James O'Keefe, Andrew Breitbart, and the lgbt community

We are all getting a kick out of the tribulations of phony journalist James O'Keefe, but let's not be so quick to make fun that we forget a few things.

O'Keefe was receiving salary from Andrew Breitbart, the founder of the site Big Government. That's the weirdo on the video above being interviewed (the video is painful. Someone needs to talk about punditry in Washington)

You do remember Big Government, do you? That's the site behind the huge crop of lies against Obama appointee Kevin Jennings. From Media Matters comes a listing:

Blogger Hoft's smear campaign against Jennings. Writing for the website Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft has authored a series of factually dubious attacks on Department of Education staffer Kevin Jennings and the organization Jennings founded and previously led, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). Hoft's Jennings posts -- which he has labeled "Fistgate," even though many of those allegations have little or nothing to do with the sexual practice of fisting -- often draw upon the work of MassResistance, a Massachusetts based anti-gay organization that has been labeled a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Even conservative commentator Dean Barnett has stated that the organization "verges on being a hate group."

Breitbart eagerly embraced and promoted Hoft's false attacks on Jennings. Hoft's "Fistgate" attacks on Jennings and the GLSEN have been faithfully cross-posted on BigGovernment.com, and Breitbart himself has used Twitter to promote Hoft's work. Among the smears and distortions Breitbart has embraced:

• Hoft deceptively linked Jennings to "fisting" workshop he criticized. Hoft claimed that a 2000 conference sponsored by the Boston branch of GLSEN included "a workshop where GLSEN activists promoted 'fisting' to 14 year olds," citing a recorded exchange that occurred during a "Queer Sex and Sexuality" workshop at that conference. In fact, Jennings reportedly criticized some of the workshop's content when the recordings were first released in 2000, and the people involved in conducting the controversial discussion were state employees and contractors, not GLSEN employees.

• Hoft falsely claimed high-school students received "fisting kits" at 2001 GLSEN conference. Hoft falsely claimed that "fisting kits" -- which he placed in quotes -- were distributed at the 2001 GLSEN/Boston conference. But Hoft has presented no evidence that the kits distributed by Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts were actually intended for fisting. Indeed, while the conservative newspaper Massachusetts News -- cited by Hoft -- reported in 2001 that the kits were "intended for 'fisting' or oral sex," the paper described the kit's contents as "a single plastic glove, a package of K-Y lubricant and instructions on how to make a 'dental dam' out of the material" and offered no support for the claim that the kits were "intended for 'fisting.' " Even FoxNews.com has reported that Hoft "alleged that Jennings and GLSEN were involved in Planned Parenthood's purported distribution of 'fisting kits,' " but that the kit "was actually for making a 'dental dam' -- designed to prevent STD transmission during oral sex."

• Hoft falsely suggested Jennings' organization handed out explicit safe-sex booklet to children. Hoft falsely suggested that that GLSEN had distributed to children an explicit safe-sex booklet that included "a list of the local gay bars" and "Pushed Anal S*x in Parks With Strangers." In fact, a community health group -- not GLSEN itself -- reportedly said that it had mistakenly "left about 10 copies" of the booklet on an informational table it rented at a 2005 GLSEN conference at Brookline High School in Massachusetts; the group reportedly apologized for doing so; GLSEN stated that if it had known the booklets had been at the conference, it would have demanded they be removed; and the Brookline school superintendent reportedly said he believed no students had actually taken the booklet.

• Hoft falsely claimed Jennings "Pushed Books That Encouraged Children to Meet Adults at Gay Bars For Sex." Hoft falsely claimed that Jennings "Personally Pushed Books That Encouraged Children to Meet Adults at Gay Bars For Sex," citing MassResistance's falsehood that a book Jennings recommended to high school and college students, One Teenager in 10, "encourage[s] teens to, among other things, go to gay bars and have sex with adults to see if they like it." Media Matters for America has reviewed the book, compiled all references to gay bars, and determined that the book at no point encourages teens to "go to gay bars and have sex with adults." In fact, a majority of the youth testimonials included in the book that mention gay bars refer to them negatively.

Breitbart.tv also smeared Jennings. An October 6, 2009, Breitbart.tv post grossly distorted comments Jennings made to a GLSEN audience in 2000 to claim he "criticize[d] schools for promoting heterosexuality." In fact, in the audio files posted at Breitbart.tv, Jennings promoted a curriculum that demands "respect [for] every human being regardless of sexual orientation, regardless of gender identity, regardless of race or religion or any of the arbitrary distinctions we make among people," and said that efforts to promote a specific sexual orientation through schools were ineffective.

O'Keefe went after ACORN and caused the organization considerable trouble. Just imagine what he could have tried with various national and statewide lgbt organizations.

It's a part of a huge picture of targeting us all via slander and innuendo. O'Keefe got over his head and got so stupid that he got caught.

I'm sure there are others waiting in the wings.

Just something to remember.

Florida anti-gay adoption law dying a slow death? and other Thursday midday news briefs

Oh yeah. Opposition to LGBT equality is ALL ABOUT THE LOVE!

Hat tip to Goodasyou.org and the New Civil Rights Movement for the picture

Ruling a third strike against Florida's gay adoption ban - While ruminating over Don't Ask, Don't Tell and marriage equality, let's not forget this VERY important issue.

Polis Introduces Youth Protection Bill - Again, another issue that shouldn't be neglected.

Because you never know what 'right' he will seek next - These phony experts seem to be "testifying" everywhere.

'Don't say gay' bills deferred to senate committee - These bills are archaic. How did we miss talking about them?

Family Research Council rails about 'sexualization' of the Armed Forces

While I know that everyone wants to zero in on Obama for his comments regarding Don't Ask, Don't Tell, check out this from an email message by the Family Research Council:

Last night in his State of the Union Address, President Obama repeated his call for Congress to repeal the military eligibility law that was passed in 1993, and to allow homosexual conduct within the ranks of the armed forces.

This would put our military in the strange position of actively recruiting personnel who have an expressed intention to violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice (which still prohibits certain forms of sexual conduct, including homosexuality). Forcing soldiers to cohabit with people who view them as sexual objects would inevitably lead to increased sexual tension, sexual harassment, and even sexual assault. America's military exists to fight and win wars --not to engage in radical social engineering.

It's amazing how the lies never really change. During the original hearings in the Clinton Presidency, Army and Navy officials circulated the discredited studies of Paul Cameron. Senator Sam Nunn, who opposed gays in the military, took the press on a tour of  shower facilities in an attempt, I guess, to emphasize how "normal soldiers"  are in danger if lgbt soldiers are allowed to serve openly.

That's the opposition, folks. And if we either laugh or marvel at the ignorance of FRC's statement, we do it at our own peril. We should remember that the organization belongs to a conglomerate of groups, talking heads, and assorted blogs all pushing the same lie - that somehow allowing gays to serve openly in the military will lead to danger.

So while Obama is relevant to a degree, in a larger sense he is rendered irrelevant if FRC and other organizations (not to mention Fox News, Big Government, etc.) can stitch together a  good fear story to make Americans doubt the necessity of eliminating DADT.

And you just know that they are going to try. The question is what are we going to do about it?

SOTU speech over - my thoughts and ramblings

President Obama's speech is over and before the overpaid pundits tell us why we should love or hate it, let me give a few thoughts.

I liked it. It was on point but now it's time for him to push action.

And yes, I noticed what he said about DADT. And I know that others noticed his mention of the commitment to overturn the policy.

Now before some of us start ruminating in that particular way which we do, I would ask that you remember the faces of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They weren't exactly looking all that happy.

Maybe I am misinterpreting their desire not to show emotion, but then again, maybe I'm not.

Overturning DADT should happen and it will. But it won't be easy. We should remember that. Instead of directing venom at Obama's way because he "isn't moving fast enough," I would suggest that we continue to do what we do - and that is to exert pressure on the President. Remind him that we helped to get him elected and we lgbts as Americans deserve our rights.

But let's not get caught away with the hyperbole. Yes, we are all tired of being second class citizens but talking about how sick and tired you are may make you feel good via facebook or the blogs, but it entails more than that.

To tell the truth though, I have been very disturbed by some folks' overeagerness to paint the President as a "bigot." He is pragmatic to the point of annoyance at times, but to call him names reveals a haste that's not conducive to the community.

And if I may take it further, I especially hate how these discussions over Obama's commitment to the lgbt community have made us snipe at each other. I have different opinions about Obama's commitment to the lgbt community. I don't like some of the things he has done, but I am willing to give him credit on other things.

But sometimes I don't want to mention how I feel because I don't want to be sniped at by some (pardon the expression) self-satisfied, "righteously indignant" individual who seems to be so obsessed with his/her opinion of lgbt rights that an understanding of other opinions seems to be out of his/her mindset.

I don't think it's right that someone who doesn't know me all of the sudden feels justified to trivialize my life simply because I don't share that person's opinion.

We may disagree but no one likes being called names or having their commitment to lgbt equality minimized simply because they take different views of President Obama. Regardless of how you feel about the President, you shouldn't feel that you will be attacked by your own people.

But it's happening all of the time. And it reveals an inability to understand that while we are all lgbt, we come from different environments and different opinions on how we should take steps to get what we need in terms of equality.

We don't all come from the Castro, or any other big city metropolis. We don't all listen to Lady GaGa (until last month, I have never heard of Lady GaGa). And some of us don't follow the struggle for lgbt equality as much as others.

But at the very least, lgbts owe each other basic respect.

If we don't, then we are no better than Peter LaBarbera and the rest of the religious right.

Obama and DADT: What do you think the President will say?

Tonight is the night of President Obama's State Of The Union address.

If one listens to hyperbole, then it will be the most important speech of his presidency . . . until his next State of the Union address.

I wonder if Rep. Joe Wilson will open his mouth? I hope he does and I hope Michelle Obama wings him with a high heeled pump.

Seriously, tonight will be interesting on a lot of fronts, especially when it comes to Don't Ask, Don't Tell - the policy regarding gays in the military.

According to the Huffington Post, Obama is expected to call an end to it:

President Barack Obama will directly address the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in his State of the Union address on Wednesday evening, sources on Capitol Hill and in the gay-rights community tell the Huffington Post.

What exactly he will say about it remains a topic of intense debate, however -- though the betting among plugged-in sources is that he will call for its repeal.

"It is going to happen," said a source in the gay-rights community. "And it is going to be brought up in a somewhat significant way. But what that significance is we don't know." A Hill aide confirmed that the White House communications department told congressional press colleagues that the president would discuss the policy during his prime-time speech.

The article goes on to say that the pressure has been mounting for Obama to take a stance on the issue.

And why not? Maybe it's just me but the religious right as a whole seems to have abandoned this issue. Other than token opposition by Elaine Donnelly (and we all know what happened to her at the DADT hearing two years ago), there hasn't really been that much of a backlash against the notion of allowing gays in the military.

Still, if Obama does call an end to DADT, expect the customary cries about "military cohesion" and such to erupt.

It's what we have come to expect.

But seriously,  what do you think he will say?

The floor is yours. BE NICE!!!

Military wastes money on DADT and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Military Spent $500 Million Implementing Gay Ban - Where are the teabaggers? THIS is wasted money!

Maggie Gallagher: 'I'm in favor of marriage equality' - SURE you are, Maggie.

ACORN "Exposer" James O'Keefe and Buds Caught Playing "Watergate, Cajun Style" - Oh come on. It's the story everyone is talking about. You know you want to know more about it.

AIDS Rent Cap Clears Hurdle - A very interesting story.

Iowa Governor To Proclaim Gay-Straight Alliance Day - A short article but very good news.

Notion of same-sex parenting debunked because Focus on the Family says so?

From Truth Wins Out comes this claim via Focus on the Family:

A study in the Journal of Marriage and Family concludes that any set of two or more compatible parents are as good for children as a married, biological mother and father. In particular, lesbians, they claim, "seem to outparent comparable married, heterosexual, biological parents."

Glenn Stanton, director of family formation studies at Focus on the Family, debunks the findings.

"They're just completely overreaching their hand," he said. "Are we to think that nature has really sent each one of us down a second-rate road of having to be raised by a man and a woman?"

The research dismisses more than two decades of studies that show a mom and a dad each contribute to their child's upbringing.

"The research is very, very clear and it backs up what God has put into process," Stanton said, "that a man and a woman are the best people to raise that child to healthy adulthood."

Stanton says the findings appear to reveal an agenda on the part of the researchers and not scientific conclusions.

That's it. We don't have the name of the study, when it appeared, or anything else about it.

All we know is that it "debunks" the notion of same sex parenting because Glenn Stanton (who has already admitted that he has no expertise in issues about the lgbt community) and Focus on the Family says so.

Okay.

Well based on the track record of Focus on the Family and its tendency to distort legitimate research (especially in the cases of. Dr. Carol Gilligan Ph.D:,  Kyle Pruett, M.D., Angela Phillips, and Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc), I think that I would rather wait on independent confirmation rather than anything the organization or its spokespeople says.