Analyzing and refuting the inaccuracies lodged against the lgbt community by religious conservative organizations. Lies in the name of God are still lies.
An appeals court on Tuesday upheld the state's campaign disclosure law that requires a national anti-gay-marriage group to release its donor list, but the group plans to take the fight to shield the list to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The decision pertains to ballot question committees in Maine and represents a second defeat for the National Organization for Marriage, which previously lost a challenge to the state's political action committee laws and laws governing independent expenditures and advertising attribution and disclaimers.
The latest appeal focused on part of the law that says groups that raise or spend more than $5,000 to influence elections must register and disclose their donors.
The NOM, which says it was founded in 2007 in response to the "growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures," donated $1.9 million to a political action committee that helped repeal Maine's same-sex marriage law. It said it believes that releasing the donor list would stymie free speech.
"We already know that the homosexual lobby has launched a national campaign of harassment and intimidation against supporters of traditional marriage, so there's a good reason to keep these names confidential," said Indiana lawyer James Bopp Jr., who's representing the NOM.
Mary Bonauto, an attorney with Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said Bopp's claims are an attempt to divert attention from NOM's failure to follow Maine disclosure rules.
NOM has promised to take this case to the Supreme Court. The organization certainly has the money for the process. The problem is it doesn't want to tell anyone where that money is coming from.
FRC's Peter Sprigg again gives misleading testimony
Today, the Maryland legislature listened to testimony on a bill which would allow marriage equality in the state.
Of course, Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council offered up testimony against the bill. A printed copy of his testimony is on FRC's webpage.
Basically Sprigg said that marriage equality would harm children based on the following points:
Fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father.
More children would grow up fatherless.
Birth rates would fall.
We would teach that adult desires, not the interests of society or the needs of children, should drive the drive the definition of marriage.
I won't refute Sprigg's testimony because he did it himself. Check out the endnotes - i.e. research he used to reach his points:
[1] Cynthia C. Harper and Sara S. McLanahan, "Father Absence and Youth Incarceration," Journal of Research on Adolescence 14(3), 2004, p. 388.
[2] Bruce J. Ellis, John E. Bates, Kenneth A. Dodge, David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood, Gregory S. Pettit, Lianne Woodward, "Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?" Child Development Vol. 74, Issue 3, May 2003; abstract online at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8624.00569/abstract.
[3] David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (New York: BasicBooks, 1995), p. 45.
[4] Joyce A. Martin, Brady E. Hamilton, Paul D. Sutton, Stephanie J. Ventura, T. J. Mathews, Sharon Kirmeyer, and Michell J. K. Osteman, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, "Births: Final Data for 2007," National Vital Statistics Reports Vol. 58, No. 24, August, 2010, Table 11. Rankings calculated by the author.
Have you figure it out yet? Hardly any of those studies have anything to do with marriage equality. Sprigg only uses one - the last study - the make the following claim:
There is already evidence of at least a correlation between low birth rates and the legalization of same-sex "marriage." Four of the first five states to permit same-sex "marriage" rank within the bottom eight out of all fifty states in both birth rate and fertility rate
But based on how he distorts the other three, there should be a serious lack of credibility in terms of if he is being accurate here.
In other words, Sprigg claims that marriage equality will have a negative effect on children by citing studies having nothing to do with marriage equality.
Misrepresenting research is not a new thing for Sprigg. In February of last year, he made the claim that same-sex households are inferior to two-parent heterosexual households by using studies which have nothing to do with same-sex households.
And FRC continues to push his pamphlet, The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality,which not only repeats discredited anti-lgbt accuracies but exposes a bit of trickery on Sprigg's part. He cites only part of pro-lgbt information which talks about diseases and negative behaviors but omits the information which talks about how homophobia plays a part in these diseases and negative behaviors.
It's almost depressing. As long as no one challenges Sprigg on his indiscretions, he will continue to be pushed as an "expert" and will continue to give misleading testimony at legislative hearings like he did today in Maryland.
Today the American College of Pediatricians sent a letter to the Shawano School District Superintendent, Todd Carlson, cautioning him to not react adversely to 15-year-old student Brandon Wegner based on political pressure.
Superintendent Carlson called Brandon ignorant for his views on homosexual adoption presented in an op-ed, point-counter-point article for a student-run newspaper. Brandon, the author of the censored article, was punished and bullied for expressing his support of natural, mother-father adoption. The American College for Pediatricians sent a letter to the superintendent, advising him to “consider all the evidence.” It also included three articles concerning homosexual adoption and bullying.
The letter proceeds to direct the school system to FactsAboutYouth.com, a pro-"ex-gay" site that has been so resoundingly criticized, even groups like the Family Research Council have backed off from pushing it.
I wrote about FactsAboutYouth two years ago in the Huffington Post outlining the myriad of errors contained in it, such the following claim it makes about gay men:
Some gay men sexualize human waste, including the medically dangerous practice of coprophilia, which means sexual contact with highly infectious fecal wastes
Despite Disclosure Lawsuits, NOM Will Pour Money Into Maine - So in spite of the fact that they lose court cases regarding disclosure laws in Maine, the National Organization for Marriage is going back to spending a buttload of money in the state.
This portion of an email sent by the Family Research Council underlines the organization's hypocrisy and audacity when it comes to issues of the lgbtq community:
Apart from the Church itself, no institution has a bigger bulls-eye on its back than the U.S. military. "These installations exist to carry out the national defense of our nation," said Congressman (Tim) Huelskamp, "not to facilitate a narrow social agenda." To keep the troops from being distracted by the President's radical social agenda, Rep. Huelskamp has introduced a bill that stops the administration from sneaking around U.S. marriage law and giving its blessing to homosexual unions in the military. His legislation would keep a promise that the administration made but has not kept. Under this bill, military bases would not operate as same-sex "wedding" chapels. "A military installation or other property owned, rented, or otherwise under the jurisdiction or control of the Department of Defense shall not be used to officiate, solemnize, or perform a marriage or marriage-like ceremony involving anything other than the union of one man with one woman."
Also, chaplains, who have been under extraordinary pressure to oversee these ceremonies, would not be "directed, ordered, or required to perform" any service that is contrary to his faith or his church's faith. It's a shame that we have to pass laws like these to protect values that were once considered common place. But the White House leaves us no choice. So help Rep. Huelskamp fight for the troops who are busy fighting for us. Contact your House member and ask him or her to sign on to the Military Religious Freedom Protection Act.
First of all, no chaplain has been under "extraordinary pressure" to officiate over a same-sex wedding ceremony. As near as I can tell, there has never been any article about any chaplains complaining about facing this "problem." The only thing we have heard is hysteria from the Family Research Council and like-minded groups that this sort of thing could happen.
But it couldn't. According to an article in the Washington Post in September of last year:
The Pentagon will permit military chaplains to perform same-sex marriage as long as such ceremonies are not prohibited in the states where they reside, it said Friday.
Defense Department guidance issued to military chaplains said they may participate in ceremonies on or off military bases in states that recognize gay unions. Chaplains are not required to officiate at same-sex weddings if doing so is counter to their religious or personal beliefs, the guidance said.
But what if a chaplain wanted to officiate a same-sex wedding? Well the FRC can't stop that (and I am sure that the organization probably wants to) but it seeks to make this option more difficult by pushing for a law saying that these weddings can't take place on a military base.
In other words, at the same time FRC is defending the right of military chaplains to not have to officiate same-sex weddings, the organization is undermining the rights of military chaplains to do want to officiate these weddings by making it difficult for them to do it on base.
What's more, the organization is bragging about both of these efforts in the same email.
In a recent interview with Michelangelo Signorile, he gave an expository about gloryholes, fisting, and other things he termed as gay sex. I'm not making any accusations. You draw the conclusions yourself.
In talking about the interview, Signorile was quick to point out that Wooden contradicted himself several times:
Speaking with me on my radio program on Sirius XM OutQ, Wooden, who's been described by some LGBT critics as having an "obsession" with anal sex, went into great detail about gay sexual activity, discussing "glory holes" and "fisting all way up to the armpit." Contradicting himself, he actually defended oral sex and anal sex for heterosexuals -- even though he'd previously said, in speaking about gays, that God "made the human sperm, the God of the Bible designed it, and it was not designed to be emptied into an area that is filled with feces."
The exchange in question is as follows:
Do you believe men and women should have oral sex? Of course. I believe the Bible says that marriage is honorable in all and the bed is undefiled.
So oral sex is okay? If a woman performs oral sex on a man?
Any sexual activity as long as the two persons as far as I'm concerned are in agreement, are married and they are born of the oppose sex.
But sir, you said said sperm is not meant to go in the anus. It's not meant to go in the mouth -- You said sperm, when it goes in the anus, it's wasted, that is God's seed wasted. When a woman is drinking your sperm, isn't she wasting it?
No, the difference is, they are of the opposite sex.
According to the Bible you're only supposed to be having missionary sex with your wife...Oral sex is considered sodomy.
This pastor is telling you without apology that the Bible allows a husband and a wife to enjoy each other --
Including anal sex? including anal sex?
I guess so, if that's something that they agree to.
But you said that that place is the place for feces.
Well, do you disagree with that?
I don't understand why you're saying that's okay for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals.
Yes, you do. I don’t believe two homosexuals should kiss on the mouth.
But you said that anal sex will lead to death. So why can heterosexuals do it?
No, no. If everyone practiced anal sex it would lead to that. Have you ever heard of any man getting pregnant through anal sex.I believe sexual activity is for persons of the opposite sex.
So even if they're putting objects in, that's fine?
Most men -- I guess my way of thinking is that the object my wife wants in her is me. I can't expound on the sexual proclivities of everyone. But what I am saying and i want to be perfectly clear, and I don't apologize for it, it doesn't make me a bigot. I don't have an unreasonable fear of homosexuals -- I believe marriage is between a man and woman.
New Hampshire Republicans May Lack Votes To Override Governor’s Veto Of Marriage Repeal Bill - New Hampshire may pass a bill repealing marriage equality in the state this week. However Governor John Lynch said that he would veto the bill and its looking like the legislature may not have the votes to override the veto should it come to that. A empty victory for NOM and its allies if it all comes to pass.
Restaurant Refuses To Serve Anti-Gay GOP State Senator Stacey Campbell Because Of His Hateful Agenda - If the religious right tries to make a fuss of this situation, then they would be hypocrites. You see in opposing pro-gay laws in terms of employment and such, they argue that business owners should be allowed to make decisions based upon their "deeply held personal beliefs." And in this case, it may be that a business owner had a "deeply held personal belief" that he/she wouldn't serve homophobes. Not so strange how discrimination springs back against those who would allow its practice. U.N. Secretary-General Defends LGBT Rights In Africa - Good for him!
His homophobic animus gives me so much to work with. I personally think that next to Peter LaBarbera and Linda Harvey, Barber is one of the lgbtq's best weapons in exposing the lies of these phony "traditional values groups."
Take for example his speech at LaBarbera's recent flop of a press conference at the headquarters of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Now LaBarbera, Barber, and several attention-starved black pastors in attendance claimed to be making a stand because the SPLC told the truth about several phony "traditional values groups," i.e. they market lies, junk science, and propaganda against the lgbtq community. Barber claimed in the speech below at the press conference that it was "inexplicable" that SPLC was "slandering mainstream Christian organizations" by calling them hate groups simply because they supposedly "embrace the traditional Judeo-Christian sexual ethic."
Of course Barber is lying. SPLC has said that it is the lies and propaganda spread by Barber and company about the lgbtq community which is the problem. You know, like claiming that gays want to advance pedophilia, such as what Barber did in September of last year:
Or implying that same-sex families are reprehensible and unnatural:
Or claiming that same-sex families is propaganda to support sexual anarchy:
Or saying that gay children are inclined to commit suicide because "they know" that being gay is "unnatural and immoral"
And there more videos of Barber attacking the lgbtq community with lies. You could string them together and make a feature film.
The fact of the matter is that when Barber claims that he does not understand why SPLC is labeling some religious right organizations as hate groups, he is lying through his teeth. Barber knows this but apparently he thinks that the lgbtq community is too stupid to youtube his name.
With his stark audacity here, Barber becomes the symbol of religious right hypocrisy - holding a Bible with the hand which they are showing to the public while hiding the other hand used to throw figurative rocks at the lgbtq community behind their backs.
Here is the thing though - slowly but surely people are getting interested in the hand these phony "morality groups" are hiding. People are getting interested in seeing whether or not these groups are worthy to hold the Bible in the hands they are showing to the American public.
The irony is that his group, the Liberty Counsel, was not named as a hate group by SPLC, even though it was called out for its use of homophobic lies and propaganda. Who knows. Maybe Barber is jealous that the Liberty Counsel didn't achieve full status.
Lastly, here is something else interesting about Barber's speech. He laid out a challenge to Mark Potok, editor of the SPLC’s Intelligence Report to debate the charges, particularly the falsehoods Barber and others of his ilk spread about the lgbtq community. In doing so, he makes a clever distortion. He cited studies allegedly from the Center for Disease Control regarding gay men and STDs. Barber's point was that religious right groups aren't doing anything wrong because supposedly they are merely citing credible scientific information to claim that homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle.
But the CDC has never said that homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle. The CDC has never used their studies to vilify and dehumanize the gay community. Generally when the CDC cites studies regarding gays and STDs, the organization also points to outside factors, such as homophobia, racism, and poverty as fueling these problems in the gay community. The following is what the CDC said when it comes to HIV/AIDS amongst gay men:
Stigma and homophobia may have a profound impact on the lives of MSM, especially their mental and sexual health. Internalized homophobia may impact men’s ability to make healthy choices, including decisions around sex and substance use. Stigma and homophobia may limit the willingness of MSM to access HIV prevention and care, isolate them from family and community support, and create cultural barriers that inhibit integration into social networks.
Racism, poverty, and lack of access to health care are barriers to HIV prevention services, particularly for MSM from racial or ethnic minority communities. A recent CDC study found a strong link between socioeconomic status and HIV among MSM: prevalence increased as education and income decreased, and awareness of HIV status was higher among MSM with greater education and income
When Barber, LaBarbera, and the rest of that crowd cite CDC studies, they deliberately omit or downplay information such as this.
Therein lies the difference and the deception. The CDC puts out information to combat health problems in the lgbtq community. Barber, LaBarbera and company puts out information to exploit health problems in the lgbtq community.
But I am interested in seeing the debate between Potok and Barber. Personally I think Barber was just showing bravado and in reality, he doesn't have the guts to answer for his lies. Time will tell and I intend to be there to let folks know if and when Barber wimps out.
