'GoProud taken to task for dumb Romney endorsement' and other Thursday midday news briefs

Dan Savage, my friend, slurring GoProud and allowing them to play the victim for endorsing Mitt Romney is NOT how you bring your point across. THIS is how you do it:



In other news:

 BREAKING: House GOP Leaders Will Ask Supreme Court By the End of June to Take DOMA Appeal - After losing FOUR cases in court in their attempt to defend that awful Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), House leaders seem to be begging the Supreme Court to put them out of their misery. 

 US State Dept Voices “Deep Concerns” About Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill - Remember that awful "Kill The Gays" bill in Uganda? It's not dead yet. 

 Shocker: Vast majority of Minn. For Marriage cash comes from Catholic conference, MFC, NOM - From the Department of No Shit, Sherlock. 

Jim Daly Claims Satan is Behind Push for Same-Sex Marriage - That very, very small bit of credibility Focus on the Family had when compared to groups like the Family Research Council just flew out of the window. 

Religious right suffering from 'gay on the brain' when it come to the military

Is it just me or do some members of the religious right think everything is a part of a gay conspiracy?

Witness this bizarre grouping together of two different issues having absolutely nothing to do with each other:

The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty says it's a sad state of affairs when the U.S. military decides Bibles are out but "gay pride" is in.

The publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention reported last week that its Bibles will no longer display the official insignia of U.S. military branches. The Pentagon had originally granted permission in 2003, but withdrew that last year because of a complaint and legal threat from anti-Christian crusader Mikey Weinstein and his Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

. . . One day after the publisher's announcement regarding military insignia on Bibles, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced the military will honor the contributions of homosexual service members as part of "Gay Pride Month." Crews urges people of faith to stand firm.

"Evangelical soldiers, airmen, Marines, they're going to have to make some courageous stands right now to say to their commanders, 'Sir, I cannot participate in this type of ceremony because we believe this is a celebration of something that God's Word is clear about defining as wrong,'" he tells OneNewsNow.

According to Crews, such actions came about only because a lame-duck Congress forced the radical homosexual agenda on the military when it repealed the 1993 law banning homosexuals from serving in the armed forces.

So the removal of military insignias off of Bibles and the decision to honor gay military service members is connected because of THE CONSPIRACY by President Obama and the former Democratic-led Congress to destroy the military and thereby the United States by forcing heterosexual service members to hold ceremonies to honor gay and lesbian service members so that they are recruited in these ceremonies to a homosexual lifestyle.

Apparently the military insignias on the Bibles created a force field which made heterosexual soldiers impervious to the sly come-ons by members of the gay community, come-ons which they will receive at these Gay Pride ceremonies, which now thanks to Weinstein, they are susceptible to.

Or something like that.

Southern Baptist Convention doesn't know the meaning of the word 'irony'

Yesterday, the Southern Baptist Convention recently elected its first African-American president.

From The Washington Post:

When the Southern Baptist Convention met Tuesday, it elected its first African American president, Fred Luter Jr., a former street preacher and current pastor of a church in New Orleans’ Lower Ninth Ward.

Luter’s election marks a watershed moment for the SBC. The organization was founded in a split over slavery before the Civil War and for decades was a largely segregated, all-white denomination. It was not until 1995 that the organization adopted a resolution of racial reconciliation; it has come under scrutiny for racial insensitivity as recently as the Trayvon Martin case, when the president of its policy arm made racially charged comments about the case.

But the election of Luter will not be, at least primarily, about fixing the sins of the past. Rather, it will be about the future of an organization that has seen declining membership for five straight years. The denomination—the largest Protestant body in the United States—will need to seek new growth from urban centers and minority groups, or at the very least, maintain its size by helping struggling churches find ways to stay afloat. “I think they thought racial diversity would happen,” Ed Stetzer, the president of the SBC’s research organization, told the Associated Press. “Now they realize they have to make it happen,” he said.

I would probably applaud the SBC except for the following from The Associated Press:

 A day after electing their first African-American president, Southern Baptists were considering a resolution Wednesday opposing the idea that gay rights are the same as civil rights.

The resolution up for a vote at the denomination's annual meeting in New Orleans affirms Southern Baptists' beliefs that marriage is "the exclusive union of one man and one woman" and that "all sexual behavior outside of marriage is sinful."

It acknowledges that gays and lesbians sometimes experience "unique struggles" but declares that they lack the "distinguishing features of classes entitled to special protections."

"It is regrettable that homosexual rights activists and those who are promoting the recognition of 'same-sex marriage' have misappropriated the rhetoric of the Civil Rights Movement," the resolution states.

So let me get this correct.  An organization (the Southern Baptist Convention) which started over the question of slavery - it was for it -  and was heavily segregated during the Civil Rights Movement has now its first black leader and but is also presently thinking about passing a resolution accusing gays of  misappropriating the rhetoric of the Civil Rights Movement; a movement started in part because folks like the people in the Southern Baptist Convention justified the treating of black people as inferiors.

The irony boggles the mind, but it does justify an old saying.

You can't put a new auto body around a crappy engine and expect it to perform.

'GoProud sells out gay community for press coverage' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Purportedly pro-LGBT civil rights conservative org GOProud endorses Romney - No GoProud, endorsing Mitt Romney doesn't make you look edgy. It makes you look elitist, out-of-touch with your own community, and stupid. It's the equivalent of putting your head in the mouth of a hungry lion and then not expecting the lion to chomp down.  

Here you go: LGBT rights advances under President Obama that President Romney could undo - Just a reminder of how severe the bite of that lion can be. And remember that Romney did sign that National Organization for Marriage pledge.  

A Gay Couple weds at NYC's Midtown Comics Store - Go ahead. You know you want to say it - "Aw how cute!" 

 Obama is Not a Christian Because 'the Bible is Very Clear About Homosexual Acts Being a Very Evil Thing' - ONLY if they are done very early in the morning. Three a.m. is a very inhuman hour for "homosexual acts."

 Rubio: Society Shouldn’t ‘Tolerate’ Same-Sex Marriage - OH REALLLLLY! As long as society "tolerates" my tax dollars, it should (and will) tolerate my rights. 

Family Research Council destroys study's credibility

Peter Sprigg

The anti-gay parenting study authored by the University of Texas professor Mark Rengnerus just received another kiss of death aside from condemnation from social scientists.

Apparently the Family Research Council loves it.

FRC spokesman Peter Sprigg wrote a long love letter to the study, having this to say at the conclusion:

 The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever.

Of course that statement is strange, seeing that Regnerus - for all of the faults in his work - clearly said the study does not establish a relationship between same-sex parenting and negative outcomes (see point 2 in the Equality Matters link).

Also, according to the online publication The Daily Beast emphasis added:

In his Slate essay, Regnerus preemptively defends himself against  . . . criticisms with a limited interpretation of the results. “We didn’t have as many intact lesbian and gay families as we hoped to evaluate, even though they are the face of much public deliberation about marriage equality,” he writes. The results reflect on a previous generation of gay parenting, before the legalization of gay marriage in some states, he writes. “I’m not claiming that sexual orientation is at fault here, or that I know about kids who are presently being raised by gay or lesbian parents. Their parents may be forging more stable relationships in an era that is more accepting and supportive of gay and lesbian couples.” Regnerus says his study’s political implications are unclear and are not intended to undermine the legal parental rights of anyone.

But Sprigg has an interesting way of overlooking Regnerus's caveats. This is what he says:

While the Regnerus study is a vast improvement over virtually all the prior research in the field, it still leaves much to study and learn about homosexual parents and their effect on children. Author Mark Regnerus emphasizes the traditional caveat in social science, warning against leaping to conclusions regarding "causality." In other words, just because there are statistical correlations between having a homosexual parent and experiencing negative outcomes does not automatically prove that having a homosexual parent is what caused the negative outcomes--other factors could be at work.

This is true in a strict scientific sense--but because Regnerus carefully controlled for so many other factors in the social environment, the study gives a clear indication that it is this parental characteristic which best defines the household environment that produces these troubling outcomes. The large number of significant negative outcomes in this study gives legitimate reason for concern about the consequences of "homosexual parenting."

In other words, Sprigg is saying "Hey, the study does not say that same-sex homes causes negative behaviors and I won't say that they do either, but since the large number of significant negative outcomes in this carefully controlled study come from same-sex households, by all means feel free to make that assumption."

Herein we see the futility of Regnerus's caveats. Sprigg not only pushes them aside, he does it without apology, as does several other religious right groups and websites who are already claiming that Regnerus's study proves that same-sex households are somehow dangerous towards children.

I guess they didn't read Regnerus's caveats regarding causation. Or maybe, like Sprigg, they just don't care because they now have something which they can use against the gay community, caveats be damned.

Therein lies the immediate danger of Regnerus's work. It's not about science nor the slow process of coming to the conclusion about a social issue through research. It's about the impact of shock headlines and the assumptions that people like Sprigg and organizations like FRC will invite others to make; assumptions designed to denigrate same-sex households and distort images of the gay community before anyone has a chance to delve deeper into the issue.

I seriously wonder if Regnerus knows what he has gotten himself into with this. I also would suggest that Regnerus, if he is truly to be believed about the objectivity of his study, should step in and forcefully speak against the use of it to demonize same-sex households and the lgbtq community in general.

If he speaks out, we will know where he stands regarding the assumptions the religious right is making about his work.

If he is silent then I guess that will still let us know where he stands, won't it?

The danger of laughing at homophobia

We need to gain perspective on things when it comes to homophobia. For example, look at this video of a Los Angeles pastor at a pride parade claiming that gays eat human wastes:



It's hilarious, isn't it?

Then again, check out another scene just like it. From Youtube:

In this scene from Vanguard's "Missionaries of Hate," correspondent Mariana van Zeller attends a press conference during which Pastor Martin Ssempa shows graphic gay porn to a room full of international journalists. Mariana traveled to Uganda to learn more about the growing influence of American religious groups has led to a movement to make homosexuality a crime punishable by death:

Our struggle for equality is worldwide.  Let us realize that what may be funny to us is death to our brothers and sisters across the waters. It's something to remember that no matter how ludicrous homophobia may seem, don't spend so much time laughing that you forget how dangerous it truly is.

'Hate group leader embarrasses himself with attack on gay blog' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Game on, Tony Perkins! FRC leader attempts to smear me, draws more attention to his own smears - Hilarious! Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council has accused my blogging pal Jeremy Hooper of distorting quotes in order to "smear" an NC pastor. As proof of the charge, Perkins pulls up the quotes Hooper supposedly distorted, proving that not only Hooper was accurate but Perkins has to be either clueless or "on that stuff" when he chose to initiate this war.

  Uganda Police Raid Gay Rights Meeting - Our brothers and sisters in Uganda need our prayers.

 Romney: Kids Are Better Off With Straight Parents - Speaking of someone else clearly "on that stuff." I thought he was FOR gay adoption a while back.

 NOM Launches Full Court Press For Discredited Gay Parenting Study - Raise your hands those who are surprised over this. Anyone? Anyone?

 Linda Harvey Dubs Same-Sex Relationships 'Pathetic' and 'Lifeless' - Poor Linda. She is having no fun so she tries to keep others from having fun.