'Focus on the Family dooms its anti-gay argument with deceptive video' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

The above video by Focus on the Family is an example of oblivious ignorance.

From Think Progress:

In a conversation between host Stuart Shepard and Focus’s resident ex-gay Jeff Johnston, the two suggest that “the real agenda” of the equality movement is to “marginalize” Christians for opposing same-sex marriage . . .

 . . . Shepard and Johnston are categorically denying that discrimination is discrimination. They cite various cases of so called “marginalization” of Christians, but none of them even took place in states that have marriage equality. In each situation, it was a business refusing to provide a service to people because of their sexual orientation and then being challenged under state laws because that form of discrimination is illegal. A New Mexico photographer refused to document a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony and lost in court. Bakers in Colorado and Oregon have been challenged for refusing to sell cakes to celebrating same-sex couples. A t-shirt company in Kentucky was found to be in the wrong for refusing to print t-shirts for a Pride festival. None of these states even have same-sex marriage; the business owners simply do not have legitimate standing to discriminate.

The thing is that these folks seem to think that pushing such an argument helps them. Maybe it gets them accolades from folks who already support their point of view. However, in the mainstream, they are practically slicing their own argument to pieces. I say keep it up!

In other news:

Video: Secure in own marriage, unthreatened Delawareans secure equality instead -  In contrast to the above monstrosity of self-destruction comes this very neat and complete video from Delaware citizens who support marriage equality. 

59 Percent of Voters Oppose Section 3 of DOMA - And Section Three is the main part we are attempting to overturn.

The Down-Low Stigma Is Still Prevalent in Urban Gay Media - The Down-Low Stigma is a mess, particularly because it leaves "Woody Allen" types of black gay men like myself out in the cold when it comes to media representation.  Don't get me started when it comes to lack of diversity when it comes to the public images of black gay men.

Bayli Silberstein, Bisexual Eighth-Grader, Speaks Out As Florida School Board Tries To Block GSA (VIDEO) - I adore our young lgbt heroes!

Morse - gays want to convert the workplace using 'their agenda'

Part of me adores Jennifer Morse of NOM's Ruth Institute. Whereas Maggie Gallagher tried to be slick regarding NOM's homophobia, Morse refuses to play such games. She has let her homophobic "freak flag" fly, so to speak, thereby exposing NOM's true angle. Case in point, why she feels lgbt-inclusive nondiscrimination laws are a bad idea:

 

MORSE: Once a person is in the workplace, then they use their position of authority to steer the whole organization towards the larger objectives of the gay lobby which is not limited to making their company and their employer as successful as possible in the marketplace. You know? They’ve got other objectives that they’re working towards and they’re using their positions of authority inside companies to do that. And I think that’s the pattern, and I think that’s, in a sense, the story, for people to see that. And of course for an employer to say “well, gosh, I don’t want you to work for me anymore because the objectives of the gay lobby are not my objectives and you’re taking up a lot of corporate time pressuring us internally to steer us towards the gay lobby, and that doesn’t really do anything for me, and so I want to fire you because of that or I don’t want to promote you because of that because I don’t think you’re really working hand in glove with the overall objectives of this company,” I think they’d have a hard time firing somebody on that basis because of the anti-discrimination law. Or certainly it would be tricky to fire somebody. So I think people need to kind of understand that there’s more at stake than anti-discrimination policy. That those kinds of statutes, those kinds of laws, that kind of case law and so on, it seems like it’s innocent enough, actually carries with it, in its wake, more than people may realize. [emphasis added]

Apparently, Morse has been watching too much Star Trek and thereby has the lgbt community mistaken for the Borg, a community of marauding aliens led by a hive mind.

Members of the lgbt community are not attempting to get nondiscrimination laws passed so that we can easily spread the supposed "gay agenda" in the workplace. It's so that we can work freely unencumbered by the possible ignorance of our fellow employees.

Family Research Council wants YOU to pay for its anti-gay lies

I have just received an email from the Family Research Council announcing a new initiative (the Marriage Preservation Initiative) and its purpose is to raise over $200,000 to expand FRC's research, flood Capitol Hill with ads, and put a bunch of ads on the Internet and major newspapers.

Supposedly the purpose of these ads it to spell out a message of doom should the Supreme Court overturn Prop 8 and DOMA.

In its email, FRC gave an indication of the kinds of claims they will make.  Allow me to list the claims and refute them:

• Will the federal government now tell pastors what they can and cannot preach from the pulpit so it conforms to approved government speech? Didn't FRC say the same thing about lgbt-inclusive hate crimes legislation, i.e. that the government will tell pastors what to preach. NO such thing took place after lgbt-inclusive hate crimes legislation was passed. 

• Will pastors who preach against same-sex "marriage" and homosexual behavior be prosecuted for hate speech? On the risk of repeating myself, didn't FRC claim that lgbt-inclusive hate crimes legislation would lead to pastors being arrested in the pulpits for declaring homosexuality to be a sin? No such incident took place after lgbt-inclusive hate crimes legislation was passed. 

 

• Will churches that refuse to host same-sex "weddings" lose their tax exemptions? No church will be forced to host same-sex weddings. Period.

And FRC lists other portents of doom. Allow me to correct those also:

• The military will have to provide "married" housing to same-sex couples at taxpayer expense. Oh this is terrible because you know, gays and lesbians are exempt from paying taxes. That was sarcasm, folks. 

•  Christian adoption agencies will be forced to place children with same-sex couples or close their doors. Sorry but this situation has less to do with marriage equality and a lot to do with Christian adoption agencies taking taxpayer money and feeling that they still have the right to discriminate. 

•  Christian-owned companies and even para-church ministries will be coerced to extend married benefits to same-sex couples. What the heck are "para-church ministries? But more importantly, notice the semantics here.  "Christian-owned companies" doesn't necessarily mean churches, but restaurants, apartment complexes, and as we have seen, bakeries and flower shops owned by folks who call themselves Christians. If you allow secular businesses to discriminate based on their religious beliefs, you are unleashing a huge dragon who will probably end up biting FRC in the ass. 

•  And children who won't affirm the legitimacy of the homosexual "lifestyle" choice will be forced to undergo psychological counseling. For the life of me, I don't know what the hell FRC is talking about here.

So basically, the Family Research Council wants your money to help it spread a bunch of lies about marriage equality and the lgbt community in general.

'Gay man confronts homophobia, earns applause and respect' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Gay Man Confronts Homophobic Subway Preacher, Train Crowd Applauds (VIDEO) - If the homophobia in the world ever depresses you, take a look at this video. A gay man confronts a homophobic subway preacher and earns the applause of other passengers. And I love his hat, by the way.  

Music Producer Clive Davis Comes Out As Bisexual - In case you haven't heard, legendary music impresario Clive Davis has come out of the closet. Welcome to the open family, Clive. Now I've got this cousin . . . .  

A Trans Man’s First Year As A NYC Public School Teacher - Fascinating article. We need more things like this and less of those "bathroom lies" the religious right likes to peddle.

 Do not be deceived—tomorrow's anti-#ILequality lobby day is all about 'rescuing homosexuals' - And who will rescue from those who are attempting to rescue us?

Video exposes religious right's talent for anti-gay misdirection, omission

This hideously bad video is by former Family Research Council intern Anna Maria Hoffman and she wants us to "stop the hate" of those who support so-called traditional marriage. Though it was excruciating to watch, especially the couple of seconds (Girlfriend can't sing. Not a lick!), her attempt to outline the point of view of those on her side of the marriage equality argument actually helps us.

Not because of what she says, via bad cue card reading, but because of her tone, how she misdirects the argument, and what she omits.

1. Tone - Ms. Hoffman whines about that those on her side of the argument are unfairly attacked, yet she makes it seem that those of who support marriage equality are doing it because it's a "trendy" thing to do. To the vast majority of us, gaining marriage equality is not like going to the new club or attempting a new dance. We have a desire to affirm our love and see our families protected as all Americans do.

2. Misdirects - Hoffman lists an entire set of reasons why so-called traditional marriage is in danger such as the rate of divorce and households without a father. However, none of the reasons she lists has anything to do with gays and lesbians getting married. Nor does she say how allowing gays and lesbians to get married would exacerbate these problems.

3. Omission - Finally, Hoffman seems to be taking a page from the Maggie Gallagher book of "Whine about being called bigots to cover up how bigoted our tactics are." She goes on a spiel about how unfair it is that those like her are labeled as "bigots" simply because they support so-called traditional marriage. Is she serious? Was Hoffman asleep during her entire tenure at the Family Research Council?  Hoffman seems to conveniently omit the many, many times her organization has demonized gays, labeled us as the "dangerous other," and expressed desires that we be either deported from the country or put in jail. And that doesn't even begin to cover the cherry-picked studies the Family Research Council uses against us.

Hoffman is unfortunately indicative of religious right group employees and spokespeople. They want to claim victimhood for being called bigots while at the same time spewing their bigotry.

You simply cannot have it both ways.

Hat tip to Jeremy Hooper.

13th researcher cries foul over anti-gay distortions of his work

We've heard this song before and I wish someone besides a few of us would pick up on the tune. 

From Truth Wins Out comes this piece of news:

In what has become a disturbing pattern, a top researcher has accused Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, the co-founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), of grossly distorting his work to advance NARTH’s discredited view that gay and lesbians people are mentally ill.

Dr. Allan Schore, a leading psychotherapist and neuropsychologist, is the latest NARTH victim to have his research deliberately misused and politicized. This is particularly alarming because NARTH is the primary organization trying to use the courts in California to strike down a new law prohibiting reparative therapy for minors.

NARTH is not a scientific organization, but a disreputable public relations campaign that twists legitimate research in an effort stigmatize the LGBT community. NARTH members, including Joseph Nicolosi, are ethically challenged and should not be taken seriously by the courts or society.

According to Truth Wins Out, Nicolosi implied that he had a working relationship with Schore. However,  when Dominic Davies, of the London-based organization Pink Therapy investigated, he found this implication to be false:

Throughout the text,” said Davies, “Nicolosi claims homosexuality as an Attachment Disorder and distorts and misattributes Schore’s work in Attachment Theory in support of his spurious argument.” Davies contacted Schore to clarify his relationship with Nicolosi. In their correspondence, the scientist made clear that he was “deeply disturbed” that he was misquoted by Nicolosi and said that “there is absolutely no neuropsychological research evidence that homosexuality is a disorder.” He further stated that Nicolosi is “grafting my shame and attachment models on to gender identity disorders, something I have never even written about.”

Here is the thing which bothers me about this. This discovery was made last week and other than a mention in Think Progress, it was totally ignored - just like the majority of other times in which physicians and researchers have complained about the distortion of their work by the religious right.

And when I say totally ignored, I am not pointing fingers at the mainstream media. My accusations are at the lgbt media and the community at large.

Religious right groups and affiliate organizations have a long history of distorting scientific research and we have the complaints to prove it, but what have we done to publicize these complaints?

Not a damn thing.

 Instead, some of us roll our eyes and yawn as if we are being subjected to something which bores us immensely. And our media and leaders ignore these revelations because apparently they aren't "positive news."

Meanwhile, groups like the National Organization for Marriage or the Family Research Council are able to take anecdotal situations involving bakers who refuse to make wedding cakes for lgbt couples, or elected officials who get into trouble for placing their beliefs above their job duties and get maximum media coverage which allows them to push their inaccurate point of view to the public

And why is that? Because they know the power of good press and don't shirk away from exploiting, if you will, any and all situations to make their point of view seem plausible.

In contrast, the lgbt community seems to be so jaded that we will not recognize a chance to publicize when the religious right is blatantly lying.
 
It all leads me to realize one thing -  the main reason why the religious right continue to lie about the lgbt community and to deliberately distort science is because we let them by keeping silent.

Related posts:

How They See Us: Unmasking the Religious Right War on Gay America (pgs. 8-10)

'Thousands come to Minnesota State House to support marriage equality' and other Friday midday news briefs

Look: Thousands Flood Minnesota (Yes, Minnesota) State House To Support Gay Marriage - Unlike NOM, our supporters don't have to lie about OUR numbers.  

Neil Clark Warren, eHarmony Founder, Says Gay Marriage 'Damaged His Company' - Mr. Warren trashes gays, but it was the "Christians" whom he had to bodyguards to protect himself from when his company changed its policy.  

Illinois' leading purveyor of gay marriage myths now pushing offensive infertility claims - And our opponents wonder why they are losing . . .  

Virginia Legislator Kills Employment Protections Because Anti-LGBT Discrimination ‘Doesn’t Exist’ - And of course he is wrong.

Porno Pete LaBarbera upset over full frontal male nudity

LaBarbera

I haven't picked on Porno Pete LaBarbera for a while and I think he is feeling lonely.

On his Americans for Truth webpage, he is on a new crusade. Apparently he is upset that the Huffington Post ran a spotlight on male full frontal scenes in movies in its Gay Voices section.

Now in all honest, I was initially put off by the feature, but then I came to the understanding that there a is a good cultural discussion which can arise from it. For years, motion pictures had no problem showing female frontal nudity and now things seem to be balancing out. What gives? Are some male actors less afraid to show off their possible "shortcomings?" It's an interesting thing to talk about when it comes to gender and power.

However, LaBarbera refused to become so enlightened. To him, it's a part of the gay conspiracy:

The HuffPo video reminds us of one salient point in the national debate over homosexuality: “gay” guys like to see other men nude, and lesbians like to see women nude. Thus, the perversion of homosexuality turns seemingly “safe” places like gym showers, dorms and collective military showers into potential leering zones for those beset with aberrant sexual desires. (At many colleges, students are forbidden  under “nondiscrimination” codes from demanding a new roommate because they don’t want to room with a homosexual.) Thus the privacy of sexually normal people is violated.

I'm going to ignore that crack about "normal people."  I just want to know how many times did LaBarbera have to "look" at the video in question for him to fully register his "shock."

Love makes a family, not talking points

Impact Magazine just ran an awesome story from Rob Waston, director of Partners and Alliances Communication for Hitachi Data Systems and who also blogs at evoL.

The story by Waston talks about his two sons who he and his partner fostered and then adopted. Excellent read through and through. I especially liked this part:

As I look at my sons, I am filled with the awareness of a love for each that I could never fathom in my wildest imagination previously.  The love I have for each is unique, each powerful in its own right, but its own “color” if you will.   Jason is the son of my heart, Jesse is the son of my soul.

Today they act as twins.  Since he is physically bigger, they have decided that Jesse is the “big brother”.  Since he was born four months earlier, Jason has been dubbed, by mutual consent, as the “older brother”.   We do not have a “little brother” in the family.

That is how two little best friends became brothers.  It is how my gay family came together.  We have a unique story, but we are not unique.  All same-gendered parent families have a story.  While my friend at the airport was right, “all ways can be hard”, all ways can also be miraculous, loving and intensely wonderful.

How our families come together is being judged today, and in the next few months.  It will be judged by the US Supreme Court.  Our families are likely to be judged long after that as well, no matter what the results.

And, no matter what the judgments on our value, I will always know the truth.  I know how thoroughly REAL we are.  I live it and I have seen it.

All of the nonsense in the world dragged about by Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, and that bunch at NOM can never compete with that.  It reminds one that family doesn't necessarily always come from biological ties.

But those who create families through biological ties and those who don't should never think that their families are in competition with each other. Rather, they are kindred spirit because they both share the ability and desire to love and sacrifice.

And more often than not, that's all you need.


 

'So God Made a Gay Man' and other Thursday midday news briefs

Stunning video! I love it! Okay my lesbian, bisexual, and transgender brothers and sisters, the ball is in your court. I would love to see an equally powerful video created by one of you. 

In other news:

37 Senators Call On Obama To Ban Anti-LGBT Bias By Contractors - So do it already! I'm sure that Obama will as soon as he gets his religious right flame retardant suit ready.

 Illinois ‘Family’ Group: Gays Shouldn’t Even Be Teaching, Let Alone Marrying - Some folks really need to get over their homophobia.

  Olympic Wrestling Canceled Because Of Gay Conspiracy, Russian Coach Claims - Claiming that gays plotted to eliminate wrestling from the Olympic Games is the single most clueless thing I have heard in a while for so many reasons besides the belief that gay men enjoy watching men in tight outfights slam-bamming each other on a mat.

Anti-gay Indiana teacher gets parodied in brutal video

In the controversy involving Sullivan High School in Indiana and the situation involving the supposed "traditional, no gays allowed" alternative prom, Diana Medley the special education teacher who spoke on the side of those wanting that prom (Medley is not employed at Sullivan High School) has taken a huge amount of the criticism.

Petitions have been passed around asking that she be dismissed, comment after comment have been written about her. And the final indignity? The video above parodies her absolutely vicious comments about gays, particularly gay youth.

The reason for all of the animus directed at Medley is simple.  Think Progress puts it like this:

Of course Medley has the right to her fraudulent, offensive beliefs, but she also has an obligation to the safety and well-being of students that she supervises. As a special ed teacher, she is likely working with students who are already vulnerable to bullying because of their physical, mental, or learning disabilities. By publicly stating that an entire group of students don’t have a purpose in life, she compromises her trust as an educator.

I would also like to add that to many older gays, Medley touched a nerve because perhaps she reminded them of the times they were bullied in school. Perhaps to them, Medley represents the teacher or principal who stood by and let it happen and then afterwards blamed them for their treatment by saying that they needed to supposedly "act normal."

 

NOM attacking same-sex families with tacky graphic

Number one on the Top Ten Chart of Tackiness is the above graphic by the National Organization for Marriage.

It's pathetic on so many levels. At least allow me to count off three:

1. It attacks same-sex families

2. It blames same-sex families for the single-parent homes and takes President Obama's words out of context. At no time has President Obama ever blamed same-sex households for fatherless homes. Jeremy Hooper said the following:

When President Obama uttered those words, he was referring to the very specific problems of dads who played a role in creating a family only to abdicate responsibility. That is an issue—one that we should solve. Same goes for when mothers step out on families that they should support. In an ideal climate, we could all agree on this.

 In a less politicized world, we could hope that all human beings would take responsibility for whatever family form they, by virtue of their own choices, created.
 
But in the aggressive world that NOM is forcing on us all? Gays are the scapegoat. Our families come at an expense. A penis and a vagina are innately better than a doubled set (regardless of any other qualities attached to the genitalia). Homes like mine are on par (or worse than) ones where a father walks out on his children. And of course our President cannot make a strong statement about

3. It underscores the simple fact that other than attacking same-sex households and attempting to inaccurately attach them to the problem of fatherless homes, the National Organization for Marriage has done NOTHING to address the problem or provide solutions. If anything, NOM is exploiting the problem of fatherless homes to attack same-sex families.

But one good thing does come out of NOM's graphic. It exposes just how low the organization will stoop to attack same-sex families and households.

Hat tip to Jeremy Hooper.

Why gay community will win the fight for marriage equality

I really believe that when it's said and done, the lgbt community will win the marriage equality fight. Marriage equality is about fairness, love, and equality. And let's face it, though our opposition is well-connected and has much money,  it will be their rhetoric in opposing our right to marry each other which will be part of their undoing. Especially when one compares their hyperbolic rhetoric to the reality:

Glenn T. Stanton of Focus on the Family: "This is a really pernicious lie of Satan to say that the gender part of humanity doesn’t really matter because the gender part of humanity is really denying the distinct God imaging in each of us as males and females. We need to understand that as Christians. That’s the biggest thing. The other is that, ‘you know kids don’t really need a mom and a dad they just need any configuration of loving adults who care for them,’ . . . As a good friend of mine says, ‘you know a lot of these people advocating for same-sex marriage, I’ve been in the marriage work for decades, I’ve never seen these people come to the stump to advocate for marriage, the only time they are for marriage is when it has same-sex in front of it.’ Think about that. These are not advocates of marriage; they’re advocates for redefining marriage."


Reality:

Jonathan Mintz, John Feinblatt and their daughters celebrate their wedding ceremony.

Mat Staver, The Liberty Counsel: "Basically marriage will be completely destroyed, families will be destroyed, children will be hurt by this and freedom of speech and freedom of religion, including in the pulpit itself, will absolutely be bulldozed over. This would open a floodgate of unimaginable proportions. That’s why with those kinds of consequences to have five of the nine justices ultimately have this kind of power in their hands, that’s not how this court and this country was established, to have five individuals to be able to have that kind of catastrophic, social re-engineering power in their hands, that’s just not something that was envisioned by the founders."



Reality:

72-year-old Byron and 86-year-old Phillipe, a couple who have been together for 51 years, poses at their wedding.

Gordon Klingenschmitt, anti-gay activist and "exorcist" - "Every kid deserves a mom and dad. We must defend traditional marriage. Sadly, Obama equates sin with holiness, confusing lust with love, thereby confusing the demonic with the Holy Spirit, when Satan can never be equal with God. There is one reason homosexual sodomy will never be "equal" to traditional marriage: Satan will never be equal to God."

 
 Reality:

Luz Heurtelo and Natassia Heurtelo before their wedding in Brooklyn.

I could say more, but is there any need? One side spins tales of revolution, destruction, and Satanic possession. And the other side simply shows basic love. Sure, I am preaching to the choir with this post but people forget that sometimes a choir needs practice and in this case, our choir needs to remember that we have beautiful voices which sound like angels when we sing together in harmony.

Lastly, we need to remember what  we are singing for.

Love, honey. The most powerful emotion in the universe.

Photos, captions courtesy of Buzzfeed.

Hat tip to Right Wing Watch for the religious right quotes.

Family Research Council angry at Obama for cleaning up its mess

FRC's Tony Perkins

As to be expected, the Family Research Council didn't care for President Obama's State of the Union address.

The organization particularly didn't care for the part where President Obama mentioned equal treatment for same-sex military couples. FRC especially didn't like the announcement before the SOTU speech that the Pentagon would be giving some benefits to these same-sex couples. And the brazen hypocrisy in which FRC engages in to criticize this will astound you:

 . . . Hours before his State of the Union address, the commander-in-chief gave his Pentagon the thumbs up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in new spending for homosexual partner perks. Starting August 31, the same-sex boyfriends and girlfriends of service members will be eligible for privileges that even cohabiting heterosexuals are not: military ID cards, access to military commissaries, gymnasiums, and movie theaters, participation in family support programs on bases and posts, and the chance to fly on Defense Department aircraft on the taxpayers' dime.

For a liberal movement so intent on policing discrimination, this policy is full of it! The U.S.government has decided that what you do in the bedroom qualifies you for federally-subsidized benefits (unless you happen to be heterosexual, like 96.6% of the U.S. population). Once again, it's exclusion in the name of "inclusion." Under this policy, Washington is officially in the business of incentivizing homosexual behavior in our military--an observation that appalls veterans like Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.).

"The President is eroding our military's apolitical stance and forcing conformity onto the rest of society by pushing his liberal social agenda through the Department of Defense. In a weak attempt to not violate the Defense of Marriage Act, the administration is using a play on words by saying 'same sex domestic partners' can have access to benefits instead of 'spouses.'"

What's more, Sen. Inhofe points out, America is on a "slippery slope" with this kind of preferential treatment. "Why would the DOD extend benefits to same-sex partners and then deny cohabiting heterosexual couples the same benefits? The Department of Defense is essentially creating a new class of beneficiary that will increase costs and demand for limited resources that are currently available for military families, active and reserve forces, and retirees.

Why indeed would the DOD extend benefits to same-sex partners and then deny cohabiting heterosexual couples the same benefits?

Maybe because the cohabiting heterosexual couples generally have the option to get married, whereas the same-sex couples do not have that same option in most cases.

Also while some states offer same-sex couples the option of marriage, there is that annoying little pesky law called DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which precludes the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

And here is the kicker. Anti-gay activist Robert Knight helped to craft DOMA while he was an employee of the Family Research Council.

In other words:

• FRC is claiming that the Obama Administration is discriminating against cohabiting heterosexual couples by offering same-sex couples benefits that cohabiting heterosexual couples cannot receive.

• However, the reason why these benefits had to be given is because by law, the federal government cannot recognize the marriages of same-sex couples no matter if these marriages are legal via state law.

• And the reason why the federal government cannot recognize these marriages is because of DOMA, a law which was partly crafted by an FRC employee.

It's not the Obama Administration which is practicing discrimination. If anything, the Obama Administration is cleaning up the mess that the FRC helped to become law.

The sad irony is that while FRC dismissively refers to same-sex couples as "boyfriends" and "girlfriends," it is because of efforts like groups like FRC that these couples aren't considered to be more than that by the federal government.

It's the equivalent of criticizing someone for being in a hole while omitting the fact that you are the one who put them there in the first place.

NOM's silly spokesperson attacks gay families again

Per usual, members of the religious right are attacking gay parenting (again). Jennifer Morse of NOM's Ruth Institute is talking to conservative host Michael Brown and proceeds to go on a ridiculous tangent about parenting in which she spouts very little facts. Her rambling starts at 2:00 of this clip:

 

Here are just a few things I noticed. I'm sure you can add more:

At 2:20 - Morse says that there needs to be more recruitment of adoptive parents coming from the mother/father dynamic. That's a good point which she brings up because as far as I know, NOM has NEVER undertaken any attempt or pushed any legislation to do this.

2:25 - Morse says that since American couples "go all over the world" to find children to adopt, including children of different races and handicaps so she does not believe that there is a shortage of homes to adopt children. Funny how she doesn't cite any statistics.

Fact: According to Adam Pertman, head of the Evan Donaldson Adoption Institute:

More than 104,000 children in the United States are waiting in foster care to be adopted by permanent, loving parents. These girls and boys, who are on average 8 years old, typically remain in temporary situations for over three years before being placed with "forever families."

Then Morse goes into a spiel which folks on her side the argument have done before and very few of us have called them out -  pitting heterosexual two-parent families against gay parents. She makes it seem that society is favoring gay parenting supposedly traditional heterosexual parenting, when in fact there has never been any competition regarding gay or heterosexual parents, except for in the talking points of folks like Morse.

She then claims that one cannot compare same-sex parenting to heterosexual parenting without going into detail as to why. Of course Morse is contradicted by many credible health organizations including the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers.

Everything else Morse says is purely blather and nonsense which has nothing to do with the reality of gays raising children.

And the religious right can't seem to figure out why they lose the vast majority of court cases involving gay adoption.

'No gays allowed' prom idea backfires on organizers' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

'Gay-free' prom idea backfires on supporters in Indiana town - MSNBC is now saying that idea of a "traditional" prom with no gays allowed has backfired on the organizers with the school and the church where they met coming out against their idea. I can remember a day when they would have been widely applauded. I do love change.  

BREAKING: French National Assembly Approves Marriage Equality And Same-Sex Adoption - That tremor you just felt? Members of the National Organization for Marriage suffering a spell of mass fainting. So much for THAT French Revolution the organization was pushing. At least Brian Brown got a free trip to France.  

We're Not Saying Gays Are Pedophiles, But… - Attack of the "yeah, but Christians."

 Pentagon to extend additional benefits to same-sex service members and their families - Sweet!

 Kenneth Faried, Denver Nuggets Star, Becomes First NBA Player To Join Gay Rights Sports Group - Good for him! I do love getting allies.  

Pedophilia Myth Tainted Cable News Coverage Of Boy Scouts' Anti-Gay Ban - Ugly madness

FRC- Obama wanted to force nursery schools to hire drag kings and drag queens

No matter how many times the Family Research Council claim that they are merely "defending" Christian values, the organization cannot hide that its stock and trade is bigotry and hysterical lies about the gay community. For example, check the following tidbit it sent out as a recent Washington Update (important part placed in bold):

 Just three weeks after a federal court ruled that the White House had overstepped its authority in certain "recess" appointments, the President isn't showing any signs of backing off his second-term power grab. During tomorrow's State of the Union speech, the President is expected to announce another round of "executive actions" on issues he doesn't feel Congress is moving quickly enough to address. Like his two dozen gun initiatives, these directives would help President Obama implement the more controversial parts of his agenda without the House and Senate's approval

. "It's a very dangerous road he's going down..." said Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). "Just because Congress doesn't act doesn't mean the President has a right to." Although the White House wouldn't comment on the details, officials have confirmed that his actions would include special right for homosexuals and cross-dressers in the workplace. With lawmakers in both parties unwilling to push Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the President is moving ahead on his own version, which would ban government contractors from "discriminating" on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama promised to put the "whole weight of [his] administration behind... a fully inclusive [ENDA]." His position, which would have ordered employers (like schools and day care centers) to hire transsexuals, drag queens, and drag kings, was considered "too radical" even for his own party. Now the President is considering the next best thing: demanding full conformity with his views for anyone working with or for the federal government. 

You will notice that the piece never said a word about "Christian values." Rather, it shrieks portents of doom about young children held as captive audiences in schools with "transsexuals?," "drag queens," and drag kings."

Exploiting the fear of parents regarding the safety of their children is the lowest thing any one person or organization can do.

But I guess with FRC, it's business as usual.

FRC recycles failed DADT predictions to attack gays in the Boy Scouts

Ever since the Boy Scouts hinted about a decision to do away with its "no gays allowed" policy, the Family Research Council has been working the talk shows and sending out emails with portents of doom of what will happen if this takes place.

 But as Carlos Maza from Equality Matters points out, there is something pathetically familiar about these talking points.

They were the same ones FRC used to against the DADT repeal. Unsuccessfully, I might add. What's more, now that DADT has been repealed since 2010, none of their predictions of doom have come true.

Maza points out three failed predictions. Allow me to spotlight one:

“Gays Will Increase The Rate Of Sexual Assault”

FRC on the Boy Scouts’ ban:

So what exactly is the incentive?... Is it safety? Because unless something changed in the last seven months, the Scouts are still dealing with the fallout of more than 2,000 cases of child molestation with the current policy in place! Can they honestly tell parents that entrusting little boys to men with same-sex attractions is somehow going to reduce the incidence of child sexual abuse?

FRC on DADT repeal:

The military already has a serious problem with sexual assault by homosexuals. If the current law against homosexuality in the military is overturned, the problem of same-sex sexual assault in the military is sure to increase.

For the other two, check out Maza's post. He ends it by saying:

In the case of DADT, not a single one of FRC’s doomsday predictions turned out to be anything more than baseless fear mongering – motivated by the group’s extreme anti-gay animus. FRC demonstrated that, when it comes to serious policy analysis, it doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.

So what’s changed?

Now that the Boy Scouts’ final decision on its gay ban has been postponed until May, it’s likely that media outlets will get another opportunity to cover the controversy. When they do, they should ask how groups like FRC have any credibility when it comes to predicting the consequences of repealing the ban.

'Dan Savage weighs in on Indiana prom controversy' and other Monday midday news briefs

Anti-Gay Bigots at High School In Indiana Can't Ban Gay Kids From Prom... - Oh boy. The prom controversy in Indiana just went nuclear. Dan Savage has weighed in and you KNOW Savage doesn't mince words.  

Obama May Be Reconsidering Executive Order To Protect LGBT Federal Workers - Do the right thing, Mr. President.  

Speaking Up against Ex-Gay Kent Paris at Summit Christian Church then . . . - One of my favorite bloggers and people, Kathy Verbiest Baldock, took a brave stand to speak up against a supposed "ex-gay" at Summit Christian Church in Nevada. Read what happened next.

  Teacher Says She Lost Job Over Gay Club - If this turns out to be true, then I hope she wins her lawsuit.

Sullivan High School student - 'my school and community supports lgbt students!'

A student at Sullivan High School in Indiana has written me about the controversy about several students and parents wanting to ban gay students from the prom and setting up a "traditional prom" instead:

I am a senior at Sullivan High School. Just wanted to let all of you know it is NOT the school that is banning same sex couples!! I hate how the school is being made out as the bad guy, that is not the case at all. The only prom that's banning them is the "traditional prom" that is being held somewhere else (it is not supported by the school). The only way they can go to the traditional prom is if they go with someone of the opposite sex.

Sullivan High School is ACCEPTING the same sex couples and the staff at SHS is for the same sex couples going and so are the majority of student and people in the community!!!! I absolutely hate how my town is getting called Anti-Gay Bigots because a few "Christians" are planning a separate prom!

Not all of Sullivan is like that I can damn well guarantee it. It appalls me that some people in my community cant accept others for who they are, but like i said not all of us are that narrow minded so please stop saying all of Sullivan County is like that because we aren't. My date (who is a guy) and I are attending the school prom that is ALLOWING same sex couples to go!

Please like this Facebook group it will help! http://www.facebook.com/pages/Support-the-Sullivan-High-School-Prom-for-All-Students/611335158883992

Related post:  Students, parents want lgbt students banned from the prom