Warren G. shows the hypocrisy/homophobia of rap music

I was going to pull out some news briefs but something via Vanity Fair caught my eye.

Rap artist Warren G said the following in an interview:

I ain’t against gay people. I’m just against it being promoted to kids. . .
I know people that’s gay. My wife’s got friends that are gay. I got family that’s gay. Cousins and shit. He cool as fuck. He cool as a motherfucker. He’s my homie. I just mean that on some of these TV shows, they got dudes kissing. And kids are watching that shit. We can’t have kids growing up with that. . . .but let’s keep it behind the scenes. Ain’t nothin’ wrong with it if that’s what two dudes wanna do. Cool. But that’s not bring that out into the world, where the kids can see that. We don’t want all the kids doing that. ‘Cause that ain’t how we was originally put here to do. Like I said, I ain’t got no problem with the gays.

What? Excuse me? Is this the same guy who spent a considerable amount of time rapping about "money 'n' bitches." Isn't this the same guy who got arrested last year for drug posession?

Who the hell appointed him as a moral spokesperson? I guess when you reduce the worth of black people to the lowest common demoninator of sex, that means all black people get reduced, lgbts of color included.

Well speaking for myself and so many lgbts of color he has insulted (and many of them lead households that include children), I want to school Mr. G. on a few things.

With all due respect to Warren G, maybe he should stop obsessing over what he thinks is gay sexual behavior and start focusing on heterosexual sexual behavior. Since he has a problem with two men kissing, I would sincerely hope that he has an equal problem with songs and videos that objectify women as sex objects, that teaches black children to be underacheivers, and that romanticize the selling of drugs.

Or have I just described the contents of his last albums?

Just to be clear about things - homosexuality is not a "lifestyle." Putting on a skin tight dress or wearing your pants down past your ass, drinking and hitting on each other in a club, and then having wild sex that leads to illegitimate births is a lifestyle.

Why don't folks like Warren G. ever criticize that?

You see this is the problem that lgbts of color face in the black community. This open hypocrisy that we are supposed to say nothing about.

I am so sick and tired of members of black community who will screw each other till the cows come home without the courtesy of a wedding ring and then have the absolute nerve to pass judgment on lgbts of color just because we want a little affection from each other.

I am so sick and tired of black pastors who will say nothing about the depressing rate of black men in prison and black girls with babies but will break each other's necks to get camera time in order to dehumanize lgbts of color.

I am so damn tired of being treated like a dog being allowed to come in a house as long as he doesn't pee on the furniture. "Oh I don't have a problem with gay people as long as they are not in my face about it."

What the hell is that supposed to mean anyway?

I am sure the entire African-American community does not feel the same way as Warren G. but damn his comments get me angry.

Can black folks have a serious conversation about lgbt issues? Is it totally impossible?

Lgbts of color are not objects to be pointed at or referred to as dogs or "the other."

We are contributing members of society and especially the black community.

And I don't think it's asking too much for the black community to gives us the respect we are entitled to.

Brian Camenker, Matt Barber create anti-gay hot mess

People for the American Way has clips from last weekend's Take Back America conference.

The clips are interesting to say the least. Most particularly interesting are the clips from the Countering the Extremist Homosexual Movement seminar co-moderated by Brian Camenker of the hate group Mass Resistance and Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel.

First let's take a look at Camenker:



He does project a certain aura of creepiness, doesn't he? Is it just me or is Camenker practically drolling while enthralling the audience with pseudo-salacious material about the transgender community.

And here I thought Peter LaBarbera was spooky.

Now let's look at Matt Barber:



Barber is no slouch in the weird department as his rapid fire delivery of lies is just incredible. He seems to be going through his routine with the urgency of a good actor who realizes that he is trapped in a abysmal film.

And he also makes it a point to call President Obama “a secular humanist, a radical socialist moral relativist.”

Perhaps it would have been more to the point for Barber to have taken a page from former wrestler Dusty Rhodes and say something like "he doesn't like Obam or his mama."

For the record, despite what Barber says, remember three things:

Adding sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation does not give lgbts an unfair advantage. Both the heterosexual and lgbt orientation will be protected.

No employer should have the right to fire a capable employee even if said employer has a "deeply held belief" that homosexuality is wrong.

No researcher or physician has ever called homosexuality a "dangerous lifestyle." Someone should tell Barber that Paul Cameron doesn't count.

But making bad generalizations about the lgbt community is nothing new to Barber as this piece regarding him and lgbt families proves.

What are these people? Dedicated students to the National Organization for Marriage's School of self sabotage?

All I can say that if these are the folks who have been picked to adequately teach others how to attack lgbts, then let's not waste any time grinding them in the dust.

I don't believe in the concept of playing with your prey.

Related posts:

The anti-gays are encouraged to get more militant and disgusting

Mike Huckabee and Congressional leaders to attend conference with hate group

Dissecting a One News Now article

Washington Times publishes ugly hit piece on Kevin Jennings

I had a bad feeling about this last weekend and now it is coming to fruition.

For months, the right have been lobbing bombs at Kevin Jennings, President Obama's Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

They have levied ridiculous charges against him - he wants children to be "taught" gay sex, he uses profanity, he hates Christians, he has said nasty things about God.

The charges are easily kicked aside. But then comes the most serious one - Jennings allegedly approves of pedophilia because he supposedly didn't report an relationship between a 15-year-old and a older man.

Based upon what I have seen and read over the past few days, it is this charge which the right will try to make stick.

And today came a huge hit piece via the Washington Times by way of Fox News.com:

A teacher was told by a 15-year-old high school sophomore that he was having homosexual sex with an "older man." At the very least, statutory rape occurred. Fox News reported that the teacher violated a state law requiring that he report the abuse. That former teacher, Kevin Jennings, is President Obama's "safe school czar."

. . . According to Mr. Jennings' own description in a new audiotape discovered by Fox News, the 15-year-old boy met the "older man" in a "bus station bathroom" and was taken to the older man's home that night. When some details about the case became public, Mr. Jennings threatened to sue another teacher who called his failure to report the statutory rape "unethical." Mr. Jennings' defenders asserted that there was no evidence that he was aware the student had sex with the older man.

Knowing Fox News' "track record" when it comes to the Obama Administration, I would like to hear this tape.

As luck would have it, Media Matters heard the tape. And there are a lot of distortions with what is being claimed.

In addition, there are a more few things that I find disturbing about this Fox News/Washington Times gang-up on Jennings.

Let me break down the distortions as I and Media Matters sees it.

In the first place, Jennings is not a "czar." He was appointed to his position by Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

In using the term "czar," the Washington Times is using the Glenn Beckish code word for supposed "corruption" in the Obama Administration as a way to weave a narrative of "Jennings is indicative of Obama appointees."

Then there is the claim that Jennings encouraged the young man to "use a condom" in the relationship:

In 2000, Mr. Jennings gave a talk to the Iowa chapter of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, an advocacy group that promotes homosexuality in schools. On the tape, Mr. Jennings recollected that he told the student to make sure "to use a condom" when he was with the older man.

According to Media Matters, the Washington Times distorted the condom quote:

JENNINGS: And I said, "Brewster, what are you doing in there asleep?" And he said, "Well, I'm tired." And I said, "Well, we all are tired and we all got to school today." And he said, "Well, I was out late last night." And I said, "What were you doing out late on a school night?" And he said, "Well, I was in Boston." Boston was about 45 minutes from Concord. So I said, "What were you doing in Boston on a school night, Brewster?" He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, "Well, I met somebody in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him." High school sophomore, 15 years old. That was the only way he knew how to meet gay people. I was a closeted gay teacher, 24 years old, didn't know what to say. Knew I should say something quickly, so I finally -- my best friend had just died of AIDS the week before -- I looked at Brewster and said, "You know, I hope you knew to use a condom." He said to me something I will never forget. He said "Why should I, my life isn't worth saving anyway."

And then comes the huge misrepresentation - that Jennings encouraged the relationship. From the Washington Times piece:

That he actively encouraged the relationship is reinforced by Mr. Jennings' own description in his 1994 book, "One Teacher in 10." In that account, the teacher boasts how he allayed the student's concerns about the relationship to such a degree that the 15-year-old "left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated."

But nowhere in the book does it say that Jennings actually encouraged the relationship. Here is the portion in question mentioned by the Washington Times in its exact context:

On a hunch, I suddenly asked "What's his name?" Brewster's eyes widened briefly, and then out spilled a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston. I listened, sympathized, and offered advice. He left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years,until he graduated.

Now while there no longer seems to be a question of whether or not "Brewster" was of age, the situation is still not as clear cut as the right is trying to make it.

Jennings never saw any relationship and it was a judgment call whether or not he should have told anyone what Brewster told him. What if he had? I tend to think that the story would have had a very negative denouement- Brewster's suicide.

And I think that Jennings had the same feeling, which was why he kept silent about what Brewster told him.

Instead of attacking Jennings, we need to ask ourselves what would possess a young man like Brewster to put himself in a situation like that. Why would a young man feel so depressed about his God-given sexual orientation that he doesn't care about putting himself in danger?

How often does this continue to happen and what can we do to stop it?

Attacking Jennings for dealing with the situation the way he did is a classic case of ignoring the forest for the sake of the trees.

Because he had to deal with a situation like this one, Jennings is exactly the right person to deal with issues of school safety. He knows the reasons why youngsters, particularly lgbt youngsters, exposes themselves to danger and based on his track record with GLSEN, he can work to stop this behavior

But neither Fox News, the Washington Times, nor any other party on the right seems to care about because they are determined to put Jennings' head in their trophy case.

They don't care about the safety of lgbt children because they have a more practical purpose for zeroing in on Jennings.

If their charges can get him dismissed, it would look bad for the Obama Administration. In addition, the religious right can refer to this situation for a long time when they want to push the lie that "gays recruit children."

Lastly, it would also be another thing to get the lgbt community mad at the President.

So attacking Jennings may turn out to be a win-win situation for the right.

But it may also be death for America's children.

You can go here to give some support to Jennings.

Related posts:

The new attack on Kevin Jennings - he said something ugly about God

The continuing attacks on Kevin Jennings - now Fox News gets involved

The possible attack on the President's lgbt appointees

The tea party idiots - will they go after the lgbt community next?

Traditional Values Coalition attacks Kevin Jennings and . . . Tom Cruise?

Support Sean's Last Wish and Kevin Jennings

The religious right thinks that character assasination is a Christian virtue

The war against Kevin Jennings - now it's getting pathetic

Attacks on Kevin Jennings sleazy, un-Christian

More right wing lunacy on Kevin Jennings courtesy of Kevin McCullough

More attacks on GLSEN'S Kevin Jennings - Now the Family Research Council gets in the act'''

'Fistgate' and President Obama - religious right pushes a pitiful attempt of guilt by association

Facebook poll asks should Obama be killed, Judy Shepard called a liar, and other Monday midday news briefs

Gay Good Samaritan Acquitted of Kidnapping - I'm putting this post from Box Turtle Bulletin on my page because it tees me off. A case where heterosexual parents don't do their job and a gay man who stepped in gets attacked physically and also by the police.

Facebook poll up now - Should Obama be killed? - TELL me again how this isn't about race. I dare you!

Exodus’ Hired Researcher Counters Own Study’s Claim of Ex-Gay ‘Change’ - Just another day in the bizarro world of "ex-gay" thought.

Salt Lake City Man Calls Judy Shepard a Liar to her Face - This is why we must make a point to beat down religious right lies at every turn. There is actually a school of thought out there which claims that Matthew Shepard's murder had nothing to do with his sexual orientation. Despite the fact that it has been proven continuously, as long as the headless monster of that "20/20" special is out there (and as long as religious right groups pump it up), this nasty school of thought will continue.

Black gay gospel singer gives exclusive interview, dispels myths

We are now seeing that the idea of a black president seems to drive some white folks crazy.

In comparison, the quickest way to drive the black community nuts is to mention the subject of the lgbt community.

African-American gospel singer Tonex recently became the first black gospel singer to come out publicly.

Granted, he is not the first African-American gay gospel singer (i.e. James Cleveland and others), but he is the first to have the guts to be honest about his sexual orientation.

These are his words in an exclusive interview with Black Voices:

I'm studying daily on the subject of same-sex matters. I'm tired of echoing what I've been told. I want to know for myself the true interpretation of scriptures in Biblical text and well as scientific documentation.

You know, it's not easy growing up in a Pentecostal/Evangelical church, where everyone is pretty much anti-gay, although it's common knowledge that some of the most anointed musicians and singer-songwriters have, or have dealt with, same-sex attraction at some point. For me, it was particularly taboo because of my upbringing and the ministerial call on my life. I then had to think about the repercussions of this revelation. But I knew I had to get free.

. . . There was so much more in that interview that I thought was, unfortunately, overlooked. So much more to my story then the sexuality part, but most church folks are sexually repressed anyway, so they naturally gravitate right toward that type of subject matter. I noticed parts one and three weren't juicy enough for the church or the public, yet they were the key to the whole puzzle. I talked about my same-sex attraction. I don't think that there was any new information here. I've addressed this issue in my music for years. But for many, I guess, it was a shock of sorts. But believe me, it wasn't for shock value. The real story is not cute, ladies and gentlemen. Freedom, my friends, is not for cowards.

There is a sad part to this entire situation as far as I am concerned. Tonex says that 96 percent of the responses he received have been positive. That enough confirms a belief I've had about the black community.

Approval or disapproval of gays and lesbians in the black community is far more complex than folks realize.

The simplistic belief that the black community automatically does not approve of homosexuality is driven by three factors:

- The religious right's eagerness to exploit the ignorance of the African-American community regarding its lgbt members.

- The cowardice of influential black leaders who tackle the issue with the force of a baby licking the tip of icing off of a cake.

- And the self absorption of the lgbt community at large which refuses to acknowledge that the lgbt struggle for self-determination is present in some form or another in every ethnic group, every culture, and every country.

It's a question that deserves far more attention than it is getting (hello Advocate magazine!).

However, I know that waiting for a major lgbt magazine to do a serious story on gay issues in the black community is like waiting for BET or Ebony or Jet to do a serious story on the issue.

I'll probably be waiting so long for this to happen that my credit will become good.

Still, Tonex should be commended for his pioneering step. It's not his fault that both of his communities are way behind on the issue.

Revisiting the false 'Kevin Jennings approves of pedophilia' claim

Of all the charges the religious right and it's cohorts have launched against Kevin Jennings, the deputy secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, the claim that he did not report the alleged between an underaged child and an older male is the most scurrilous.

I've seen it spoken of in a few places lately, such as Fox News and Free Republic. And of course, several of these places (i.e. Free Republic) have added dramatic license to the tale.

According to them, Jennings "approves of pedophilia."

On June 10th of this year, I talked about the claim in a post, Attacks on Kevin Jennings sleazy, un-Christian. I am now reprinting that post.

I would ask that folks take a look at the comments section from the original post. It raises some questions about whether the youth was of legal age at the time of the alleged incident.

Ever since Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), was appointed by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to be Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, religious right groups, bloggers, columnists, and spokespersons have been impugning him and the reputation of GLSEN.

Now the Family Research Council has sent out an email blast asking that folks tell Duncan to remove Jennings from office.

The charges lodged against Jennings have ranked from ridiculous to disgusting:

Jennings uses profanity

Big deal. Based on the audio tapes of former President Richard Nixon and what we know about former President Harry S. Truman, Jennings's use of profanity qualifies him as presidential material.

Jennings is prejudiced against religious conservatives.

Well not all religious conservatives. He only dislikes the ones who stigmatizes the lgbt community via lies, discredited studies, and anecdotes and legitimate studies taken out of context.

Jennings and GLSEN oversaw a conference where children were "instructed" how to have gay sex.

As I have said repeatedly, other than helping to sponsor this conference, neither Jennings nor GLSEN had anything to do with the alleged incident. Also because of illegal taping by a religious right group, a moderator lost her job. However, she was fully exonerated, rehired, and given back pay. In addition, the audio tape that supposedly proved the case against the conference was called misleading. My post on the situation (with links backing up what I say) is here.

Jennings talked about counseling a high school student who was in a relationship with an older man. However, he did not alert the authorities or the child's parents.

This is from the FRC email I received:

Jennings has spoken publicly about a high school student he once counseled who was in a sexual relationship with an older man -- yet Jennings never reported this abuse to the authorities, the school, or the child's parents.

I've heard this claim made by various religious right sources and they are all vague on the incident. Through some digging, here is what I found out.

The alleged incident came from One in Ten: Gay and Lesbian Educators Tell Their Stories. Jennings was recounting an incident in 1988:

I remember Brewster, a sophomore boy who I came to know in 1987, my first year of teaching at Concord Academy, in Concord, Massachusetts. Brewster was a charming but troubled kid. His grades didn't match up with his potential, his attendance could be irregular, and he often seemed a little out of it. He was clearly using some substance regularly, and was not very happy with himself. But I didn't have a clue as to why--at least not at first.

. . . Toward the end of my first year, during the spring of 1988, Brewster appeared in my office in the tow of one of my advisees, a wonderful young woman to whom I had been "out" for a long time.

"Brewster has something he needs to talk with you about," she intoned ominously. Brewster squirmed at the prospect of telling, and we sat silently for a short while. On a hunch, I suddenly asked "What's his name?" Brewster's eyes widened briefly, and then out spilled a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston. I listened, sympathized, and offered advice. He left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated.

. . . I remember April 3, 1993, when I went to Club Cafe, a gay restaurant in Boston, for the annual awards dinner of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights. An organization I had helped found, GLSTN (the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Teachers Network), was being honored that night, and I had come to accept the award on our behalf. I sat with some friends, my back to the center of the room, and soon got engaged in conversation. From behind me, I heard a familiar voice. "Care for a drink, sir?"

I turned and it was Brewster. Shocked, we were both speechless for a moment, before we hugged each other and caught up. He was now twenty-two, taking time off from college, and living with his boyfriend. His smile showed that he had found his way to a happy adulthood. In that moment, I remembered why I had gone into teaching in the first place.

So should Jennings have alerted the police and Brewster's parents?

I honestly don't know. It's a judgment call.

He only knew what Brewster had told him and didn't see any particulars. Also, 1987 was a different time when it came to lgbs. I attended high school back then and I remember that even a notion that you were gay would warrant a "beatdown."

And who knows what would have happened to Brewster? Would he have been angry at Jennings for betraying his trust? Would his parents have kicked him out for the alleged relationship? Would Brewster have gotten so depressed that he would contemplate suicide?

Jennings was in a touchy situation and he choose to act in a way that he felt would best benefit Brewster.

But here is the one thing I am sure of.

If anyone read the Jennings excerpt or the entire book in general with more in mind than scandalizing someone, they would truly understand why Jenning did what he did.

When I read the Jennings excerpt, I see a young man wanting to reach out to lgbt children and counsel them when they are going through the same hell he did as a child. He made a judgment call. That's something we all do from time to time.

And I see that there is a serious problem facing our lgbt children when they come out to an unsupportive world. It's the same thing Jennings saw, which was the reason he founded GLSEN.

In the long run, FRC and others who use the Brewster incident to demonize Jennings are proving that they don't really care about Brewster or any other lgbt child having to deal with potential violence and isolation because of their sexual orientation.

They only care about their agenda.

And to me, that's the real crime.

The entire point of this attack on Jennings is now to weave a narrative that President Obama is trying to harm our nation's children. Media Matters breaks down the situation in an excellent piece documenting not only the echo chamber of false charges against Jennings but also other claims of the right regarding our President and our nation's children.

You can go here to give some support to Jennings.

The anti-gays are encouraged to get more militant and disgusting

According to People for the American Way, the rightwing "Take Back America" conference got very interesting during a workshop on the supposed gay agenda.

The workshop was led by Brian Camenker, head of the anti-gay hate group Mass Resistance and the Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber (seen here on the right):

About 100 activists at the How to Take Back America conference attended the workshop on “How to Counter the Homosexual Extremist Movement.” Workshop speakers Matt Barber and Brian Camenker urged people to be loud rabble-rousers when opposing the teaching of tolerance or sex ed in public schools. They said not to worry about being nice or polite or liked, but to push God’s anti-gay agenda forcefully. “Christ wasn’t about being nice,” said Barber. Camenker bragged about having once sent two congregations to scream outside a targeted legislator’s home.

. . . There was some small disagreement about how much people should rely on religious arguments in the public sphere, with Matt Barber urging people to focus on the “ick” factor around gay sex and on claims that homosexuality is a health threat, which he called the movment’s “Achilles heel.”

Brian Camenker is a nut, plain and simple. The very fact that he was actually asked to lead this workshop displays desperation on the part of the religious right and an admittance that they are losing this so-called culture war against us.

Now Barber's talk about of the "ick factor of homosexuality being the 'Achilles heel' of the movement" deserves a little more scrutiny.

His statement reminds me of a story about an ancient Grecian king who was told by a prophet that if he invaded a neighboring country, he would destroy a great empire. He proceeded to invade the neighboring country and was defeated so badly that he did in fact destroy a great empire; his own.

In that same vein, Barber is right about the "claim that homosexuality being a health threat being the movement's 'Achilles heel.'"

But he is wrong about the which movement it could hurt.

For one, trying to reduce every argument regarding lgbt equality (i.e. marriage equality, gay adoption, gays in the military, etc.) to talks of gay sex is ridiculous. It may be successful at the begining but if you continue to do it, people will stop paying attention to what you are saying and will spend more time playing armchair psychologist on why you seem to be obsessed with gay sex.

If Barber doubts this, he only has to look to a friend of his, Peter LaBarbera. There is a reason why he is called Porno Petey.

Secondly, being relatively new on the religious right scene, Barber is probably unaware of the history of the religious right relying on the "ick factor" of gay sex.

In the past, organizations like the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, etc. relied on it a lot.

But they slowly and slyly moved away from it because they received most of their data about how supposedly gays have sex from the discredited Paul Cameron.

They were fully aware of the fact that Cameron's data was highly fallacious, but they used his work because not too many other people were aware of his lies. As folks, gays in general, became more savvy of Cameron, these group discovered that an overtly continued reliance on Cameron's work would reveal just how dishonest they are.

Or if you to make it more general, these religious right groups are like a drug dealer who converted his monies into a legitimate business.

What Barber is suggesting is they return to the scene of their crime. He is suggesting that old bones be dug up, bones which it would be in the religious right's self interests to stay buried.

Personally I'm all for it. I've got a graveyard of information just ready for a time like this.

For a full report on the Take Back America Conference, including the Congressmen and public figures who try to legitimize this nonsense of a conference, go here.