NOM's nasty attack on gay adoption includes race-baiting

Jennifer R. Morse doesn't like the idea of gay adoption.

I saw this monstrosity via Jeremy Hooper this morning. I think he understands why I am repeating it. It needs to be repeated.

The NOM affiliated Ruth Institute had some ugly, pointed words to say about the subject of gay adoption. Granted, the organization didn't come out and say that it was wrong. It just played around the issue in the snide way we have become accustomed to.

Via its head, Jennifer Roback Morse:

A friend sent me photos of street light posters he saw lining the streets of Hollywood. These posters were recruiting foster and adoptive parents in honor of National Adoption Month. What could be better than trying to recruit more foster and adoptive parents?

But my friend noticed something odd: there were absolutely no mothers in any of these posters. All posters featured pairs of men, smiling with their adoptive African American children.
...
What I want to know is this: Why aren’t we recruiting stable heterosexual married couples to be foster parents? After all, we know for sure that children do best in married couple low-conflict households. Same sex parenting is an untried social experiment. Parenting by male couples is especially unstudied, since it is exceedingly uncommon. Even the very pro-gay researchers Judith Stacey, could find only one study comparing gay male parenting with heterosexual couples that qualified for inclusion in her comprehensive survey of gay parenting studies.

Morse was speaking of  www.RaiseaChild.us, which is an organization which specifically encourages gay and lesbians to adopt.

Other than getting the name and the goal of the organization right, Morse gets everything else wrong. The idea that "gay adoption" is an untried social experiment is a talking point. And a bad one.

According to the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute:

. . . 6,477 same-sex couples had adopted children in 2000, but in 2009 the number swelled to 21,740, according to The Associated Press.

The analysis also showed that only 8,310 adopted children were living with same-sex couples in 2000, but the number grew to about 32,571 in 2009. The study suggests that almost half of adoptive gay families had adopted children from foster care as that provides for healthcare and higher education.

Furthermore, various studies - the most recent came last year - all say that children do rather well in same-sex households.

 And that point Morse made about Judith Stacey is a different turn. In the past, those supporting Morse's position have distorted Stacey's research verbatim to attack same-sex households. Morse sidesteps Stacey's research in general in a poor attempt to cast attention on numbers. She also omits the fact that Stacey's research actually supports same-sex households.

The grand irony is while Morse points out that Stacey could only find one study comparing same-sex couples with heterosexual couples, NOM was once caught citing a study having nothing to do with same-sex couples to make the comparison.

Hooper also pointed out a very offensive portion of Morse's words:

And look at the children in these posters. I wonder what the African-American community thinks about recruiting gay men to become foster parents for the children of their community who have been taken from their parents. Do the African-American pastors have any thoughts and opinions about this? I imagine they do. But I will let them speak for themselves.

Hooper takes Morse to task rather nicely. However, as someone in the black community, let me just say one thing. I sincerely HOPE that any black pastors commenting would focus on folks having children without any visible means to take care of these children. No one is stealing black children away to hand them off to white gay men. And anyone pushing this implication is cynically relying on hatred and fear to make their point rather than logic.

The irony of Morse's piece is that while she is accusing gays of using children as a prop, that is exactly what she is doing. Her piece does not talk about how difficult it is for foster children to be adopted. Nor does she offer any ideas regarding the recruitment of what she thinks are good homes.

All she offers is race-baiting with a hint of that "gays want to harm children" message that NOM seems to constantly rely on.

Why I get a nagging feeling every time I hear the phrase 'religious liberty'

Those who are my friends know that I am a serious fan of the 1970s detective drama Columbo. The thing I really loved about this show was the fact of how the character of police detective Columbo never considered a murder case completely simple. He never bought into the idea of an "open-and-shut" case if he had a nagging feeling, no matter how insignificant it was.

That nagging feeling is what I get when I hear about  marriage clerks, hotel owners, Catholic adoption agencies, and recently - cake bakers who refuse to serve gay couples. No doubt you have heard about them and will probably hear a lot more as religious right groups trying to hinder marriage equality will canonize these folks as "saints and martyrs" besieged by so-called radical gay activists supposedly trying to force them choose between their livelihood and religious freedom.

In fact they have a term for this sort of thing. They call it "religious liberty."

There is a certain simplicity to these cases which garners them a degree of support. Some of these folks (excluding Catholic charities who have no right to taxpayer money to discriminate and marriage clerks who should put the needs of constituents over their own desires) seems to have a right to serve whomever they wish. And one could even make the case that they are in fact forced to choose between their livelihoods and their "religious liberty."

But then there goes that nagging feeling again. These cases aren't as simple as they are made out. What about the rights of couples refused service? No matter how you attempt to soften the blow, the idea that someone will  not serve you because of how they inaccurately view you still hurts. It's dehumanizing, it's cruel, and it's embarrassing.

In a recent situation in Iowa, a cake baker scheduled an appointment with a lesbian couple who desired her services only to use that time to not only tell them no, but also to criticize their sexual orientation.

Then that same cake baker made several news appearances to decry about how she was victim, backed by several religious right groups spinning the same talking points.

And I haven't even talked about what message of "I will not serve you" would send to a child in a same-sex family who may be present at the time. Nor have I mentioned the unnecessary inconvenience same-sex couples will have to endure if they live in an area where the so-called religious martyr is the only one who can address their needs.

Then you have to consider just how will gay couples tell just who will or won't serve them. How would they be able to tell without the courtesy of signs saying "we don't serve gays." Of course if such signs did exist, I'm sure those who put them up wouldn't think that they were being cruel. Just like folks who put up "No Irish Need Apply" signs didn't think they were being cruel.

And then you have to ask yourself just far will those the argument of "religious liberty" go? Today it's hotels and cake shops. Tomorrow it may be restaurants or apartment rentals.

So I almost understand the argument of "religious liberty."  But then comes that nagging feeling in the back of my mind that just won't go away - the feeling that "religious liberty" is just another way of saying "allowed discrimination" and that some folks will use the phrase of "religious liberty" to deflect attention from the victims of this "allowed discrimination."

 Lastly, the thing that bothers me the most is the sad fact that the phrase "religious liberty"  has less to do with religion or liberty and more to do with telling gay couples that they are inferior.

'Catholic Bishops attacking marriage equality' and other Monday midday news briefs

U.S. Catholic Bishops Ignore Pressing Issues, Decide to Focus on Marriage Discrimination - Well we saw this coming for a long time but mark my words - this will be a MAJOR mistake for the bishops.

I’m a Christian, and the Catholic church doesn’t speak for me - And on that same subject, a very appropriate piece by John Aravosis.

Iowa Baker Refuses Same-Sex Couple Wedding Cake Because Of Their ‘Lifestyle’ - NOM's newest "gay agenda victim" no doubt. But read the story to see who folks - including other bakers - are rallying around.

Out Washington state lawmakers to push marriage bill - Good for them!

60 Percent Of Americans Live In Places That Don’t Offer Protections For Gay Couples - We will change this.

Religious rightie says DeGeneres not a good choice for raising AIDS awareness

Sometimes, mess coming from the religious right doesn't need an explanation. It just needs a spotlight to underscore how clueless and homophobic they are.

Recently, openly gay actress and talk show host Ellen DeGeneres was named as special envoy to raise awareness about AIDS.

This decision was hailed in many circles. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said DeGeneres will “bring her sharp wit and big heart, and her impressive TV audience and 8 million followers on Twitter” to support U.S. efforts to save the lives of those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

However to the folks on the right, particularly Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America, the only thing that matters is that DeGeneres is a lesbian:

"She is openly lesbian and obviously is an activist on the issue of homosexual rights and has taken a very active role in pushing the homosexual agenda. So for her to be the person who's out front and the face of the Obama administration in the whole fight against AIDS I think is inappropriate," Crouse decides.

Does that even make any sense? Of course not. The only thing that matters to Crouse is that DeGeneres is a so-called "dirty lesbian" and will somehow taint the fight against AIDS.

The only thing that has tainted the fight against AIDS thus is ignorance and stigmatization - which is what Crouse is showing in spades. 

But more than that, it amazes me how some in the religious right will push sexual orientation as a reason for people not being able to do their jobs. It wasn't that long ago when anti-gay activist Linda Harvey was telling parents to not allow their children to be treated by gay physicians.

It's fascinating when one looks at both cases and realizes the one thing that Crouse and Harvey vehemently opposes is the fact that these folks  - i.e. DeGeneres and gay physicians - are openly gay and unashamed.

I think that says more about the mindset of Crouse and Harvey than anything else.

Know Your LGBT History - The 37th anniversary of 'Flowers of Evil'

Posts like this are the reason why I do this Know Your LGBT History. Once upon a time, it wasn't all Glee and Gaga on television for the lgbtq community.

I was just informed by a favorite site of mine, Box Turtle Bulletin, that this week marked the 37th anniversary of "Flowers of Evil," a controversial episode of the 1970s hit show Police Woman. I had already done a segment on this particular episode, but it warrants a repeat. From Box Turtle Bulletin:

When NBC’s hour-long action drama Police Woman starring Angie Dickinson began airing in 1974, was so popular that even its reruns in the spring and summer of 1975 ranked number one in the Nielsen ratings, making it the first successful police drama to feature a woman in the starring role. Dickinson’s unabashed sex appeal, undoubtedly, played a far greater role in its success than the plot lines themselves. One particularly odious episode, “Flowers of Evil,” had Dickinson’s character, Sgt. Pepper Anderson, investigating a trio of lesbians who run a retirement home where they murdered and robbed their elderly residents. Positive portrayals — indeed, any portrayal — of gays and lesbians were extraordinarily rare, which made this episode particularly egregious. To add insult to injury, the Police Woman aired one month to the day after a similarly negative plot line appeared on ABC’s Marcus Welby, M.D., in which a child molester was portrayed as gay. Police Woman’s “Flowers of Evil” was originally scheduled to air on October 25, but after the National Gay Rights Task Force organized national protests which led some advertisers to pull their commercials, NBC pulled the episode for re-editing. But with the filming wrapped up, the edits were mostly cosmetic. After the episode aired on November 8, TV Guide called it “the single most homophobic show to date.” A week later, a group known as Lesbian Feminist Liberation occupied NBC’s Standards and Practices office overnight, unfurled a banner from an office window reading “Lesbians Protest NBC.” Advocates continued to negotiate with NBC for several more months, and NBC finally agreed in 1975 to not rebroadcast the episode and withhold it from syndication. The “Flowers of Evil” episode re-appeared again, but this time in the Season 1 DVD box set after more than thirty years had passed, where in today’s context it can be safely viewed as a historic and cultural artifact.

I just happen to have a copy of that DVD box. However, for your edification, you can view the minisode of the episode above. And yes, it's ain't pretty.

 Past Know Your LGBT Posts: .
 

Minnesotans for Marriage soft peddling its message of bigotry

Via a series of youtube videos - which I refuse to post - the group Minnesotans for Marriage is pushing a false image in its fight to keep marriage equality out of the state.

The group has gotten some folks - couples and individuals - to appear on film and talk about what marriage means to them. Of course the points they make undercut their argument because it begs the question that if marriage means so much to them, then why are they trying to keep it from others? Why are they trying to keep the stability of marriage from families simply because these particular families are comprised of couples of the same sex?

More importantly, the group Minnesotans for Marriage is intentionally soft peddling its message. Minnesotans for Marriage seems to want folks to forget that the organizations which comprise it - National Organization for Marriage and the Minnesota Family Council - operate to attack and demonize same-sex families through their various tactics.

Let's not forget that amongst other things, the National Organization for Marriage routinely pulls the "they want your children" card to stop marriage equality.

Nor should we forget that the Minnesota Family Council has a long, ugly history of smearing the gay community.

And as the video below (which should be referred to every time these "we have to protect marriage" folks pull out their lying videos) demonstrates, the Minnesota Catholic Clergy - which is advocating that Catholics team up with the MFC - is fastly gaining dirty hands in the effort to make same-sex couples inferior:



No matter how subtle these entities try to peddle their message, we are still talking about exploiting hate, fear, and ideas of religious supremacy. And exploitation is not a Christian concept.

Related link:

Minnesotans United for All Families

Thank you, lgbt veterans

While we honor ALL of those who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in preserving our freedoms, let us not forget those who gave their lives even while they had to hide the details of their lives: