Thursday, August 25, 2011

Eddie Long's accusers speak out even after settlement

From one of my online buddies, Rod 2.0 Beta comes the news that two of the men who accused Atlanta pastor Eddie Long of sexual coercion are coming forward, even after settling the case for an undisclosed huge amount of money. Why are they coming forward? Just watch the video:



Related posts:

Anti-gay pastor Eddie Long's fifth accuser in lawsuit

Eddie Long scandal underscores failure of the black church

Eddie Long scandal - Chronology of what has happened and where we are now  


Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

The Family Research Council will continue to lie even after GLSEN embarrassment

No matter how the Family Research Council tries to spin the controversy regarding GLSEN's cease-and-desist letter, it will remain as a well-deserved kick in the organization's ego.

I don't know what's worse for FRC - the fact that it quietly reshot the accusatory video or throughout the entire situation, it has given no comment thereby giving credibility to the belief that the organization knew that it had lied on GLSEN.

No doubt about it, this embarrassment proves that FRC does deserve its hate group status given by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

My guess is that the organization will continue to dodge the GLSEN controversy and continue to lie on the gay community. And I know this by looking on its webpage.

In the section of FRC's site talking about Human Sexuality, the organization is pushing a brochure written by Peter (gays should be exported out of the United States) Sprigg called The Top Ten Myths about Homosexuality.

Of course the brochure is junk. I wrote on it last year and I said the following:

According to Sprigg:

The homosexual movement is built, not on facts or research, but on mythology. Unfortunately, these myths have come to be widely accepted in society—particularly in schools, universities and the media. It is our hope that by understanding what these key myths are—and then reading a brief summary of the evidence against them—the reader will be empowered to challenge these myths when he or she encounters them.

According to Sprigg, these "myths" include the following:

  • People are born gay.
  • Sexual orientation can never change.
  •  Homosexuals do not experience a higher level of psychological disorders than heterosexuals.
  • Homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals.

At first glance, Ten Myths looks legitimate. However, a more intensive look reveals it to be a mishmash of inaccurate theories, cherry-picked work, and studies taken out of context created to justify homophobia

The following are just a few of the problems with Ten Myths:

1. Ten Myths repeats the lie that the Robert Spitzer study proves that homosexuality is changeable, excluding the fact that Spitzer has said on more than one occasion that his research was being distorted.

2. Ten Myths utilizes the work of  the organization National Association for  Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). The website Truth Wins Out calls NARTH  a discredited “ex-gay” fringe organization that peddles fraudulent “cures” for homosexuality.

According to Truth Wins Out, several NARTH members have been embroiled in controversies including:


Gerald Schoenwolf, PhD, a member of NARTH’ “Scientific Advisory Committee,” who wrote a piece on the group’s website that seemed to justify slavery

NARTH psychiatrist Joseph Berger, MD, another member of its “Scientific Advisory Committee,” who wrote a paper encouraging students to “ridicule” gender variant children.

Also, according to Truth Wins Out:

NARTH’ co-founder, Joesph Nicolosi encourages male clients to become more masculine by drinking Gatorade and referring to friends as “dude”. NARTH therapists have been known to practice rubber band therapy, where a gay client is made to wear a rubber band and snap it on his wrist when sexually stimulated. It is a mild form of aversion therapy meant to “snap” the client out of the moment of attraction. NARTH members have also been known to practice “touch therapy”, where a client sits in the therapist’ lap for up to an hour, while the therapist caresses him.

Earlier this year, another member of NARTH, George Rekers, resigned from the organization after caught coming from a vacation overseas with a "rentboy."

3. Ten Myths cites Ex-gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A Yarhouse as proof that people can change their sexual orientation. However in 2009, the American Psychological Association repudiated this study for bad methodology. Furthermore, Ten Myths does not address the conclusion by the APA last year that programs created to change a person's several orientation does not work.

4. Ten Myths pushes the inaccuracy that a man who molests a boy is automatically gay even though the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America, all say that the homosexuality and pedophilia are not linked

5. But the most egregious inaccuracy in Ten Myths - and also something that says a lot about the mindset of its author, Peter Sprigg - is the following passage:

Even the pro-homosexual Gay & Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) acknowledges:

• “Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population . . .”
• “Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate . . . .”
• “ . . . [G]ay men have higher rates of alcohol dependence and abuse . . . .”
• “ . . . [G]ay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men . . . .”
• “Problems with body image are more common among gay men . . . and gay men are much more likely to experience an eating disorder . . . .”

The GLMA also confirms that:

• “ . . . [L]esbians may use tobacco and smoking products more often than heterosexual women use them.”
• “Alcohol use and abuse may be higher among lesbians.”
• “ . . . [L]esbians may use illicit drugs more often than heterosexual women.”

Homosexual activists generally attempt to explain these problems as results of “homophobic discrimination.” However, there is a serious problem with that theory—there is no empirical evidence that such psychological problems are greater in areas where disapproval of homosexuality is more intense.

So Sprigg's point is that the lgbt orientation itself is indicative of negative behaviors (i.e. drug and alcohol abuse) and not the homophobia that lgbts face.

But strange enough, the source which he cites - the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association - says that homophobia is the reason for many of these health problems. Sprigg deliberately omits information pointing this out:

Sprigg:

“Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate . . . .”

GMLA:

Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population. The likelihood of depression or anxiety may be greater, and the problem may be more severe for those men who remain in the closet or who do not have adequate social supports. Adolescents and young adults may be at particularly high risk of suicide because of these concerns.

Sprigg:

“ . . . [L]esbians may use illicit drugs more often than heterosexual women.

GMLA:

Research indicates that lesbians may use illicit drugs more often than heterosexual women. This may be due to added stressors in lesbian lives from discrimination. Lesbians need support from each other and from health care providers to find healthy releases, quality recreation, stress reduction, and coping techniques.

So what does this prove? It proves that FRC will freely lie on the gay community until it gets caught. And then most likely it will try to dodge the controversy.

What can the gay community do about this? We continue to expose them. We continue to not only remind people that FRC is a hate group, but we also remind them why FRC is a hate group. We remind people of things like the GLSEN controversy and Sprigg's homophobic comments every chance we get.

No matter how much money or influence FRC may have. No matter how many networks its spokespeople can appear on. No matter how large its mailing list may be, the simple fact of the matter is that the truth is on our side.

And sometimes, truth is all you need.


Bookmark and Share

Huffington Post taking serious look at NOM's disclosure violations and other Wednesday midday news briefs

National Organization For Marriage Repeatedly Rebuked For Disclosure Violations - This is BIG. The Huffington Post is taking a serious look at NOM's disclosure violations. About time too. My writing arm was getting tired.

MEMO: Circumventing campaign finance law for donor secrecy
- And if you want a detailed history of which states NOM has tried to dodge disclosure laws, go here.

NOM's featured press conference speaker: 'There is a direct connection between earthquakes and homosexuality' - Sorry for the third NOM-related item but this is a hoot. A NOM affiliated rabbi blames the gay community for yesterday's earthquakes.

NJ School District Pulls Gay-Themed Books From Summer Reading List - Their explanation was that their aim is not causing controversy but getting students to read. They failed on the first point but I bet they have succeeded on the second.

INDIANA: Male Hooker Hiring Lawmaker Won't Resign, Says "I'm Not Gay!" - That's like saying "I'm not gay. But those annoying parts of my body are."


Bookmark and Share

GLSEN forces Family Research Council to change fraudulent video

Last week, GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network) issued a cease-and-desist letter via its attorneys to the Family Research Council "demanding that FRC cease distribution and publication of a video clip containing false and defamatory statements about GLSEN, as well as any other similar false and defamatory statements that may be contained in a longer video associated with that video clip."

The cease-and-desist letter has to do a video in which Tony Perkins, head of FRC, and Brian Camenker, head of the Massachusetts anti-gay group Mass Resistance claimed that GLSEN and the Massachusetts Public Schools distributed an explicit safe-sex guide called The Little Black Book to fifth to ninth graders at a conference in 2005.

This story had been debunked by several groups, including Media Matters .

If one were to look at the video now, he/she would see the following:





The new video (seen below) does not say that GLSEN had anything to do with distributing The Little Black Book. However it continues to refer to Brian Camenker regarding GLSEN and repeats the nonsense regarding "Fistgate," a controversy which Camenker played a huge role in.




To get the true story on "Fistgate," click on the link. Needless to say the controversy, like the original claim about The Little Black Book which FRC was forced to take back, is a lie.

I should also mention that Camenker's group, Mass Resistance, is also Southern Poverty Law Center declared hate group, just like FRC.

The bottom line is this - why should anyone believe any claim about GLSEN coming from FRC?  The organization's reponse to GLSEN's cease-and-desist letter clearly showed that it erred (intentionally?) in its claims about GLSEN and The Little Black Book.

And FRC didn't even have the good Christian grace to apologize. Instead the organization takes the tone of "we may have been wrong about that charge, but these new charges prove our point."

Not true, FRC.  Your repeated attacks on GLSEN only prove yourself to be a homophobic, lying  group hiding behind the mask of Christian integrity.

A killer wearing the facial skin of his victim would look better than you right now.


Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Poor study used to defend DOMA gets worse

Earlier today, I mentioned how Speaker of the House John Boehner's hired team of lawyers was using bad research to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court.

I zeroed in on a poor study, No Difference?: An Analysis of Same-Sex Parenting. which was a part of the team's documentation. This study, written by George Dent, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, contained many errors, including citing the work of discredited researchers such as Paul Cameron and George Rekers.

I also made note that the Dent's study also cited work from the American College of Pediatricians, a group designed to pass along anti-gay junk science as fact.

In fact, I said the following about Dent's citation of ACP material:

The particular study by the ACP cited by Dent, Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time for Change?, is filled with several errors which I talked about two years ago, including:

1. Outdated work

2. Extreme distortion of studies not meant by to used to gauge the effects of same-sex parenting.

3. And researcher complaints.

In citing Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time for Change?, Dent tries to pull a double deception. Not only does he cite this poor study done by ACP, but he actually takes some of the individual bad work from the study and cites it on its own throughout his study in general.

It is here that I want to go into more detail.

As I said before, not only does Dent cite the study cited by ACP, but he also pulls out material from the study and cites it in other parts of his own study, thereby becoming guilty of the same errors committed by the ACP, including:

1. Outdated sources - Both the ACP study and Dent's study cite the following two references as proof that gay couples are more apt to be less faithful:

David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: how relationships develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984)

A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: a study of diversity among men and women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978)

But neither study can be used to generalize about the gay community. The authors of The Male Couple said:

“We always have been very careful to explain that the very nature of our research sample, its size (156 couples), its narrow geographic location, and the natural selectiveness of the participants prevents the findings from being applicable and generalizable to the entire gay male community.”

A passage in Homosexualities clearly says:

“. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”


2. Extreme distortion of studies not meant by to used to gauge the effects of same-sex parenting -  Both the ACP study and Dent's study cite the following study to claim that gay men cannot be monogamous and are not good child rearers:

Maria Xiridou et al., The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection in Amsterdam (Editor's note - Dent made an error in giving the name of this study in his paper. He called it Maria Xiridou et al., The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection in America. This is inaccurate because the study took place in Amsterdam. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here.)

From this study, both ACP and Dent claimed - men in these partnerships had an average of eight casual partners per year.

But the Xiridou study only looked at casual relationships between gay men. It had nothing to do with the lesbian population and certainly nothing to do with children in lgbt households. Xiridou's study was designed to "access the relative contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam and to determine the effect of increasing sexually risky behaviours among both types of partnerships in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy."
 
For this study, Dr. Xiridou received her information from the Amsterdam Cohort Study of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and AIDS Among Homosexual Men.

Xiridou's study cannot even be used gauge an effect of marriage equality because the researchers conducting the Amsterdam Cohort Study of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and AIDS Among Homosexual Men studied 1,800 gay men between the years of 1984- 2001.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands in 2001.  Wouldn't that make her study useless for defending DOMA?

3. Researcher complaints - Both the ACP study and Dent's study cites the work of Dr. Judith Stacey and Dr. Kyle Pruett. On several occasions, both Stacey and Pruett have complained about how their work has been distorted by the religious right to demonize the gay community.

Keeping all of this in mind, I have a question:

How much are we (the taxpayers) paying for this mess?



Bookmark and Share

Bigot claims that gay 'gyrating nude bodies' will ruin America and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Boehner's DOMA defense contains junk science, bad sources

Government's defense of DOMA contains references to the work of Paul Cameron and George Rekers

Yesterday, it was discovered that one of the experts,  Professor Lisa Diamond, cited by Speaker of the House John Boehner's legal team in their defense of DOMA complained that her work was being distorted.

Boehner's team is defending DOMA against Edie Windsor, an 81-year-old woman suing the federal government for not recognizing her union with her late partner.

The portion having to do with Lisa Diamond's work is in documentation provided by the lawyer chosen to defend DOMA, Paul Clement (see the documentation here.) Clement is using this documentation as an attempt to get the case dismissed and for the judge to deny Windsor's motion for summary judgment.

Diamond's complaint is detrimental to this pursuit.  But I think I have found another potentially huge problem.

There is a portion of Clement's documentation which bears much scrutiny. It is the section called "Plaintiff Misstates the Science on Same-Sex Parenting" and it is a huge mess.

Part of this section (pg. 24) cites George W. Dent, Jr., No Difference?: An Analysis of Same-Sex Parenting.

Dent is a law professor at Case Western Reserve University who has written many negative papers on marriage equality and homosexuality in general. In the paper cited by Boehner's legal team, he pulls out all of the stops to make the case that same-sex parenting is inferior to heterosexual parenting, even the citing of  folklore:

Every child with homosexual guardians has lost at least one biological parent. Loss of a parent is universally regarded as a great misfortune. If the child has one biological parent, the other adult is a step-parent. In fables step-parents are typically hostile to their step-children.

If you pardon me for being so bold, anyone who takes Dent's paper as credible is dealing in folklore themselves. There are several problems with it including:

On page four, Dent cites both Paul Cameron and George Rekers, both discredited researchers. Cameron has been censured or rebuked by several organizations for his bad methodology in his studies and Rekers lost a lot of credibility for last year's scandal when he was caught coming from a European vacation with a "rentboy."

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

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

Furthermore, in 2008, Rekers and Schumm testified for Florida's gay adoption ban. The judge overseeing the case, Cindy Lederman, criticized both of them. She said about Rekers:

"(His) testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers' beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court cannot consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy."

And about Schumm, she said:

" (He) integrates his religious and ideological beliefs into his research," citing several of his writings, including one with Rekers, in which a theological argument against homosexuality is offered."

Regarding Cameron, Dent's paper not only cites him directly, but also indirectly.

On page 13, Dent cites a book called Straight & Narrow by Thomas E. Schmidt to make criticisms about gay health. However, Schmidt is not a credible researcher in the field of gay health. He is a professor of New Testament Greek at Westmont College in Santa Barbara and according to Rev. Mel White of the group Soulforce, Schmidt cited Cameron's discredited studies many times in Straight & Narrow (5th letter to Jerry Falwell.)

Another huge problem with Dent's paper is on page 16 when it cites a paper by the American College of Pediatricians (Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time for Change?).

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

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

The particular study by the ACP cited by Dent, Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time for Change?, is filled with several errors which I talked about two years ago, including:

1. Outdated work

2. Extreme distortion of studies not meant by to used to gauge the effects of same-sex parenting.

3. And researcher complaints.

In citing Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time for Change?, Dent tries to pull a double deception. Not only does he cite this poor study done by ACP, but he actually takes some of the individual bad work from the study and cites it on its own throughout his study in general.

One has to wonder what other "surprises" Boehner's defense of DOMA contains. They may not be accurate but they are certainly entertaining.

Related post: 

Why is Boehner using distorted work to defend DOMA?




Bookmark and Share

Monday, August 22, 2011

Why is Boehner using distorted work to defend DOMA?

Usually, I try to point out how the religious right distorts credible research. Imagine my surprised today when an online buddy of mine, Joe Sudbay from Americablog Gay, came up with this tidbit about U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner's attempts to defend DOMA:

As we've reported, Edie's lawyers have moved to strike much of the documentation provided by John Boehner's legal team, led by Paul Clement. As expected, Clement objected. He wants all those documents and articles entered into evidence. He's conducting this case like he's arguing before the Supreme Court. But, this is a trial court.

Today, Edie's lawyers responded. They submitted the affadavit, posted below, of Professor Lisa Diamond, one of the authors cited by Boehner's lawyers.

(You can find BLAG's cites to Diamond on pages 10 -11 of the document posted here.)

In what amounts to a legal bombshell, Diamond maintains that Boehner's crack legal team misconstrued and distorted her writings. She stated, "They have completely misrepresented my research."

From the Reply Memo filed today:
Professor Lisa Diamond, the author of two of the academic articles Plaintiff seeks to strike, has submitted an affidavit testifying that BLAG has in fact distorted her research and that she never would have agreed to testify to the propositions BLAG has advanced in its papers. It is hard to imagine a more concrete example of why the materials submitted by BLAG are not reliable. Had BLAG followed the rules and used as expert witnesses any of the authors it cites (as contemplated by the May 11 Scheduling Order), and had Plaintiff’s counsel then had the opportunity to depose them, Plaintiff would have been able to obtain similarly damaging testimony from them as well.
How can anything else Clement wrote in his brief be trusted? He's trying to play by his own rules. But, even the "esteemed" Paul Clement can't just make things up

Here is the interesting part about Diamond. She is a member of my list of 11 physicians and researchers who have complained about how the religious right and their allies distort their work.

According to Truth Wins Out:

Lisa M. Diamond, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Psychology and Gender Studies in the Department of Psychology at the University of Utah. She has won a number of awards for her work. In 2000, Dr. Diamond published a study, “Sexual identity, attractions, and behavior among young sexual minority women over a 2 year period.” This study was distorted by The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). The anti-gay organization falsely claimed that Dr. Diamond’s work shows that sexual orientation is “amenable to change.”

Dr. Diamond also produced a second study, “Female Bisexuality From Adolescence to Adulthood: Results From a 10-Year Longitudinal Study” in Developmental Psychology (2008, Vol. 44, No 1., 5-14). NARTH recently cited this study to support its anti-scientific belief that homosexuality is a mental disorder that should be treated. Truth Wins Out informed Dr. Diamond about these misrepresentations of her research, and she agreed to discuss how her work was manipulated:




If you go to the Americablog Gay page to read Diamond's affadavit, you will find Boehner's team distorted her study the same way in which NARTH did, i.e. making the case that sexual orientation can change.

Which leads me to ask a simple question - just who is Boehner and Clement working with to preserve DOMA?  I sincerely hope that they aren't working with NARTH.

You are familiar with NARTH, aren't you? That's the same discredited organization responsible so much inaccurate information about the gay community. Again from Truth Wins Out:

NARTH relies on outdated studies and frequently confuses stereotypes with science. Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, for example, often tells audiences that people are gay because they have a rift with a same-sex parent or a have domineering opposite sex parent. It has been decades since any serious scientific body subscribed to these views and there is no contemporary research to uphold these anachronistic theories. Yet, NARTH’ co-founder Dr. Joseph Nicolosi repeats the empty mantra, “We advise fathers, if you don’t hug your sons, some other man will.”

 . . . NARTH also has bizarre theories, such as encouraging male clients who drink Gatorade and call their friends “dude,” because this will supposedly make them more masculine. Dr. Nicolosi also espouses the bizarre idea that, “Non-homosexual men who experience defeat and failure may also experience homosexual fantasies or dreams.”

In 2006, NARTH had a meltdown after two major controversies. In the first, psychiatrist Joseph Berger, MD, a member of their “Scientific Advisory Committee,” wrote a paper encouraging students to “ridicule” gender variant children. “I suggest, indeed, letting children who wish go to school in clothes of the opposite sex–but not counseling other children to not tease them or hurt their feelings,” Dr. Berger wrote on NARTH’s website. “On the contrary, don’t interfere, and let the other children ridicule the child who has lost that clear boundary between play-acting at home and the reality needs of the outside world. Maybe, in this way, the child will re-establish that necessary boundary.”

In the second controversy, Gerald Schoenwolf, PhD, also a member of NARTH’s “Scientific Advisory Committee,” wrote a polemic on the group’s website that seemed to justify slavery: “With all due respect, there is another way, or other ways, to look at the race issue in America,” wrote Schoenwolf. “It could be pointed out, for example, that Africa at the time of slavery was still primarily a jungle, as yet uncivilized or industrialized. Life there was savage, as savage as the jungle for most people, and that it was the Africans themselves who first enslaved their own people. They sold their own people to other countries, and those brought to Europe, South America, America, and other countries, were in many ways better off than they had been in Africa. But if one even begins to say these things one is quickly shouted down as though one were a complete madman.”

The most recent controversy involving NARTH occurred last year when a prominent board member, George Rekers, was caught coming from a European vacation with a "rentboy." This controversy led caused him to resign from the board.

While I am certainly not accusing Boehner or Clement of utilizing the services of this group, it seems odd that their team distorts a professor's work the same way NARTH did.

There needs to be some questions answered here as to how our Speaker of the House is spending taxpayer money.

Is he wasting it on a discredited anti-gay organization?



Bookmark and Share

American bigots causing problems in Africa and other Monday midday news briefs

Ugandan Cabinet “Throws Out” Anti-Homosexuality Bill, But Parliament Presses Ahead - These fools are determined to push this awful bill.

CAMEROON: 2 Gay Youth Arrested for "Looking Feminine", Tortured - Meanwhile in another part of Africa . . .

But those two stories are just a prelude. You wanna know what's probably causing this mess:

American Anti-Gay Campaign in Africa Opposes "Fictitious Sexual Rights" - There you go. Having probably lost the war against gay equality in America, these folks are moving to Africa to exploit fear, religious beliefs, and basic homophobia - with "successful" results.

Study: highest percentage of SC gay couples live in Myrtle Beach - And of course some SC public official will find a way of ignoring these couple and their families.

Top Eight Pro-LGBT Arguments In The Obama Administration’s Anti-DOMA Brief - It's nice to see the Obama Administration doing the right thing.

Harvey: Close Down Gay Bars - This is after Harvey called for schools to ban gay and lesbian teachers. I hear that next she wants to order the government to build walls and walls of closets to keep us in our places.

BREAKING: Sen. Udall comes out for marriage equality - So that you don't think that all I post is dire news, check out this from Colorado Senator Udall. This is an excellent bit of news.



Bookmark and Share

Wanna watch a bigot melt down? Ask him a simple question about marriage equality

This is hilarious. A friend of mine on Facebook asked a simple question about giving a good reason why the gay community should be denied equality. And check out the answer. I really don't understand the answer because I don't think the question was all that difficult:


This "piece of work obviously forgot about us ripping tags from mattresses, "squeezing the Charmin," and calling random people to spoil the plots of videos they just rented.

Now to the point, I don't think that all people who are against marriage equality feels this way. And I am sure that many of those opposing marriage equality can spell basic words like "lose."

But make no mistake about it - the person voicing this "interesting opinion" is the type of person whom Brian Brown, Maggie Gallagher, and the rest of the lovelies at the National Organization for Marriage or Tony Perkins and his people at Family Research Council hope to attract when they spin their lies about homosexuality and pedophilia or homosexuality being a "bad health risk."

It  has never been, nor will it ever be about truth. It's more about exploiting ignorance, fear, and religious beliefs. At times, it's sad.

But right now, it's just so damn hilarious.



Bookmark and Share

Saturday, August 20, 2011

16 reasons why the Family Research Council is a hate group

Tony Perkins of the hate group the Family Research Council recently had the temerity to attack the Obama Administration for its participation in the "It Gets Better" campaign. This is the campaign designed to raise the self-esteem of lgbtq youth and raise awareness of the problems they encounter with bullying.

Perkins called it immoral and actually accused the "It Gets Better" campaign of "recruiting" children into homosexuality.

Rather than call Perkins a lying SOB, I think it would be more pertinent to remind folks of just who is immoral in this case by giving 16 very good reasons why Perkins should stop speaking on the so-called immorality of others and ask himself is he truly right with God.

So now I present 16 reasons why the Family Research Council is a hate group. Granted, there are probably more but if I were to list them all, I would be here all day:

August 15, 2011 - GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network) issues a cease-and-desist letter against the Family Research Council demanding that the organization remove video falsely accusing GLSEN of distributing an explicit safe-sex guide to children. FRC subsequently changed the video, tacitly admitting that it was pushing a falsehood against GLSEN.

June 13, 2011 - Two years after claiming to remove "studies" from its website because they contained "outdated material," FRC sneaks the studies back on its website. One of the studies includes citations to the work of Paul Cameron, a highly discredited research.

February 28, 2011
- In order to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), FRC distorts research in order to compare gay men to pedophiles.

February 16, 2011 - FRC spokesman Peter Sprigg makes the claim that same-sex households are inferior to two-parent heterosexual households by using studies which have nothing to do with same-sex households. Sprigg, by the way, has earlier voiced opinions that gays should be deported out of the United States:



and that "homosexual behavior" should be criminalized:




September 15,2010 - Perkins and the right-wing LifeSiteNews mischaracterize a study to make a claim that domestic violence happens at a high level in lgbt relationships.

August 13, 2010 -  Sprigg claims that openly gay Obama appointee David Hansell will cut funds from states that don't allow gay adoption. Sprigg claims that "private sources" told him so. Strangely enough, original article where Sprigg made this claim, the right-wing CNSNews.com  was pulled.

July 29, 2010 - The Family Research Council distorts the words of AIDS researcher Ronald Stall to make the case against the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act.)

July 6, 2010 - Sprigg pushes a pamphlet, The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality,which not only repeats discredited anti-lgbt accuracies but exposes a bit of trickery on Sprigg's part. He cites only part of pro-lgbt information which talks about diseases and negative behaviors but omits the information which talks about how homophobia plays a part in these diseases and negative behaviors.

May 10, 2010 -  The Family Research Council distorts the words of President Obama's director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management John Berry.

April 16, 2010 - Tony Perkins makes a false accusation that homosexuality and pedophilia are connected by using a Netherlands study which doesn't even prove his point.

January 7, 2010 - The Family Research Council exploits the presidential appointment of transgender Amanda Simpson to call ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) a "Crossdresser Protection Bill."

November 23, 2009
- The Family Research Council was caught distorting Congresswoman Diana DeGette's words to make her seem like she was espousing religious bigotry.

November 18, 2009 - The Family Research Council spliced footage of then EEOC nominee Chai Feldblum to make the case against Obama choosing her.

October 27, 2009
- In an attack on lgbt seniors, the Family Research Council echoes the phony belief of Paul Cameron that lgbts don't live long enough to become elderly.

October 01, 2009 - In Congressional testimony, Perkins practices the "sin of omission" in his testimony against ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act).

May 20, 2009 - The Family Research Council pushes a fraudulent study, Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples. It's a bad study specifically because it uses outdated work and compares married United States couples to unmarried gay couples in casual relationships from other parts of the world.

I think a verse from the Bible would best describe Perkins and the Family Research Council:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. - Isaiah 5:20



Bookmark and Share

Friday, August 19, 2011

Know Your LGBT History - The Wedding Banquet

Long before he won a Best Director Oscar for Brokeback Mountain, Ang Lee had already made a movie about the gay community.

The Wedding Banquet is a 1993 Chinese comedy about a happily coupled gay Taiwanese immigrant man (Winston Chao) in New York who marries a mainland Chinese woman to placate his parents and get her a green card. His plan backfires when his parents arrive in the United States to plan his wedding banquet. It's a wild story with many twists and turns (including Chao getting drunk and impregnating his female bride) but it has a happy ending through family love and devotion.

It was also a very popular movie, even garnering an Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Language Film.

These two scenes - which probably give away some of the plot - are very interesting. Check out the traumatic scene of Chao coming out to his mother and how she insists that his father not know:




But based on this scene with Chao's partner, his father not only knows but respects the relationship:




Past Know Your LGBT Posts: 

Hate group bashes 'It Gets Better' program and other Friday midday news briefs

Tony Perkins to LGBT teens: You're immoral, it won't get better, 'disgusting' to say it will - So according to Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council, keeping lgbtq teens from hating themselves and contemplating suicide is a bad thing, but distorting credible science and using junk science against the gay community in the name of God is a good thing.

Perkins: Advocates of Church-State Separation Are "Cultural Terrorists"
- Speaking of Tony, he seems to love that word "terrorist" a lot.

Say What?!: 5 Bad Questions for Gay Parents - Or if the questions were directed to me and I was a gay parent, the title would be "5 Questions Sure to Cause Alvin McEwen to break his foot off in your ass."
  
Feingold’s Decision Not To Run Could Pave Way For First Openly-Gay Senator - Nice!

NOM: Bachmann Was Right For Calling Homosexuality “Enslavement,” Should Speak Out Against Gay Sex - You know I gotta pick on NOM again.



Bookmark and Share

NOM inaccurately connects marriage equality with pedophilia

Brian Brown, president of NOM
We should have seen it coming because it's an old tactic by anti-gay groups since the days of Anita Bryant.

Remember when she said that gays can't reproduce so we must "recruit" so we can "freshen our ranks."

Those words, in so many different variations, continue to haunt the lgbtq community via several hate groups.

And now you can add NOM as one of those groups.

From Equality Matters:

On August 18, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) posted a “NOM Marriage News” update, written by NOM president Brian Brown, to its blog.

  . . . The update continues with a section entitled “Normalizing Pedophilia”:
When you knock over a core pillar of society like marriage, and then try to redefine Biblical views of marriage as bigotry, there will be consequences. Will one of the consequences be a serious push to normalize pedophilia?
The Daily Caller raised the question by pointing us all to a high-level academic conference in Baltimore this week, "Pedophilia: Minor-Attracted Persons and the DSM: Issues and Controversies."
The DSM is the diagnostic manual that defines mental illness. You probably recall that a key moment in the gay rights campaign was the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association, the organization that produces the DSM, to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses.
[…]
Enquiring people want to know: Will pedophiles become "minor-attracted persons" in our culture? Will courts which endorse orientation as a protected class decide down the road that therefore laws which discriminate against "minor-attracted persons" must be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest?
Here's the fundamental truth: Ideas have consequences and so do words—because they contain ideas, because they are the vehicle through which and by which human beings describe reality.
The reality that men and women need each other, and that children need a mom and dad, is the truth most at risk in the same-sex marriage debate. [emphasis added]

Equality Matters makes sure to note that the the brochure for the conference NOM is talking about does not mention "marriage" and the event in question has nothing to do with marriage equality or the gay community.

Not that it matters to NOM, though. In the past, the organization had implied that marriage equality will "confuse" children or "force them " to be taught about "gay sex."

So now the organization has gone full tilt in the hysteria mode. Of course some folks will probably have the courtesy to point out the irony of NOM's concern about pedophilia  seeing how the organization teams up with the Catholic Church (or being funded by the Catholic Church) for its activities, seeing how the Catholic Church seems to be constantly settling  cases of child sexual abuse - cases which at times were hidden by the higher-ups in the church.

And others could point out about how this ridiculous attempt to compare normal same-sex couples to pedophilia proves how desperate NOM is becoming.

As for me? I think it stinks and not in the normal way in which your nose is assaulted by something foul like garbage. What I am smelling is the stink of hypocrisy and corruption.

And it's all over NOM right now.



Bookmark and Share

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Catholic Charities lose right to discriminate with taxpayer monies

Don't be fooled by this story. I am sure that Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown are salivating with glee at the thought of exploiting this story to harm marriage equality. But still, it is a victory against unfair "religious exemptions:"

From The Advocate:

The state of Illinois is within its rights to decline to renew contracts with Catholic Charities for adoption and foster-care services, a judge ruled today.

The state had ended its contracts this summer with four Catholic Charities agencies that refused to consider couples in civil unions, including gay couples, as adoptive or foster parents, but instead wanted to refer them to other agencies. Civil unions became available in Illinois June 1.

Sangamon County circuit judge John Schmidt, who heard arguments from both the state and Catholic Charities Wednesday, ruled today that the state did not violate the rights of the Catholic Charities agencies by ending the contracts, Windy City Times reports.

And from Windy City Times comes more details:


The issue arose with the passage of the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, which conferred the same legal rights to same-sex couples in civil unions as married couples and went into effect June 1.

Brejcha said that language in the civil union act allowed the charities to send civil union couples and unmarried people to other foster care agencies. He further argued that the state had ended its 40-year relationship with the charities without warning or reason.

However, attorneys for the state argued that the charities had no right to contracts in the first place, and that it would be illegal for the state to offer contracts that violated civil union law.

"The state has the freedom to set the limits of its contracts," said Deborah Barnes, an attorney with the Office of the Attorney General. "It wasn't arbitrary and capricious, the ending of this 40-year relationship… the legal landscape has changed."

Also arguing against the charities was the American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) , which was granted the right to intervene in the suit on behalf of a lesbian and children who are wards of the state.

Karen Sheley, a lawyer with the ACLU said that a refusal to place children with same-sex civil union partners would harm LGBT children in foster care and discourage LGBT couples from becoming foster parents.

"When they send [ a case ] to another agency, it doesn't solve the problem," she said. "It's still discrimination."

However, Schmidt said that arguments about discrimination from both sides would not impact his decision.

He repeatedly discouraged arguments related to LGBT and religious rights and urged for focus on property rights.

"Do you or do you not have a legally protected property interest?" Schmidt asked.


Brejcha said that licenses from the state which allowed the charities to carry out foster care work were a property interest. Attorneys for the state said that such licenses do not guarantee contracts and that the charities were not being forced to participate now that the law has changed.



Bookmark and Share

NOM's Minnesota game plan involves money, churches, and martyrs

The National Organization for Marriage is setting up its battle plan to defeat marriage equality in Minnesota and it seems that the plan pushes three points - money, churches, and marytrs.

According to Think Progress:

The fight over a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Minnesota could cost up to $10 million before voters go to the ballot in November 2012. And while the measure only seeks to define civil marriage as “a union of one man and one woman,” proponents of the amendment have begun waging a campaign that blurs the line between civil and religious unions. 

And of course you know that a good amount of that will probably be provided by NOM. After all, the organization has already spent over $700,000 in the gubernatorial race which the candidate it supported, Tom Emmer, lost.

So win or lose, NOM can expect even more questions at to where exactly is it getting its funding and why does it fight losing court cases to hide its donors. The organization has fought in several states to hide its funders, most recently losing two cases this month.

Think Progress also notes how NOM is attempting to get Minnesota churches behind its efforts:

Even though marriage equality bills have never tried to dictate what any religion can believe or practice when it comes to sanctifying religious marriage, the Minnesota coalition, Minnesota for Marriage, and other so-called “traditional groups” are defining their campaign in religious terms. For instance, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is encouraging Facebook fans to “support marriage as God intended it to be,” while Minnesota Family Council (MFC) President John Helmberger has injected God into his rhetoric, predicting success if “people of faith [rise] up, speak, and participate in the campaign.”

The article also says that MFC is actually "recruiting church captains."  My question is wouldn't that present a problem in court should NOM win and someone challenges the victory? But more the point, MFC  is the same group which claimed that gays engage in pedophilia, bestiality, and the consuming of feces and urine - points that it did not apologize for nor did NOM address.  Whether or not they believe these things about the gay community is definitely a question which should be asked to NOM's allies in Minnesota, particularly the prospective "church captains."

And let's not forget about the martyr.

Earlier this month, a freelance writer, Carrie Daklin, with Minnesota Public Radio, wrote a piece which criticized Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) for calling out Focus on the Family's Tom Minnery during a hearing on the Defense of Marriage Act. Daklin contended that Franken had rudely set Minnery up for ridicule by obscuring the fact that Franken had actually called out Minnery for wrongly citing a government study on families.

Daklin was justifiably criticized for her faux pas. Today she claimed in another column that she was unfairly attacked and naturally, NOM has a portion of that column on its blog, using it to claim that those support marriage equality are "meanies." This is what Daklin claims:


There must be a group of advocates who watch that website for anything that might conflict with their point of view. Within days, my words, taken completely out of context, and my message — better manners — had been used as the basis for a rallying cry: Carrie Daklin of Minnesota is a homophobe.

I am not sure how my message got so skewed. I have become the object of hate mail and really vicious comments, all in the name of etiquette. Go figure.

I found this all rather unsettling.

... What has happened in our culture, that so many of us are completely unable to accept someone who doesn't share our views? I don't agree with all that my conservative Christian friends espouse, but I support their right to their beliefs. I don't agree with a very liberal friend who said certain members of the religious right should be shot. Actually, he used the word murdered. Sadly, I think he meant it.

In retrospect, the original infraction I wrote about is positively innocuous compared to the resulting uproar. To be blunt: My article was not about gay rights, it was not about the Defense of Marriage Act, and it most certainly was not a promotion for the National Organization for Marriage.

If some of the comments directed to Daklin were as vicious as she claims, I certainly don't agree with them. However her attempts to claim martyrdom is as sad as the original column itself.

Daklin's words were not misconstrued, but her intent was justifiably questioned. It was obvious that Ms. Daklin was commenting about a situation in which she had absolutely no clue, much like a baseball referee attempting to officiate a hockey game.

While her original column was seemingly innocent, the adage of "looks can be deceiving" were definitely into play. Through her words, Daklin allowed some folks to obscure the fact that they were deceptively manipulating studies to push a vicious and vindictive lie regarding children and same-sex households. While at the same time Daklin pleaded for civility, she was giving ammunition to people who know nothing about the term because there is no such thing as civility in the absence of truth.

Let's be clear about what exactly happened between Franken and Minnery yet again.

Franken did not set up Minnery for ridicule. He rightfully called him out for pushing fraudulent material.


The pushback Daklin received (the respectful pushback that is) for her column was not a matter of people showing intolerance to someone registering a different opinion. It was a simple reaction of a people harmed yet again through lies and distortions, by research manipulated to make them look like monsters.

The sad thing about Daklin's new column is her contention that she does not appreciate being an object of hate to those on the left or a hero to those on the right.

I wonder how she feels about NOM exploiting her new column?




Bookmark and Share

NOM's fundraising claims sound fishy and other Thursday midday news briefs

Bachmann Staffer’s Ties To Uganda’s ‘Kill-Gays’ Bill - Why oh why am I not surprised over this one?

NOM's 'Let the People Vote' effort has hauled in 4.5 million. At least that's what Brian Brown's spinoff site says - You can't get me drunk or high enough to think that this is legitimate.

First Circuit Rejects Anti-Gay Group’s Assault On Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws - Especially in light of this.

Dan Savage on Obama - Don't quote me but I'm starting to like Dan Savage more and more. Now don't say anything to screw it up, Dan. LOL


Bookmark and Share

Young black gays and lesbians are encouraged to 'Be Great'

My online buddy Rod 2.0Beta just made me aware of an awesome campaign aimed at young African-American lgbtqs. So I know he doesn't mind if I "bite" off his post a little:

A Chicago organization that works with Black LGBT youth has launched a new social marketing campaign that encourages youth to "Be Great." The youth-led campaign is designed to end violence among Black LGBT youth, such as the vicious July stabbing captured on video.

The July 3 incident was the latest in a series of violent fights involving young Black LGBT in Boystown. The stabbings and the presence of Black/Latino street youth in the mostly white area has sparked a racially-fueled debate. More than 600 people attended a community policing meeting to discuss the problems.


Frank Walker, founder and executive director of Youth Pride Center, says "Be Great" was created as a response to community outrage over the attacks. "[The community meeting] was getting away from the actual topic, which was: How do you deal with violence?" Walker told Windy City Times. "We believe every person should live in a safe neighborhood. We don't believe that it's racist to say that. ... Nobody wanted to hear what the youth had to say, and there's a big difference between what youth are saying and what adults are saying."


The campaign features youth-created posters and video submitted to its Facebook page. Submissions will be judged. The winning print entry will run in the Windy City Times and be distributed among youth as a palm card.











Bookmark and Share