Wednesday, March 20, 2013

'Religious right groups produce weak, insipid brochure' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Anti-Gay Organizations Refuse To Address Questions About Same-Sex Families - This is BEYOND pitiful. The Family Research Council, the National Organization for Marriage, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Heritage Foundation team up for a slick brochure explaining why marriage shouldn't be "redefined" and it's filled with hackneyed Maggie Gallagheresque talking points and points to only one study to boost its point - the refuted Regnerus study. And what's more, it deliberately ignores the existence of same-sex families and children. I'm almost insulted, but then I realize that probably the reason why this silly brochure contains no studies is probably due to the painstaking work of bloggers like myself who refuted the junk science and cherry-picked studies that the religious right included in past brochures.  

FRC, NOM, ADF, Heritage issue sleek new brochure; sleekness can't polish this discriminatory turd - Jeremy Hooper describes the brochure in another way.

 LGBT Teen To Senators: ‘I Am Not Broken, I Am Not Confused, I Do Not Need To Be Fixed’ (Video) - Preeeach!  

Farah: 'Dangerous and Totalitarian' Gays Seek 'the Active Recruitment of Children' - Folks, if gays could recruit, forget the children. We would recruit people with money, like Warren Buffet and (gasp) Donald Trump.

Coy Mathis, Colo. Transgender Child Banned From Using School Bathroom, Ignites Debate Over Anti-Discrimination Laws - This is ridiculous. A silly overreaction based upon fear and ignorance of the transgender community!

Editor's note - and finally, I am pleased to announce that my booklet How They See Us: Unmasking the Religious Right War on Gay America is the third most read political book (4-100 pgs) on Scribd this month! 'How They See Us' is also the 22nd most read political book (4 - 100 pgs) of all time on Scribd!  I am currently working on a Facebook page! Thank you to everyone for my booklet's continued success.

Anti-gay group angry at Madonna for speech at GLAAD awards

Madonna's appearance last weekend at the GLAAD Awards got many tongues wagging.

 She was there to present Anderson Cooper with an award, but practically stole the show by wearing a Boy Scout uniform and making very articulate speech regarding the Scout policy of not allowing gays to join.

Needless to say, the Family Research Council was not happy. In voicing its displeasure, the organization made it seem that Madonna came to the awards frothing at the mouth:

Maybe they call her the "Material Girl" because Madonna always gives the press something to write about. If so, she delivered this past weekend. Dressed head-to-toe in a Boy Scouts uniform, the controversial pop star appeared at the GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) Awards to lash out at the BSA in a profanity-laced tirade that tried to discredit the organization's 103-year track record of American service and character-building.

When she wasn't swearing, the singer (who said her idea of scouting is "scout[ing] for boys!") compared the group's beliefs to terrorists'. "[I]t's no different than a white Supremacist hanging a black man from a tree before the civil rights movement. OK? It's no different. It's no different than a member of the Taliban shooting a young girl in the head for writing a blog about the importance of [getting an] education... I don't know about you, but I can't take this [expletive] anymore." At one point, the same Madonna with song titles that couldn't be read aloud on network television, even invoked Christ. " [I]t's so absurd. What did Jesus teach? 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' "
It has always amazed me how people who have done everything possible to push God and His standard from our country feel free to invoke this passage of scripture. It only works when they insert their definition of "love" not the biblical definition of love  . . . In this conflict of values, Madonna is the face of the other side. As a mom or dad, whose moral compass would you want your kids to follow: a performer who strips on stage (when she isn't bashing the military) or an organization devoted to public service and character development?

Let the Boy Scouts know that Madonna doesn't speak for America. If you've already signed FRC's petition encouraging the Scouts to stand strong on their convictions, another way you can help is by completing the comment form that the BSA has distributed to its members. You can read the survey questions here. If you are a member of the Scouts, or have a son who is, please ask your local Scoutmaster to send you the survey if you have not yet received it. If you have friends who are in Scouting, make them aware of the need to complete the survey, too. When you send in your survey, be sure to write something like, "Homosexuality is incompatible with the tenets of Scouting and should not be introduced to the boys entrusted by their parents to Scout troops. Keep the current policy."

Just in case you are interested in viewing, here is Madonna's speech in its entirety.  Please note that it's not even close to the wild tirade FRC made it out to be:



Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Endorsers undermine the message of NOM's march

With the National Organization for Marriage's March for Marriage just around the corner, the group is quickly gathering up the endorsements.

However, NOM would do better than to not let certain people endorse its march because they contradict its false message of  simply "defending marriage" without malice towards the gay community.

 Let's look at the recent endorsement NOM received from Focus on the Family's Tom Minnery:



Pay no attention to Minnery's wilted delivery and inaccurate claim regarding how God endowed marriage to be one way since the beginning of civilization. For my money, I am drawn to the nonsense he says about children needing the best chance to have a mom and a dad.

One would think he wouldn't have the audacity to make such a statement regarding children and parents when one remembers how he got busted during a Congressional hearing by Sen. Al Franken in 2011 for attempting to distort a study in order to make a negative assumption about same-sex families:



And then there is former senator and now head of the Heritage Foundation Jim DeMint:



One has to give it to DeMint how he seems to have memorized NOM's talking points. I especially liked it when he said that all Americans have the right to live as they choose, but do not have the right to "redefine marriage." But not for the reasons that you think.

You see, DeMint doesn't actually believe that.  What he does believe - and he said this in 2004 and 2010 - is that gays and sexually active unmarried women should not be allowed to teach in schools



So why is this important? Because of how NOM attempts to claim that it and those who support the organization, who supposedly believe in so-called traditional marriage, are being bullied and unfairly labeled as bigots

But yesterday, we got a good look at the vile anti-gay animus which many NOM supporters embrace. And today, we see the same animus, albeit tapered down, by two prominent individuals who support NOM and its march.

It all leads to the simple conclusion that NOM's whinings of unfairly being labeled as bigots is just a dodge to gain sympathy.

In spite of all of its false claims, NOM doesn't shy from having an bigoted anti-gay animus. NOM embraces it. If it didn't NOM wouldn't have any follower or allies.


'NOM's march suffers ANOTHER embarrassment' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Pro-gay artist gets NOM 'March For Marriage' ad yanked on copyright grounds - If you ask me, Brian Brown's decision to belittle lgbt bloggers and not take us seriously is beginning to play Jaws on his tush. I am presently working on a post which will hopefully cast further shadows on NOM's credibility . . . that is if no one else beats me to it.  

ACLU Claims Sultana High School Administrators Bully LGBT Students - Receiving the right to marry is awesome, but don't let our pursuit of it make us forget our children who have to make it through the firewall of nonsense that is adolescence in order to get to the point where they can marry.  
 Claims That There Is No Research About The Effectiveness Of Ex-Gay Therapy Are True - Tolerance, schmolerance. If you don't have any proof that the science you espouse actually works then don't expect to be given any type of credibility for it.  

Anti-Gay Activists Attack Rob Portman's Son's 'Disorder' and 'Abhorrent Lifestyle' - Now this is just pathetic.

Newt Gingrich underscores NOM's hypocrisy, desperation

Newt Gingrich
As the National Organization gets ready for its march, the group can't stop tripping over itself with embarrassment.

 Today's example - Newt Gingrich.

NOM posted a video clip of Newt Gingrich speaking about Sen. Rob Portman. Portman, a conservative Republican senator, recently revealed that he now supports marriage equality because of his relationship with his gay son.

In a blog post, NOM celebrates the fact that Gingrich said marriage should be between a man and a woman.

However in Gingrich's case, that should be a man and three women. Remember, Gingrich divorced his first wife of 18 years after an affair with another woman. He subsequently married this woman but divorced her after 12 years and an affair with another woman whom he is now currently married to. NOM is using this guy to defend marriage? This guy? Seriously?

A commentator to NOM's blog put it better than I ever could:

It's difficult to underestimate the sheer bare-faced chutzpah of this man and the fawning reverence paid to him by NOM and others, the outright cognitive dissonance it takes to believe that marriage is between one and one woman FOR LIFE and then to say he is an exemplar and supporter of marriage. He isn't. He is a destroyer of families, the very core of NOM's arguments. I would have more respect if there was at least one word addressing this hypocrisy.

Monday, March 18, 2013

Religious right activist makes poor case against marriage equality

Former Christian Coalition head and conservative activist Ralph Reed attempted to make the case against marriage equality to the Wall Street Journal. It was such a bad performance in his case. Feel free to pick him apart: 




Hat tip to Right Wing Watch.

'Hilary Clinton comes out in favor of marriage equality' and other Monday midday news briefs

Hillary Clinton comes out for marriage equality - Way to go Mrs. Clinton! 

 Republican National Committee Plan: Oppose LGBT Rights More Quietly - Now you KNOW we aren't going to let you get away with that.  

At CPAC, The Marriage Fight Is Over - At a recent meeting of Republican activists and bigwigs - actual and wannabe - NOM and its allies got extremely embarrassed while gay Republicans were received with open arms.  

Like so many brave visionaries before him, Bryan Fischer pushes GOP to stand for discrimination - Meanwhile, some folks are spooked that Republicans could embrace marriage equality.

NOM can't hide its supporters' ugly homophobia

I am so sick of NOM's talking point that those who oppose marriage equality are unfairly branded as bigots.

Let me rephrase that and say it the way NOM and its supporters do:

"It is unfair that those who support the traditional definition of marriage being between a man and a woman are called 'bigots.'"

That phraseology is no different than when the Klan sought to retool its image by saying  "we aren't anti-black. We are just pro-white."

Make no mistake about it, there is a certain animus directed at the lgbt community by many of those who claim to be fighting for "traditional marriage" and this animus is easily proven by those folks themselves.

Thanks to NOManiacs, a site which goes the extra mile by monitoring the stuff which NOM supporters say, the following gives a perfect view of the people who support NOM and the organization are hoping to come to its upcoming march.

NOManiacs assembled a bunch of comments from NOM's facebook page and created a flyer spotlighting these comments.  This flyer is highly NSFW and will no doubt get folks angry. Do not contact anyone, except your friends and allies in order to show them the truth about NOM supporters:



To see this flyer in a more readable form, click here.

The irony, according to NOManiacs is that many voices speaking for marriage equality have been barred from posting on NOM's facebook site, but these voices still remain.

Friday, March 15, 2013

Lgbts, African-Americans should pay attention to CPAC 2013

Know Your LGBT History has been postponed today so that I can feature on a point I wish to make:

Before any African-Americans or lgbts get roped again by outside groups (such as the National Organization for Marriage) in what I call the "Oppression Olympics, take a gander at these two videos from today's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Witness what happens when an African-American Republican tries to talk about minority outreach and how attendees react to the news that Republican Sen. Rob Portman (OH) now supports marriage equality due to his son coming out:



 

It puts it all in perspective. What's the use of  talking about who suffered the most or how much one movement for equality is not like the other if you fail to notice that the heel on both of your necks belong to the same people.

Hat tip to Think Progress.

'NOM digs its own hole with response to 'second best option' controversy' and other Friday midday news briefs

NOM chief responds to ‘second-best option’ remarks - Kudos to the Washington Blade for coming up in CPAC to ask that question. Excellent journalism preventing NOM from ignoring Eastman's comment.  

NOM Doubles Down On Anti-Adoption Argument Against Marriage Equality - Think Progress gives more detail and background on the entire "second best option" controversy.  

Bryan Fischer Compares Being Gay To Robbing A Bank - Bryan Fischer's tacky response to the news that Sen. Ron Portman now supports marriage equality due to his son coming out.  

FRC to Pastors: Now THIS is an Anti-Gay Sermon! - Simply VILE overkill! The inability to police its own rhetoric will be one of the reasons for the religious right downfall in America. 

 Musician featured in NOM's 'March for Marriage' ad supports marriage equality - NOM doesn't miss a trick, I swear!

 Dad Writes Heartwarming Letter To Son Struggling To Come Out - Probably the greatest coming out story you will EVER hear about. I swear, I get happy chills just reading the father's letter.

Video: Sen. Rob Portman explains his reversal on marriage equality

Conservative Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) announced yesterday that he now believes that same-sex couples should have the right to marry. This is a reverse of his original position on the issue. With this announcement, Portman becomes the first sitting Republican senator to support marriage equality.

Why did he change his opinion? It's simple:

 

While it is nice to see Sen. Portman make a welcomed change on the issue, the fact that he did not cut off contact with his son after the child came out to him is an even better thing to see.

This is what Christian values is all about.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Eastman, NOM places status above love in families



By now, many of you reading this post have heard of the comments uttered by National Organization for Marriage chairman John Eastman regarding Justice John Roberts' adopted children and adoption in general. And no doubt there will be some claiming that we are making too much of Eastman's statement or that it was a simple gaffe which takes needed attention away from the important subject of marriage equality

But attention over Eastman's words are not a phony moral panic and to label his comment as a simple "gaffe" is trivializing its harm.

What Eastman did was to push a concept into the idea of family which has no business being there. Families should never be judged on a tier. They aren't baked goods at the state fair to be given ribbons marking 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place.

Nor should it be implied that families exist in a caste system where the designated "gold standard" grabs all of the attention while other families who are not that "standard" are either hardly mentioned or downgraded.

When it comes to families, there is no such thing as a "second-best option," except unfortunately in the head of Eastman and his organization which - I may point out - has never offered any new ideas of placing orphaned or foster children into any family households at all, including the two-parent heterosexual household it holds so dear.

Nor has NOM ever offered any solutions to the real problems facing families of all stripe such as poverty, unemployment, lack of decent health and education options, or lack of good housing.

Eastman and NOM are like charlatans from days of old who would roll into town after town masquerading as physicians while hawking a useless cure-all with flowery rhetoric and flashy bottles.

In this case, the cure-all seems to be keeping members from the gay community from getting married and keeping same-sex families in the background. And like those charlatans, Eastman and NOM talk a good game, but when you get past the rhetoric and the flash you realize that the cure-all cures nothing.

Keeping gays and lesbians from getting married and keeping same-sex families in the background has never improved the quality of life of any household. It has never saved a family's mortgage nor gotten a family's children into a decent college.

Keeping gays and lesbians from getting married and keeping same-sex families in the background has never paid overdue utility notices, rent, or medical bills.

What this rhetoric does is pits us against one another by fooling us into thinking that the love and support each family is capable of giving should be judged not by how much good it does but who is the giver.

The rhetoric places status above love, support, and the willingness to sacrifice - three qualities which all good families have in abundance.

Eastman and NOM's rhetoric is a game, i.e. a vulgar exercise in passive-aggressive homophobia which cushions some from accepting the simple fact that maybe their disagreement  with marriage equality has less to do with saving the family and more to do with their inability to deal with innate inaccuracies about the gay community and same-sex families.

And unfortunately, as Eastman's comments demonstrate, other families are becoming collateral damage in this passive-aggressive game.

'NOM misrepresents child's testimony' and other Thursday midday news briefs

Let's look at the sad tackiness of the National Organization for Marriage:


Oh the poor baby, except for one thing:


And what makes it worse? In the words of a comment from where I gleaned NOM's tacky misrespresentation:

An additional thing that is incredibly deceptive about this is that when someone testifies before a legislative committee, typically it isn't a "give and take," it's a monologue by the person testifying. The committee is there to listen and let people have their say. The graphic makes it look like, oh, goodness, the lawmakers were left speechless by the perspicacity of this young child, whereas the reality of it was, they weren't there to ask OR answer questions. (Moreover, even if they were, one could hardly imagine that there would be lots of political capital in arguing with a pre-teen. It's pretty easy to see why this, almost certainly rhetorical, question would have been left alone.)

Misrepresenting a child's testimony. NOM is brazen and tacky, not to mention stupid. Did the organization think that no one would call it out on the lie?

In other news: 

‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill Could Prevent Counselors From Providing Mental Health Support - This ain't good, folks.

Tennessee Counseling Bill Would Let Student Psychologists Reject Gay Clients Without Punishment - And this just as bad.

24 Awesomely Creative Ways To Come Out Of The Closet - Okay this is funny and cute.

O'Reilly capitulates after harassing openly gay legislator

Apparently, there seems to be an ever so small degree of journalism integrity in Bill O'Reilly's ever so small conscience which led him to make the following statement after harassing openly gay Colorado legislator Rep. Mark Ferrandino.

O'Reilly had spent several segments of his show implying that Ferrandino was protecting pedophiles, causing many folks to cry "foul."

 

Transcript: 

 O’REILLY: I have to report the truth here. First truism, homosexuality has nothing to do with the crime of pedophilia. Second, everyone we report on is defined and that guy is proud of his circumstance and promotes it, so we reported it. 

Even as he admits that homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia, O'Reilly still tries to give himself a lifeline. Equality Matters isn't having it. The site slightly reminds folks of the time in which he did conflate pedophilia with homosexuality:

O’Reilly’s explanation for his attacks still doesn’t pass the smell test, but it’s at least an improvement from when he openly defended linking homosexuality to pedophilia last summer.

 

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

The love of bigots . . .

I know. The Catholic Church has a new Pope and he is as bad as the last one. Oh well, I wasn't all that surprised. What surprised me today is yet another reference to the "homosexuality/outlet plug reference." To those who are not familiar with this inane thing, it is yet another way as to how the religious right attempts to reduce lgbt relationships to that of sexual matters, like so:



Yet another demonstration of the saying, "the love of bigots is more dangerous than their hatred."

'NOM-bought black pastor group working hard for the money' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Same old, same old anti-gay bigotry from NOM-bought black pastor shell group - William Owens and his wife have to earn their $40,000 from NOM somehow.

Video: Rep. Jeanne Ives (R-Wheaton) says gays have 'disordered relationships' - Oh brother. Here we go again. Why, if lgbts are bullies, are our relationships constantly attacked. What is this? The zillionth time? Okay forgive me for being snarky, but girlfriend's wig/weave is a bit more disordered than any gay relationship I've ever seen.

Fox’s O’Reilly Backtracks After Accusing Gay Colorado Lawmaker Of Protecting Child Molesters - O'Reilly's explanation for his slander and harassment are just as bad as his journalistic skills.

 Obama Evolves Even Further, Denies That State Marriage Bans Are Constitutional - Okay, all of the Larry Kramer wannabes hush up (for at least three minutes) and let the man slowly stick his head out of the turtle shell.

Gay College Student Made to Drink Holy Water to Be Cured of Homosexuality - Let me guess . . . it didn't work.

Anti-gay parenting study author casting his lot with NOM

Regnerus
If folks are hoping that Mark Regnerus will plead any mea culpa regarding new allegations about his anti-gay parenting study and how the anti-gay funders may have influenced it, I think the following announcement from Jennifer Roback of NOM's Ruth Institute should give an indication that as to why that probably won't happen:

Protect Marriage Conference in San Diego May 30

I wrote to you earlier about the Ruth Institute annual three day pro-marriage conference here in San Diego for university students and young adults, called, “It Takes a Family to Raise a Village,”  or ITAF.  I want you to know that the deadline for application is coming up on March 15th, later this week.  So please, please, tell your students, interns, seminarians or other young adults who would benefit from the  ITAF program that they need to get on with it and apply now!!

This seminar-style conference brings together young adults, 18-30, for an intense inter-disciplinary, inter-faith program that will help them make an informed and compassionate case for natural marriage, one man, one woman for life.  Our graduates have gone on to form clubs, start their own blogs, be guests on radio programs and write for established internet outlets. This year our conference is in a beautiful San Diego resort, the Town and Country. We’ll be hosting about 35 students and a dynamic panel of speakers.

This three day event is FREE for students and includes all the lectures, food, transportation in San Diego, lodging, plus a travel stipend to assist them in travelling to San Diego.

And guess who just happens to be one of the speakers at this "Protect Marriage" conference:

 Mark Regnerus, Ph.D. He is associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, and a research associate of the university’s Population Research Center. His areas of research are sexual behavior and family formation. He is the author of the important new work on adult children of parents who had same sex relationships. He is also the author of two books on the sexual behavior of teenagers and young adults.

To me, it's more fascinating that his study - the item which he is more famous, or infamous, for is conveniently not mentioned in his biography except for a vague reference.

 I should mention that Roback and other speakers of the conference, i.e. Robert Gagnon have been extremely vocal as to their objections not only of lgbt equality but gay parenting and same-sex households in general.

I think it's safe to assume that Regnerus no longer cares about faking objectivity when it comes to where he stands on the subject of gay parenting.

Related post - Time to twitter bomb the right, Boehner about the Regnerus study

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Former MN legislator regrets her DOMA vote in powerful testimony

Forget that crazy man I was talking about earlier today who gave insane testimony to stop marriage equality in Minnesota. THIS testimony is the most powerful. It's from Lynne Osterman, a former legislator who voted for DOMA and now regrets her vote:

'MN marriage equality hearing witness talks anal sex' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Courtesy of Joe.My.God., a "concerned citizen" speaking against marriage equality during a hearing this morning in Minnesota. Lord hammercy! 



In other news:

 Minnesota Legislator Interrupts Proceedings To Introduce Ex-Gay Friend - Speaking of those hearings - yesterday, legislator tried to pull a fast one.  

NARTH Loses Tax Exempt Status - NARTH is an anti-gay junk science group. I say a lot more of them need to lose their tax-exempt status.

 Video: FRC hopes SCOTUS confuses us for a theocracy, society of junk science - Another junk science-ridden anti-gay video, Family Research Council? Really? Y'all know what to do.

One last thing:

I got this interesting message from someone who wished to be anonymous:

Please do not assume that the faculty and students at UT support Regnerus's false work. Many have avidly spoke out against him, written about his article, and signed petitions against him. While the institution has been remiss to do anything against him, that is not the same thing as the faculty and students who have opposed his craptacular explosion of feculence. Many have apologized in public to their LGBT alum for what he has done to the name of Sociology at UT. Go after the institution but not the faculty and students who have dedicated themselves to undoing the damage Regnerus has caused to the department and school. 

It's nice to know that folks at Regnerus' university are as disgusted with his "study" as we are. Remember to tweet the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, the University of Texas (Austin) and House Speaker John Boehner. Demand that they comment on the new allegations regarding the Regnerus study.  No rude comments and no threats.



 







And speaking of how to contact Mark Regnerus, I have been told that the following is his religious blog with an open comment section. Or you can reach him from his webpage by emailing him at  regnerus@prc.utexas.edu. (I am unsure whether or not you should include that last period). The same applies for him as the others.  Demand that he comment on new allegations regarding his study. But no rude comments or threats. Always respond to injustice with dignity.

Time to twitter bomb the right, Boehner about the Regnerus study

Regnerus
Seems to me that if I were a professor and my work and credibility had been questioned, I would respond.

 If I were a member of highly connected organization in Washington, DC or a member of Congress and a study cited in a brief to the Supreme Court which I supported had been called into question, I would respond.

But I am not University of Texas (Austin) professor Mark Regnerus nor am I connected with the Family Research Council or the National Organization for Marriage. And I am definitely not a member of Congress.

So instead of responding in this scenarios, I sit back and scratch my head at the silence.

Last year, when Regnerus' study was published, the religious right and their cohorts went press crazy, announcing to every news organization who cared that Regnerus' study made the case against marriage equality, gay adoption, and same-sex families in general.

They even ignored the pesky fact that the study was extremely flawed, choosing instead to overwhelm truth with repetition fueled by a very good media campaign. 

These groups, and the Republicans in the House of Representatives, even cited the study in briefs to the Supreme Court to defend anti-gay laws (DOMA, Prop 8).

But now, two days after the Huffington Post and the American Independent published an article bringing to light shocking allegations against Regnerus and his study, these folks haven't commented.

Not a word has been said from the right or Regnerus. Not even a cough.

It's not by accident of course.  The silence is deliberate because they are hoping that the story passes through the news cycle without so much as a peep. And when that happens, they will poke their heads out and continue to spout nonsense about traditional morality and family, as if nothing has happened.

Don't let them get away with it. Here is what you can do.

The following are the twitter addresses of the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, the University of Texas (Austin) and House Speaker John Boehner. Demand that they comment on the new allegations regarding the Regnerus study.  No rude comments and no threats.



 





 

I looked for Regnerus' twitter address but couldn't seem to find it. If anyone has any way of contacting him, please inform readers in the comments section below.
 

Monday, March 11, 2013

When a black gay man is brutally murdered . . .

Marco McMillian
I hate stories like this:

Marco McMillian was poised to make history as the first openly gay man to run for public office in Mississippi. Instead, supporters are coping with his shocking death. 

 McMillian was brutally murdered and it has been confirmed that it was because of his sexual orientation. Naturally his murderer is claiming the "gay panic defense," but is also taking it much further. He is claiming that McMillian tried to rape him. Where have we heard this before (I will give you a hint - David Kato, Billy Joe Gaither, Matthew Shepard) in which someone who viciously murders a gay man claims that he panicked because the gay man was "hitting on him." My God, this is going to get ugly.

 I just can't talk about it further.

Two good friends of mine, Viktor Kerney and Rod McCullom, have covered this story for Ebony magazine and their blogs. Check out their work and enter the world of what black gay men have to deal with in American society:

 MURDER IN THE MISSISSIPPI DELTA - An excellent overview of the entire ugly thing and how it reverberates throughout the entire community.

 No Mention of Marco McMillian's life as a Gay Man at Funeral - Truly sad.  

Does the Black Community Care When Its Gay Members are Killed? - No comment.

 REPORT: Suspect Claims Marco McMillian Tried to "Rape" Him - That's what the murderer's family is saying. It sounds fishy. Sorry but it does.

'Controversy over Regnerus study heats up BIG TIME' and other Monday midday news briefs

Controversy over new allegations about the Regnerus anti-gay parenting study and how much its funders had to do with its results continue to grow. Check out the following just revealed this morning:

 Mark Regenerus and Witherspoon collaboration - For those interested, here is a document dump of information regarding the Regenrus study and how it contradicts with the original story Regnerus told about the involvement of his funders. Page 11 shows something very interesting. On Aug. 22 of 2011 (Editor's note - this post originally had the inaccurate date of Aug. 22 2012), Mark Regnerus and a few other researchers met to discuss a public relations/media plan for the study. One of the researchers was Glenn T. Stanton from Focus on the Family. Stanton is not necessarily a pro-gay advocate. To the contrary, he is on record saying many untrue things about the gay community, including calling marriage equality a "lie of Satan."

‘More managerial than intellectual’: How right-wing Christian money brought us the Regnerus study - Philip Cohen of Family Inequality gives a good summary of entire mess.

Meanwhile, Tom Reller, the company spokesman for Elsevier, the company which published Regnerus' study, has a very spirited exchange with writer Scott Wooledge. Reller calls the Huffington Post article "nonsense":

In other news:

Harvey: Church Must Fight Against Homosexuality Like Slavery - Linda Harvey is ALWAYS good for a laugh.  

New York Times Puff Piece About Focus On The Family Ignores Its Regular Anti-LGBT Rhetoric - More news which should raise eyebrows as to why Regnerus was collaborating with FOF's Stanton to promote his study.

LGBT community needs to get angry over Regnerus study manipulations



Since the news broke last night about how the funders of the Regnerus anti-gay parenting study had more influence on its findings than originally claimed, the reaction from lgbt community has been interesting.

While some have been justifiably angry, there is that annoying set of folks who have acted either jaded or blase about these new discoveries.

Several have made comments like "The right-wing manipulates another study? Nothing to see here folks" or "So, just how does that prove the study is flawed."

First to answer that last question, the fact that the study is flawed was determined a long time ago. And it was accentuated by the recent brief to the Supreme Court by the American Sociological Association.

This new information proves just why the study was flawed and it brings up further questions. Why wasn't Regenrus truthful about how much influence the study's right-wing funders had on its results?  Why did they expected the study to be a negative against the lgbt community before it was even put to paper?

And while some have made a good point by pointing out that in the long run, this study's claim (regarding same-sex households being inferior than heterosexual households when it comes to the raising of children) may not matter in the DOMA and Prop 8 cases before the Supreme Court, the reality is that the shady facts behind the study yet again points out how the religious right manipulates and cherry-picks science for its own purposes.

And that's an issue which needs more attention instead of folks yawning and turning their backs.

I've said before that an asset to the religious right is the jaded "we have seen it all so you really have to reach to get our attention" attitude of some members of the lgbt community. What's sad is that some of these same individuals  get angry when they see FRC's  Tony Perkins or some other religious right spokesperson touted as "experts" on news programs or when they see flawed work such as the Regnerus study being pushed as legitimate.

My friends, if you demonstrate that you really don't care about phony religious experts and the flawed work they tout (such as the Regnerus study) then why expect anyone else to care?

So my advice? Pull your heads out of your asses, stop acting like a snobby patron in a high-price restaurant, and pay attention to the big picture and the long game for a change.


Sunday, March 10, 2013

BREAKING!!! Anti-gay parenting study a false manipulation from the start

Mark Regnerus
This is huge.

According to the American Independent, via The Huffington Post, the Regnerus study - which cause a huge controversy because it said that children raised by same-sex families encounter problems - was created specifically to sway Supreme Court decisions on marriage equality. And the funders of the study knew what the study would "prove" before the work on it began:

The conservative funders who bankrolled a flawed and widely cited academic study that's critical of gay marriage choreographed its release in time to influence “major decisions of the Supreme Court,” documents show.

The documents, recently obtained through public-records requests by The American Independent and published in collaboration with The Huffington Post, show that the Witherspoon Institute recruited a professor from a major university to carry out a study that was designed to manipulate public policy. In communicating with donors about the research project, Witherspoon’s president clearly expected results unfavorable to the gay-marriage movement.

The think tank’s efforts paid off. The New Family Structures Study came out just in time for opponents of gay marriage to cite it in multiple federal cases involving marriage equality – including two cases soon to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

James Wright, editor of Social Science Research, which published the study’s findings last summer, said he was not aware of the funders’ intentions to use his academic journal to sway the Supreme Court.

“So far as the Supreme Court is concerned, I consider marriage and adoption rights for GLBT people to be a matter of civil rights, i.e., a legal question, not something to be ‘resolved’ by empirical research, and I resent having social science data and research drawn into such debates,” Wright, a University of Central Florida sociology professor, said in an email.

In a study slammed for its methodology, funding, and academic integrity, University of Texas associate sociology professor Mark Regnerus found that children who grew up in households where one parent had a same-sex relationship (regardless of whether the children lived with that parent or that parent’s supposed same-sex partner) were more likely to experience negative social, psychological, and economic outcomes than children raised by a married heterosexual couple
Records show that an academic consultant hired by UT to conduct data analysis for the project was a longtime fellow of the Witherspoon Institute, which shelled out about $700,000 for the research. Documentation about University of Virginia associate sociology professor W. Bradford Wilcox’s dual roles contradict Regnerus’ assertions that the think tank wasn’t involved with how the study was designed or carried out. 

To put a long story short, before this study was even put to paper, those funding it had already decided what it would "prove" and how they would "use" it. Many of us lgbtq bloggers and activists (i.e. myself, Scott Rose, Jeremy Hooper, Wayne Besen, Rob Tisinai, and a vast number of others) knew something was phony about the Regnerus study at the time in which it was publicized. And now the Huffington Post and the American Independent confirms it:

 . . .when Regnerus first published his New Family Structures Study in the July 2012 issue of Social Science Research, he made a point of saying that his conservative funders had not played a role in designing the research or analyzing the data.

“The NFSS was supported in part by grants from the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation,” he wrote. “While both of these are commonly known for their support of conservative causes — just as other private foundations are known for supporting more liberal causes — the funding sources played no role at all in the design or conduct of the study, the analyses, the interpretations of the data, or in the preparation of this manuscript.”

He reiterated this statement in his follow-up analysis of the study, again writing that “[n]o funding agency representatives were consulted about research design, survey contents, analysis, or conclusions.”

Regnerus’ assertions come into question in light of revelations last year that Wilcox had been hired on contract by UT to assist Regnerus with the data analysis of the study. During part of that time, Wilcox was also the director of Witherspoon’s Program on Family, Marriage, and Democracy, out of which the study was conceptualized and Regnerus was recruited. Wilcox had been a fellow with Witherspoon from 2004 to 2011, and he has said that he worked as a paid consultant on the study from October 2010 to April 2012. 

The excerpts above only scratch the surfaces. Go to this link, read the article, and prepare to be PISSED!

Friday, March 08, 2013

Know Your LGBT History - Outing

Outing is the controversial practice of revealing someone's sexual orientation without their permission. It's usually done to celebrities and politicians. It's controversial because some feel that it is an invasion of privacy while others feel that it is necessary to bring more visibility to the problems of lgbts forced in the closet or combat the hypocrisy of secretly gay lawmakers who publicly and actively campaign against lgbt equality. After watching these videos, tell me what you think:



 

 

Past Know Your LGBT History posts:

'Homophobe claims not to know how gays 'consummate' marriage' and other Friday midday news briefs

Love this! Had to post it! The photo is from an anti-gay marriage equality rally yesterday in Minnesota




In other news briefs:


LaBarbera: 'How Do Two Guys Consummate Their Marriage? Yuck.' - When I read this, I just HAD to put it in the briefs. As much gay porn that 'Porno' Pete LaBarbera is rumored to have as "research," I think he knows the answer to his question.  

Ernie Banks, other Chicago sports legends back marriage equality - Not bad. Not bad at all.  

Insurance Agency Reverses, Agrees To Cover Transgender Student’s Treatment - Kudos and special thanks to the young man's fraternity who at the time was raising money to cover his part of his gender transition surgery when he was initially denied by the insurance company. Say what you will, this story destroys almost every negative stereotypes out there about fraternities.

 Tebow at Liberty University; Fox says facts are 'bullies' - Awwww! Fox News gets angry at lgbts when we bring facts out about anti-gay organizations and universities. I guess they miss the scared lgbts. 

 FRC’s Tony Perkins Lies His Ass Off About ENDA In Fundraising Appeal - A point-by-point take down of anti-ENDA lies. Although between u and me, the words "Tony Perkins" and "ass" in the same sentence makes me nauseous.  

Family Research Council clearly lying about scientific evidence and gay parenting - Speaking of Perkins' group, the Family Research Council, I am including a post I wrote last night because it's just unbelievable to me that these folks thought they could lie about the scientific evidence of gay parenting and not get called out about it. I mean just BRAZEN!

Black university proves arguments against marriage equality, interracial marriage are similar

Those who complain about how the lgbt community is unfairly comparing itself to the African-American community in terms of the struggle for equality are probably not going to be happy to hear this news, so I want to tell it as soon as possible.

Howard University - a historically black college - made a very interesting comparison between the laws against interracial marriage and those against marriage equality. The university said arguments used to justify laws against interracial marriage (which were struck down by Loving vs. Virginia) and arguments used to justify laws against marriage equality are "strikingly similar."

Lawyers for the university made the connection in a recently submitted brief to the Supreme Court for the upcoming Prop 8 trial. According to Think Progress:

The brief goes on to highlight five distinct arguments that transcend the debates between marriage equality for interracial couples and marriage equality for same-sex couples:
  • SOCIAL ORDER: Marriage equality is a threat to the social order and would “introduce a form of pollution to marriage.” 
  • SEXUALIZATION: The people who want to get married have relationships that are purely sexual, promiscuous, and “deviant.” 
  • PSEUDOSCIENCE: Researchers have distorted research to raise fears about supposed consequences of marriage equality. 
  • JUDEO-CHRISTIAN VALUES: The Bible forbids recognizing these relationships. 
  • CHILDREN: These relationships will cause physical and psychological damage to the children they raise.

Think Progress continues with an excellent summation of the Howard University brief.

No doubt the National Organization for Marriage and others who want to exploit the alleged black vs. gay divide will most likely ignore this briefs and the facts put out in it.

I say we don't let them.

Thursday, March 07, 2013

Family Research Council clearly lying about scientific evidence and gay parenting

Kenneth Blackwell of the Family Research Council
I've said it once and I will say it again. Once the religious right finds a factoid or meme to use against the lgbt community, they will continue to repeat it even though the factoid or meme has been refuted.

 Earlier this week, I wrote about how the Family Research Council was repeating a lie that the Obama Administration declared war on mothers in its Supreme Court brief against the California anti-marriage equality law, Prop 8.

Yesterday, FRC took that lie further via an employee, Kenneth Blackwell, in a recent piece he wrote, Obama Drops His Family Friendly Mask:

Last week, President Obama dropped the family friendly mask. He sent his Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli up the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court with a simple message:

Dump Dads. Lose Moms.

That's because the Solicitor General speaks for the President. In the most august and formal way, it is this officer who carries the President's deepest convictions to lay them before the nation's High Court. What the Solicitor General actually said was this:

"As an initial matter, no sound basis exists for concluding that same-sex couples who have committed to marriage are anything other than fully capable of responsible parenting and child-rearing. To the contrary, many leading medical, psychological, and social-welfare organizations have issued policy statements opposing restrictions on gay and lesbian parenting based on their conclusion, supported by numerous scientific studies, that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents."

"The weight of the scientific literature strongly supports the view that same-sex parents are just as capable as opposite-sex parents."

Actually, the weight of scientific evidence proves no such thing. All the work of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute (www.marri.org) shows that children do best in a family where mother and dad are married and where the family worships regularly.

As for children raised by two adults of the same sex, the most extensive study ever done was that of Dr. Mark Regnerus. Dr. Regnerus of the University of Texas conducted the largest, most rigorously controlled study in history. Here's what the U.T. study found:
The results of the NFSS [National Family Structures Study]research revealed that the "no differences" claim -- the claim that children raised by parents in gay or lesbian relationships fared no worse and in some cases better than children raised by intact biological parents -- was not true. On the contrary, the children of these households, on average, did worse than children raised by their biological, still-married parents.
The weight of scientific evidence -- as opposed to Donald Verrilli's politically correct posturing -- shows that his statements before the High Court are "not true. Remember, we are talking about the well-being of the children, not whether the adults in these relationships are well-satisfied with their domestic arrangements.

Mr. Blackwell omits a lot of truth to reach the point of this passage.

He said the weight of scientific evidence does not prove that same-sex parents are just as capable as opposite-sex parents in the raising of children. 

Mr. Blackwell conveniently forgets that the Obama Administration brief he tears down clearly cited both the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics as well as the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry as proof that same-sex parents are just as capable as opposite-sex parents in the raising of children (page 21 of the brief).

Furthermore Mr. Blackwell did not mention that independent from the Obama Administration brief, the APA submitted another brief to the court saying the same thing (i.e. same-sex parents are as capable as opposite-sex parents in the raising of children). And joining them in this brief was the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the California Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association and the National Association of Social Workers.

Finally, it is very ironic that Mr. Blackwell cites the Regnerus study as proof that his scientific proof that same-sex parents are not just as capable as opposite-sex parents because of the following simple fact:

The American Sociological Association condemned the Regnerus study in its brief submitted to the Supreme Court. In the brief, the ASA also said that same-sex parents are just as capable as opposite-sex parents when it comes to the raising of children.

So when Mr. Blackwell says that the weight of scientific evidence does not prove that same-sex parents are as capable as opposite-sex parents in the raising of children, he is clearly not being truthful. Not even a little bit.

Do me a favor, folks. Don't shake your head, suck your teeth and go "there they go again" at yet another time you have seen the Family Research Council blatantly lie about the gay community. Demand that more time and knowledge be invested in uncovering how organizations like FRC distort science or push blatant lies against the lgbt community.

Organizations like the Family Research Council don't rely on truth. They rely on repetition. They repeat a point while deliberately ignoring the simple fact that the point has been refuted by those who know better.

And they also rely on the gay community and others becoming blase or jaded about their constant lying.  The Family Research Council and other so-called "pro-family" groups can't use facts against the gay community, so they hope to beat us down through the constant repetition of lies.

It's not necessarily the Christian thing to do, but I guess they figure God will turn a blind eye because they feel that they are lying on His behalf.

You see, this is the problem. This is the reason for the lgbt community's anger towards groups like FRC who claim to uphold  their version of Christian values. It's not that we are intolerant of their beliefs or views.

We are just intolerant of their lies.

'Meet one of the youngest married gay couples in America' and other Thursday midday news briefs

David Harris And Tre'Darrius Anderson May Be The Country's Youngest African American Gay Couple To Marry - Meet the youngest African-American gay couple to marry and it begs a good question which will hopefully come up more in the future in the lgbt community. Is 19 an appropriate age for anyone to marry?

Ever-deceptive FRC twists 50+ yr old hit piece into supposed battle plan - This is low even for the Family Research Council. More desperation. LOL 

 Opposition To Marriage Equality Concentrated Among Elderly, Evangelicals, And Non-College Educated - Opposition getting smaller and smaller. 

Vocal on Gay Issues, Dean Goes Beyond Classroom - Who says gays can't hold top positions?

Here is some black gay comedy to lift you up

After last night's "filibuster," I am in a mood for something a bit more loose and different (especially seeing that the religious right has jumped on the "we love civil liberties" bandwagon. Where the hell were they when the Patriot Act was passed? Hell, if they are for civil liberties, then why are they giving lgbts to so much hell) So I apologize to folks who may not appreciate the following videos, but they are of one of my favorite comedians, openly gay Sampson. Definitely not safe for work and he may be a bit offensive:




 

Wednesday, March 06, 2013

Black church/Gay sensibilities

Allow me to explain the following video and what brought it about.

First let me say that I am NOT implying that ANYONE in this video is gay. 

What I am saying is that I am tired of this constant argument about lgbts and the Black church.

I am TIRED of members of the Black Church speaking loudly against gay equality when they know lgbts in their churches, choirs, and pulpits.

 I am tired of folks quickly grabbing their Bibles to condemn gay folks in the Black church but not taking the time to at least having a one-on-one conversation.

And I am tired of prominent members of the Black community (you know who you are) bending over backwards to make lgbts of color invisible due to their religious beliefs.

With that, I have one question. If the Black church is so against homosexuality, then why is it that some black choirs adopt gay sensibilities when it comes to the performance of their songs? Now some folks may accuse me of generalizing, but to all of the lgbts of color out there, you have seen dance moves like this in and out of church.  Some of us have done these dances ourselves.

So take this video as a symbol of the dual nature or hypocrisy of the Black Church attacking homosexuality. It is a of a gospel choir performing on the Stellar Awards, an awards show devoted to African-American gospel:



'NAACP filed brief against DOMA' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

A strong black voice for gay marriage - NAACP filed brief against DOMA last week. I wonder how many of NOM's bought and paid for "black leaders" are going to raise hell over this one.  

Anti-gay adoption bill reintroduced - One time: if religious adoption agencies receive tax dollars, they have to follow the rules of fairness. No exemptions.

 NOM's Roback Morse: My verbatim audio was 'mischaracterized'; Clementi family should meet me - Mischaracterized my foot! Just apologize already!

FRC Begs For Money To Fight The ‘Danger’ And ‘Disaster’ Of Nondiscrimination Protections - @!*# please! The Family Research Council must be out of its damn mind! I got some monopoly money for the group! 

 A Brand New Reason to Be Terrified of Homosexuals - You'd better believe it, jack!!

'Homosexuality is dangerous and Obama hates mothers!'

Matt Barber
Religious right and conservative groups have launched two distortions against the lgbt community this morning. One has to do with the false claim of the supposed dangers of homosexuality while the other will most likely be a new talking point against the Obama Administration in the upcoming Supreme Court Prop 8 battle.

Let's look at both distortions:

1. The false dangers of homosexuality 

The AFA's Instant Analysis published the following piece this morning:

Earlier research reinforced: Homosexuality is unhealthy lifestyle

A new study comparing same-sex couples to married heterosexuals shows that the former are less healthy than the latter. Matt Barber, vice president of Liberty Counsel Action, tells American Family News the latest numbers were published in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior. It found that same-sex cohabiting men were 61 percent more likely to report "poor or fair health" than an equitable number of men reporting from heterosexual marriages. Likewise, same-sex cohabiting women were 46 percent more likely to report the same when compared to heterosexual married women.

 . . . "We have known this for a long time," Barber notes. "There have been a number of studies indicating, for instance, that there are increased rates of domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse within the homosexual community, and this is just in keeping with what the International Journal of Epidemiology found in 1997, a Canadian study." In that study, homosexual men were shown to have a lifespan 8-20 years shorter than those who do not engage in that lifestyle. But Dr. Hui Liu of Michigan State University, the professor who led the new study, claims the fact that homosexuals cannot marry, as well as the burden of stress and discrimination, are to blame for the results. Barber does not agree.

Barber and AFA are incredibly brazen here. The study in question does not even say that homosexuality is an "unhealthy lifestyle." Rather, it makes the argument that the denial of the right to marry is keeping the gay community from having better health.

And what's even more brazen? Barber admits that this is the study's conclusion  but says he disagrees with it without offering any proof that the conclusion is in error.

In other words, Barber cherry-picks a portion of the study which suits his views while dismissing the rest of the study which contradicts his views. And he does so openly and without shame.

Even the 1997 study Barber alludes to is a distortion. In 2001, the researchers of that study complained that religious right spokespeople such as Barber were distorting their work. They never said that homosexuality was a "dangerous lifestyle." They were saying that there needed to be better ways to combat HIV.

2. Obama Administration says mothers are not important

According to the conservative CNS News, the Obama Administration's recent brief to the Supreme Court supporting marriage equality bashes mothers:

The Obama Justice Department is arguing in the United States Supreme Court that children do not need mothers. The Justice Department’s argument on the superfluity of motherhood is presented in a brief the Obama administration filed in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended California’s Constitution to say that marriage involves only one man and one woman.

The article then proceeds to attack the Obama Administration and the American Psychological Association to reinforce its claim that somehow mothers in general are being attacked.

Of course this is a lie. Nowhere in its brief did the Obama Administration say that mothers are not important. What the brief, using information from the APA, did was to contradict the claim made by opponents to marriage equality that only a mother and a father in a home can properly raise children.

The brief merely points out that same-sex households are also able to raise properly raise children.

But the meme that the Obama Administration is "bashing mothers" will most likely be a religious right talking point.  The meme is already making its way via several webpages including that of the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage.

How soon will it be before Matt Drudge and Fox News starts repeating the meme?

The lgbt community should get angry at these two blatant attempts to distort their lives. But they should also keep in mind that these lies betray a certain desperation on the part of religious and conservative groups.

Because both lies are not only brazen but careless and easy to refute, thus reinforcing the fact that when one gets desperate, one starts to make mistakes.