Possible appeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell attacked . . . by a former gay porn star
And now we have reached the realm of ridiculousness.
President Obama's pledge to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the policy that deals with gays in the military, has received much praise from some corners and much criticism from others.
But the criticism he received this week puts everything in Rod Serling territory.
From Fox Forum:
The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) would force the United States military to accept the future same-sex marriages of those serving. Activists would use this federal recognition of gay marriage in the military to challenge and force a repeal of state constitutional amendments, but wedding bells are not the only reason why gay advocates and military officials should not be heading to the altar.
A 2008 Military Times poll of members of the armed forces found that the troops were opposed to the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell by a margin of 2 to 1.
The queer thing about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is that President Bill Clinton mandated the policy after numerous campaign promises to the Clinton lesbian, gay and transgender constituency. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was designed to protect those who serve and participate in the LGBT lifestyle against unfair prosecution from their superiors.
Never mind that the Military Times poll was said to have been sloppy and biased (Participants in the survey were drawn from a volunteer pool of readers to the 'Military Times', instead of a random sampling of active duty personnel) because I am concerned with the author of this column - Matt Sanchez.
For the benefit of those who don't know, Sanchez served as a Marine reservist. He also used to be involved in gay porn under the names Pierre LaBranche and Rod Majors.
So from gay porn star to War Correspondent and Political Commentator. I guess anyone can achieve anything in America.
The entire thing confuses me. I liked it better when Elaine Donnelly was spinning tales black lesbians raping white service women.
As I understand it, Sanchez considers himself straight. That being the case, the evil side of me is just itching to make a bad joke.
What the hell:
Sanchez's very appearance more than proves that gays in the military isn't a bad idea. He is proof that all of us can put our sexual orientation aside when we have a job to do, whether that job be defending our country or sucking (shut your mouth)!
Saturday, January 31, 2009
How anti-gay campaigns start
The Queer-Straight Alliance in East Chapel Hill High School (North Carolina) recently held an assembly that students were allegedly required to attend.
In doing so, they may have violated school policy:
The principal of East Chapel Hill High School said a gay-awareness club and its advisers violated school policy Wednesday by holding an assembly that hundreds of English students were required to attend.
Principal David Thaden said in an interview Thursday that he was unaware of the assembly, which was held several times during the day.
Thaden said he planned to talk with the teachers who work with the Queer-Straight Alliance and also the English teachers who brought their students to the assemblies.
Thaden said that any assembly involving material that is not part of the school curriculum must be approved by the administration, and this was not.
All of the details of this incident isn't known and for the record, only three parents complained. But if this does pan out the way it looks, simple reprimands are in order.
But from the comments under the article (some of which are proving the need for such an assembly), someone is already pushing for the Allied Defense Fund to be called in. And we know how they can exploit a situation like this.
How long will it be before One News Now or our friend Peter LaBarbera comes out with a one-sided article about the incident? How long will be before they inaccurately frame this incident as a "plot to indoctrinate children into the gay agenda?"
Or Bill O'Reilly to feature a biased news piece on the incident complete with his foaming at the mouth commentary and interruptions?
Or Michelle Malkin to write a nasty diatribe about the incident?
Or Focus on the Family, the American Family Association, the Liberty Counsel, or any of those other phony "pro-family" groups to start sending out press releases or making videos exploiting this incident in attempts to beat back gay-straight alliances nationwide.
I don't know what's worse: the possibility that this incident may be blown out of proportion or the knowledge that none of these folks would make a peep if the situation had to do with an lgbt child getting bashed.
The Queer-Straight Alliance in East Chapel Hill High School (North Carolina) recently held an assembly that students were allegedly required to attend.
In doing so, they may have violated school policy:
The principal of East Chapel Hill High School said a gay-awareness club and its advisers violated school policy Wednesday by holding an assembly that hundreds of English students were required to attend.
Principal David Thaden said in an interview Thursday that he was unaware of the assembly, which was held several times during the day.
Thaden said he planned to talk with the teachers who work with the Queer-Straight Alliance and also the English teachers who brought their students to the assemblies.
Thaden said that any assembly involving material that is not part of the school curriculum must be approved by the administration, and this was not.
All of the details of this incident isn't known and for the record, only three parents complained. But if this does pan out the way it looks, simple reprimands are in order.
But from the comments under the article (some of which are proving the need for such an assembly), someone is already pushing for the Allied Defense Fund to be called in. And we know how they can exploit a situation like this.
How long will it be before One News Now or our friend Peter LaBarbera comes out with a one-sided article about the incident? How long will be before they inaccurately frame this incident as a "plot to indoctrinate children into the gay agenda?"
Or Bill O'Reilly to feature a biased news piece on the incident complete with his foaming at the mouth commentary and interruptions?
Or Michelle Malkin to write a nasty diatribe about the incident?
Or Focus on the Family, the American Family Association, the Liberty Counsel, or any of those other phony "pro-family" groups to start sending out press releases or making videos exploiting this incident in attempts to beat back gay-straight alliances nationwide.
I don't know what's worse: the possibility that this incident may be blown out of proportion or the knowledge that none of these folks would make a peep if the situation had to do with an lgbt child getting bashed.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Friday news briefs
Steele Elected RNC Chair - Who would have thought? Black is the new black. However, before anyone starts popping the champagne, please be aware that Steele isn't exactly a good guy. How long will it be before he possibly starts exploiting the divisions between the lgbt and African-American community?
They're organizing to protect DOMA already - John Aravosis is spot on when he says "This is indicative of the difference between conservatives and liberals: The right organizes years on an issue years in advance, the left organizes after we've lost." And, if I might add, they don't think that studying the tactics of the opposition is beneath them (the opposition in this case being us). If only some of us took the same frame of mind when it comes to them.
Anti-gay Arguments We Don’t Bother With (And Should): Part 2 - The continuation of the Box Turtle Bulletin series.
Lesbian couple wins court round - Ending the week on a happy note.
and now for something having to do with absolutely nothing . . .
Rainn Wilson auditions for PARANOID PARK - The only thing I know about Rainn Wilson is that he is a cast member of The Office. I don't know what Paranoid Park is. But this is strange, especially at 1:04. But I figure a little homoeroticism never hurt anyone.
Steele Elected RNC Chair - Who would have thought? Black is the new black. However, before anyone starts popping the champagne, please be aware that Steele isn't exactly a good guy. How long will it be before he possibly starts exploiting the divisions between the lgbt and African-American community?
They're organizing to protect DOMA already - John Aravosis is spot on when he says "This is indicative of the difference between conservatives and liberals: The right organizes years on an issue years in advance, the left organizes after we've lost." And, if I might add, they don't think that studying the tactics of the opposition is beneath them (the opposition in this case being us). If only some of us took the same frame of mind when it comes to them.
Anti-gay Arguments We Don’t Bother With (And Should): Part 2 - The continuation of the Box Turtle Bulletin series.
Lesbian couple wins court round - Ending the week on a happy note.
and now for something having to do with absolutely nothing . . .
Rainn Wilson auditions for PARANOID PARK - The only thing I know about Rainn Wilson is that he is a cast member of The Office. I don't know what Paranoid Park is. But this is strange, especially at 1:04. But I figure a little homoeroticism never hurt anyone.
Laurie Higgins - yet another phony expert
One of the most annoying things about the religious right is how they seem to anoint every Tom, Dick, and Harry as an "expert" on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Credentials such as degrees and such are not needed here. All you need is a so-called Christian mind and the temerity to lie in the name of God.
I've seen this sort of thing before with Linda Harvey of Mission America. Harvey, a former ad executive who supposedly accepted Jesus in her heart, took it upon herself for develop some sort of "risk management" test for high schools who dared to acknowledge the existence of lgbt students and teachers.
I'm glad to say that her nonsense was pretty much ignored.
Now comes another phony expert, Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute.
She is angry that two transgendered women are suing the state in order to change the sex on their birth certificates. And she takes it upon herself to diagnose these two women with a medical condition, despite the fact that she has no expertise to do so:
In the Jan. 28, 2009 edition of the Chicago Tribune, there is a story about the two sexual amputees who are suing the state over the refusal of the state to change the “gender” designation on their birth certificates from “male” to “female.” Several important points must be made. First, it’s utterly reprehensible that anyone in the medical community would be complicit in facilitating a psychological disorder by amputating healthy body parts. There is a condition known as either apotemnophilia or Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) that is characterized by the desire to amputate a healthy limb. It is useful for comparison in that it is thought by many to be closely related to Gender Identity Disorder (i.e., transsexualism), which society is increasingly accepting as a valid identity that emerges from biological influences and whose behavioral manifestations are morally legitimate.
Sexual amputees? You mean ugly language.
Higgins's unhinged commentary shines a light on just what direction the religious right will be going in order to exploit people's ignorance of the transgender community.
Oh these folks want to mutilate themselves. They want body parts sliced off.
What Higgins is doing is the old tactic of nauseating instead of educating. It's a cynical ploy and fits very well with the modus operandi of these supposed pro-family spokespeople.
The issues involving the transgender community have nothing to do with body mutilation. They are more complicated and frankly I think that there should be more education on who our transgendered brothers and sisters are.
That way, ignorant seeds, like those planted by Laurie Higgins, won't be allowed to sprout.
By the way, for more information about Higgins, including her unwarranted attacks on Illinois's Deerfield High School, go here.
One of the most annoying things about the religious right is how they seem to anoint every Tom, Dick, and Harry as an "expert" on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Credentials such as degrees and such are not needed here. All you need is a so-called Christian mind and the temerity to lie in the name of God.
I've seen this sort of thing before with Linda Harvey of Mission America. Harvey, a former ad executive who supposedly accepted Jesus in her heart, took it upon herself for develop some sort of "risk management" test for high schools who dared to acknowledge the existence of lgbt students and teachers.
I'm glad to say that her nonsense was pretty much ignored.
Now comes another phony expert, Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute.
She is angry that two transgendered women are suing the state in order to change the sex on their birth certificates. And she takes it upon herself to diagnose these two women with a medical condition, despite the fact that she has no expertise to do so:
In the Jan. 28, 2009 edition of the Chicago Tribune, there is a story about the two sexual amputees who are suing the state over the refusal of the state to change the “gender” designation on their birth certificates from “male” to “female.” Several important points must be made. First, it’s utterly reprehensible that anyone in the medical community would be complicit in facilitating a psychological disorder by amputating healthy body parts. There is a condition known as either apotemnophilia or Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) that is characterized by the desire to amputate a healthy limb. It is useful for comparison in that it is thought by many to be closely related to Gender Identity Disorder (i.e., transsexualism), which society is increasingly accepting as a valid identity that emerges from biological influences and whose behavioral manifestations are morally legitimate.
Sexual amputees? You mean ugly language.
Higgins's unhinged commentary shines a light on just what direction the religious right will be going in order to exploit people's ignorance of the transgender community.
Oh these folks want to mutilate themselves. They want body parts sliced off.
What Higgins is doing is the old tactic of nauseating instead of educating. It's a cynical ploy and fits very well with the modus operandi of these supposed pro-family spokespeople.
The issues involving the transgender community have nothing to do with body mutilation. They are more complicated and frankly I think that there should be more education on who our transgendered brothers and sisters are.
That way, ignorant seeds, like those planted by Laurie Higgins, won't be allowed to sprout.
By the way, for more information about Higgins, including her unwarranted attacks on Illinois's Deerfield High School, go here.
Conflict resolution - it's a good thing
Joe Brummer has a new site .
Brummer, a good friend and supporter of mine from day one, has in the past brought an intelligent and calm perspective to this so-called cultural war.
Via his old site, Brummer consistently refuted religious right lies in a manner that gave the purveyors of these distortions respect but called them out for their dishonesty.
On his new site, Brummer wants to solely focus on conflict resolution and nonviolence training. Other services he provides are communication training, mediation, conflict coaching, facilitation, and web design.
I say more power to him, especially in this climate.
Joe Brummer has a new site .
Brummer, a good friend and supporter of mine from day one, has in the past brought an intelligent and calm perspective to this so-called cultural war.
Via his old site, Brummer consistently refuted religious right lies in a manner that gave the purveyors of these distortions respect but called them out for their dishonesty.
On his new site, Brummer wants to solely focus on conflict resolution and nonviolence training. Other services he provides are communication training, mediation, conflict coaching, facilitation, and web design.
I say more power to him, especially in this climate.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Stop misrepresenting the Lisa Miller/Janet Jenkins custody case
There has been a case going through the courts for the past couple of years regarding two lesbians and a child they agreed to raise.
Or rather, a lesbian, a "former" lesbian, and a child they agreed to raise.
This is how the religious right organization Liberty Counsel has described the case:
Activist judges in Vermont have declared that a legal stranger is a mommy to another woman's biological child. Now, a Vermont judge will decide whether to order the six year old little girl be stripped from the loving arms of the only mommy she has ever known - her biological mother, Lisa.
Lisa Miller left the homosexual lifestyle and became a Christian when Isabella was 17 months old. Janet Jenkins, who was Lisa's same-sex partner when Lisa gave birth to Isabella, then sought full custody of Isabella, claiming she was a parent even though she was not biologically related to Isabella and never sought to adopt her.
Not only did Vermont create new law from the bench to declare that Isabella has two mommies, but appellate courts in Virginia (the state where Isabella was born and has lived all but 13 months of her life) directed Virginia to fully recognize the Vermont orders giving Janet (who lives in Vermont) liberal unsupervised visitation. In doing so, the courts ignored Virginia's Marriage Amendment and marriage laws declaring all rights arising from same-sex relationships void and unenforceable.
However, like always with religious right groups, the Liberty Counsel omitted several things thereby distorting the case in pursuit of its own agenda.
In December 2008, Newsweek magazine featured a long article about the case. Here are some facts that the Liberty Counsel omitted:
Miller and Jenkins agreed to raise Isabella together.
Jenkins said the reason why she did not file for adoption was because she was told she didn't need to because they had the civil union (the two had married in a Vermont civil union before Isabella was born).
When the two broke up, Miller agreed to allow Jenkins to have visitation rights. Jenkins even paid child support. Miller allegedly began keeping Isabella away from Jenkins. Even now, she refuses to allow her to have unsupervised time with Isabella even though she has been ordered to.
The entire controversy is solely because Miller will not allow Jenkins to have unsupervised time with Isabella. Jenkins mainly won her case due to the Federal Kidnapping Prevention Law.
Miller has claimed she witnessed Isabella engage in disturbing behavior after vists with Jenkins. The claims were investigated by Virginia's Child Protective Services and were deemed "unfounded."
I hope that in the long run, things work out for little Isabella.
But in all honesty, how the Liberty Counsel is framing this case is extremely dishonest. These women agreed to raise the child together. And after they split up, they agreed on visitation, with Jenkins paying child support.
It seems that Miller decided that she didn't like what is going on and took it upon herself to void whatever agreement she and Jenkins had. My opinion is that Jenkins has a right to a say in the raising of her daughter.
The Liberty Counsel does no one justice in the way it attempts tug at emotions with inaccurate connotations of a crying child being ripped from the arms of her mother.
It's a shame that this "Christian group" feels the need to stoop so low. In a case where there should be no villains, the Liberty Counsel is doing its best to fill that role.
There has been a case going through the courts for the past couple of years regarding two lesbians and a child they agreed to raise.
Or rather, a lesbian, a "former" lesbian, and a child they agreed to raise.
This is how the religious right organization Liberty Counsel has described the case:
Activist judges in Vermont have declared that a legal stranger is a mommy to another woman's biological child. Now, a Vermont judge will decide whether to order the six year old little girl be stripped from the loving arms of the only mommy she has ever known - her biological mother, Lisa.
Lisa Miller left the homosexual lifestyle and became a Christian when Isabella was 17 months old. Janet Jenkins, who was Lisa's same-sex partner when Lisa gave birth to Isabella, then sought full custody of Isabella, claiming she was a parent even though she was not biologically related to Isabella and never sought to adopt her.
Not only did Vermont create new law from the bench to declare that Isabella has two mommies, but appellate courts in Virginia (the state where Isabella was born and has lived all but 13 months of her life) directed Virginia to fully recognize the Vermont orders giving Janet (who lives in Vermont) liberal unsupervised visitation. In doing so, the courts ignored Virginia's Marriage Amendment and marriage laws declaring all rights arising from same-sex relationships void and unenforceable.
However, like always with religious right groups, the Liberty Counsel omitted several things thereby distorting the case in pursuit of its own agenda.
In December 2008, Newsweek magazine featured a long article about the case. Here are some facts that the Liberty Counsel omitted:
Miller and Jenkins agreed to raise Isabella together.
Jenkins said the reason why she did not file for adoption was because she was told she didn't need to because they had the civil union (the two had married in a Vermont civil union before Isabella was born).
When the two broke up, Miller agreed to allow Jenkins to have visitation rights. Jenkins even paid child support. Miller allegedly began keeping Isabella away from Jenkins. Even now, she refuses to allow her to have unsupervised time with Isabella even though she has been ordered to.
The entire controversy is solely because Miller will not allow Jenkins to have unsupervised time with Isabella. Jenkins mainly won her case due to the Federal Kidnapping Prevention Law.
Miller has claimed she witnessed Isabella engage in disturbing behavior after vists with Jenkins. The claims were investigated by Virginia's Child Protective Services and were deemed "unfounded."
I hope that in the long run, things work out for little Isabella.
But in all honesty, how the Liberty Counsel is framing this case is extremely dishonest. These women agreed to raise the child together. And after they split up, they agreed on visitation, with Jenkins paying child support.
It seems that Miller decided that she didn't like what is going on and took it upon herself to void whatever agreement she and Jenkins had. My opinion is that Jenkins has a right to a say in the raising of her daughter.
The Liberty Counsel does no one justice in the way it attempts tug at emotions with inaccurate connotations of a crying child being ripped from the arms of her mother.
It's a shame that this "Christian group" feels the need to stoop so low. In a case where there should be no villains, the Liberty Counsel is doing its best to fill that role.
More on the Pink Swastika - showing my work
I was reminded by a commentator that if I make a comment that religious right work has been discredited, I should show my proof.
This is true. Yesterday, I said the Pink Swastika, a religious right tome claiming that gays influenced the Nazi Party in Germany, was discredited. However, I neglected to show proof.
Allow me to now:
From the Southern Poverty Law Center:
The Pink Swastika — whose cover has a swastika in place of the "x" in "homosexuality" in the book's subtitle — has been roundly discredited by legitimate historians and was thoroughly debunked in a 2005 Intelligence Report article. Stephen Feinstein, director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the University of Minnesota, said the book was "produced by a right-wing Christian cult and is as correct as flat earth theory."
From that 2005 Intelligence Report:
Written by fundamentalist activists Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika says that rather than being victimized by the Nazis, gay men in Hitler's inner circle actually helped mastermind the Holocaust.
"While we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in Nazism," write Lively and Abrams. "To the myth of the 'pink triangle' — the notion that all homosexuals in Nazi Germany were persecuted — we must respond with the reality of the 'pink swastika.'"
Historians agree that this "reality" is utterly false. But many anti-gay crusaders have used the "gay Nazi" myth as proof that gay people are immoral and destructive.
I was reminded by a commentator that if I make a comment that religious right work has been discredited, I should show my proof.
This is true. Yesterday, I said the Pink Swastika, a religious right tome claiming that gays influenced the Nazi Party in Germany, was discredited. However, I neglected to show proof.
Allow me to now:
From the Southern Poverty Law Center:
The Pink Swastika — whose cover has a swastika in place of the "x" in "homosexuality" in the book's subtitle — has been roundly discredited by legitimate historians and was thoroughly debunked in a 2005 Intelligence Report article. Stephen Feinstein, director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the University of Minnesota, said the book was "produced by a right-wing Christian cult and is as correct as flat earth theory."
From that 2005 Intelligence Report:
Written by fundamentalist activists Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika says that rather than being victimized by the Nazis, gay men in Hitler's inner circle actually helped mastermind the Holocaust.
"While we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in Nazism," write Lively and Abrams. "To the myth of the 'pink triangle' — the notion that all homosexuals in Nazi Germany were persecuted — we must respond with the reality of the 'pink swastika.'"
Historians agree that this "reality" is utterly false. But many anti-gay crusaders have used the "gay Nazi" myth as proof that gay people are immoral and destructive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)