James Dobson surrenders the fort - whoop te do

While we fight the SC Legislature over that mean spirited bill, it's difficult to remember that things aren't totally bad for lgbts.

After all, James Dobson has given up the fight, so to speak:

Politically, James Dobson has surrendered. At least for the time being. Today, the Focus on the Family founder devotes his typically family-focused radio show to what he calls "the utter evil that's coming out of the United States Congress." He's referring to the hate crimes bill that recently passed the House.

That's not so unusual.

What's surprising is that Dobson tells his listeners that they're politically helpless:

I want to tell you up front that we're not going to ask you to do anything, to make a phone call or to write a letter or anything.

There is nothing you can do at this time about what is taking place because there is simply no limit to what the left can do at this time. Anything they want, they get and so we can't stop them.

We tried with [Health and Human Services Secretary] Kathleen Sebelius and sent thousands of phone calls and emails to the Senate and they didn't pay any attention to it because they don't have to. And so what you can do is pray, pray for this great nation... As I see it, there is no other answer. There's no other answer, short term.

So much for Christianity being the religion of hope. In reality, I think Dobson is being overly dramatic. I don't buy his phony surrender.

And apparently neither do many of the commentators:

Dobson speaks of conservative Christians as entering "their most discouraging" period, but he needs to return to the bible to see the political environment that birthed his religion, Jesus; entire ministry, indeed hes life, was spent under Roman occupation, but this didn't make an iota of difference in his mission. In fact, the church began awash with the blood and suffering of its martyrs. And this brand of Christianity becomes "discouraged" in the face of a Liberal Congress and Democrats in power? Tsk, tsk, Mr. Dobson...

Did I miss James Dobson's complaints when Republicans under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush controlled all three branches of government? Dobson takes the position of a spoiled, cowardly, cry-baby. Hypocrisy is his religion.

Dobson is just stoking the victim mentality his ilk feed off of. Underlying his taunt is "I say we're helpless but I'm just waiting for one of you brave souls to step up and prove me wrong". This kind of nonsense has nothing to do with religion. Clowns like Dobson are to Christianity what Bin Laden is to Islam - cunning manipulators of people too ignorant or intellectually lazy to know better. Turn of the TV and radio if you've got any guts and educate yourself. You don't need people like Dobson telling you what to do and think.

The hard right has led the utter decimation of the Republican party with their middle-ages mentality. Mr. Dobson, please don't give up hope and keep fighting, we need you to keep the Republicans out of step with majority of Americans.

Yes - repentance and prayer. That worked well during the Bush administration. It'll work just as well now. Get a grip people! The country is changing and doesn't want these old fashioned views anymore.

Having a spirited debate about the morality of government policy and initiatives is one thing. Characterizing anyone who doesn't believe as you do as a Godless immoral heathen is quite another. Dobson's decline was brought on by his own prejudices. He always did shill for the right wing of the Republican Party and so it is fitting that any pretense of being above the political aspirations of the GOP has been dropped. Reverend Doson, please retire to a life of prayer and reflection...and I will pray you come to realize how much you contributed to a divided United States of America.

I'm sick and tired of the evil, controlling Christian Right acting as if people that support Democrats are Godless and non-Christians. I am a Christian, raised in the Lutheran church, and I refuse to associate with any organized religion bc I don't need a church or a man telling me how to worship and how to vote. The Christian Right exhibit the most unChristian behaviors I can imagine. I would never associate myself with their version of Christianity. WWJD? He would not condone hatred, bigotry, and worship of a greedy pastor of a mega-church.

Bill with anti-gay amendment passes

I got this email from Ryan Wilson, head of SC Pride:

The House of Rep. just passed H. 3543 . . . amended to exclude same-sex dating relationships from education and reporting requirements in school districts in the state. The amendment to exclude passed by a vote of 87 to 13. The bill passed 75 to 25. Third reading is tomorrow.

According to the State newspaper:

Bill sponsor Rep. Joan Brady, R-Richland, said she's fine with the amendment to her bill because most dating violence occurs in girl-boy relationships.

That's a load of nonsense. What would the harm be to include lgbt relationships in this bill?

What I want to know is what's the deal with South Carolina's government. Why do our elected officials go out of their way to attack the lgbt community?

Last year, it was Governor Sanford vs. the "South Carolina is so gay" ad campaign. But that's frivilous when compared to this situation.

It doesn't feel good to know that the people we elect to represent us don't think that much of us to do their job.

Regardless of anyone's religious beliefs about homosexuality, lgbt children deserve protection just like heterosexual children.

I don't see what's so complicated about this.

Thursday midday news briefs

Barack's door: They knock Knox, we knock noxious attacks - You just know the religious right didn't like Harry Knox on President Obama's faith-based committee. It was just a matter of them finding the right lie to spin.

APA revises 'gay gene' theory - Leave it to One News Now to spin the APA revision lie. The truth of the story can be found here

FL winger Congressman files bill, still thinks Obama isn't a citizen - The birthers are like Jason Voorhees. They don't ever go away.

Uganda’s Anti-Gay Campaign Snares LGBT People and Rival Pastors, Tabloid Promises More “Outings” - They've declared war on lgbts in Uganda.

SC legislator wants to exclude gays from teen dating violence bill

Leave it to the South Carolina Legislature to shock my system this morning:

A bill, sponsored by Rep. Joan Brady, R-Richland, would require school districts to send home information or include in their student handbooks information about teen dating violence — including how to recognize whether a student is in an abusive relationship and where to go for help.

According to a 2007 state Department of Education survey, nearly 14 percent of S.C. students reported being “hit, slapped or physically hurt on purpose by their boyfriend or girlfriend” in the previous 12 months.

So far so good. It sounds like a productive idea. But then comes the shock:

The bill hit an unexpected roadblock Wednesday when Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester, introduced an amendment requiring the material to address only heterosexual relationships.

“I don’t want the Department of Education or school districts to teach children in grades six through 12 about (same-sex) relationships,” Delleney said.

I don't know where to begin to tell you what's wrong with Delleney's mindset. But I will try.

1. It stands to reason that if children are in a same-sex relationship (and I'm sure there are many who are), I don't think the school can't teach them something they already know. And even if they aren't in a same-sex relationship, children are not naive. Remind me to tell you the theories my 10-year-old cousin relayed to me about some of the characters of High School Musical.

2. Delleny's mindset is pure ignorance. His statement implies that learning about same-sex relationships will be mandatory in classrooms. This is what the bill says:

By Dec. 1, the S.C. Department of Education would have to develop a model dating violence policy to assist school districts in developing policies for reporting and responding to dating violence.

• By the 2010-2011 school year, each school district would establish a specific policy to address incidents of dating violence.

• Each school district’s dating violence policy would have to be published in school and school district handbooks or any publications on the school or district Web site that provide the rules, procedures or standards of conduct for students at school.

3. Delleny's mindset is also offensive. Gays are constantly hit with the barrage of nonsense that we want "special rights," but Delleny went out of his way to exclude us. He doesn't want to help us combat potential violence in our relationships because he doesn't care about us. It's bad enough when this comes from an ordinary citizen but the fact that a legislator publicly voices this notion without any shame is awful.

Delleny wasn't elected for his personal and religious beliefs. He was elected to serve the people of South Carolina regardless of race, religion, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation. He can't pick and choose who to serve. Or, in this case, who to protect.

His words emphasizes just how difficult it is for gays to live not only in South Carolina but in the United States in general. No other group is subject to the level of disrespect that we generally receive. Delleny wouldn't have gotten away with his public "screw you" if he had made any other group the subject of his tirade.

He will probably get a pat on the back by like minded homophobic individuals. Yes, Delleny is homophobic. I don't really see how anyone can use buzzwords to defend his actions. He isn't protecting traditional relationships or upholding morality.

Delleny is making it acceptable for South Carolina to cover it's ears so as not to hear the pleas of help coming from victims of relationship violence.

In a broader sense, he is making it acceptable to discriminate against South Carolinians simply because he has a personal problem with their sexual orientation.

And this is just basically wrong.

Peter LaBarbera is mad at me

I think our friend Peter LaBarbera is mad at me.

From time to time, I email Peter when I feel that his anti-gay postings are stepping a little too over the line of truth.

Today, I simply had to email him about something he put on his Americans for Truth webpage:

American Psychological Association Backtracks on ‘Gay Gene’ Claim

Peter is referring to a ridiculous article published by that lovely to-the-right of Atilla the Hun publication World Net Daily. The article claimed that the APA is now saying that there is no "gay gene."

Jeremy from Goodasyou destroyed this nonsensical piece of work before it even got off the ground:

. . . essentially WND is enabling NARTH and other "ex-gays," suggesting that a non-new, non-change from an organization that still very much stands against their work is somehow a "sudden" shift in policy. Once again, their side is using complexity to their advantage, simplistically and duplicitously presenting the scientific community's inability thus far to find one certain gene as "proof" that their own scientifically-shunned work has merit.

It's a good smackdown which I suggest you read (after you finish reading this post, naturally).

Jeremy's piece came out before Peter's post so rather than go into a long expository as to why he was misreprenting the APA's work, I sent LaBarbera this email:

Peter,

the more you misrepresent, the more you shame the body of Christ.

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/05/but-what-about-grasping-at-straws-wnd----is-that-genetic-or-a-choice.html#more

And you wonder why Bill O'Reilly won't have you on his show any longer.

Imagine my surprise when I received a reply in less than five minutes:

You think you were born homosexual, Alvin? What about developmental factors in your life? Did you have a healthy relationship with your father? Would you say you had a “normal” or stable upbringing? I’m curious. As for the Body of Christ, it’s odd to get lectured in such a way (“you shame the Body of Christ”) from someone who is not a part of it. I know that’s God’s ultimate call to make, but if you claim to be a faithful Christian AND a pro-homosexuality activist, that makes about as much sense as being a “faithful Christian and a swinger activist,” or a … pro-adultery Christian. In other words, it’s a lie and your fooling yourself if you claim to be a follower of Christ. However, you can become a Christian, but you would need to humble yourself and repent of your homosexual behavior and advocacy. I hope and will pray that you do that. Your feelings don’t decide Truth; God does.

PS. Get your facts straight: I was never on O’Reilly’s TV show. --pl

Now long time readers of this blog know that my father was a prison guard who was murdered in 2000 during an inmate escape attempt. Subsequently, the prison was named after him - the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center.

I am not saying that Peter knew this when he asked the question about my father - although I know for a fact that he has, from time to time, read my blog.

Nonetheless, I found it surprising as well as funny as to how vicious he tried to be in his email.

I think it was the O'Reilly thing.

Peter has a problem with the O'Reilly Factor inviting gay activist Wayne Besen on the show on several occasions while he hasn't been invited even once.

LaBarbera has taken out his anger against Besen with several "hit pieces" on his webpage like the pieces here and here.

So maybe my mentioning of the O'Reilly Factor was the equivalent of the magic mirror reminding the Wicked Queen that Snow White was much better looking than she.

Who knows.

Anyway, I did answer his silly email:

I seem to have struck a nerve.

Kinda rude don't you think to inquire about my family life in such an ugly way.

By the way, I am a person of faith. And it isn't really up to you to decide whether or not I am of the Body of Christ. That is unless you can point out a verse which says that you sit on the right hand of God.

Let me guess - you do have a Bible which says those words. And it's next to the verse which says it's okay to lie in God's name.

That would explain why you do it often.

But seriously, before you can even talk to me about repenting, maybe you need to acknowledge all of the lies you have told against the lgbt community, all of the times you have referred to bad studies (i.e. Paul Cameron), and all of the times you have misrepresented credible work - such as the American Psychological Association's pamphlet which seems to have started this brouhaha.

Thou shalt not bear false witness, Peter.

God made me gay and I am blessed for it. But I have never had to lie to defend this notion. You believe that homosexuality is a sin and you have lied as well as distorted to prove this notion.

How about you gain some integrity before you feel the need to lecture me.

But I guess I do stand corrected about the O'Reilly thing. Not that it matters any.

I really didn't see the need to get angry at LaBarbera. After all, I had fun messing with his head.

Sometimes it's so easy that I'm almost ashamed of myself.

Wednesday midday newsbriefs

N.Y. Assembly Passes Gay Marriage Bill - They can have Prejean. We'll take New York.

But what about grasping at straws, WND - Speaking of chicanery, the Family Research Council has nothing on World Net Daily.

The 'best of' batsh*t anti-marriage equality talking heads - Look at this one if and only if you have a strong stomach.

IFI Corrects Paraphilias Claim - Box Turtle Bulletin gets the Illinois Family Institute to admit its error. One down and a %!(load of religious right groups to go.

City council OKs domestic partner certificates - Moving right along.

Family Research Council = oblivious

In a recent post of the Family Research Council's blog is the following:

Two Parents = Happy Children

The headline is extremely deceptive. This is what the post says:

In the latest Mapping America, the General Social Survey shows that adults who lived with both biological parents as adolescents are more likely to be very happy than those who did not.

So the truth is that the study says children living with their biological parents are most likely to be happy, not necessarily two parents in general.

This is important because when organizations like FRC speak against gay adoption they use talking points like "studies show that children do better in a home with a mother and father."

How much do you want a bet that this "study" will be used against gay adoption even though it has absolutely nothing to do with children in foster care?

And it gets better. The Mapping America study was done by Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D. & Althea Nagai, Ph.D.

I've talked about Althea Nagai before and how she and her husband "conducts" studies for right wing groups, including an interesting one on race. The Mapping America webpage says that she is a visiting fellow at the Family Research Council

Fagan, according to the Mapping America webpage is senior fellow and director of the Center for Family and Religion at Family Research Council.

Both facts are conveniently absent from the FRC blog posting.

My guess is that when and if FRC tries to manipulate this study, that lovely fact about the authors' lack of objectivity will continue to be conveniently not mentioned.