Quick briefs from the world
Warren’s church removes anti-gay statements from website. (If you haven't done anything wrong then why do you feel the need to remove stuff from your webpage, Mr.
Warren)
Mike Rogers owns Warren defender on Hardball (Of course it's never about "gotcha politics" but I am so sick of weak ass spokespeople on news shows allowing people like Tony Perkins or Mike Huckabee to walk all over them with an Atticus Finch stick. Rogers was clear, to the point, never raised his voice, but controlled the conversation)
Lesbian's brutal gang rape investigated in Calif. (God, I hope this is just an urban legend)
Rule Shields Health Workers Who Withhold Care Based on Beliefs (If Concerned Women for America supports this then it can't be good for the lgbt community)
Yes on 8 Campaign: Liars (You mean they lied about not wanting to overturn the gay marriages that already took place in California? No shit.)
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
The AFA hates lgbt families
Despite all, I am convinced that despite the Rick Warren controversy, lgbts are in a much better state than we would be in if McCain had been elected president.
And I am equally convinced that an Obama Administration will be good for us.
But I guess a lot of folks don't really get why the lgbt community are up in arms about Warren. Much has been said, broken down, and manipulated, but what I read in One News Now today gives a perfect reason for our anger:
The American Family Association (AFA) says Christian consumers need to know that the Campbell Soup Company embraces the homosexual agenda.
Campbell Soup bought two 2-page ads in the December and January issues of The Advocate, the nation's largest homosexual magazine. The ads promote their Swanson line of broth, and one of the ads highlights the lives of two lesbians, who are portrayed as being married, along with "their" son. Other ads feature chefs from New York City.
Randy Sharp, AFA's director of special projects, says concerned consumers should contact company officials and ask them to stop endorsing homosexuality.
"When you specifically target a homosexual magazine, then your company is basically endorsing these activities; you're endorsing the lifestyle," claims Sharp. "And in one ad, which...clearly shows two lesbians who say they are married, who say they have a son together, ...the Campbell Soup Company is saying 'we approve of homosexual marriage.' There is no question whatsoever of what the intentions of the company are."
Yeah it's clear what the company is trying to do - sell soup, you moron.
Now Mike Huckabee, Warren, and the rest can do fluff televised interviews in order to their point of views sound palpable, but the AFA's objections regarding Campbell Soup is the real face of the religious right in America.
Why shouldn't Campbell Soup sell their products to lgbts? We have families and we eat soup.
Or better yet - just what gives AFA the right to dictate lgbt images? The organization is basically saying, "despite the fact that lgbts families exist and despite the fact that they are consumers, we don't like the idea of lgbt families so we are going to do everything we can to hinder that image."
I'm sure the AFA will give us the standard line of "not hating gays" and "just because you don't agree with the lifestyle means that you hate the person," but it just doesn't wash here.
It's one thing to be angry at a company for whom it gives money to, but this goes beyond the pale.
The AFA is angry because Campbell Soup dared to acknowledge the fact that not only lgbt families exist but they are pretty normal.
This attempt to dehumanize us and stigmatize our families under the guise of religion is what lgbts have to deal with everyday in one form or another.
And frankly, we are getting tired of it.
Unfortunately no one ever seems to want to ask Warren or Huckabee about things like this. And I won't hold my breath waiting for those questions.
Despite all, I am convinced that despite the Rick Warren controversy, lgbts are in a much better state than we would be in if McCain had been elected president.
And I am equally convinced that an Obama Administration will be good for us.
But I guess a lot of folks don't really get why the lgbt community are up in arms about Warren. Much has been said, broken down, and manipulated, but what I read in One News Now today gives a perfect reason for our anger:
The American Family Association (AFA) says Christian consumers need to know that the Campbell Soup Company embraces the homosexual agenda.
Campbell Soup bought two 2-page ads in the December and January issues of The Advocate, the nation's largest homosexual magazine. The ads promote their Swanson line of broth, and one of the ads highlights the lives of two lesbians, who are portrayed as being married, along with "their" son. Other ads feature chefs from New York City.
Randy Sharp, AFA's director of special projects, says concerned consumers should contact company officials and ask them to stop endorsing homosexuality.
"When you specifically target a homosexual magazine, then your company is basically endorsing these activities; you're endorsing the lifestyle," claims Sharp. "And in one ad, which...clearly shows two lesbians who say they are married, who say they have a son together, ...the Campbell Soup Company is saying 'we approve of homosexual marriage.' There is no question whatsoever of what the intentions of the company are."
Yeah it's clear what the company is trying to do - sell soup, you moron.
Now Mike Huckabee, Warren, and the rest can do fluff televised interviews in order to their point of views sound palpable, but the AFA's objections regarding Campbell Soup is the real face of the religious right in America.
Why shouldn't Campbell Soup sell their products to lgbts? We have families and we eat soup.
Or better yet - just what gives AFA the right to dictate lgbt images? The organization is basically saying, "despite the fact that lgbts families exist and despite the fact that they are consumers, we don't like the idea of lgbt families so we are going to do everything we can to hinder that image."
I'm sure the AFA will give us the standard line of "not hating gays" and "just because you don't agree with the lifestyle means that you hate the person," but it just doesn't wash here.
It's one thing to be angry at a company for whom it gives money to, but this goes beyond the pale.
The AFA is angry because Campbell Soup dared to acknowledge the fact that not only lgbt families exist but they are pretty normal.
This attempt to dehumanize us and stigmatize our families under the guise of religion is what lgbts have to deal with everyday in one form or another.
And frankly, we are getting tired of it.
Unfortunately no one ever seems to want to ask Warren or Huckabee about things like this. And I won't hold my breath waiting for those questions.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Thank you Peter for showing the hypocrisy of your side
It took him a while but our friend Peter LaBarbera finally came through in trying to defend Pastor Rick Warren. Let's look at some clips from his defense:
By blasting Obama for choosing Rick Warren as an Inaugural speaker — and demonizing Warren as a “homophobe” because he supported Prop 8 — homosexual activists are showing the world just how empty their “tolerance” ideology really is
Here’s an outstanding release from Pastor Bryan Fischer with the Idaho Values Alliance, an affiliate of American Family Association. Poor Barack Obama: he’s promised the world to one of the most demanding and unreasonable special interest movements on the planet. Imagine blasting the gregarious Warren as a “homophobe” because he supported Prop 8 in California.
The press release makes it seem that lgbts going to riot in the streets during the event:
Prediction: for the first time in American history, a speaker at a presidential inauguration may be booed unmercifully, and his remarks completely drowned out by angry jeers from an incensed crowd. We may even see shoes tossed at the inauguration platform by the hundreds. It could be a modern day lynching, only this time the victim of a vigilante mob will be proverbially strung up not because of skin color but creed.
At the end of the press release, there is a listing of articles detailing the controversy as if to further illustrate how supposedly "intolerant" lgbts are.
Allow me to present my own list and it speaks to the audacity of the folks on the other side of the issue.
They attack lgbts for our anger at the Warren selection and play that "they say they are tolerant but this proves that they are not" game despite the fact that a short time ago, a lot of them were angry at Newsweek for its article on gay marriage. And they made this displeasure known:
Homosexuality — The Evangelical Temptation
AFA Takes on Newsweek’s Shameful Distortion of the Bible to Shill for Homosexual ‘Marriage’
Mohler on Newsweek article: The ‘biblical case for gay marriage’ falls flat
Newsweek Religion Editor Rewrites the Bible
Answering Newsweek
They call us intolerant despite the fact that a prominent pastor on their side was forced to resign because of his support of same sex relationships:
Evangelical Leader Takes Heat For His ‘Shift’ On Same-Sex Relationships
They call us whiners because of our anger over Warren despite the fact that they have been acting like serious crybabies over incidents involving aetheist displays at Christmas. (Editor's note - If you want to see true award-winning whining, check out the comments section of these articles):
Illinois Christians angry over atheist display
Washington State rewrites holiday display policy
Multicultural displays 'neutering' Christmas
And not long before Peter started shilling for Warren's presence at the inauguration, he was raising hell that a gay marching band would be appearing:
Transgender Twirlers? Homosexual Band to March in Obama’s Inaugural Parade
So what's the deal here?
When the religious right complain about something, it's perfectly okay but when lgbts do the same thing, we are being intolerant?
I don't think so.
I noticed that One News Now has been noticeably silent on the Warren controversy. Thank God for Peter LaBarbera whose pathetic attempts to be relevant does his side more harm than good.
It took him a while but our friend Peter LaBarbera finally came through in trying to defend Pastor Rick Warren. Let's look at some clips from his defense:
By blasting Obama for choosing Rick Warren as an Inaugural speaker — and demonizing Warren as a “homophobe” because he supported Prop 8 — homosexual activists are showing the world just how empty their “tolerance” ideology really is
Here’s an outstanding release from Pastor Bryan Fischer with the Idaho Values Alliance, an affiliate of American Family Association. Poor Barack Obama: he’s promised the world to one of the most demanding and unreasonable special interest movements on the planet. Imagine blasting the gregarious Warren as a “homophobe” because he supported Prop 8 in California.
The press release makes it seem that lgbts going to riot in the streets during the event:
Prediction: for the first time in American history, a speaker at a presidential inauguration may be booed unmercifully, and his remarks completely drowned out by angry jeers from an incensed crowd. We may even see shoes tossed at the inauguration platform by the hundreds. It could be a modern day lynching, only this time the victim of a vigilante mob will be proverbially strung up not because of skin color but creed.
At the end of the press release, there is a listing of articles detailing the controversy as if to further illustrate how supposedly "intolerant" lgbts are.
Allow me to present my own list and it speaks to the audacity of the folks on the other side of the issue.
They attack lgbts for our anger at the Warren selection and play that "they say they are tolerant but this proves that they are not" game despite the fact that a short time ago, a lot of them were angry at Newsweek for its article on gay marriage. And they made this displeasure known:
Homosexuality — The Evangelical Temptation
AFA Takes on Newsweek’s Shameful Distortion of the Bible to Shill for Homosexual ‘Marriage’
Mohler on Newsweek article: The ‘biblical case for gay marriage’ falls flat
Newsweek Religion Editor Rewrites the Bible
Answering Newsweek
They call us intolerant despite the fact that a prominent pastor on their side was forced to resign because of his support of same sex relationships:
Evangelical Leader Takes Heat For His ‘Shift’ On Same-Sex Relationships
They call us whiners because of our anger over Warren despite the fact that they have been acting like serious crybabies over incidents involving aetheist displays at Christmas. (Editor's note - If you want to see true award-winning whining, check out the comments section of these articles):
Illinois Christians angry over atheist display
Washington State rewrites holiday display policy
Multicultural displays 'neutering' Christmas
And not long before Peter started shilling for Warren's presence at the inauguration, he was raising hell that a gay marching band would be appearing:
Transgender Twirlers? Homosexual Band to March in Obama’s Inaugural Parade
So what's the deal here?
When the religious right complain about something, it's perfectly okay but when lgbts do the same thing, we are being intolerant?
I don't think so.
I noticed that One News Now has been noticeably silent on the Warren controversy. Thank God for Peter LaBarbera whose pathetic attempts to be relevant does his side more harm than good.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
A new challenge to the lgbt community - analyze the war against lgbts
I've noticed that in the Obama/Warren controversy, folks have been making comparisons between inviting Rick Warren and inviting a known racist like David Duke:
You wouldn't give David Duke a prominent place at the inaguration. Also if Warren maligned any other group like he maligned gays, we wouldn't be having this conversation about "having a dialogue."
Those who press this argument do have a point. But the devil is in the details.
People are throwing around the word "homophobic" to describe Warren but what they don't understand is that the word "homophobic" does not have the same power as the words "Anti-Semite" or "racist."
With the words "racist" and "Anti-Semite" comes the history of lynchings, cross burnings, the Holocaust and various other acts of violence.
But before you point out the case of Lawrence King, Matthew Shepard, and others who have suffered homophobic violence, remember one thing.
The racists and the Anti-Semites don't have people like Tony Perkins or James Dobson invited on news programs to give their positions.
And not matter how ugly anti-gay violence is, people like Perkins and Dobson are able to distance themselves from these acts. With a calm visage and a smiling face, they are able to bat down the word "homophobic" as a term that gays use to bash Christians.
This speaks as to how insidious the war against lgbts actually is. For the most part, the weapons are not sticks, knives, and guns, but carefully worded rhetoric and soundbites that have been practiced consistently in meeting rooms until they have the semblance of sounding unthreatening.
So the question is how do we combat this without looking like raging dogs.
I've noticed that in the Obama/Warren controversy, folks have been making comparisons between inviting Rick Warren and inviting a known racist like David Duke:
You wouldn't give David Duke a prominent place at the inaguration. Also if Warren maligned any other group like he maligned gays, we wouldn't be having this conversation about "having a dialogue."
Those who press this argument do have a point. But the devil is in the details.
People are throwing around the word "homophobic" to describe Warren but what they don't understand is that the word "homophobic" does not have the same power as the words "Anti-Semite" or "racist."
With the words "racist" and "Anti-Semite" comes the history of lynchings, cross burnings, the Holocaust and various other acts of violence.
But before you point out the case of Lawrence King, Matthew Shepard, and others who have suffered homophobic violence, remember one thing.
The racists and the Anti-Semites don't have people like Tony Perkins or James Dobson invited on news programs to give their positions.
And not matter how ugly anti-gay violence is, people like Perkins and Dobson are able to distance themselves from these acts. With a calm visage and a smiling face, they are able to bat down the word "homophobic" as a term that gays use to bash Christians.
This speaks as to how insidious the war against lgbts actually is. For the most part, the weapons are not sticks, knives, and guns, but carefully worded rhetoric and soundbites that have been practiced consistently in meeting rooms until they have the semblance of sounding unthreatening.
So the question is how do we combat this without looking like raging dogs.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Chill out people! It's not the end of the world just yet
I cringe to say this and I know folks are going to be a little upset but . . .
Everyone needs to chill out about Obama selecting Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inaguration.
For the record, I am not in favor of the choice. I think Obama was showing that he is a president for all Americans, even though many of us do not share same views on controversial issues.
It was a clumsy attempt but as much as I hate to admit it, I have to give him points for it.
And I will tell you why I feel this way.
I was involved in the protest when Donnie McClurkin toured for Obama in 2006. I didn't like what happened then but mostly I hated how the entire thing ended. There were folks on our side who were too strident and undisciplined, Donnie McClurkin came out of the controversy smelling like a rose, and still the issues of lgbts of color were not addressed.
Subsequently, I did some soul searching and came to the conclusion that sometimes you have to step back and look at the bigger picture before going off half cocked.
Also, I remember how the religious right acted when Bush was re-elected in 2004.
I remember the cocky comments from pastors who loudly declared that they were the ones who got Bush re-elected and as such folks had better show them some respect.
I remember the words of Bob Jones University in a letter written to Bush after the election:
You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you.
I remember how Bush said the election gave him capital and he was going to use it. And use it he did. We are going to be paying for how he used his capital long after he leaves office.
So when I remember these things, I cringe when I hear the comments of my lgbt brothers and sisters who are already declaring “game over” and calling Obama everything but a child of God.
I cringe to hear the extreme hyperbolic claims that Obama has thrown lgbt families over the side.
Has he really?
No he hasn’t. All he did was reach out to a core of constituents.
Warren and people like him have been unfairly appropriating words like “family” and “values” and making their views seem moderate when they are anything but moderate.
But they are Americans too. And while we see them as misguided, Obama sees them as people that he has been elected to reach out to and represent.
The problem here does not lie with Obama. The problem lies with the assumption that Obama’s election is a magic lamp that will make our problems go away.
That’s not the case. The road got less bumpy with Obama in office but it is still a long road that we have to travel to get what we need.
And we still have work to do. We still have to educate Americans (Obama included) on who we are, what our needs are, and how we have a right to words like “family” and “values.”
Obama is going to be in office for at least four years. During that time, I know that I will not agree with every decision he makes.
But I am still glad he was elected. And I am not ready to say “game over” just yet.
I cringe to say this and I know folks are going to be a little upset but . . .
Everyone needs to chill out about Obama selecting Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inaguration.
For the record, I am not in favor of the choice. I think Obama was showing that he is a president for all Americans, even though many of us do not share same views on controversial issues.
It was a clumsy attempt but as much as I hate to admit it, I have to give him points for it.
And I will tell you why I feel this way.
I was involved in the protest when Donnie McClurkin toured for Obama in 2006. I didn't like what happened then but mostly I hated how the entire thing ended. There were folks on our side who were too strident and undisciplined, Donnie McClurkin came out of the controversy smelling like a rose, and still the issues of lgbts of color were not addressed.
Subsequently, I did some soul searching and came to the conclusion that sometimes you have to step back and look at the bigger picture before going off half cocked.
Also, I remember how the religious right acted when Bush was re-elected in 2004.
I remember the cocky comments from pastors who loudly declared that they were the ones who got Bush re-elected and as such folks had better show them some respect.
I remember the words of Bob Jones University in a letter written to Bush after the election:
You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you.
I remember how Bush said the election gave him capital and he was going to use it. And use it he did. We are going to be paying for how he used his capital long after he leaves office.
So when I remember these things, I cringe when I hear the comments of my lgbt brothers and sisters who are already declaring “game over” and calling Obama everything but a child of God.
I cringe to hear the extreme hyperbolic claims that Obama has thrown lgbt families over the side.
Has he really?
No he hasn’t. All he did was reach out to a core of constituents.
Warren and people like him have been unfairly appropriating words like “family” and “values” and making their views seem moderate when they are anything but moderate.
But they are Americans too. And while we see them as misguided, Obama sees them as people that he has been elected to reach out to and represent.
The problem here does not lie with Obama. The problem lies with the assumption that Obama’s election is a magic lamp that will make our problems go away.
That’s not the case. The road got less bumpy with Obama in office but it is still a long road that we have to travel to get what we need.
And we still have work to do. We still have to educate Americans (Obama included) on who we are, what our needs are, and how we have a right to words like “family” and “values.”
Obama is going to be in office for at least four years. During that time, I know that I will not agree with every decision he makes.
But I am still glad he was elected. And I am not ready to say “game over” just yet.
Obama and Rick Warren - Let's do the right thing
Homobigot Rick Warren to deliver invocation at inauguration
I don't like it but can we do something other than getting on our computers and spew venom? I swear if some of us lgbts did what we needed to do in our individual communities as quick as we throw around hyperbole on blogs, we would be unbeatable.
Of course it's not supposed to be all peaches and cream. I'm sure before it's all said and done, Obama will do things to piss us off as well as delight us.
One thing for sure though. In light of their protests over the recent Newsweek article about religion and gay marriage, the religious right had better not say a damned thing about our supposed "lack of tolerance."
Of course who am I kidding?
But this is the perfect time to act as a community. I am sorry if I offended some by my first statements but I am of the opinion that we shouldn't waste time talking about how "Obama betrayed us."
We need to show our anger as a community over this action. When the religious right gets angry, they complain en masse.
Why should we be any different?
I don't like the assumption that Obama should "get where we are coming from" without some prodding from us from time to time.
And this is one of those times.
So, if you want to complain, here are the appropriate emails to do it. I don't think I have to tell you all to show some dignity and respect. Be courteous:
parag.mehta@ptt.gov (Parag Mehta is Obama’s LGBT liaison in the transition team.)
dnoble@barackobama.com
bbond@barackobama.com
steve@hildebrandtewes.com (Steve Hildebrandt)
fred.hochberg@ptt.com )
Homobigot Rick Warren to deliver invocation at inauguration
I don't like it but can we do something other than getting on our computers and spew venom? I swear if some of us lgbts did what we needed to do in our individual communities as quick as we throw around hyperbole on blogs, we would be unbeatable.
Of course it's not supposed to be all peaches and cream. I'm sure before it's all said and done, Obama will do things to piss us off as well as delight us.
One thing for sure though. In light of their protests over the recent Newsweek article about religion and gay marriage, the religious right had better not say a damned thing about our supposed "lack of tolerance."
Of course who am I kidding?
But this is the perfect time to act as a community. I am sorry if I offended some by my first statements but I am of the opinion that we shouldn't waste time talking about how "Obama betrayed us."
We need to show our anger as a community over this action. When the religious right gets angry, they complain en masse.
Why should we be any different?
I don't like the assumption that Obama should "get where we are coming from" without some prodding from us from time to time.
And this is one of those times.
So, if you want to complain, here are the appropriate emails to do it. I don't think I have to tell you all to show some dignity and respect. Be courteous:
parag.mehta@ptt.gov (Parag Mehta is Obama’s LGBT liaison in the transition team.)
dnoble@barackobama.com
bbond@barackobama.com
steve@hildebrandtewes.com (Steve Hildebrandt)
fred.hochberg@ptt.com )
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The Family Research Council and the Disappearing Studies on Homosexuality
While we are all anticipating an Obama Administration and while the religious right continues to compile inaccurate anecdotes about “gay persecutors,” something strange has taken place on the Family Research Council’s webpage.
Several “studies” about homosexuality are gone.
The following studies are no longer on the Family Research Council’s webpage - The Negative Effects of Homosexuality, Homosexuality and Child Abuse, and Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk.
If you click the following links (taken from here), you will see what I am talking about:
"Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse," Insight No. 247 (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council), May 17, 2002 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3)
· "The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality," Insight No. 232 (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council), March 6, 2001 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1)
· "Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk," Insight No. 238 (Washington: Family Research Council) November 1, 2001 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3)
These studies were supposed to show the so-called “dangers of homosexuality.” All of the religious right talking points about lgbts are touched on including:
Gays molest children at a high rate,
While we are all anticipating an Obama Administration and while the religious right continues to compile inaccurate anecdotes about “gay persecutors,” something strange has taken place on the Family Research Council’s webpage.
Several “studies” about homosexuality are gone.
The following studies are no longer on the Family Research Council’s webpage - The Negative Effects of Homosexuality, Homosexuality and Child Abuse, and Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk.
If you click the following links (taken from here), you will see what I am talking about:
"Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse," Insight No. 247 (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council), May 17, 2002 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3)
· "The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality," Insight No. 232 (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council), March 6, 2001 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1)
· "Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk," Insight No. 238 (Washington: Family Research Council) November 1, 2001 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3)
These studies were supposed to show the so-called “dangers of homosexuality.” All of the religious right talking points about lgbts are touched on including:
Gays molest children at a high rate,
Gays have a short life span,
Gays and lesbians don’t know how to be monogamous,
Gays and lesbians have high rate of domestic violence.
The author of these items, Timothy Dailey, is still employed with the Family Research Council and one of his areas of "expertise" is homosexuality. This is highly strange because according to his bio, Dailey’s Ph.D. and qualifications all fall under religion.
For the record, his studies about homosexuality were highly flawed.
In them, Dailey cited out-of-date data compiled in the early 1970s, distorted other studies (including the 1997 Canadian study concerning the “gay life span”), and relied on discredited work (i.e. discredited researcher Paul Cameron).
One of his papers in particular, Homosexuality and Child Abuse, got complaints from former director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections, A. Nicholas Groth.
In 2002, Groth said that Dailey distorted his work to claim that gays molest children at a higher rate than heterosexual men.
The irony is that this was the same error Paul Cameron made with Groth’s work in 1984. Groth complained then too.
I don’t know when Dailey's studies was removed, but they were on the webpage in 2006. It was at that time on my blog I noted how some of them included the following proviso:
Please note: this article is an archived item on Family Research Council's website; the information contained therein may be outdated.
At the time, I called it a "cover your ass disclaimer."
I called the Family Research Council last week in order to get some answers. A very nice woman who answered my call told me that I would have to speak Dailey to get more details.
I left two messages via email and have yet to receive an answer.
So the question is are we seeing some quiet acknowledgment by the Family Research Council that some of their “studies” on lgbts were flawed?
Since I haven't spoken to Dailey, I cannot give a definite answer.
But if this is the case, then I think the Family Research Council owes the lgbt community more than an covert abandonment of these studies.
I would like to have something a bit more public from the Family Research Council. These studies are present on other unaffiliated sites and have probably been used numerous times in attempts to beat back pro-gay legislation.
Also they have helped form inaccurate images put forth about lgbts by the religious right.
In light of how we lgbts have been unfairly called terrorists for our reaction over the Proposition 8 vote, anything less than a full and public acknowledgement is unacceptable.
Anything less than a full and public acknowledgement would be a classic case of throwing rocks and then pleading innocence when those hit by the rocks react.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)