Concerned Women for America - endorsing hateful anti-gay comics and bad data

While the Concerned Women for America was profiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center for the spewing of anti-gay propaganda, it wasn't designated as an official anti-gay organization. This may be because the group has kept a low profile since Obama's election as President. However, when CWA does rear its ugly head, there are a lot of questions as to whether this group does actually stand for "Christian principles." 

The following is a repost of a piece I did about the group in June of this year. Added is a very special emphasis on an anti-gay comic which CWA's founder Beverly LaHaye endorsed in 1986. This comic is pertinent for three reasons - it totally refutes the notion that CWA is being "picked on" for its supposed traditional values (i.e. its stand against gay marriage), and to my knowledge, LaHaye never apologized for endorsing this very homophobic comic. Lastly, I doubt that the CWA has backed away from the positions stated by the comic. My guess is that they don't present them as graphically hateful as Hafer (the comic' s creator) did:

From June 2010:

Research has come out today justifying 200 other studies and basic common sense - children do not suffer from being raised in a same-sex household:

For their new study, published on Monday in the journal Pediatrics, researchers Nanette Gartrell, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California at San Francisco (and a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles), and Henry Bos, a behavioral scientist at the University of Amsterdam, focused on what they call planned lesbian families — households in which the mothers identified themselves as lesbian at the time of artificial insemination.

. . . The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior. These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.

Naturally members of the religious right went apoplectic over the research. Wendy Wright from Concerned Women for America was the first up at bat, attacking the funding sources of the research in a CNN article:

Funding for the research came from several lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocacy groups, such as the Gill Foundation and the Lesbian Health Fund from the Gay Lesbian Medical Association.

Dr. Nanette Gartrell, the author of the study, wrote that the "funding sources played no role in the design or conduct of the study."

"My personal investment is in doing reputable research," said Gartrell. "This is a straightforward statistical analysis. It will stand and it has withstood very rigorous peer review by the people who make the decision whether or not to publish it."

...Wendy Wright, president of the Concerned Women for America, a group that supports biblical values, questioned the legitimacy of the findings from a study funded by gay advocacy groups. "That proves the prejudice and bias of the study," she said. "This study was clearly designed to come out with one outcome -- to attempt to sway people that children are not detrimentally affected in a homosexual household."

She also said:

Studies have shown that children thrive having both a mother and a father, Wright said.

"You have to be a little suspicious of any study that says children being raised by same-sex couples do better or have superior outcomes to children raised with a mother and father," she said. "It just defies common sense and reality."

Of course Wright omits the fact that none of the studies she vaguely refers to even looked at same-sex households.

And she also seems to be saying that since the study looked at same-sex parenting in a positive fashion, then it's automatically biased, which is like an anti-Semite saying that a study favoring the Jewish community should be seen as automatically biased, or a racist saying that a study favoring African-Americans should be seen as automatically biased, or . . . I think you get the picture.

People for the American Way puts CWA's attack on this study in proper perspective:

This coming from an organization that has repeatedly cited the "research" of Paul Cameron.

Allow me to put it in another perspective.

In the late 80s, this comic book, Homosexuality: Legitimate, Alternate Deathstyle, was published by a man named Dick Hafer and it supposedly gave the "facts" about the "gay lifestyle."

By "facts," Hafer meant Paul Cameron's discredited studies and cherry-picked legitimate science enhanced by cartoons of gay men coming out of sewers to sexually accost potential victims, sexually molesting children, and spreading diseases with abandonment.

This book even puts forth the belief that gay men need to be quarantined in their homes so that parents whose children are stricken with AIDS and HIV don't harm them.

So what does this have to do with the Concerned Women for America?

Concerned Women and its president at the time, Beverly LaHaye, endorsed this monstrosity. On the back cover of the comic book are the words:

Americans need to wake up to the facts regarding the Homosexual movement. Dick Hafer exposes the depravity of their lives in his book, Deathstyle. This is a book which needs to be read by all of those concerned about society and our nation.

Now one could say that CWA shouldn't be judged on what it endorsed over 20 years ago. Fair enough.

However, to my knowledge, neither CWA or LaHaye ever rescinded the endorsement of Homosexuality: Legitimate, Alternate Deathstyle.

And it can be argued that CWA continues to push the "gays and lesbians are diseased dangers to society, but to children in general" narrative contained in Deathstyle, albeit in a less "spectacularly provocative" fashion. The group certainly continues to cite Cameron's research, which makes up a huge part of  the booklet.

But basically, it comes down to one question. Who do we trust in regards to lgbt parenting?

A meticulously done study which has stood up to peer reviews?

Or a group who endorses literature which says, amongst other things, that gays should be quarantined to protect them from the families of children stricken by AIDS and HIV?

And just in case you have the stomach for it, the following are other images from this anti-gay comic book:

Hat tip to this webpage featuring DeathStyle. It is not anti-gay but a site which looks at "problem-based comics" from the past.
 

Why the National Organization for Marriage was profiled for its anti-gay hatred

This is actually a repost of two pieces I wrote in July detailing a very short feud between me and the National Organization for Marriage.

It is very relevant to right now seeing that the National Organization for Marriage is not happy after being profiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center for it's anti-gay bile. Of course the organization claims that it is being unfairly labeled as "bigoted" simply because it is "standing up for traditional marriage." However, this post proves otherwise:

From July 2010:

What's up with the National Organization for Marriage (NOM)?

Not too many people are noticing this, but that organization, started to supposedly "protect marriage" from us so-called evil LGBTs, seems to be going off the deep end in terms of rhetoric.

When it began, NOM cleverly played up the "we are unfairly being called bigots because we simply want to protect marriage" meme. And that was because of the savvy of its founder, Maggie Gallagher.

But now with Gallagher handing the reins of the group to Brian Brown, the organization has abandoned all pretenses of martyrdom and is headed straight for crazy-talk territory.

This was evident when it joined forces in its "Summer for Marriage" tour with one Louis J. Marinelli III, a man who not only cites the discredited work of Paul Cameron, but is also very vocal in the belief that gays want to cause all sorts of mischief from molesting children to creating polygamous relationships.

And if that's not bad enough, from an administrator of NOM's Facebook page comes this little "gem:"

(Gays and lesbians) are not being repressed, discriminated against. There is no and never has ever been a homosexual man hunt for them. Jews, Christians, and Blacks were hunted down and murdered. Homosexuals have nothing in common with the three.

Now I could go into a history of the persecution of the LGBT community in places like Nazi Germany or talk about Sakia Gunn, Michael Sandy, or even Matthew Shepard (whose murder was not soley about a robbery no matter what the right says), or the countless number of LGBTs who have lost their lives due to hate but what's the point?

Sometimes people say things so wildly inaccurate that any comment you want to make is unnecessary. The statement by NOM is beyond the pale and it further proves what many LGBTs know about that group. NOM is not interested in defending marriage. It's only interested in bashing LGBTs, but not by physical attacks.

NOM seeks to psychologically bash us.

U.S. judge says lesbians can be 'converted' if allowed to serve in the military

I wasn't going to post anything else today after this morning, but this bit of repulsive information needs to be known:

Joe Rehyansky, a part-time magistrate and Vietnam veteran, wrote on conservative news site The Daily Caller that lesbians should be allowed to serve in the military because straight male soldiers could “convert” them.

The Daily Caller swiftly removed some of his remarks but not before they were picked up by other websites.

Mr Rehyansky, of Hamilton County, Tennessee, argued that men were naturally more promiscuous than women and “it fell to men to swing through the trees and scour the caves in search of as many women as possible to subdue and impregnate – a tough job but someone had to do it”.

Then, he claimed that the “promiscuity” of gay men, coupled with HIV, would have “the potential for disastrous health consequences” if gay men were allowed to serve openly in the military.

Rehyansky's entire piece is vomit-worthy, spewing the same anti-gay distortions which is now coming back to haunt organizations such as the Family Research Council. But it's the following part that's causing eyes, tempers, and blood pressures to be raised:

His final argument, which has now been removed by The Daily Caller, was as follows: “My solution would get the distaff part of our homosexual population off our collective ‘Broke Back,’ thus giving straight male GIs a fair shot at converting lesbians and bringing them into the mainstream.”

How very interesting that this piece came out the week before Congressional hearings and a vote on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the military policy in regards to gays serving in the military.

Call it a hunch, but I'm betting those who want to retain the policy aren't going to be calling on Rehyansky as a witness.

The Family Research Council should be apologizing to the gay community

The disagreement between the Southern Poverty Law Center and the new groups designated as anti-gay hate groups hit the Washington Post yesterday.

And while I am happy with the coverage, I am not happy with how these groups are trying to cover their tracks. They are trying to make it seem as if they are being attacked because they have made stands against gay marriage.

The key person pushing this argument is Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.

Perkins has even had the temerity to demand an apology from the SPLC:

Family Research Council will continue to champion marriage and family as the foundation of our society and will not acquiesce to those seeking to silence the Judeo-Christian views held by millions of Americans. We call on the Southern Poverty Law Center to apologize for this slanderous attack and attempted character assassination."

Let's be clear about something - the claim that these groups, particularly FRC,  are being attacked merely for their stance against gay marriage or their stance against homosexuality is a lie.

FRC in particular has a long history of demonizing the lgbt community. Via studies, briefs, and research papers heavily reliant on junk science and fear tactics, FRC attacked the lgbt community long before discussions of gay marriage even came on the scene.

Unfortunately some of these past studies, briefs and press releases are no longer on FRC's web page.  In December of 2008, I noticed this and emailed the organization asking for an explanation. I was told the following:

The papers that you inquired about have been removed from our website indefinitely due to the fact that they have outdated sources.

The email further pointed out that there were several other studies which remained on the web page.  The irony is that these studies used the same material the "outdated" papers used, which is another way of saying that FRC got rid of the papers but used the same bad sources.

Luckily for me though, John Aravosis of Americablog created a webpage which featured statements by the Family Research Council (and other religious right groups and figures) pertaining to the lgbt community. The following are just a few things said about the lgbt community:

"Homosexuals say they don't want the children, but boy they put a lot of energy into going after them." - Robert Knight of FRC writing in a Focus on the Family newsletter, quoted by People for the American Way, "Hostile Climate," 1997, p.15.

"Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement." - "Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys," Family Research Council publication, July 1999

"There is a strong undercurrent of pedophilia in the homosexual subculture. Homosexual activists want to promote the flouting of traditional sexual prohibitions at the earliest possible age....they want to encourage a promiscuous society - and the best place to start is with a young and credulous captive audience in the public schools." - Robert Knight, Family Research Council.

"In the United States, homosexual activists are more circumspect about their efforts to gain access to children...homosexual activists publicly disassociate themselves from pedophiles as part of a public relations strategy"- "Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys," FRC publication, July 1999

"You don’t have to eat the stale crumbs off the dirty floor, which is basically what lesbianism is." - AFTAH (Americans for Truth) Web site interview with FRC's Yvette Cantu.

I should mention that throughout all of the complaints and claims of persecution, neither Perkins nor any of the other persons or groups profiled by the SPLC have issued the short clarifying statements of "we have not done these things" or "our statements have been misconstrued."

Make no mistake about it. These groups have been spooked by being called out on their lies and are on the defensive. And now they are attempting to flip the argument.

But you can't make yourself look like a victim when a paper trial exposes you as a bully.

No matter how Perkins tries to spin the situation, he has a lot of answering to do at the very least in regards to FRC's past statements against the lgbt community.

Perhaps he should be the one to make the apologies.

Related posts:

Newly named anti-gay hate groups plead victimhood but do not address charges

Talking Points Memo picks up the SPLC anti-gay hate groups story

Ignoring your hate group status won't make it go away

Family Research Council, American Family Association named as anti-gay hate groups

18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda

10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked

Newly named anti-gay hate groups plead victimhood but do not address charges

Well that was quick. I just knew something would happen that I had to address.

Apparently some organizations who are on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list and profiles of anti-gay hate groups aren't happy about it and their spokespeople are addressing the issue.

But the venue that they chose to address SPLC's list and the way that they are saying (or rather what they are not saying) raises some questions as to the accuracy of their complaints.

Coral Ridge Ministries's Robert Knight, Concerned Women for America's Wendy Wright, and Christian Anti-Defamation Coalition head Gary L. Cass all responded in outraged tones over SPLC's either profiling or designating their organizations as anti-gay hate groups.

The venue where they choose to address the charges was on the pages of World Net Daily, an online publication which is infamous for its anti-gay rhetoric.

A writer on the site, Les Kinsolving, has in the past referred to the lgbt community as the "sodomy lobby."

In October of this year, he called a judge’s order to stop enforcement of the military’s ban on gay and lesbian troops in the military as a "disease ridden judicial decision."

In August of this year, the publication dropped conservative writer Ann Coulter as a keynote speaker from a conference it held because she earlier spoke at a conference held by a gay Republican group.

And in February of this year, another writer on World Net Daily, Molotov Mitchell, spoke out in favor of Uganda's "Kill The Gays" bill, even evoking Martin Luther King Jr's name in defense of it.

Joining Cass, Perkins, and Knight was Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in an official statement which may not have been put out to World Net Daily specifically but was still picked up by the publication.

The irony of appearing in an anti-gay online publication in order to complain about being unfairly targeted as anti-gay seemed to have escaped Perkins, Wright, Knight, and Cass. This is probably because they were too busy pleading victimhood.

Knight - "Smearing legitimate groups merely for disagreeing about homosexuality is a very hateful act."

Perkins - "The Left's smear campaigns of conservatives is being driven by the clear evidence that the American public is losing patience with their radical policy agenda as seen in the recent election and in the fact that every state, currently more than thirty, that has had the opportunity to defend the natural definition of marriage has done so . . ."

Cass - "We are going to form a coalition of organizations to lobby Congress to withhold funds from SPLC."

Wright - "If they were to judge according to actions, they would have to have a special section for homosexual groups that vandalize and threaten people who oppose the homosexual agenda. We've had death threats against us posted openly on websites because of our work to uphold traditional marriage."

Of course Wright did not say just which lgbt groups were threatening her organization. Nor did she, Knight, Perkins, or Cass directly address any of the charges lodged by the SPLC, which are listed in a detailed report.

For the record, Knight, whose name pops up several times in the report, is inaccurate when he said that groups are being smeared for voicing a mere objection to homosexuality. SPLC said the following in the report:

Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.

SPLC also gave a detailed description as to what these falsehoods are, including the claims that:

Gays molest children at a higher rate than heterosexuals,

Same sex parents harm children,

Gays have a lifespan shorter than heterosexuals, and

Gays controlled the Nazi party in Germany and helped orchestrate the Holocaust.

SPLC contends that these groups are knowingly pushing these falsehoods.

Now it would seem to me that through all of the whining and clinging to the cross of victimization done by Knight, Perkins, Wright, and Cass would be some type of declaration that these charges aren't true.

Maybe some type of short statement such as "we never said these things" or "we were misconstrued."

But none of the four denied the fact that their organizations are pushing these falsehoods.

So while it seems that these groups aren't ignoring SPLC's charges, it's obvious that they are doing a insanely poor job of refuting them.

Talking Points Memo picks up the SPLC anti-gay hate groups story

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. I most likely won't be posting until Friday afternoon.

The popular political blog Talking Points Memo has picked up the story about SPLC naming the Family Research Council as an official anti-gay hate group:

The Family Research Council is perhaps the most prominent voice in conservative social politics and the hosts of an annual rite of passage for many Republicans who hope to run for president. And now, FRC is on the same Southern Poverty Law Center list of hate groups as the Ku Klux Klan.

The SPLC gave the Family Research Council the designation due to anti-gay speech from its leaders, which the SPLC says includes calls for gay men and lesbians to be imprisoned.

Labeling the Family Research Council a hate group puts one of Washington's most powerful social issues advocates into the company of groups like the Nation of Islam and the now mostly defunct Aryan Nations in the eyes of the SPLC, which tracks 932 active hate groups in the U.S.

The article is an excellent read, particularly the part that goes into details regarding the comments of FRC employee Peter Sprigg. But I found this part to be very interesting:

The SPLC designation of the Family Research Council as an anti-gay hate group potentially poses more of a challenge for Republicans. Though many conservatives view the SPLC as a progressive group and therefore no more worthy of respect than, say, ACORN, the SPLC hate group label will almost undoubtedly make it into press reports about future events like the Values Voter Summit. That means Republican presidential hopefuls who may want to reach out to gay and lesbian Republican groups like the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud -- which can be good sources of fundraising as well as "I'm not anti-gay" cred on the campaign trail -- may have to explain why they publicly praised and rushed to address a group that SPLC is calling one of the worst perpetrators of ugly myths about gays.

As Beirich told me, there is no difference between the FRC and the KKK in the eyes of the SPLC now. Still, she said that the hate group designation doesn't mean the SPLC thinks everyone who supports the FRC "has a full understanding of what they're up to." Many who support the FRC may do so because of the group's very public ties to evangelical Christianity, and Beirich stressed that the SPLC designation has nothing to do with an "attack on the churchly world."

By the way, FRC did not return TPM's request for a comment on the hate group designation.

Related posts:

Family Research Council, American Family Association named as anti-gay hate groups

Ignoring your hate group status won't make it go away

The priest, the victim, and the hitman and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Texas: Catholic Priest Allegedly Tried to Have Teen Sexual Abuse Victim Murdered - Soon to be an episode of Law and Order no doubt, probably one of the creepiest things I have read in a while.

New federal task force on LGBT youth suicide prevention to be announced - Say what you will, this is major.

Bryan Fischer, Tony Perkins, and the Hate Agenda - Keep the pressure up on these folks!

Caution over HIV 'breakthrough' - I agree. Read the article, keep praying, and keep playing it safe.

Tell the Apple iTunes Store to remove anti-gay, anti-choice iPhone application - I'm speechless about what Apple iTunes is doing.