Republicans secretly authorized additional $500,000 for faulty DOMA defense

Republicans in Congress are starting to cheese me off. They want to cut monies on Social Security and Medicaid, while at the same time doing the following, via Think Progress:

It has come to light that House Administration Committee Chairman Dan Lungren (R-CA) secretly approved a $500,000 increase to a contract with a private law firm to defend the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court. While the increase was approved in September, neither the public nor the Democratic House minority was informed until this week, Roll Call reports. The contract now authorizes Bancroft PLLC and former Solicitor General Paul Clement (R) to spend up to $2 million in to defend DOMA — the second increase to what was originally a $1 million cap. The U.S. Department of Justice stopped defending the 1996 law in February 2011 after determining the law to be in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

Two million dollars in an attempt to deny gays the right to marry. And if that's enough to get you angry, remember the fact that Clement, their lawyer, is using faulty research and tactics in his case. I wrote about this last year but let's recap:

1. Clement tried to sneak in the testimony of former NOM chair Maggie Gallagher in a way which would have kept her from being cross-examined.

2. A professor cited by Clement in a brief defending DOMA, Lisa Diamond, complained that her work was being distorted.

3. Clement is also citing - in a second hand fashion - junk science from discredited researchers. In his defense of DOMA, Clement cites the work of Case Western Reserve University law professor George W. Dent, Jr.

But Dent's work - which Clement uses -  cited both Paul Cameron and George Rekers, two discredited researchers. Cameron has been censured or rebuked by several organizations for his bad methodology in his studies. He has published work which claimed, among other nauseating false things, that gays stuff gerbils up their rectums. (Editor's note-  the piece Cameron cited to make this claim - The Straight Dope - actually said that this claim was not true. Cameron dishonestly "flipped the script" to make it seem that The Straight Dope was affirming this claim.)

Rekers lost a lot of credibility for last year's scandal when he was caught coming from a European vacation with a "rentboy."

Also, Dent cited the work of Walter Schumm's study Children of Homosexuals More Apt To Be Homosexuals? A Reply to Morrison and to Cameron Based on an Examination of Multiple Sources of Data.

Schumm's study was criticized for using the same false methodology as Cameron's work. i.e. citing sources "from general-audience books about LGBT parenting and families, most of which are available on Amazon.com"

Furthermore, Dent cited a book called Straight & Narrow by Thomas E. Schmidt to make criticisms about gay health. However, Schmidt is not a credible researcher in the field of gay health. He is a professor of New Testament Greek at Westmont College in Santa Barbara and according to Rev. Mel White of the group Soulforce, Schmidt cited Cameron's discredited studies many times in Straight & Narrow (5th letter to Jerry Falwell.)

And last, but not least, Dent cited the work of the American College of Pediatricians. The American College of Pediatricians is not a credible organization, but an organization created to give credibility to junk science about the gay community. Last year, over 14,000 school district superintendents in the country were sent a letter by ACP inviting them to peruse and use information from a new site, Facts About Youth. The site claimed to present "facts" supposedly not tainted by "political correctness."  Of course these were not facts, but ugly distortions about the gay community, including:

Some gay men sexualize human waste, including the medically dangerous practice of coprophilia, which means sexual contact with highly infectious fecal wastes.

If this isn't enough to get you angry at Boehner and company, then you need to check your pulse. You may not have one.

'Ridiculous video makes NO point against marriage equality' and other Thursday midday news briefs

With all due respect, this video I pulled from Jeremy Hooper's blog is super inane:


And the reason that allowing gays to marry would hurt the above concept is how . . .. ? This video is from the Iona Institute in Ireland. Man they need to do something better to explain their point of view.

 In other news:

WND Promotes Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill - Via "World Nut Daily," arch-bigot Scott Lively speaks up for Uganda's anti-gay bill. He should because he helped start the panic which created it. And get this - while he doesn't believe in the death penalty for gays, he is all for life in prison. Well gee. "Thanks a lot, @!%$"

 Regnerus Scandal Ripped Wide Open As UT Confesses To Major, Systemic Ethics Failures - Looks like NOM's bought-and-paid for anti-gay parenting bill is catching more problems.

  Zero-Tolerance Policies Perpetuate A School-to-Prison Pipeline For LGBT Youth - You have to read this. It's an awful thing for our children and a lot of folks aren't aware that it's taking place.

Family Research Council, NOM caught in lies about gay parenting study

FRC and NOM tries to lie about families like this one.

I have talked about how the religious right distorts legitimate studies to attack the gay community.  There have been many times in which this has happened. And today comes another one. From the Family Research Council:

According to a new study, having two married parents may be the best educational advantage you can give your kids. Based on data from 1.6 million children, Michael Rosenfeld confirms what FRC's research has shown for some time: children from intact, married families were 35.4% more likely to do well in school than kids in homosexual homes. Also, children adopted into heterosexual families fared better -- with a 24% edge in school progress over kids in same-sex families.

If the "new study" sounds familiar to folks who have read this blog, it's because I talked about it days ago. That time, the National Organization for Marriage was touting it and I pointed out how one of the study's authors - Douglas Allen -  was affiliated with the National Organization for Marriage's Ruth Institute.

In the comments section of this blog, readers were alerting me to something that I confess I should have been paying more attention to.  And now that the Family Research Council is touting the study - and inadvertently revealed an important fact about it - I am wide awake and raring to raise hell.

Both FRC and NOM are misleading folks in far more detail than I realized.

NOM omitted the fact that technically Allen didn't necessarily create an original study. Allen told The Washington Examiner the following:

The study also looked at similar scholarly work that had determined no difference in children of same sex and traditional marriages. The authors said that those studies filtered the sample of children to get their result.

"The previous study claiming no differences between the children of same sex parents and other children had serious problems," said study co-author Douglas Allen, an economics professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. That study, he said, "excluded children who were not biologically related to the household head, and children who did not live in the same place for five years. That threw out over half of the observations. When we put those children back into our analysis, but controlled for these factors, we found that the children of same sex parents are less likely to make normal progress through school."

 In other words, Allen took another study, published in 2010 and added new details in an attempt to get a conclusion more desirous to his position.

FRC is misleading folks making them believe the study is new and that the actual author - Michael Rosenfield - interprets it as a knock on same-sex families.

This is not true because of a letter Rosenfield wrote in November. In the letter, published in the same issue of  Demography,  he blasted Allen for manipulating his original work. It reads in part:

 In Rosenfeld (2010), I was very careful to include only children who lived with their current parents for at least five years because those children’s current family structure influenced their progress through school. In their revision of my analysis, Allen et al. preferred to analyze the outcomes of all children, regardless of how long they had lived with their current families. Allen et al. therefore attributed to the current family (at the time of the census) child outcomes that may have been produced years before the current family was formed. Allen et al. violated a fundamental rule of causal order, which is that later characteristics ought not be used to predict earlier events.

It is a long point-by-point take down that you can read in its entirety if you wish. But the main gist is at the end. Rosenfield says:

Allen et al. reached the conclusion that children in same-sex-couple families fare worse in school by including all children regardless of how long the child has lived with the family (see their Models 2 and 4) and by including adopted and foster children along with the head of household’s own children (their Models 3 and 4). Allen et al.’s finding of worse school performance by children living with same-sex couples is due to their conflating the initial disadvantage of children who come into same-sex couple families (a disadvantage that appears to be substantial) with the progress children experience during the time when they are actually being raised by same-sex couples (progress that is excellent).

There is no statistically significant difference in making normal progress through school between children raised by same-sex couples and children raised by heterosexual married couples after family socioeconomic status is taken into account (see Table 1, column E). Allen et al. noted that even if the difference is not significant, the children of heterosexual married couples appear to be faring better. By the same logic, the children raised by unmarried heterosexual couples appear to be faring worse (with higher rates of grade retention) than children raised by same-sex couples (all of whom were unmarried according to U.S. law), though the difference in grade retention is not significant after socioeconomic controls are applied.

If formal marriage of the parents is beneficial to children, and if the goal of public policy is to maximize children’s chances of success, then perhaps the logical public policy prescription would be to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples in the United States.

So it seems that both NOM and FRC both tried to pull a fast one at the same time and got caught. This is certainly a first for me - the first time I am able knock two religious right groups at the same time for lying.

And it was fun. I wish it would happen more often

Editor's note - To the readers who were trying to point out the main problems with Allen's study to me, I profusely apologize for not paying attention like I should have.

One of the bigots I am putting on the cover of my upcoming booklet

Matt Barber

I look at the Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber the way I view Linda Harvey from Mission America.

Don't get mad at their anti-gay speech. By all means, let them talk. They only serve to help us.

A perfect example of what I am talking about today is Barber on a radio show today labeling gay rights activists as "insatiable beasts."

It's truly hilarious to hear him and the host, Janet Mefferd, talk about how we are never satisfied, as if they control what we should and shouldn't get in terms of civil rights.

And that line he throws out about gays wanting to turn schools into "indoctrination  centers?" Classic ironic comedy.

The more I hear Barber's rants, the more I am glad with my decision to put him on the cover of my upcoming booklet, How They See Us:

Transcript:

 Mefferd: You look at how the LGBT activists are operating in California and it just seems like there is no limit to what they want, it’s just one thing after another out there, they get one thing and then they move on to the next thing and they move on to the next thing and with great vigor.

Barber: That’s right. The homosexual activist lobby is an insatiable beast, as I’ve often said before. They do want everything that we’ve said that they wanted and that is not just affirmation of homosexuality but celebration of homosexuality under penalty of law, they absolutely want to turn our public schools into indoctrination centers and the narrative that people can and do leave homosexuality does not align with their political, cultural and legal goals so they are throwing children under the bus here—in order to try ends justifies the means agenda here.

Video from Equality Matters

Transcript from Right-Wing Watch
 

'Anti-gay hate group furious at UPS' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Family Research Council Dumps UPS For Not Humoring Boy Scouts’ Discrimination - Awwww, poor FRC. Another excuse for me to give UPS more of my business.

  Desmond Tutu Pens Op-Ed for Ugandan Newspaper - Desmond Tutu has always been my hero in part because he stands up for the abused such as the lgbt community in Uganda.

  O'Reilly: It's Not Bigotry To Oppose Marriage Equality - It's all about tactics, Bill, which of course the folks at Fox News are always careful never to talk about.

 Photograph Of Little Boy Wearing Pink Shoes To Preschool Sparks Heated Blogosphere Debate - A little boy wears pink shoes to preschool and the blogsphere freaks out about it. Meanwhile, the child only wore the shoes because they reminded him of zebras, his favorite animal. I mean REALLLY people! It's preschool! These kids just want to play. Let them, pink shoes and all!  

Bryan Fischer thinks he's entitled to his own facts; is wrong - Bryan Fischer is entitled to his own padded cell.

West Point wedding reveals sad fact about how some Christians have sense of entitlement

Leave it to and old stand by in demeaning the gay community, Robert Knight, to actually make the case against those upset at the recent same-sex wedding held at West Point.

Who knew that when Penelope Gnesin and Brenda Sue Fulton, a West Point graduate, recently exchanged vows in the Cadet Chapel that it would cause so much consternation amongst the religious right.

Various not very nice comments have been leveled at West Point and the couple. So while  Robert Knight's comment doesn't take the proverbial cake, they do reveal the weakness of the arguments behind those angry at this wedding:

"It's a disgrace that West Point allowed same-sex so-called 'marriage' in the chapel. That's a blasphemy against God. It goes against the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law. It's a finger in the eye of God and the American people who still hold to biblical morality, and it was done deliberately. They did it there to make a point."

First of all, I don't think the wedding goes against the Defense of Marriage Act. Secondly, and most importantly, I fail to see how this wedding is an insult to those who supposedly hold to biblical morality seeing that they weren't forced to be there.

Knight's comments underscores a discussion which is sorely needed in this country. Not all Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. In fact, some LGBTs are Christians. But for those Christians who feel that homosexuality is a sin, how far should the nation go to accommodate their belief, even when it comes to situations that do not directly involve them? Unfortunately, there are some Christians who believe that this country was founded solely for them and the rest of us who don't believe as they do are only here for their will and pleasure. And when challenged on this, they revert to the victimhood mentality, implying that if some of us -particularly lgbts - take full advantage of rights afforded to us, we are somehow targeting them.

This sense of entitlement needs to be nipped because this nation was not created as a homeland for Christians who believe as Knight does, but for all Americans.

Ain't gay love grand? More 'just married' gay couples

Sorry to folks who may feel the need to roll their eyes, but I am going to post more pictures of gay couples just married in Washington state this week:

I can't help it. But be honest. Wouldn't you rather be staring at this rather than Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, Tony Perkins, Linda Harvey, Matt Barber, or the rest. Of course that's not to say that I won't be on my soap box tomorrow throwing out thunderbolts as usual. But for tonight, let's just bask in the glow of progress:

Photos courtesy of Buzzfeed.

'Anti-gay counseling student wins settlement' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Julea Ward, Michigan Counseling Student Expelled For Gay Views, Wins Settlement - Expect the religious right to be crowing over this one. However don't be deceived. Ward didn't win on merits but solely because the university decided to settle. In other words, she was lucky to be backed by a religious right group with deep pockets and eager to appeal every loss she suffers. Still, it sends a message about counselors who don't want to counsel us or our children - we won't put up with the disrespect. And in light of our recent victories, I say let the religious right enjoy this minor victory. Let them savor it and make sure it's the last victory they receive for a long time.

 NOM moves forward with 'Gays Against Gay Marriage' meme - So NOM will move with its supposedly secret, nefarious plan of astroturfing a gay movement against marriage equality even though it's not so secret to us all. Now that's just tacky. There is no style in duplicity and master plots of evil anymore. It's almost depressing.  

Politico Poll Needlessly Skews Marriage Equality Favorability - Nate Silver accused Politico of treating politics like a sports game. I would say he was as exact about that as he was about the 2012 election.(In case you don't know, Silver predicted an Obama landslide in the face of a lot of derision and opposition, which ended up making him look like a king while his opponents looked like a stable of horses' asses.  

Barber: Almost Half of Gay Men Were Sexually Assaulted by Pedophiles as Children - Oh Matt, you are going to fit nicely in my upcoming booklet. You should see the picture of yourself on the title page. And now you give me something new to add. I swoon with thanks.

Ellen DeGeneres, JC Penney defeats religious right group without breaking a sweat

The religious right group One Million Moms is obviously not a glutton for embarrassment. Unlike so many other religious right groups, after it makes a public fool of itself, it knows that it's time to pull back:

The conservative group One Million Moms says it is "moving on" from its recent protest of Ellen DeGeneres and J.C. Penney.

One Million Moms (OMM), a media watchdog group founded by anti-gay, conservative Christian group American Family Association, spoke with The Christian Post about its ongoing protest of "strong gay activist" DeGeneres as a J.C. Penney spokesperson, telling the publication that the group is moving on from the most recent feud.

The group made headlines this week after blasting a new J.C. Penney Christmas ad featuring DeGeneres. "JCP has made their choice to offend a huge majority of their customers again," read a portion of the statement posted to the group's website.

"We're not taking action, we're moving on. We've already contacted the company," OMM Director Monica Cole told The Christian Post Thursday. 

This is the second time the group has attacked JC Penney and DeGeneres. Initially when it was announced that DeGeneres would be the company's spokesperson, One Million Moms demanded that she be fired.

That demand backfired as folks rallied around DeGeneres and JC Penney.

With this new development, OMM recognizes that its face is cracked and on the ground.

Forgive me for saying so, but part of me hopes that this clarity doesn't strike other religious right groups when they get embarrassed during a public protest.

Then what will I write about?

NOM tries give 'study' some credibility and fails miserably

You simply have to give the National Organization for Marriage points for braziness, if not honesty.

On its blog is the following:

Washington Examiner: "Study Finds Children of Same Sex Couples Lag in School"

December 10, 2012 at 10:00 am

Paul Bedard of The Washington Examiner:

Countering previous studies that found little difference between kids of same sex couples and those in a traditional marriage, a new report reveals that children of gay parents are 35 percent less likely to make normal progress in school that those living with their own married parents.

Based on the largest sample to date for such a study, the new work from three economists raises anew the impact state laws approving of same sex marriage have on children. The new study provided to Secrets said: "Children of same sex couples are significantly less likely to make normal progress through school than other children: 35% less likely than the children of heterosexual married parents, 23% less likely than the children of never married mothers, and 15% less likely than the children of cohabiting parents." The study also looked at similar scholarly work that had determined no difference in children of same sex and traditional marriages. The authors said that those studies filtered the sample of children to get their result.

Sounds interesting, except when you see the original article in The Washington Examiner and read the last two paragraphs which is conveniently not a part of NOM's excerpt:

"The previous study claiming no differences between the children of same sex parents and other children had serious problems," said study co-author Douglas Allen, an economics professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. That study, he said, "excluded children who were not biologically related to the household head, and children who did not live in the same place for five years. That threw out over half of the observations. When we put those children back into our analysis, but controlled for these factors, we found that the children of same sex parents are less likely to make normal progress through school."

Allen's study was just published in the journal "Demography." He is a member of the Ruth Institute Circle of Experts, a group dedicated to traditional marriage. The other authors were Catherine Pakaluk of Ave Marie University and Joseph Price of Brigham Young University.

Did you see that? Douglas Allen was identified as the co-author of this study. He was also identified as a member of the Ruth Institute.

And the Ruth Institute is a "project of National Organization for Marriage Fund." This is clearly seen on the Ruth Institute's webpage.

In other words, NOM seems to be trying pass this "study" as objective when in reality, one of the study's authors, Allen, is affiliated with NOM. Lastly, Allen and the other two other professors - Pakaluk and Price - deal in economics.

It's the usual shuck-and-jive we have come to expect from NOM. 

Geez guys, can you come up with any new deceptions? This is beginning to get rather boring.

'Conservative pundits 'giving up the ghost' on fighting marriage equality?' and other Monday midday news briefs

Conservative Pundits: Accepting Same-Sex Marriage Is Common Sense - Love the capitulation, but remember how the religious right are. They are like a rash which won't go away so I doubt they will be swayed. Also, didn't some of these pundits predict a Romney landslide?

  Merck Foundation Severs Boy Scouts Funding Over Anti-Gay Policy - The Boy Scouts don't have to let our gay children in. But suffering the consequences of their actions isn't an attack on religious freedom. Sorry.  

NOM Plans To Drive Wedge Right Into Middle Of Gay Community - NOM gets major points for being brazen.

 Photo of couple applying for marriage license goes viral - I know that you all have seen the picture of the elderly male couple applying for their marriage license in Washington state. The story behind the couple is as awesome as the picture.

Washington state gay couples should bring a tear to your eyes

This is what love looks like. The following photos of are couples in Washington state getting their marriage licenses:

Okay, if there are any anti-marriage equality folks out there reading this post, I am calling you out. Tell me just what is wrong with these couples getting married? I'm serious so you had better be. No nonsense about "the parts don't fit" and no discredited or cherry-picked science (I will tear you apart for that one).

Tell me, what's wrong with these lovely soon-to-be married couples?

More pics at Buzzfeed.

A preview of 'How They See Us: Unmasking the Religious Right War on Gay America'

I got my new computer (and sold my soul to the rent-to-own store), so like I promised, the following graphic is just a small, bare-bones preview of a section of my upcoming online booklet  How They See Us: Unmasking The Religious Right War on Gay America.

If you find the following not sufficiently satisfying as far as previews go, remember it is only an appetizer.

However, if it wets your whistle, then you ain't seen nothing yet:

Know Your LGBT History - The Puppy Episode

I have a real treat for everyone tonight as I present the 1997 television episode of Ellen which helped to change it all when it comes to gay visibility and made Ellen DeGeneres a gay icon - The Puppy Episode:

 

 


Past Know Your LGBT History posts:

'Anti-gay group angry at Ellen DeGeneres for filming Christmas commercial' and other Friday midday news briefs

Ellen DeGeneres Ad: One Million Moms Angry Over JC Penney Christmas Commercial - For those who pretend to don't know a thing about anti-gay bigotry, I present to you Exhibit A. The anti-gay group One Million Moms is angry at Ellen DeGeneres for a perfectly innocent commercial she filmed for JC Penney. And why? Simply because she is a lesbian. It's no different than racists getting angry at an African-American for filming a commercial with white people.  

Gay Paternity Leave: How To Do It - In spite of the ugly claims to the contrary organizations like the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research Council, same-sex families are NORMAL families and thus should have as much positive how-to information as possible.

NOM Is Already Complaining Maryland Wedding Businesses Aren’t Free To Discriminate - Sorry but churches and religious-oriented business who don't take taxpayer dollars, yes. Private citizens running secular business? Hell no! That's a nasty can of worms.

NOM hitches its desperate boat to far-right, exceedingly anti-intellectual military meme - NOM believes in 'religious liberty' as long as its those on its side who are protected.

Anti-gay group pushes junk science while talking about God's love

Through this flyer, the right-wing Liberty Counsel (home of arch-homophobe Matt Barber) is channeling the "homosexuality is more dangerous than smoking" lie:

i

The Liberty Counsel is the latest religious right group to push that lie and it has been a mistake of the gay community to not challenge it aggressively.

Not to refute this lie, mind you, because the notion is ridiculous.

Rather, all the gay community has to do is reveal where this "homosexuality is more dangerous than smoking" lie came from. And then watch members of the religious right stumble over each other in an effort to retreat from the charge.

It was a 2007 study published by discredited researcher Paul Cameron.

 It was Cameron who in the 80s came up with the idea of aggressively using science to prove that homosexuality is a “dangerous lifestyle.” The problem is to do this, Cameron attained a reputation for either distorting legitimate science or distorting his own work to gain the conclusions he wanted from his “studies.” He has also been discredited and censured by many group and individuals on the left, the right, and in the middle due to his bad research techniques. Several of his studies have been criticized for such errors as having small sample sizes, showing an anti-gay bias in interviews, and not having enough responses to establish a suitable analysis.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, who has designated Cameron's group The Family Research Institute as a hate group because of his history of deliberately putting out fraudulent information on the gay community, Cameron created his study via the following specious means:

First, Cameron presents it as a given that the average gay life span is 43 years, citing his own 1995 study as evidence. Then he compares 43 years to the average life span of smokers to conclude that having gay sex is far more dangerous that cigarettes.

Every time the gay community allows this lie to be repeated without saying where it comes from is a missed opportunity to connect the religious right groups to their tendency to rely on junk science in order smear us.

As for the Liberty Counsel, it's rather brazen for the organization to talk about Jesus and God's love while at the same time breaking one of the Ten Commandments by "bearing false witness" against the gay community.

There is an old saying in the African-American community that's very appropriate here.

When members of the Liberty Counsel die, they are going to bust Hell wide open.

'Marriage equality comes to Washington State' and other Thursday afternoon news briefs

After 40 years together, Clark County men will be first in line for marriage license - A gay couple who has been together for 40 years are finally allowed to legally wed. This is something to fear? How? 

 Decorated Veterans Among The First in Washington State To Receive Marriage Licenses - Two women who are fighting for our freedom will also be able to legally wed each other. Oh I can just hear the hoof beats of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

 Pepsi Petitioned To Oppose Uganda's 'Kill The Gays' Bill - You had better believe it! 

Michigan House Committee Advances ‘License To Discriminate’ Bills For Adoption Agencies - This ain't good. Pay attention because if this awful bill is successful, it will be attempted in other states.

NOM urged to get extremely homophobic and nasty

From Right-Wing Watch comes this interesting blurb which shows that the National Organization for Marriage is still catching grief from the right over it's election day losses:

After four defeats on the issue of marriage equality at the ballot box and a failed attempt to remove an Iowa justice who favors same-sex marriage, right-wing activists are starting to panic and offering their advice to the GOP and groups like the National Organization for Marriage and Focus on the Family: you’re not anti-gay enough. Yesterday, Matthew Cullinan Hoffman of LifeSiteNews similarly argued that organizations that oppose same-sex marriage need to get nastier.

According to Hoffman, who is also a correspondent for the National Catholic Register, “the very fact that” gay marriage is even up for debate “is an indication of a level of moral confusion and decadence that borders on the apocalyptic.”

He went on to maintain that same-sex unions are a “narcissistic parody” of opposite-sex relationships as “homosexual relationships do not represent an authentic intimacy, but rather involve mutual exploitation for the sake of satisfying an unnatural lust” and lead to suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, violence along with other “destructive consequences.” “Homosexuals themselves, who are the greatest victims of the ‘gay lifestyle,’ and are in desperate need of the truth,” he writes.

“Until and unless pro-family activists adopt a comprehensive and coherent answer to the ideology of the culture of death,” Hoffman concludes, “we will continue to suffer defeat after defeat, until the institution of marriage is completely destroyed.”

It sounds like to me that Hoffman wants NOM to go from this:

to this:

WE are to blame for hate group leader's success

You remember this commercial that MSNBC would not run:



According to Equality Matters, it got worse in terms of Perkins' invitation on news programs:

During their coverage of the 2012 GOP primary, cable news networks regularly called upon Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC), to provide commentary on behalf of social conservatives. Perkins made 56 appearances on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC over the course of the primary, but never once was identified as the leader of an anti-gay hate group.

Analysis: Cable News Networks Regularly Hosted Perkins To Discuss GOP Primary

Tony Perkins Made 56 Television Appearances Over The Course Of The GOP Primary. According to an Equality Matters analysis, during the period between the first Republican presidential debate on May 5, 2011 and the Republican nomination in August, Tony Perkins appeared on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC a total of 56 times to discuss the GOP primary:

The Equality Matters report is an indictment of a lazy, overpaid media.

In spite of all he and FRC has said and done to demean the gay community, Perkins is seen as an expert/analyst on news programs. And no one seems to be interested in debating him about the rhetoric put forth by his organization to demean our community.

But I can't help but thinking that it's our fault.  We aren't pressing hard enough. We have several magazines, prominent journalists, and even television network, but none of those entities has even done one expose on not just the hate pushed by FRC and other religious right groups but the shoddy way they create their homophobic memes.

In the past, we didn't have the means, so we had to work with what we had, i.e. street politics created by a community united by word of mouth.

Now, we have the means to take these groups on and we just won't do it.

Let me rephrase that. Those who have some power in our community won't do it.

Those of us considered nonexistent, i.e. bloggers like myself, do it every day.

And with that, allow me to segue into announcing an upcoming project sure to place the much deserved onus on organizations like FRC.

I am in the process of creating an free online booklet/brochure which offers an old interpretation on the lies of the religious right, but with a new spin designed to create controversy and a bit of righteous indignation, which I hope will be used - not in a negative fashion - put positively to ask questions and demand answers from not only Perkins and the FRC but also from the media who is supposed to represent us.

Provisionally, it is titled How They See Us: Unmasking the Religious Right War on Gay America.

It will be short but to the point.

And when you see it, you will remember it.

I will keep you all posted.

'Will Obama select a gay man to serve in his cabinet?' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Obama Considering Gay Import-Export Bank Chair Fred Hochberg for Commerce Secretary: Report - YES!YES! A million times YES!

 GetEQUAL Calls On US Senators To Repudiate Uganda Kill The Gays Bill - I've had minor differences with GetEQUAL in the past, but I fully support this.  

Rubio: I Don’t ‘Pass Judgment’ On The ‘Sin’ Of Homosexuality (Except When I Do) - Thanks for the sour persimmons, shithead!

  Senate Drops Anti-Gay Provisions From Defense Budget - BAM! 

 Conservative Activists Condemn APA for Declassifying Transgender Identity as a Mental Disorder - And I won't even offer them any cheese with their whine.

Hate group spokesman not happy with World AIDS Day coverage

Peter Sprigg

Editor's note - It's a two post morning. So after you read this one, pan down to read about the cluelessness of an anti-gay bigot.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council has a huge problem with the World AIDS Day coverage of last week:

December 1 is “World AIDS Day,” so both of Washington’s newspapers—the liberal Washington Post and the conservative Washington Times—featured stories on the worldwide AIDS epidemic. The Post report focused on the promise of the latest generation of antiretroviral therapy. The Times article dealt with the efforts to expand circumcision of men, in the wake of scientific findings that this, too, can help reduce spread of the disease. But what was missing? In both articles, there was not a word about men who have sex with men (MSM). And in neither article did the word “condom” appear a single time. In the United States, men who have sex with men continue to be the group at highest risk for infection with HIV (overseas, heterosexual transmission is relatively more common). Yet the idea of fighting AIDS by discouraging the sexual conduct most likely to transmit it is completely taboo.

For the record, AIDS is a scourge which goes beyond the gay community.

But Sprigg is inaccurate with his attack on the Post and the Times. And that's because he only focused on one article in both publications.

The Washington Post featured several articles talking about prevention in the days leading up to and after World AIDS Day. And several of these articles focused on the problems faced by gays dealing with the disease.

What Sprigg says about condoms is irrelevant because later in his article, he creates a straw man argument:

And at one time, condoms were considered to be THE answer to the AIDS epidemic. If we could just get men to use a condom every time, for every act of sexual intercourse (vaginal, oral, or anal), then we would beat the disease. This has proved easier said than done. 

No one at any time has ever said that condoms was the answer to the AIDS epidemic. Condoms was and is considered as one solution, but not the only solution. 

It sounds like to me that Sprigg is creating a false meme that "political correctness is keeping people from fully talking about AIDS in terms of the dangers of catching it." Basically Sprigg sounds like he is disappointed that neither publication used World AIDS Day as an opportunity to stigmatize gay men.

And that is Sprigg's problem.

World AIDS Day is an occasion in which we reflect on how this awful disease has hurt the world and what we can do to stop it.

It's not about finger pointing. It's about basic human kindness and compassion.

The clueless bigotry of 'Porno' Pete LaBarbera

Peter LaBarbera

Sometimes those who engage in homophobia are totally oblivious to their actions.

Case in point, 'Porno' Pete LaBarbera of the Americans for Truth. This is what he said while criticizing megachurch pastor Rick Warren. Apparently LaBarbera is a bit miffed that Warren regrets how he helped Prop 8 in California to win at the ballot box:

“The homosexual activist never agonizes and says, ‘Wow, I don’t think I should talk beyond my group of homosexual activists,’” LaBarbera explained. “They’re pontificating all the time. They’re telling us what to think. They’re telling us that we’re bigots if we are against homosexuality, or even if we’re against same-sex ‘marriage’ now, they call you a bigot or a hatemonger or a homophobe.”

For the record, I don't consider folks who a religious view against homosexuality as bigots.

But I do consider you a bigot if you create and post the following picture of openly gay Congressman Barney Frank as a TSA agent:

Or if you post a huge photo of a sexually transmitted disease (in this case, anal warts) on your homepage in order to demonize the gay community at large (Editor's note - you can see the link here, but remember that you have been warned).

Or if  you attend subcultural events such as leather festivals and take pictures of gays allegedly indulging in all sorts of lurid behaviors while ignoring the heterosexuals also in attendance.

Face it, Petey. You are a bigot for a very good reason.

Gay couple's wedding announcement in African-American magazine galvanizes intense, positive discussion

Yesterday, I posted a piece about how JET Magazine published a wedding announcement of a gay couple.

Today, the African-American online magazine, The Grio, posted an article about the announcement and needless to say that it has caused an excellent discussion in the comments section below the post. I suggest that folks read what is said because it totally disproves a lot of notions about "African-American homophobia."

Granted, there are some folks who voice their disagreement with JET, but for the most part, there is a large amount of support to not only JET but the gay couple.

Read it here.

'New website gives messages of hope to lgbt youth from mothers' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

YourHolidayMom.com Offers Messages Of Acceptance And Hope To LGBT Youth During The Holidays - A new website features 40 mothers giving messages of holiday hope and acceptance to our lgbt children. Excellent idea and I am honored to publicize it.  

Federal Judge Allows California Ex-Gay ‘Therapists’ To Continue Serving Minors As Suit Proceeds - And watch how religious right groups rub their hands with glee claiming victory. It's only temporary and applies to just three therapists.

 Ex-Straight Therapy: It Works, and I Am Proof! - My ex-straight therapy consisted of three Joan Crawford movies.

 Joni Lamb and Janet Boynes describe Homosexuality as Satan's Trap - No. The Jersey Shore and cellphones are actually Satan's trap. Everyone knows that.

Religious right gripes over West Point wedding? Good.

Who would think that one little wedding would give so many religious right members such a huge stomach ache?

According to the AP:

Cadet Chapel, the landmark Gothic church that is a center for spiritual life at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, hosted its first same-sex wedding Saturday.

Penelope Gnesin and Brenda Sue Fulton, a West Point graduate, exchanged vows in the regal church in an afternoon ceremony, attended by about 250 guests and conducted by a senior Army chaplain.

The two have been together for 17 years. They had a civil commitment ceremony that didn't carry any legal force in 1999 and had long hoped to formally tie the knot. The way was cleared last year, when New York legalized same-sex marriage and President Barack Obama lifted the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibiting openly gay people from serving in the military.

Naturally, members of the religious right are going apoplectic. 

Pat Robertson commented on the wedding in his usual nonsensical way, whining about how several generals, such as Douglas MacArthur, Ulysses S. Grant, and Robert E. Lee are "rolling over in their graves":



And not to be outdone, the Family Research Council had to get a word in:

Army officials are experts at following orders--except when it comes to federal marriage law. For the second time in two weeks, the brass at West Point opened its gates to lesbian "wedding" ceremonies in direct defiance of the Defense of Marriage Act. Adding insult to the law's injury, Saturday's service was held in the Cadet Chapel, a 176-year-old house of worship that has been the heartbeat of the Academy's Christian community for almost two centuries. Brenda Fulton, one of the "brides," said the Chapel was a particularly meaningful site, because it's where she first heard the Cadet Prayer: "Make us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong"--words that, in the end, even West Point failed to live up to. Fulton and her same-sex partner marched down the aisle knowing full well they were leading the military's own processional away from the rule of law. "The liberal social experiment with our military continues," said a frustrated Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) in June. 

The fact that FRC had to reach far in the past to get a doom-ridden quote should give you an indication of the difficulty the organization had in making this non-controversial story into something dire and huge.

But you have to give FRC  ome pity points for attempting the moral panic. The organization's post was accompanied by the following graphic:

Lighten up, folks! It was a just a wedding. You know, a joyous occasion.

I guess for the rest of us who are happy over the blessed event - specifically the brides - it's a case of mind over matter.

Those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

So, FRC and Mr. Robertson, I guess you don't matter.

JET Magazine celebrates marriage of African-American gay couple

There is nothing more invigorating than opening your computer and being hit in the face with good news:

According to GLAAD:

JET Magazine, the nation’s preeminent African-American biweekly magazine, in its December 10th issue, featured Dr. Ravi Perry and Paris Prince as part of its December JET LOVE wedding series.

Ravi, an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Mississippi State University, and Paris, a licensed real estate broker and anti-discrimination compliance expert, were married in August at their home in Worcester, Massachusetts.

The biweekly feature, which traditionally showcases straight couples, includes a short bio of the couple and explains how the couple fell in love.

"We are excited and honored to have our wedding featured in the historic yet ever-current JET Magazine.  Long the hallmark in publishing news, culture, and events pertaining to the Black American experience, Jet's publishing of our union is historic" said Ravi and Paris.

 As part of our year-round work to raise visibility of LGBT people of color in the media and to grow acceptance of LGBT people in these communities, GLAAD worked closely with Ravi and Paris to help them shape their story and also worked with JET to feature the couple.

Over the years, GLAAD has highlighted the work of JET Magazine, including drawing attention to their coverage of LGBT stories such as their feature on Kye Allums, a former George Washington University student who made history as the first Division I college basketball player to come out as transgender while competing, and  applaud JET Magazine for continuing to recognize that all loving and committed couples deserve respect. Last year, JET Magazine featured its first lesbian wedding, telling the beautiful story of Nyema Vernon and Dr. Tenika Jackson.

I'm sure there will be haters but who cares? Let 'em hate. To this gay black man right here who is writing this post, something like this in JET Magazine is long overdue.

And the visibility is very much needed in the black community.

'Anti-gay groups taking lies to international audiences' and other Monday midday news briefs

Video: In this one, Brian Brown takes on an affected accent to speak to an intl audience - This ain't good. They are losing in America so our opposition is taking their lies to an international audience. We remember how that went over in Uganda. 

APA Revises Manual: Being Transgender Is No Longer A Mental Disorder - And it should have never been considered as such. One more religious right lie shot to pieces.  

Joyous historic events: first same-sex weddings at West Point - And the sky didn't fall. That should tell folks something.  

Harvey: 'Homosexual Marriage is Wrong Because Homosexuality is Wrong' - No matter how low I may feel, I can always count on Linda Harvey to make me feel morally superior.

A new low for the anti-gay right - 'Jerry Sandusky bill?'

Matt Barber

On his Americans for Truth webpage, Peter LaBarbera features a column by the Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber which can probably be considered a scientific breakthrough in that it proves that things lower than snakes can put together a column.

It was originally featured on World Net Daily, but since I ran out of holy water, I have avoided that site.

And this column proves that holy water is needed.

Allow me give some background. In California, the legislature passed SB1172, which keeps minors from being exposed to the fraudulent "reparative therapy," or therapy which would attempt to turn them from gay to straight. Several medical groups, including the American Psychological Association, have called "reparative therapy" useless and dangerous. CA Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill in September.

However, since the religious right have never let anything such as truth stand in their way, they have been vocal in opposing SB1172. Barber's organization, the Liberty Counsel, is suing against the law.

According to Barber, in his column, "reparative therapy" is important because:

Thousands of people, many of whom once identified as “gay,” have received positive, life-changing benefits from such counseling. Yet, among other things, the fact that people can, and do, leave homosexuality bulldozes the politically motivated, scientifically discredited “born that way” meme.

Naturally, Barber doesn't provide any proof for this. Barber, by the way, is not a medical professional. He has no degree nor any background in medical research. He is a failed insurance salesman who lucked into his status in religious right groups.

Subsequently, that's probably why he didn't provide proof of the above claim. Barber is unable to. Rather, he relies on written vitriol to shock his readers. Such as the following claim that SB1172 will expose children to being molested:

Despite intense, politically motivated denials from many on the left, research has established the astonishing frequency to which a “gay identity” or “sexual orientation” stems from childhood sexual abuse.   Sandusky Laws abuse these children all over again.

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for instance, found that “gay” men are “at least three times more likely to report CSA (childhood sexual abuse).”

The Archives of Sexual Behavior determined in a 2001 study that nearly half of all “gay”-identified men were molested by a homosexual pedophile: “46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender.”

The connection between homosexual abuse and “gay identity” is undeniable.

It doesn't take a palm reader to figure out that Barber is misrepresenting several studies. First of all, he gives the impression that the CDC is saying that child sexual abuse leads to a gay identity. The CDC has not at any time ever connected the gay identity with child sexual abuse.

Furthermore, check out how Barber describes the 2001 Archives of Sexual Behavior study. This how he describes the results of the study:

The Archives of Sexual Behavior determined in a 2001 study that nearly half of all “gay”-identified men were molested by a homosexual pedophile:

Then he tells us what the study actually said:

“46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender.”

The phrase "homosexual pedophile" in this case seems to be a creation of Barber's. We don't know if the perpetrator in this case identified themselves as gay or if they molested other children of a different gender.

Barber is implying that if a molester abuses a child of the same gender, that automatically makes him/her gay. This is simply not true. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center:

According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.

Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.

It is clear that Barber's attempt to turn a phrase in describing SB1172 as a "Jerry Sandusky" bill  as well as distorting legitimate studies to prove his point (Jerry Sandusky is the former Penn State College employee discovered to have molested a multitude of children) is simply an ugly act by a desperate man aligned with a desperate group attempting to protect a bad practice from its appropriate demise.

Know Your LGBT History - World AIDS Day

One of these days, we are going to beat AIDS, but until that time, let's not forget the talented souls we lost and also those who continue to be affected by it.

Past Know Your LGBT History posts:

'Hate group leader Tony Perkins lied about support of Ugandan anti-gay bill' and other Friday midday news briefs

FRC denies it ever supported Uganda bill; so here, again, is now-scrubbed audio of Tony Perkins saying bill 'uphold[s] moral conduct'- How did I miss this while writing my morning post about Perkins and the Family Research Council? Jeremy Hooper has proof that what Perkins said about not supporting that awful Ugandan bill was a LIE. He has the original audio of Perkins voicing support of the bill

In other news:

 Jackie Speier Introduces 'Stop Harming Our Kids' Resolution, Hits 'Ex-Gay' Conversion 'Quackery' - And slowly, the noose of truth closes around the neck of that awful practice of "ex-gay" therapy.

  Fox News Has A Meltdown Over Gender-Neutral Marriage Licenses In WA - The existence of Fox News will be one of those moments when our children and grandchildren look at us and ask "how could you have let IT happen?"

 Man fights to clear gay criminal record from 1950s - This story is incredible. All this man did was BE in a gay relationship.  

Religious Right Groups Work to Defeat Treaty on Rights of People with Disabilities, Falsely Claim it Sanctions Abortion - First they came for the gays . . .

Hate group exploits Ugandan anti-gay bill to attack press, liberals

Recently, the Family Research Council came under fire because its president, Tony Perkins, sent out the following tweet:

Many of us took it to mean that Perkins was supporting Uganda's anti-gay bill, a bill which has generated a lot of negative press.

Yesterday, Perkins attempted make the claim that folks were overreacting and thus mistaking his tweet:

 With fewer journalists able to separate the news from their personal politics, groups like FRC are no longer fighting bias--but outright deception. If you read Monday's Update or follow me on Twitter, then you know that FRC was highly complimentary of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who took the bold step of leading his country in a public prayer of confession for a multitude of sins Uganda committed over the last 50 years, including the genocide of Idi Amin. "We want Uganda to be known as a nation that fears God and as a nation whose foundations are firmly rooted in righteousness and justice..." Not surprisingly, the U.S. media wasn't nearly as impressed by this gesture as FRC--a fact I alluded to in a tweet that same day. "American liberals are upset that Ugandan Pres is leading his nation in repentance--afraid of a modern example of a nation prospered by God?"

Fair enough for Perkins. However, there are two things wrong with this:

1. Why did Perkins wait so long to give an explanation about the tweet?
2. Most importantly, the tweet itself was inaccurate. Many of us "American liberals" were not aware of Museveni's prayer. So how could we have gotten upset over it? The controversy itself speaks to that.  If we had knowledge of Museveni's prayer, how could we have mistaken Perkins' support of it as support for that dreadful bill?

But leave it to Perkins to milk the situation:

 . . . as we learned two years ago, if you want to get the press's attention, just say the word "Uganda" and wait for the firestorm. For years, the African nation has been condemned for its severe laws criminalizing homosexuality. Despite allegations to the contrary, FRC has never supported that policy--or any policy that imposes the death penalty on homosexuals. What we do oppose is the suggestion that gay and lesbian acts are universal human rights. So when Congress introduced a resolution in 2010 denouncing Uganda's punishment for homosexuality, FRC fought--at the request of some Members--to strike the pro-homosexual "human rights" language from the final measure. Several liberals, including David Weigel at the Washington Post, chose to misrepresent our involvement as an indication that we opposed the entire bill! "Family Research Council Lobbied against Resolution Condemning Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Law," Weigel's headline read. It was a convenient storyline for extremists like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) who resort to demonizing FRC when they can't compete with us ideologically. Although Weigel later posted a retraction, the damage had already been done. Now, more than two years later, the lies about FRC's position have resurfaced. After Monday's story, HRC had the audacity to post that by applauding President Museveni, FRC was "praising the 'kill the gays' bill." I challenge anyone with a half a brain to read my tweet or Update story and conclude that FRC is any way supporting the death penalty of homosexuals. But gay activists have their hooks so deeply in the mainstream media that reporters no longer bother to check their facts.

As Right-Wing Watch points out, Perkins is obviously misrepresenting FRC's position on the bill:

 . . . in 2009 the FRC admits to having spent thousands of dollars lobbying for Congress trying to revise and muddy the resolution condemning the bill because they said it would entail “pro-homosexual promotion.” “We didn’t necessarily lobby against or for the resolution but tried to work with offices to make the language more neutral on homosexuality,” FRC’s Tom McClusky said at the time, “the original language was incorrect on what Uganda was doing as well.”  

And there are two things wrong with Perkins's present explanation:

1. The current legislation still contains the provision about the death penalty for gays.
2. And regardless of that provision, Perkins didn't say a word about the other awful provisions of that bill, including the portion which makes homosexuality itself a crime for which Ugandans can receive life in prison.

Lastly, Perkins really takes the cake with the following statement:

Americans need to understand that this cozy relationship between the liberal media and unreliable sources like HRC is fostering a culture of hatred and violence--that same culture that led to the attempted mass murder of the entire FRC office. 

 The sad irony is that if Perkins was not so invested in exploiting that near tragic situation, he would have more of an understanding as to how real cultures of violence and hatred are fostered, such as how the idea for that awful bill in Uganda came to being via American religious right activists.

As it is now, Perkins either has no idea or simply do not care.