Saturday, December 18, 2010

American Family Association distorts Associated Press article on DADT repeal

 The American Family Association's One News Now has already begun distorting an Associated Press article about the DADT repeal:

One News Now version:

Despite warnings of a serious disruption in military operations and concerns over prejudice against Christians, the Senate has bowed its knee to homosexual activists and voted to repeal the military ban against gays known as 'don't ask don't tell.'

The Senate agreed on Saturday to do away with the 17-year ban on openly gay troops and sent President Barack Obama legislation to overturn the Clinton-era policy.

Obama was expected to sign the bill into law next week, although changes to military policy probably wouldn't take effect for at least several months. Under the bill, the president and his top military advisers must first certify that lifting the ban won't hurt troops' ability to fight. After that, the military would undergo a 60-day wait period.

The actual Associated Press article:

In a historic vote for gay rights, the Senate agreed on Saturday to do away with the military's 17-year ban on openly gay troops and sent President Barack Obama legislation to overturn the Clinton-era policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."

Obama was expected to sign the bill into law next week, although changes to military policy probably wouldn't take effect for at least several months. Under the bill, the president and his top military advisers must first certify that lifting the ban won't hurt troops' ability to fight. After that, the military would undergo a 60-day wait period.

Also, One News Now omitted portions of the Associated Press article not conducive to the point of view it is trying to push. Portions like the following:

More than 13,500 service members have been dismissed under the 1993 law.

What makes the situation even worse is that One News Now includes the byline of the AP writer Anne Flaherty, thereby making it appear that she wrote the article as it appears on the phony news organization's site.

Oh well, it's not like anyone figured that the American Family Association, or any of the other religious right groups for that matter, would "go gently into that good night" about the DADT repeal.

But it's so predictable. When you can't add anything to the discussion but lies, you become boring. And right now, AFA is making me yawn.


Bookmark and Share

DADT is DEAD!

The Senate voted today by a vote of 65-31 to end the awful policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, thereby assuring that gays and lesbians can serve openly in the military.

Granted, President Obama and Secretary of War Gates needs to sign the bill and it will go into effect after 60 days, so this is by no means the end.

The religious right will try to fuel a backlash (and I am waiting for that with my literary Louisville slugger), and there will be some bumps on the road as those who still have a problem with gays and lesbians serving openly in the military will have to deal with the change.

So while we all dance in the streets tonight, let's be mindful of the work that begins tomorrow in order to ensure our hard earned rights.  And let's not forget to thank all of those who worked their asses off to get us to this point.

But at the same time, let's not forget the importance of what just took place. This day should teach the lgbt community to never be discouraged and never to deter from the path of legitimacy.

Today is a huge victory for not only the lgbt community, not only America, but for the spirit of hope, change, and the belief that regardless of how things look, goodness and truth will always win in the end.




Bookmark and Share

Senate giving DADT a swift kick in the ass!!!!!!!!

17 year ago . . .

while I was in college, a young man told me that gays don't deserve to be in the military because too many of us engage in "fisting,"

Leaders in the Armed Forces distributed copies of the religious right video "The Gay Agenda," containing the discredited research of Paul Cameron, and

Democrat Senator Sam Nunn led the fight against gays serving openly in the military.

All of this led to that awful policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.


Today . . .

Sam Nunn, now a former Senator, thinks gays should serve openly in the military,

Paul Cameron is suffering a well-deserved public disgrace and his former religious right cohorts are fighting a losing battle against charges of being anti-gay hate groups,

And now, by a vote of 63-33, the Senate has advanced the repeal of DADT, pretty much assuring that gays and lesbians will now be able to serve openly in the military.

Can I get an "amen" for progress?

My only "regret" is that Elaine Donnelly of the so-called Center for Military Readiness will have to find a new job. Oh well, there are plenty of other things she can distort about gay community.


Bookmark and Share

Friday, December 17, 2010

Know Your LGBT History - Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia

Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974) was a huge box office and critical flop at the time it premiered. However it's now a cult classic.

Regardless, it's still an ugly nihilistic little film about a Mexican drug lord who offers to pay $1 million for the decapitated head of the man who impregnated his daughter.

Naturally when word of this gets around, it attracts all sorts of uglies out of the woodwork, filtering down to grizzled Benny (Warren Oates), a retired military man who is now a bar manager and piano player at a Mexican dive.

It just so happens that Benny finds out from his girlfriend that Alfredo Garcia is already dead, the victim of a car crash. So all that's left to do is dig up his grave and collect his head.

Easy money, right? Wanna bet.

This film was partly created and totally directed by the late Sam Pecknipah, a filmmaker renowned of his grittiness, realism, and umcompromising view of the world. And if you ever saw any of his other films (particularly The Wild Bunch), then you just know that Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia will be an orgy of violence, blood, and unsavory characters pushed by their greed to unhappy endings.

And for the purpose of this blog, let's talk about two of these characters; two of the Mexican bandit's hitmen who just happens to be a gay couple. Sappensly (Robert Webber) and Quill (Gig Young) are brutal, hateful characters as the following scene demonstrates. But at least their being gay is an incidental thing to their nastiness. (Editor's note - if you hate extreme violence, do not watch this scene):



Past Know Your LGBT History Posts

Know Your LGBT History - Dirty Laundry

Know Your LGBT History - The Willie Witch Project

Know Your LGBT History - Spartacus

Know Your LGBT History - Caged

Know Your LGBT History - The Birdcage

Know Your LGBT History - Maude

Know Your LGBT History - That Certain Summer

Know Your LGBT History - Boat Trip

Know Your LGBT History - Staircase

Know Your LGBT History - Beautiful Thing

Know Your LGBT History - Armed and Dangerous

Know Your LGBT History - The Proud Family

Know Your LGBT History - Suddenly Last Summer

Know Your LGBT History - Gay TV Now

Know Your LGBT History - Stewardess School

Know Your LGBT History - Up the Academy

Know Your LGBT History - Don't be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood

Know Your LGBT History - A Different Story

Know Your LGBT History - Victim

Know Your LGBT History - The Color Purple

Know Your LGBT History - Making Love

Know Your LGBT History - A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge

Know Your LGBT History - Noah's Arc

Know Your LGBT History - Ode to Billy Joe

Know Your LGBT History - Adorable Adrian Adonis

Know Your LGBT History - The Night Strangler

Know Your LGBT History - All in the Family

Know Your LGBT History - Tongues Untied

Know Your LGBT History - The Celluloid Closet

Know Your LGBT History - Querelle

Know Your LGBT History - Theatre of Blood

Know Your LGBT History - Strange Fruit

Know Your LGBT History - Designing Women

Know Your LGBT History - The Children's Hour

Know Your LGBT History - Sylvester

Know Your LGBT History - Once Bitten

Know Your LGBT History - The Boys in the Band

Know Your LGBT History - Christopher Morley, the crossdressing assassin

Know Your LGBT History - Midnight Cowboy

Know Your LGBT History - Dracula's Daughter

Know Your LGBT History - Blacula

Know Your LGBT History - 3 Strikes

Know Your LGBT History - Paris Is Burning

Know Your LGBT History - The Women

Know your LGBT History - Soul Plane

Know Your LGBT History - The Player's Club

Special Know Your LGBT History - Fame

Know Your LGBT History - Welcome Home, Bobby

Know Your LGBT History - Barney Miller

Know your lgbt history - The Jerry Springer Show

Know your lgbt history - Martin Lawrence and that 'gay guy' on his show

Know your lgbt history - The Ricki Lake Show

Know your lgbt history - Which Way Is Up

Know your lgbt history - Gays in Primetime Soaps

Know your lgbt history - Boys Beware

Know your lgbt history - The Boondocks

Know your lgbt history - Mannequin

Know your lgbt history - The Warriors

Know Your LGBT History - New York Undercover

Know Your LGBT History - Low Down Dirty Shame

Know Your LGBT History - Fortune and Men's Eyes

Know your lgbt history - California Suite

Know your lgbt history - Taxi (Elaine's Strange Triangle)

Know your lgbt history - Come Back Charleston Blue

Know your lgbt history - James Bond goes gay

Know your lgbt history - Windows

Know your lgbt history - To Wong Foo and Priscilla

Know your lgbt history - Blazing Saddles

Know your lgbt history - Sanford and Son

Know your lgbt history - In Living Color

Know your lgbt history - Cleopatra Jones and her lesbian drug lords

Know your lgbt history - Norman, Is That You?

Know your lgbt history - The 'Exotic' Adrian Street

Know your lgbt history - The Choirboys

Know your lgbt history - Eddie Murphy

Know your lgbt history - The Killing of Sister George

Know your lgbt history - Hanna-Barbera cartoons pushes the 'gay agenda

'Know your lgbt history - Cruising

Know your lgbt history - Foxy Brown and Cleopatra Jones

Know your lgbt history - I Got Da Hook Up

Know your lgbt history - Fright Night

Know your lgbt history - Flowers of Evil

The Jeffersons and the transgender community   


Bookmark and Share

Gay father receives White House honor and other Friday midday news briefs

White House Invites Father at Center of Adoption Victory - I love this!

SPLC myth #4: Homosexuals don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals - Warren Throckmorton takes the religious right to task for the gays don't live as long as heterosexuals lie. I've talked about the lie several times but Throckmorton adds some information even I wasn't aware of.

Maybe Brian thinks if he spins hard enough, the thumbs down will reverse? - Jeremy Hooper schools the National Organization for Marriage's Brian Brown. Go get 'em Jeremy!

Council of Conservative Citizens To Boycott "Thor" Over Casting of Black Actor - Apparently before Tony Perkins joined the anti-gay group the Family Research Council, he used to hang out with racist hate groups.

Rachel Maddow Takes Gay Republican Group to Task: Video - Point blank, Rachel Maddow is probably the best journalist on television today. She is not rude, she does not dumb down her intelligence, and she doesn't NEED to take cheesecake photos. Here is a game you can play - match the Fox blonde female anchor out the three choices (Laura Ingraham, Megyn Kelly, Gretchen Carlson) with the offense.


Bookmark and Share

Family Research Council plans to go on tour against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Another interview with another "friendly" publication and the Family Research Council puts its foot in its mouth.

The organization and its leader, Tony Perkins is still steaming over the anti-gay hate group designation given to it and several other religious right groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. This week, the organization ran full page ads in Politico and the Washington Examiner calling the designation into question but conveniently not directly addressing the charges that they deliberately spread anti-gay propaganda and junk science to smear the lgbt community.

The ads also had the signatures of over 150 conservative leaders, including over 20 members of Congress.

Yesterday during an interview with Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, FRC's Perkins made an interesting comment:

“We’re not afraid to debate the issues,” Perkins said in a phone interview. “We are not running from the debate. We are confident on the issues we advocate for based on empirical, peer-reviewed research.”

The comment is highly ironic seeing that the last time Perkins did have a debate on the issue - on the news program Hardball with the SPLC's Mark Potok - he distorted data to make the inaccurate claim that pedophilia and homosexuality is connected. He also cited an organization, the American College of Pediatricians. It was later discovered that the ACP is not a legitimate medical organization but a sham group created to push religious right distortions about the lgbt community.

Hardball's host, Chris Matthews, was forced to give a clarifying statement regarding the ACP on a later broadcast.

Since that time, Perkins has pretty much avoided debates, appearing on "friendly" news programs such as  Fox and Friends.  Nor has he been directly addressing SPLC's charges.

That seems to have been left up to the other anti-gay groups listed by SPLC. But unfortunately, their spokespeople haven't been doing such a good job.

This week during an interview with the Concerned Women for America's Martha Kleder, Peter LaBarbera (head of Americans for Truth, another organization cited as a hate group) actually admitted to citing bad studies in order to smear the lgbt community.

Meanwhile, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association (yet another group cited by SPLC's for its spreading of anti-gay propaganda) has made statements during interviews and columns that have, to many, justified SPLC for calling his organization and several others out.

During the same Daily Caller interview, Perkins said the organization plans to go on a nationwide tour to get more signatures for its letter. He also said:

We’re going to full-speed but not in the direction they want us to. The left wants to say these issues are beyond debate. If we, as a country, decide there is no debate, it becomes a totalitarian state.” 

 SPLC didn't respond to the Daily Caller's request for a comment * (see below), but the organization already put out a statement regarding the Family Research Council's campaign:

(FRC's letter) was a remarkable performance, given that it was precisely the maligning of entire groups of people — gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people — that caused the SPLC to list groups like the FRC.

. . .  Despite the claims made in today’s statement, the SPLC’s listings are not in any way intended to suppress these groups’ free speech. We’re not asking that these groups be silenced or punished in any way. What we are doing is calling them out for their lies. There is nothing wrong with labeling an organization a hate group based on what they say. A simple example illustrates the point: If a neo-Nazi group said all Jews are “vermin,” no one would argue with our characterizing it as a hate group.

Neither are we mounting an attack on individuals or “groups that uphold Judeo-Christian moral views,” as today’s statement suggests. In fact, as we say in our article dissecting the views of these groups, “Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.” Instead, as we explained there, “the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling.”

Personally, I am all for FRC taking their letter on tour.  That would give the lgbt community the opportunity to ask them several questions such as:

Please explain how the following statements are an example of upholding "Judeo-Christain" moral views:

•Gays should be exported from the country;

•The federal government must be overthrown if it allows gay marriage;

•"Moral perverts" need to be kept out of the military;

•There is nothing "conservative" about "one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it 'love'";

•Homosexual behavior ought to be outlawed;

•Gay sex ought to carry criminal penalties;

•Gays ought to be prohibited from serving in public office;

•Gay sex is domestic terrorism;

•"Hitler recruited around him homosexuals to make up his Stormtroopers ... [because] homosexual soldiers basically had no limits [to] the savagery and brutality they were willing to inflict."


Hat tip to People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch.

* Even though SPLC didn't respond to the Daily Caller's request for a quote, the site had an obligation to at least report the fact that SPLC did address FRC's letter. That's what a credible journalist would have  done. Or have I answered my own question in terms of why the Daily Caller didn't report on SPLC's reponse to FRC?


Bookmark and Share

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Perhaps anti-gay hate groups should put a muzzle on Bryan Fischer

If the organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-hate groups want to get anywhere in their campaign of refutations, perhaps they should take up a collection and buy a muzzle for the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer.

Almost singlehandedly, he is doing more than enough to destroy any credibility they may receive.

I've already talked about how he tried to take down SPLC's list of 10 anti-gay myths last week and got smacked down hard.

And then there was his interview with David Pakman yesterday which only can be described as a slow moving trainwreck of homophobia.

But today, according to People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch, Fischer actually tops his past displays of anti-gay lunacy.

You see today, Fischer took the time to respond to SPLC's smackdown of his lies from last week. This how he did it:

By writing a new post accusing the SPLC of engaging in the "propagation of known falsehoods" about homosexuality ... and simply restating the very same points that the SPLC had already debunked

You got that? Fischer merely repeated the same lies he told last week, the same lies the SPLC refuted.

It's as if he stuck his fingers in his ears to drown out all of the information that he didn't want to hear.

I think I need to clear things with "national headquarters." Maybe there is a secret memo proving Fischer to actually be a spy working on our side.

It's either that explanation or the plain fact that he is simply a homophobic dunderhead.




Bookmark and Share

Family Research Council reveals itself to be the big rat and other Thursday midday news briefs

Scott Brown supports DADT repeal, and it's not a question of 'time' - Hot dog! After Senator Olympia Snowe also indicated that she will sign on too.  So get cracking Senators, we are almost there!

FRC questions pro-equality side's humanity; we no longer question irony's mortality - Forget being nice and go straight to the hyperbole about those "evil homosexuals." Doesn't the Family Research Council remind you of the main villain from that Disney movie "The Great Mouse Detective"? He spends the entire movie trying to deny that he is a rat, pretending to be a highly cultured mastermind. But the end when his evil plans are thwarted, he says to hell with it and embraces the stinky, nasty rat that he is.

Gohmert: Without DADT, Military Stands to Lose Thousands and US Will Reach the “End of its Existence as a Great Nation” - Congressional representative Louis Gohmert (of the gaping hole) shows why he readily signed on to FRC's silly attack on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

An Answer to LaBarbera’s Challenge to the SPLC - Meanwhile, Box Turtle Bulletin answers Porno Pete LaBarbera absolutely stupid question he posed last weekend - i.e. "if homosexuality and pedophilia aren't connected, then why are so many victims of pedophiles little boys?" LaBarbera got that question from the Book of Idiotic, Ignorant Questions. The one on the page next to LaBarbera's question asked "why are serial killers almost always white men?"



Bookmark and Share

Religious right activist claims that gays stole the rainbow

According to a member of the religious right, us lgbts stole the rainbow and she wants to take it back.

From the American Family Association's One News Now:

An activist fighting for traditional marriage in California is urging Christians to reclaim the rainbow from homosexual-rights activists who have hailed the symbol as their icon of "gay" pride.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of the San Diego-based Ruth Institute rightly argues that the rainbow is a sign of God's covenant with man, and she says proponents of Proposition 8 -- California's measure that passed in 2008 to define marriage as between a man and a woman -- are the original "rainbow coalition."

"Proposition 8 was passed by a great grassroots coalition that included people from all across the religious traditions, and also people of every race and color," Morse recognizes. "We are the real rainbow coalition. The gay lobby does not own the rainbow."

 Let's look at the history of the rainbow in the lgbt community. According to Wikipedia:

The rainbow flag was popularized in 1978 by San Francisco artist Gilbert Baker, during the Gay Freedom Day Parade (though the association between rainbows and the LGBT community existed before 1978).

The multi-colored flag represents diversity, and hence acceptance of those different from us.

The original flag had pink and turquoise in it, but the colors were taken out because of dye unavailability. As it stands, there are six colors on the Pride Flag, each standing for a specific symbol chosen by Baker:

red: life
orange: healing
yellow: sunlight
green: nature
blue: serenity
violet: spirit

It may seem like a silly matter but don't let the triviality of the situation blind you to what's going on here. Morse's claim that we somehow stole something from Christians is in line with her later comments:
"We can't simply let that go by. Families put rainbows in their children's nurseries. Little Christian preschools will have rainbows...

Here is my question - don't lgbts have families? Don't we have children? Don't our children go to preschools and nurseries? Don't we come from every race, creed, and religious tradition?

I think Morse isn't necessarily upset that we have taken the rainbow symbol. I think it has more to do with the fact that the lgbt community will not accept the role that she has designated for us.

To Morse (and no doubt others who agree with her), we don't have a right to certain things, be they symbols of unity and love or families in general, because we don't deserve them. To Morse, lgbts are the eternal outsiders, the freaks, the people who will never fit in no matter how we try.

Perhaps Morse would be happier if we walked about angry and depressed, constantly asking folks like her for their "tolerance" or "pity."

Sorry, but the days of the self-hating lgbt who roams the outskirts of proper society in a depressed haze is on its way out of the door and definitely not fast enough.

So while Morse is correct in saying that the lgbt community doesn't own the rainbow, none of us ever said we did.  But she doesn't own the rainbow either. Nor does anyone else on her side of the spectrum.

Therefore, I would suggest that Morse learns to share. And not just the rainbow either because the concept of family isn't something that belongs solely to her either.



Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Family Research Council's 'we are not a hate group' campaign gets destroyed on two fronts

Step 1 of the DADT stand alone repeal is done. Now the Senate needs to do their job - however long it takes.

This morning, the Family Research Council announced a huge campaign complete with full page ads in Politico and the Washington Examiner attacking the Southern Poverty Law Center for "daring" to call them and other religious right groups out on their anti-gay propaganda and deceptions.

FRC trumpeted the fact that over 20 Congressional leaders and conservatives gave their support to the campaign.

By this afternoon, both FRC and those Congressional leaders may want to do a rewind for two reasons.

First, the Southern Poverty Law Center issued a what can only be described as devastating response to the campaign. This is my favorite part:

Despite the claims made in today’s statement, the SPLC’s listings are not in any way intended to suppress these groups’ free speech. We’re not asking that these groups be silenced or punished in any way. What we are doing is calling them out for their lies. There is nothing wrong with labeling an organization a hate group based on what they say. A simple example illustrates the point: If a neo-Nazi group said all Jews are “vermin,” no one would argue with our characterizing it as a hate group.

Neither are we mounting an attack on individuals or “groups that uphold Judeo-Christian moral views,” as today’s statement suggests. In fact, as we say in our article dissecting the views of these groups, “Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.” Instead, as we explained there, “the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling.”

The second reason is a bit more practical.

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association (one of the groups SPLC named as an anti-gay hate group) had a radio interview today on the David Pakman Show and in less than 30 minutes, he proceeded to totally wreck any claims by the FRC that religious right groups don't peddle anti-gay hatred through junk science and propaganda, giving new meaning to idea of giving someone enough rope to hang themselves:





Among the highlights according to David Pakman:

“The Southern Poverty Law Center belongs on its own list [of hate groups]...for peddling falsehoods about homosexuality”

“We're the ones telling the truth about the link between homosexuality and pedophilia.”

“Active participation in the homosexual lifestyle will deprive a male of anywhere between 8 and 20 years of his life expectancy” - a Paul Cameron lie.

“There is ‘no such thing as a monogamous homosexual relationship’”

“The rectal wall is one cell thick” - now Fischer is quoting Paul Cameron almost verbatim.

“We need to take our cue from gay porn actors”

“Those homosexual activists that are so intent on normalizing homosexual behavior...they must be harboring some deep seated longing to be straight”

“...homosexual activists must be latently heterosexual”

It's funny except for the fact that over 20 Congressional leaders signed a letter saying that this sort of thing isn't hatred but an example of "Judeo-Christian" moral views.

Whatever you do, don't tell Jesus. I think He may get rather upset over this.



Bookmark and Share

Family Research Council's anti-SPLC campaign places bullseye on the backs of Republican leaders

Those organizations either named as anti-gay hate groups or profiled for their tendency to defame the lgbt community via lies are running scared.

From People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch:

Today, FRC announced that it was running this open letter [PDF] in both Politico and The Washington Examiner and that the effort had the support of dozens of Republican members of Congress and conservative leaders:
Family Research Council (FRC) announced the placement of a full-page open letter in today's print editions of Politico and the Washington Examiner responding to the Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) recent attacks on FRC and other groups.

SPLC has targeted FRC and other organizations that uphold Judeo-Christian moral views, including marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The open letter, signed by more than 150 organizational leaders, Members of Congress and other elected officials, calls for a "vigorous but responsible exercise of the First Amendment rights of free speech and religious liberty that are the birthright of all Americans."

The open letter was signed by many current and former elected and government officials including Speaker-designate John Boehner, Majority Leader-elect Eric Cantor, U.S. Reps Mike Pence (R-IN), Michele Bachmann (R-MN), John Carter (R-TX), John Fleming (R-LA,) Trent Franks (R-AZ), Louie Gohmert (R-TX,) Gregg Harper (R-MS), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Steve King (R-IA,) Don Manzullo (R-IL), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Peter Roskam (R-LA), Lamar Smith (R-TX,) Steve Scalise (R-LA,) Fred Upton (R-MI), U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R-SC), Jim Inhofe (R-OK,) David Vitter (R-LA), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Sam Brownback (Gov.-elect, Kansas), Governor Bobby Jindal, former Governor Mike Huckabee, Governor Tim Pawlenty, former Senator Rick Santorum, Edwin Meese III, former Attorney General of the United States, and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

Those look like some pretty heavy hitters, don't they? Personally I am not impressed. The vast majority if not all of these individuals have been very vocal with their tendency to stigmatize the lgbt community whether it be Mike Huckabee with his insults to lgbt households, Tim Pawlenty via his unnecessary and coldhearted vetoing of a bill that would allow same sex partners to make end-of-life decisions for their partners, or Jim DeMint who doesn't believe in the hiring of any gay teachers.

But it would seem to me that FRC, through its need to deny the obvious (that its hate group status does not come from upholding "Judeo-Christian" moral beliefs but its desire to smear the lgbt community via lies and junk science) have now expanded the bullseye placed on its back by the Southern Poverty Law Center  to include Congressional leaders who have signed this madness.

If the lgbt community and our allies are smart, we would communicate with any and all of these Congressional leaders via email, phone, or whatever and ask:

Congressman or Congresswoman so-and-so,

Do you really stand with groups who proclaim that:

•Gays should be exported from the country;

•The federal government must be overthrown if it allows gay marriage;

•"Moral perverts" need to be kept out of the military;

•There is nothing "conservative" about "one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it 'love'";

•Homosexual behavior ought to be outlawed;

•Gay sex ought to carry criminal penalties;

•Gays ought to be prohibited from serving in public office;

•Gay sex is domestic terrorism;

•"Hitler recruited around him homosexuals to make up his Stormtroopers ... [because] homosexual soldiers basically had no limits [to] the savagery and brutality they were willing to inflict."

Or how about organizations who will intentionally cite discredited research in order to smear lgbts the same way the Klan cites FBI statistics to smear African-Americans?

We need those questions continuously until we either receive an answer or, at the very least, send a message to these leaders that maybe they should know all of the facts behind a situation before interjecting themselves into it.

For another good list to ask Congressional leaders about, go to:

FRC's 'Start Debating, Stop Hating' effort: Let's look at some of those aligned debaters, shall we?



Bookmark and Share

Tasteless youtube video = wingnut wetdream

Christmas is a holiday which should bring out the best in all of us, but with the annual "War on Christmas" moral panics (thank you Fox News and religious right), some folks have decided to show their asses.

And what better way to show your ass than to feature a video showcasing the worst of wingnut fantasies, including homophobia, Islamophobia, racism (what did you think that crack about diversity meant anyway), and lies about Nativity scenes all to the tune of "The 12 Days of Christmas."



Some folks may find this video hilarious due to its ignorance. There is even of segment of folks who may actually like it.

But I for one am confused. Just when did the season of "Peace on Earth, good will towards men" become one of unabashed nastiness?

Hat tip to Goodasyou.org



Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Newsweek poses the question about the African-American and lgbt civil rights movements

I hate talking about this comparison because it makes me feel like a piece of rope in a tug of war. But Newsweek is taking an interesting look at how the lgbt civil rights movement compares to the African-American civil rights movement:

Four months before Rosa Parks refused to vacate her bus seat to a white man in 1955, she attended a retreat at the Highlander center in Tennessee, where she took a workshop alongside blacks and whites on school desegregation. More than a half century later, the Highlander center is still training soldiers in the fight for equal rights. Only now the battleground has shifted. Last January, four dozen gay and lesbian activists gathered for a center retreat overlooking the Smoky Mountains to get inspiration on how they could show—not just tell—America that their rights are being violated.

But how? There are no “heterosexuals only” Woolworth counters where gays and lesbians can protest segregation; even Woolworth itself is long gone from the U.S. “We needed to create the urgency and critical mass to stop the injustice towards our community,” says Robin McGehee, a mother of two and cofounder of the civil-disobedience group that was formed during those five days in Tennessee, called GetEQUAL. “What are our lunch-counter images?”

More here

Before BOTH groups get defensive and start yanking and pulling me and the rest of mine (i.e. lgbts of color), allow me to throw out some thoughts You can either take or leave these thoughts, but they are MY observations.


To the African-American community - Yes the lgbt civil rights movement is the same as the African-American civil rights movement.  Just because the conditions of injustices are different do not make the injustices more palatable. Remember before you throw out Bible verses against the lgbt community that Bible verses were used to justify slavery and segregation. You should be flattered that lgbts are copying the work done in the 50s and 60s just like African-Americans back then copied the work of Gandhi. You see, no one group has the patent when it comes to fighting for their rights.

To the lgbt community - Gay is NOT the new black. And don't ever say some dumb shit like that ever again. It's counterproductive and it keeps you from educating yourself on the nuances of the African-American struggle. Yes the struggle for lgbt equality is similar to the African-American civil rights movement, but that does not mean it excuses you from taking into account the different nuances between the two. And above all, stop making it sound so simplistic. Marching was only part of the story. Behind each march was a plan  as to how said march would affect the movement as a whole, which proves that marching alone without a game plan will get you nowhere. And remember that you all don't have to get along. Goodness knows those working in the African-American civil rights movement didn't. But they learned to work together. Educate yourselves on how this was done.


To both communities - As an lgbt of color I have to say from the heart that BOTH of  y'all are getting on my damn nerves. The irony is that lgbts and African-Americans are similar in terms of history. If you would stop fighting, you would learn this.  Also don't ignore the ignore the needs of lgbts of color in your community. Don't assume to know who we are or what we want. Ask us. Lastly,  as an lgbt of color, let me say that I will NOT make a choice between my racial heritage and my sexual identity. I embrace both. But when I feel that the lgbt community is wrong, I will say so. And that  also goes for the black community.

I am not a commodity, I am person who is uncompromisingly black and unapologetically gay.  Deal with it.



Bookmark and Share

Men kicked out of New Zealand town for allegedly 'being gay' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Portrait of dissension developing at Castro Camera - I DO NOT like division in the lgbt community because it takes away energy and attention away from our true enemies on the right. But Jeremy Hooper has a point with why there is underlaying tension against the Human Rights Campaign.

NH High School Student Traumatized By Book On Income Inequality - So a student is so "traumatized" by a description of Jesus in the book that he has to be home-schooled. I'm sorry but seeing that he is defended by a group - Focus on the Family - who makes it their mission to keep pro-lgbt literature from schools, I find it hard to sympathize with the high school student.

Colorado: First Openly Gay Latina Supreme Court Justice Sworn In - This is SO cool!

Men allegedly order "gay" pair out of town - A nasty hot mess in New Zealand.

DMV employee in transgender privacy case suspended - From what I understand, this was the second time he committed this offense. He should have been fired.





Bookmark and Share

Rachel Maddow connects Ugandan homophobia to American group 'The Family'

Last week, I posted a clip of an interview that Rachel Maddow conducted with David Bahati. Bahati is the member of Ugandan Parliament who is heavily pushing the infamous "kill the gays" bill.

Today, I am posting the final part of the interview in which Maddow connects Bahati to a group in America called The Family. Its a stunning interview:



Related post:

Rachel Maddow gives anti-gay Ugandan enough rope to hang himself 


Bookmark and Share

Monday, December 13, 2010

Religious right leader admits to using bad research to demonize gay community, sees nothing wrong with it

If you want the quintessential fact why the Southern Poverty Law Center is correct in calling out certain religious right organizations for their anti-gay bias, check out this portion of an interview between members of two of these groups -  Peter LaBarbera, head of Americans for Truth and Martha Kleder of the Concerned Women for America:




Transcript:
Kleder: One of the things I've also noticed is that the SPLC seems to be riled by the fact . . . uh . . . if they don't particularly like your source that you document then you must be a hate group.
LaBarbera: Paul Cameron.
Kleder:  Yeah.

LaBarbera: They say if you cite Paul Cameron, then you are a hater. I mean that's ridiculous. You know there is a researcher who just came out and found that Paul Cameron's work on the greater likelihood of homosexual adoptive parents to have . . . for the child to emerge as a homosexual. He confirmed Cameron's thesis. You don't have to agree with everything Paul Cameron ever did but how proposterous to say that citing a researcher . . Paul Cameron's work has been published in peer-reviewed journals. What they've done, Martha is set up these criteria and then you violate them,  they call you a hate group, and then they have their little echo chamber on the left which reports their charge. And of course the media, which really doesn't like us anyway. The media is very pro-gay, they cite us and so it begins to take a life of its own.

One of the main reasons why religious right groups (i.e. Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, The Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, etc.) have been profiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups is because of their repeated citings of the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron. They use his work to spread propaganda about lgbts.

'Porno' Pete LaBarbera accuses SPLC of using 'shoddy ' research

As you all may have already guessed, I am home from work today recovering from a nasty bout with a cold. But leave it to folks on the religious right to warm up my temperature. After all, it is said that heat reduces a cold.

This war that members of the religious right are waging against the Southern Poverty Law Center is reaching the point of pitiful absurdity. Earlier today, I talked about the Family Research Council's ridiculous Start Debating, Stop Hating campaign designed to portray those designated as anti-gay groups  as victims.

But I think in the case of naked audacity, our friend "Porno" Pete LaBarbera takes the cake.  From the People for the American Way (who may start charging me for referring to them so many times) comes a interview between he and Martha Kleder from Concerned Women for America - an organization not named by SPLC as a hate group but was profiled nevertheless for its anti-gay bias..

During the interview, LaBarbera repeats the ridiculous and very much discredited idea that a man who molests a young boy is gay and therefore homosexuality and pedophilia are linked.

But that inaccuracy pales to his next comment:

We need to ask the new Congress to investigate the links of the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security to the SPLC. We know it's research is shoddy.

Family Research Council digging itself deeper in the hole in war against hate group label

If you want more proof of the Family Research Council's anti-gay bias, check out this exchange between organization members Tony Perkins and Peter Sprigg, courtesy of People for the American Way:

Perkins: So it's really an act of desperation. They've been on the defensive for slapping the label on the Family Research Council and there's some stuff coming out in the days ahead that is really going to push back and put them even more so on the defensive.

But let me zero in on some of the issues they bring up. As I stated earlier, it's all old stuff that's been out there for a long time, so it makes the timing of this very, very questionable. But one of the issues that seems to bother them the most, which I've had to debate now on a couple of TV programs, is the connection between - and this is what the social science, peer-reviewed data shows - a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. That seems to be a real problem for them.

Sprigg: Exactly. And yet it's important to spell out what we're saying and what we're not saying on that issue ...

Perkins: It's not what we're saying; it's what the social science professionals ... we take the date, we kind of break it down and communicate it to policy makers, but this is not research we've done.

Sprigg: Oh no, we've just surveyed the research that has been done. Although what's problematic is that a lot of time the researchers are unwilling to accept the logical conclusions of their own findings.

No doubt Sprigg is hinting on the complaints by researchers such as (Judith Stacey, John Horgan, Gary Remafedi, as well as many others) who have voiced objections on numerous occasions to the religious right groups - like FRC - distorting their work to push a phony notion that "homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle."

The Family Research Council tries to declare war on the Southern Poverty Law Center

Rumor control has it that the Family Research Council is taking its war against the Southern Poverty Law Center to another level.

FRC is supposedly launching a Start Debating, Stop Hating campaign designed to make it seem that SPLC is unfairly targeting the organization and other religious right groups for their stances against gay marriage.

For the record, SPLC is not targeting FRC nor any other religious right groups for their stances against gay marriage, but for their continued pushing of anti-gay falsehoods and propaganda which has been refuted more times than many of us have fingers to count.

But leave it to the Family Research Council make an attempt to obscure the issue.

On its webpage, FRC has a statement announcing the campaign. The organization is also inviting folks to sign its petition.

FRC's statement was nice but I felt that it needed work, therefore I made a few minor additions that I think puts proper perspective not only on FRC but the other organizations which were either named as hate groups or profiled.

Parts of FRC's statement are in bold and my "tweaking" is below each statement:

The surest sign one is losing a debate is to resort to character assassination.

" . . . hatred for men, which is very typical of a lesbian experience" - Kristi Hamrick,  October 16, 1996, Family Research Council web site.

"Homosexuals say they don't want the children, but boy they put a lot of energy into going after them." - Robert Knight of the Family Research Council writing in a Focus on the Family newsletter, quoted by People for the American Way, "Hostile Climate," 1997, p.15

"The homosexual rights movement has tried to distance itself from pedophilia, but only for public relations purposes." - "Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys," FRC publication, July 1999


Sunday, December 12, 2010

Peter LaBarbera's ramblings exposes the Family Research Council's deception

Leave it to Peter LaBarbera to unwittingly call the Family Research Council a liar.

LaBarbera is no doubt still smarting from his organization being called an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Now one of the main reasons why SPLC named LaBarbera's organization, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, as a hate group (as well as several other religious right groups) is because they continue to push many falsehoods about the lgbt community. One in particular is the notion that homosexuality and pedophilia are related. The SPLC said this is not true:

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.

The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.

However,  LaBarbera  in advertising his recent appearance on a Concerned Women for America radio program said the following:

I challenge the SPLC’s “hate” criterion chastising any group that says homosexuals are disproportionately involved in child molestation. (I ask why there are so many boy victims of pedophilia if homosexual men comprise such a tiny percentage of society; I assume few boys are molested by women.)

I won't even begin to ponder where LaBarbera looked to find the photo of the pedophilia magazine he used on his webpage to illustrate his point.

But I will point out that LaBarbera, who has absolutely no training in the field of pediatrics, child welfare, or the prevention of child sex abuse, seems to think that he is more skilled to make a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia than those who do have adequate training in these fields.  I think that the statement by the Southern Poverty Law Center (using the statements of legitimate groups and researchers) is more than enough to refute his nonsense.

But here is the thing that's interesting about LaBarbera's need to bring up pedophilia and homosexuality -  doesn't it contradict the recent whinings of the Family Research Council concerning SPLC's labeling of them and other religious right groups - LaBarbera's included - as hate groups?


FRC claims that SPLC is trying to "shut down the discussion" by labeling them simply because they stand the for the so-called "Judeo-Christian" definition of marriage:

The surest sign one is losing a debate is to resort to character assassination. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal fundraising machine whose tactics have been condemned by observers across the political spectrum, is doing just that.

The group, which was once known for combating racial bigotry, is now attacking several groups that uphold Judeo-Christian moral views, including marriage as the union of a man and a woman. 

I fail to see how the covert labeling of gay men as pedophiles aligns with "Judeo-Christian moral views." But if the inaccurate linking of homosexuality and pedophilia isn't a huge part of this controversy, then why did LaBarbera feel the need to bring it up?

The lgbt community owes LaBarbera a degree of thanks for his ignorant stridency. He has proved that FRC's claim is merely a talking point designed to obscure and deceive.

Make no mistake about it. SPLCs' designation has nothing to do with gay marriage and more to do with groups passing along propaganda and lies under the guise of Christianity. It's not about trying to shut down "Judeo-Christian" beliefs and more to do with exposing those who would exploit these beliefs to cage the lgbt community or make us pariahs to ourselves and the mainstream community at large.

This issue is about bearing false witness, an ugly sin but one which FRC and other religious right groups  - LaBarbera's included - are committing with unrestrained glee.




Bookmark and Share