coming out trans, including mistreatment by police, workplace harassment, and employment discrimination:

BROADUS: When I used female restrooms, police would accost me. I would have to strip and then they still told me, “Sir, get out of the bathroom,” when I would use the ladies’ room. It’s just humiliating and dehumanizing to say the least.[...]

Prior also to the physical transition, I was working in the financial industry, which is actually a high-paying industry. But again, when I shifted or transitioned, that’s when all the trouble began. And it’s still emotional to me, because it impacted me emotionally — I suffer from post-traumatic stress as a result of the harassment that I encountered in the workplace from my employer.[...]

To be unemployed is very devastating, also demeaning and demoralizing. And then the recovery time — there is no limit on it. I still have not financially recovered. I’m underemployed. When I do talks, I tell people I’m not employable. I was lucky to be where I am and I’m happy to be where I am, but I’m one of the fortunate people that is employed. There are many more people like me that are not employed as a result of just being who they are — being good workers, but being transgender or transsexual. So I think it’s extremely important that this bill be passed to protect workers like me.

The following is his testimony:



ThinkProgress also said that Congressional opponents of ENDA did not attend the hearing.

Of course that doesn't mean that they were silent. According to Right Wing Watch, Congressman Louis Gohmert (R-TX) appeared Today's Issues, a radio program hosted by the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins. There, he not only distorted information about ENDA (Christian schools are in fact exempt from ENDA), but then took the time to talk about bodily plumbing:

Transcript:

Perkins: Today, in the Senate they are having a hearing on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act…. What this would do is give special employment benefits and protections based upon their sexual behavior and orientation. What do you see as the outcome of this? I mean, are you concerned increasingly that this is a way to essentially punish religious freedom in the business environment, in the business sector?

Gohmert: It continues to be part of this administration’s ongoing war on religion, on particularly Judeo-Christian values. But of course this is one that even is extremely contrary to the Muslim religion as well. I mean, Islam, Judaism, although there are plenty of people in Judaism and Christianity who think despite the plumbing that God created, that as the Iowa Supreme Court said, there is no biological evidence of a preference for a man and a woman being married as opposed to a man and a man.

 . . .  It also means that Christian schools will be forced to hire openly homosexual individuals, and it’s kind of tough to teach biblical principles in Romans 1 in a school if you are of the persuasion of being homosexual.

Call me biased but looking at the two arguments side-by-side, I think both Broadus and Gohmert makes a good argument for ENDA. Gohmert makes the argument why ENDA is necessary because of his ignorance. And Broadus seals the argument by demonstrating just how Gohmert's ignorance hurts the lgbtq comunity.

'Religious right betting on new fraudulent study on gay parenting' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Flawed study funded by anti-gay org claims to overturn decades of research affirming gay and lesbian parenting - In case you haven't heard, there is a new "study" out which challenges the notion of gay parenting. Guess who is behind it.  

Corvino: Flawed, destined-to-be-misused study comes at expense of actual child welfare - Jeremy Hooper provides more information about the "study."

 Five Things News Outlets Should Know About The Newest Same-Sex Parenting Study - Media Matters adds it's voice to the mix. The more facts we have about this "study," the better prepared we are for when the right will attempt to use it.  

Fraudulent ‘Study’ Attacking Same-Sex Parents Illuminates Dangerous Impact Of Mainstream Media - And Think Progress makes an excellent point about how the mainstream media can do damage when madness like this becomes public.

 Colorado: Lawmaker ‘disappointed’ after campaign email outs son - Anti-gay lawmaker gets a shock from HER OWN campaign.  

What Happens When A Fox News Reporter Attends A Gay Pride Parade? - Todd Starnes is VILE. End of story.  

Minnesota Priest Argues Catholics Can (And Should) Vote ‘No’ on MN Marriage Inequality Amendment - Amen! 

Family Research Council recycling tacky Prop 8 video

Via Joe Jervis, I just saw an online video from the Family Research Council talking about the "terrible, horrible, downright no-good thing"s that would happen to families and children should a California law, SB48, not be repealed.

SB48 is a law requiring schools to integrate factual information about social movements, current events and history of people with disabilities and LGBT people into existing social studies lessons. It also prevents the State Board of Education from adopting instructional materials that discriminate.

But according to FRC, schools would be "forced" to talk about same-sex households. Of course scholls are already talking about same-sex households because children who live in these households attend public schools and I'm sure that they talk about their families. But watch the video:



Did you notice something strange? You probably didn't . . . unless you watched the video the Family Research Council ran in efforts to pass Prop 8 in 2008:



Pretty much the same lies - i.e. "schools will forced to talk about same-sex parents." There are so many things to note about these two videos:

1. For a group which claims to be focused about "the family," the Family Research Council goes out of its way to dismiss the existence of same-sex families. Why is that? That's a question someone should ask FRC head Tony Perkins the next time he shows his face on a news program.

2. The star in both of these videos, David Parker, is an unmitigated liar. I've covered what happened in his situation so many times. Long story short (check out this link for the entire story) - the incident of him being arrested seemed to have been planned and propagated by him and Mass Resistance, a Massachusetts anti-gay group which the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated as a hate group. And while Parker and his wife are quick to cry and whine in the video as if they are victims, they conveniently omitted the false charge they made against the school district that Parker's son was assaulted because of his father's stance against same-sex families. Parker and the other family in the videos, the Wirthlins sued the school district and lost at every turn, including the Supreme Court, thereby validating the fact that there is nothing wrong with schools talking about same-sex families.

3. Last, but not least, isn't it just TACKY for FRC to recycle the pro-Prop 8 video footage in an attempt to stop SB48? In the Prop 8 video FRC was saying if same-sex couples are allowed to be married, schools will be "forced to talk about same-sex families." Now they are saying if schools teach about the contributions of gays and lesbians throughout history, they will also be "forced to talk about same-sex families."

Since children in same-sex families are already attending America's schools and therefore students are  already talking about the issue, why don't FRC push legislation banning the children of same-sex families from attending public schools?

Seems to me that if FRC don't want schools to acknowledge that same-sex families exist, why not take it all the way and keep their children from attending public schools?

Then again, I had better hush. I don't want to give Perkins and company any ideas.

Family Research Council lies about gay adoption to harm Target

The Family Research Council is not happy with the recent decision by Target to help a pro-gay adoption organization (the Family Equality Council) raise money to defeat an anti-gay bill in Minnesota by selling t-shirts.

And as the organization always does, FRC is displaying its displeasure through basic lies via the following handout:

So according to FRC, Target is aiding and abetting the shutting down of Christian adoption agencies if they sell t-shirts helping to stop the anti-marriage equality in Minnesota and this will "harm" children and the so-called cause of "religious liberty."

Not only is this a lie, but it is a lie which has already been shot down.

In January of this year, former presidential candidate Newt Gingrich conducted an interview on CNN where he made the exact same charges about gay adoption in general (i.e. that it would harm children by forcing Catholic adoption agencies to shut down):

SOLEDAD O’BRIEN (HOST): You were talking about gay adoption and you said that the church, the Catholic Church, was forced to close its adoption centers. Isn’t what really happened that, if the church decided it was going to continue to take federal funds and have access to those foster children, that they couldn’t continue to discriminate against gay couples who wanted to adopt?

NEWT GINGRICH: That’s right.

O’BRIEN: They weren’t really forced to close, they made the decision.

GINGRICH: No, no. They were forced to close because you’re saying to a religious group “give up your religion.” That’s absurd. The idea that the state would impose its secular values on a religious organization is an absurdity.

O’BRIEN: If you want funding. Isn’t that if you want funding?

GINGRICH: No, no, in Massachusetts–

O’BRIEN: You can do whatever you want but if you want funding.

GINGRICH: No, that’s not true. That’s not true. There are states now, including the District of Columbia, which essentially adopt laws that say you can’t offer an adoption service unless you meet the secular standards of the state. They are in effect saying the secular standards of the state are more important than religious freedom. I think it is inherently anti-Christian and anti-Jewish. It is in favor of a secular model, that I think is wrong. And I think that it’s wrong for the government to impose its values on religion. That’s the whole point of the First Amendment, is to not have the government imposing values on religion. [CNN, Starting Point, 1/10/12]

Equality Matters quickly refuted Gingrich:

Family Equality Council: Choice To Stop Public Adoption Services “Was Made By Catholic Charities Alone.” Jennifer Chrisler, Executive Director of the Family Equality Council, wrote in an email to Equality Matters:

Mr. Gingrich’s comments are patently false and inherently anti-family.  The decision to end public adoption services in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia was made by Catholic Charities alone. They wanted to continue to receive public funding without adhering to the law and when the state refused to make an exception for them they balked at providing critical social services to youth.

This has nothing to do with the government trying to impose values on religion. On the contrary, this had to do with the Catholic Charities trying to impose its values on children and families who needed social services.

His comments are a distraction at a time when we should be focused on the best interests of children and finding them loving and permanent homes. [Jennifer Chrisler Email, 1/10/12, emphasis added]

Massachusetts’ Catholic Charities "Voluntarily" Chose To Stop Providing Adoption Services Instead Of Serving Same-Sex Couples. According to the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) blog:

So here’s a little reality check. Catholic Charities of Boston was not forced out of the adoption business because of marriage equality in Massachusetts. The organization voluntarily ceased doing adoptions after the state’s four Catholic Bishops got wind that gay parents had been adopting kids through Catholic Charities from an October 2005 Boston Globe story. Not surprisingly, all of this happened as the Massachusetts Legislature was wrestling with whether to put an anti-gay marriage amendment on the statewide ballot, which the local Catholic hierarchy supported wholeheartedly. […]

Catholic Charities was accepting state funds to provide adoption services and was thus bound by the state’s gay-inclusive anti-discrimination law not to reject qualified adoptive parents based on sexual orientation. Oh, and by the way, the non-discrimination law has been on the books since 1989—long before marriage equality was but a doodle on Mary Bonauto’s legal pad. [GLAD.org, 3/10/11, emphasis original]

Catholic Charities Of Boston Was Never Denied An Adoption License. According to a GLAD fact sheet on Catholic Charities and adoption services in Massachusetts:

Did the state “deny” Catholic Charities of Boston “its adoption agency license”?

No. For 17 years Catholic Charities of Boston complied with non-discrimination laws and put the best interests of children first, in some cases placing a child with gay or lesbian parents. Catholic Charities chose to close down its adoption services. At no point was it denied an adoption license. [GLAD.org, 12/22/11]

Catholic Adoption Agencies Can Still Choose To Discriminate Against Same-Sex Couples In Private Adoption Services. Steve Major, director of communications for the Family Equality Council, wrote in an email to Equality Matters:

Catholic Charities facilitates relatively few public adoptions nationwide. In areas where they’ve declined to comply with existing non-discrimination rules and stopped doing public placements (Massachusetts, D.C., parts of California – and will be the likely result in IL where the issue is still working its way through the state courts) there has been little to no impact on the state’s ability to place children. Other adoption agencies have agreed to step in and continue the work of finding children their forever families.

Catholic Charities and other religiously affiliated organizations who receive public funding should be obligated to follow the same non-discrimination laws that other agencies adhere to.  If they place their own religious objections ahead of the law and the best interests of kids, they should withdraw from conducting public adoptions. They are free to continue facilitating private adoptions. [Steve Major Email, 9/9/11, emphasis added]

As for Illinois, the argument between the state and the Catholic Charities was pretty much the same thing - can the Catholic Charities freely accept tax dollars while discriminating against those whose monies contribute to those tax dollars - i.e. gay and lesbian couples.

After the courts said no, the Illinois Catholic Charities gave up its fight.

So all in all, by helping the Equality Family Council, Target is not harming children nor the so-called cause of "religious liberty."

But by lying about the situation, the Family Research Council is doing a lot of damage to the cause of Christianity.


Hat tip to Jeremy Hooper.

'Black and gay leader are finally teaming up together' and other Monday midday news briefs

Black Leaders and Gay Advocates March in Step - Some good news for Monday.

Minnesota State Board: Anti-LGBT Group May Exploit Loophole To Evade Disclosure - Ugh. A NOM affiliated group in Minnesota could have an out to keep from disclosing its financial sources.

Focus on the Family's plan to combat LGBT social stigma? Going younger and louder with the very same - Focus on the Family's solution to self-hatred and stigma? More things which create self-hatred and stigma.

EXCLUSIVE: Zach Wahls On The Boy Scouts’ Decision To Reconsider Anti-Gay Discrimination Policy - Met Zach Wahls last week. Wow he is tall!!

Hold the Judgment: Changing Attitudes on LGBT Issues Defy Religious Stereotypes - A post like this is needed in our community.

Who cares if the National Organization for Marriage may have broken the law?

Brian Brown of NOM

The National Organization for Marriage hasn't said a word about being investigated by the state of California since the news broke last week.

But other folks are and they aren't exactly helpful:

A Republican leader says an openly homosexual presidential candidate is just being "a sore loser" in attempting to attack California's man-woman marriage battle.

California's Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is investigating whether the National Organization for Marriage failed to report donations made to Proposition 8. Republican Fred Karger, whose website bills him as "the first openly gay presidential candidate from a major political party in American history," asked the Commission to look into whether the "Yes on 8" campaign failed to reveal almost $400,000 it received in 2008, including $10,000 from presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Alabama super PAC.

"Let's say for the sake of argument that Mitt Romney's super PAC contributed to Prop. 8. What's wrong with it?" asks Celeste Greig, president of the California Republican Assembly (CRA). "It was a valid proposition that the people overwhelmingly supported."

What was wrong with it was the fact that NOM may have not reported Romney's $10,000 contribution which came by the way of an Alabama PAC. And the fact that this money came from an Alabama PAC is odd in itself.

In addition, to the Romney money there were 10 more contributions NOM did not report, including: $150,000 from Michael Casey of Jamestown, RI, $100,000 from Sean Fiedler of New York, NY and $25,000 from NOM Board member Craig Cardon of Mesa, AZ, a General Authority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

All in all, that's $340,000 which NOM is alleged to have not reported.

So it is a pretty big deal.

Attacking Karger is merely killing the messenger. If Greig was concerned about preserving the laws in her state, she would lay off of Karger and start asking questions about NOM.

Conservative bloggers get embarrassed at Netroots Nation

Jim Hoft

Netroots Nation this year was off the chain. We progressives - including the creme de la creme of lgbtq activists and bloggers - gathered together in Rhode Island to coordinate our plans, bounce around new ideas, talk to Congressmen, and basically rejuvenate ourselves for the fights ahead.

This was my second Netroots Nation. During my first one, I was a young, eager-eyed blogger ready to meet some of my  idols and Congressmen.

This one was special because I accomplished a lot of things. I was able to give a talk on what I do with my blog (it was called "opposition research, but I corrected the term. It's actually truth-telling on the religious right) to good applause.

I participated in a panel discussion about lgbtq rights in "red states" and was able to give a deserved shout out to all of the South Carolina lgbtq organizations who work steadily to accomplish equality for our community but rarely get their due. By the way, the fact that we were able to pass transgender-inclusive non-discrimination ordinances in various SC cities without so much as a peep from the religious right was deemed as extremely impressive.

I was able to meet Congresswoman and hopefully soon-to-be Senator Tammy Baldwin as well as NAACP president Benjamin Jealous and have a quick discussion with them on how they are my inspiration.

Lastly, I was able to work some mischief in. Oh come on now. That's that reason why you reading this post and I won't disappoint you. Yesterday, Netroots Nation was infiltrated by a few right-wing bloggers, famous for their vitriol.

Jim Hoft, Dana Loesch, and various other writers of the Breitbart site.

For those who don't know, Hoft has written vulgarly inaccurate pieces on President Obama. One infamous piece had to do with that the President's speech in Tucson, Arizona after that awful shooting incident last year.

Hoft had claimed that the White House was demanding that people applaud Obama's speech via the Jumbotron. In reality, the Jumbotron was merely closed captioning for the hearing impaired.

And I would remiss not to mention that it was Hoft who kept publishing post after post after post falsely accusing former Obama appointee Kevin Jennings of teaching children how to have gay sex, sending children to adult gay bars, etc. etc.

When I walked up to him during Netroots Nation and confronted him about what he had done, he wasn't exactly loquacious.  We had two conversations. Now those who know me are aware of the fact that I adore the television character Columbo. Columbo was a police detective who caught criminals in lies by not yelling at them but treating them politely while just simply pointing out several facts. I tried to follow that direction in that I did not yell at Hoft nor call him names. We had a somewhat "pleasant conversation:

Me: Mr. Hoft, I loved your work on Kevin Jennings.

Hoft: Well thank you

Me: I would have loved it more if it was accurate. Come on man, you know that stuff wasn't true.

Hoft: (nervous laugh)

Me: I mean come on, seriously, where did you get that stuff.

Hoft: Well I'd have to look over it.

Me: But you wrote it and you were wrong.

Hoft: Well I don't remember . . .

Me: Well I could send you the information. Are you going to correct any of what you said.

Hoft:  Well I'd have to look over it

(Hoft begins to move away from me.)

Me: Wait a minute, where are you going? Let's continue to talk. I haven't even mentioned the Obama speech stuff. That was when you said Obama's people was ordering audience members to applaud but it was really the Jumbotron for the hearing impaired.

Hoft: Well . .  like I said, I would have to look at it.

Me: Well I got your twitter, I can send you where you got it wrong if you send me your address.

(Hoft was already gone)

Dana Loesch

Now my conversation with Dana Loesch was more polite, which is a surprise in light of a lot of the stuff she has said and written in regards to urinating on dead soldiers, Georgetown student Sandra Fluke, and the transgender community.

It was what happened afterwards that was interesting. In case you didn't hear, Loesch attempted to asked Sen. Sherrod Brown a question and he shot her down like she was an enemy warrior in a video game. She tweeted about it:

"Sen. Brown, do you have time for a question?" - me

 "Not from you I don't." - Sen. Sherrod Brown #nn12

After the incident, Loesch confided in me how shocked she was that Sen. Brown shot her down like that. And I was all "now that's just a crying shame." But I was being deceptive.  After all, it was me who alerted Sen. Brown's aide that Loesch was in the audience and was going to probably ask him a question for the direct objective of embarrassing him?

It wasn't my idea to do it at first. Daily Kos Markos Moulitsas told me that I should alert Brown's aide on what Loesch was planning. So I did.

And I enjoyed the outcome.

Granted, what I did was probably insignificant, petty,  and probably won't amount to a hill of beans in the long run.

But what the heck? It was fun. I didn't yell at anyone. I didn't call anyone names. I like to think that I merely regulated the situation.

No hard feelings, guys. But come on. Some of us progressives aren't exactly pushovers. We also know how to fight. But more importantly, we fight intelligently.

WOW! Black minister gives spirited defense of marriage equality

From Think Progress, something simply awesome:

Pastor Frederick Haynes of the Friendship-West Baptist Church in Dallas gave a powerful sermon in support of President Obama’s recent endorsement of marriage equality. Haynes notes that during his oath of office, Obama vowed to uphold the constitution, not the Bible. During his sermon, which criticized both fellow pastors and the congregation for their condemnation of marriage equality, “the congregation stood up and shouted their disapproval at him.” Haynes argued that the congregation should change its views:

HAYNES: He [President Obama] swore upon oath to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution, not the Bible, but the Constitution of the United States. He is not the pastor of the United States, but the president of the United States. And for the first time in the history of this nation, we have a president who has dared to use his position to make the democratic promise available, not just for a select few who are up and in, but for everybody, regardless of their race, their creed, their color, or their sexual orientation! And my brothers and sisters, I  salute the President.

Have you ever read the Gospel and heard Jesus say anything about homosexuality?…Black folk can’t even deal with homosexuality because we got issues with sexuality. And because we got issues with sexuality we can’t have a healthy discussion about homosexuality. Why, why do you get so upset?

Pastor Haynes should be commended for his intelligence, his integrity, and his bravery for stepping out on the right side of history on this issue.

'Baltimore denounces NOM's racist tactics' and other Friday midday news briefs

Editor's note - Just met two of the meanest right-wing columnist - Dana Loesch and Jim Hoft. No doubt, they are here to push the false line that "progresives are discouraged." Expect that to be the subject of their columns. Of course knowing Hoft's tendency to exaggerate, take what will be said with less than a grain of salt. Surprisingly I engaged them in a very polite conversation about how they lie, particularly Hoft. Yes, I specifically called Hoft out. They were very nice people to talk to. I guess I killed them with kindness. More on a later post, particularly how they tried to get me to pose in front of a Democratic Socialist table. I emphasize TRIED.

Baltimore mayor denounces NOM - More African-American public officials, particularly in states facing those awful marriage amendments, need to be as vocal.

After NAACP Marriage Stance, Discord And Discussion - Some African-Americans are not happy with the NAACP supportive stance on marriage equality. One member has quit. I personally think this is a good thing. Not that the member has quit, but that the NAACP has thrust itself into relevancy by pushing a much needed discussion in the black community.

Militant FRC puts gay soldiers at war with 'heroes'; callous disregard at war with rational conversation - The Family Research Council just can't get over the fact that DADT is DEAD.

CNN Contributor Defends Radio Host Who Said Obama Turns Kids Gay - When talking to Loesch less than 10 minutes ago, she claims that she was merely pointing out the fact that our community was giving this silly child undue attention. Maybe. But it's convenient that she never said a word to me about us "bullying" him. Personally I feel this way. Certainly we don't want to bully the child but he said something wild which needs attention drawn to it. And how interesting is it that she goes out of her way to defend this child, which leads me to say has she been as vocal defending gay youth. Just asking.

Macon Telegraph reverses decision to not publish lesbian wedding announcement - Not bad.

SC gay group uses Sen. DeMint to make point about anti-gay discrimination

From my friends at the Alliance for Full Acceptance, an ad which gets to the heart of discrimination with a little help from Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC):



To see more ads and to learn about how you can help to put these ads on the air, go to AFFA 2012 Media Campaign

'Signorile calls out Maggie Gallagher's duplicity' and other Thursday midday news briefs

What Are Gay Marriage Opponents Thinking? A Discussion With Maggie Gallagher - Maggie Gallagher is getting bold if she allowing herself to be interviewed by Michelangelo Signorile. After this interview, expect Gallagher not to be so bold.

First trans witness ever to testify before Senate on ENDA - I love it when good history is made

Pelosi: If Dems Win The House, DOMA Defense Goes Away - Talk about your incentives to vote Democrat!

BREAKING: Another Federal Judge Strikes Down DOMA - Which would be good because defending it is a waste of money. For the second time this week, it has been struck down.

LaBarbera and Wooden are Positive that Nobody Wants their Kids to be Gay - I'm almost a proponent of spontaneous combustion over this one.

Game On in Washington State: Marriage on the November Ballot - We knew this would happen. So let's do this thing!

Sarah Jessica Parker and the religious right's hypocrisy on polygamy

Sometimes I get confused in regards to the ability of religious right to change its colors on a position.

Recent attacks on actress Sarah Jessica Parker is a perfect example.

Parker recently posted a video commercial for President Obama's re-election.

To say that the National Organization for Marriage didn't appreciate this video is an understatement. From its blog:

..So now the president is now not content to advocate redefining marriage as being possible between two people of the same sex. He is now in favor of redefining marriage so that it can be any union at all — which is to say, he is in favor of abolishing any publicly normative definition of marriage. If “you should be able to marry anyone you want,” then you should be able to marry someone who is already married, you should be able to marry your father, your mother, your sister, your brother, whoever. Taken as stated, the president’s position, proclaimed by his actress-spokesperson, is to personally advocate polygamous and even incestuous marriages.

No doubt the president does not really intend to say this. But why not, at least on the logic of the left-wing marriage nihilists whose rhetoric he is parroting? Conservatives say that same-sex marriage is a step towards the destruction of marriage. Their liberal opponents respond that this is childish, that letting gay people marry does not threaten any existing marriage. But that response completely misses the point, which is this: the argument by which the left defends same sex marriage is inseparable from an argument that marriage should be anything anybody wants it to be, which is the same thing as saying there should be no publicly normative definition of marriage, which is the same thing as destroying marriage as a public institution.

The incest thing is ridiculous. And of course the thing about polygamy is equally ridiculous. But the question is how can NOM accuse Obama's support of marriage equality leading to polygamy when its founder, Maggie Gallagher, said in 2003 polygamy is better for children:

"At least polygamy, for all its ugly defects, is an attempt to secure stable mother-father families for children."

Now granted, Gallagher will duck and dodge in that way in which the lgbt community has become used to. She will no doubt give a long explanation of what "she actually meant" or claim that since then her opinion has changed and she has written pieces which have spoken out against polygamy.

The religious right doesn't care about the bullying of Christian students either

In an attempt to make a point about how supposedly too much unnecessary attention is paid to the bullying of gay students, Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council accidentally demonstrated his organization's lack of care in regards to bullying in general.

According to that "lovely" phony news service, One News Now:

 Since Education Secretary Arne Duncan has once again met with a group of LGBT students to hear suggestions for improving school experience, one conservative wonders if a meeting with Christian students is even a possibility.

This latest meeting can be added to the list of about two dozen others Duncan has held with LGBT students since taking office. Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council (FRC) recognizes that Dncan can meet with whomever he wants -- but offers one query.

"I'm curious whether he would be willing to meet with Christian students in a similar way so that they could relate their experiences of bullying and persecution because they've expressed their faith or their personal moral convictions at school," Sprigg notes.

The gist of Sprigg's comment and the article is that focusing on the bullying of gay students is supposedly unnecessary:

Sprigg points out that studies show the main reason students are bullied is not because of sexual orientation, but because of body image, academic performance and perceived intelligence. So while Duncan is placing the Department of Education's focus on the lesbian, "gay", bisexual and transgender students, Sprigg contends no one is looking out for the students who need the attention.

That link in the article doesn't point to any of the "studies," but another One News Now article featuring a statement from Peter Jon Mitchell of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada  Apparently IMFC is a  Canadian religious right group.

Mitchell said the following:

A report on state legislation up to April 2011 for the U.S. Department of Education found that 48 pieces of legislation on bullying were passed between 2000 and 2006, with an additional 78 pieces of state legislation passed in the following four years. Many of the laws aim to protect homosexuals, but the study reveals there is little bullying on that basis.

"The primary reason or primary trigger for bullying is body image, followed by academic performance and sort of perceived intelligence," Mitchell reports.

Someone should tell Sprigg that an article talking about a generic report while providing no link to the report is not equal to a legitimate study.

But more than that, I am struck by Sprigg's first statement - "I'm curious whether he (Arne Duncan) would be willing to meet with Christian students in a similar way so that they could relate their experiences of bullying and persecution because they've expressed their faith or their personal moral convictions at school."

That's a good question. An even better question would be why don't Sprigg  or FRC get a group of these students together for such a meeting.

My guess is that it won't happen.

The reason is not because the supposed bullying of Christian students isn't happening. That's not the point.

The point is that Sprigg  wouldn't be interested in getting such a group together because he only mentioned these students as a way to play Christian students and gay students against one another in the eyes of the public.

Combating the bullying of any students is not what Sprigg and FRC are going for. It's not in any of their goals. To my knowledge, FRC has never pushed for any concrete legislation or made any legitimate suggestions when it comes to combating the bullying of any students.

Keeping down the gay community is all they aim for.

In other words, Sprigg is using Christian students as patsies.

He's not interested in stopping the bullying of Christian students any more than he is interested in stopping the bullying of gay students.

And it's sad because some folks will read Sprigg's comments and think that he makes a good point without realizing that he is exploiting Christian students for yet another game of "stop the queers."