No one is buying NOM's fake 'neutrality push'

As many of you already know, the National Organization for Marriage is pushing a boycott of General Mills and Starbucks because of these two company's support of marriage equality and gay rights in general.

NOM claims that companies should be "neutral" in the area of gay rights, i.e. not taking one side or the other.

So imagine everyone's surprise - or rather non-surprise - when NOM wraps its arms around another coffee company because its refusal to "remain neutral."

At www.DumpStarbucks.com you can enter your city or zip code and come up with local coffee shop alternatives to Starbucks. However, most of us do not purchase every cup of coffee while we are out around town. This week we are proud to roll out Jitters and Bliss Coffee as a provider of excellent coffee that can be brewed with a clean conscience any time you want at home, at the office or at your church.

. . . During the month of July Jitters and Bliss is offering a 5% discount to every customer who enters the promotional code "marriage". A small portion of each purchase made also goes to support the National Organization for Marriage as we work to educate people and corporations on the importance of marriage to our society.

. . . Let me be clear. Jitters and Bliss has not, as a corporation, taken a position in the debate over marriage. Just like every company, they have customers, employees, and vendors who hold personal views on what marriage ought to be. They are committed to honoring those views by maintaining a neutral corporate position on marriage.

So, according to NOM, Jitters and Bliss is remaining neutral in the debate over marriage equality while at the same time agreeing to donate a portion of proceeds from its discount to NOM's coffers.

I gotta tell you that while I am not buying the doublespeak here, I admire NOM's chutzpah in its attempt of actually trying to get away with it.

And I am not the only one who isn't falling for the doublespeak. In a surprising degree of candor, comments on NOM's blog are also voicing problems with NOM's hypocrisy over "remaining neutral."  I say it's surprising because NOM usually has strict control over the comments section, making sure to block negative comments while allowing pro-NOM comments from what seems to be the same cadre of individuals.

That's not the case here:

Offering a discount to NOM supporters and donating a portion of profits to NOM is hardly remaining neutral.I respect the right of Jitters and Bliss to give money to whatever cause they want, but let's keep in mind that they are not staying neutral; they are indeed picking a side.

From this blog June 14, 2012:
"[T]he Target Corporation is donating $120,000 to same-sex marriage advocates who are official participants in the campaign, is saying that the debate will be bad for the Minnesota business community, and still has the nerve to say they are not taking a position on the marriage amendment itself."—Jonathan Baker, Director of the Corporate Fairness Project, NOM—

Seems to me that in this instance it equally true that:
""[T]he Jitters and Bliss Corporation is donating X dollars to same-sex marriage opponents at NOM, who are official participants in the campaign, and still has the nerve to say they are not taking a position on the marriage amendment itself."

I see the NOMers suddenly have no words. NOM is soley based on bigotry and hypocracy.

Cue the ant-gay protests. Another mainstream company has hired an openly gay celebrity as a spokesperson.Procter & Gamble announced Monday that comedian and actress Wanda Sykes ("The New Adventures of Old Christine") has become its "Gain Scent Matchmaker" to promote Gain detergents. The interactive YouTube spot features Sykes helping visitors to choose their scent among such options as Apple Mango Tango, Icy Fresh Fizz and Butterfly Kiss. Sykes was already doing voiceover work for Gain. “Gain understands, like me, that it’s all about finding the things that make us happy, like scent, and having a little fun,” Sykes said in a press release. Sykes, who came out as a lesbian in 2008 and whose wife gave birth to twins in 2009, is the latest high-profile gay pitchwoman to back a mainstream company.

How exactly is it "respecting all customers" to be donating to an organization that is dedicated to denying some people full equality under the law? I mean, we can agree to disagree, but Jitters and Bliss is clearly NOT, as NOM would like, "remaining neutral." They have picked a side. So, no way are they "respecting all" customers.

So... how is that whole "remain neutral" thing going, Brian? Remaining neutral means remaining neutral: not offering discounts and donating 5% of profits to the National Organization for Marriage. Hypocrisy.

Isn't providing a 5% discount to those, who wish to have a portion of their purchase sent to NOM, really in effect a 5% surcharge on those, who do not wish to fund anti-gay discrimination with their coffee purchase? Also, NOM and it's minions pitched a fit last month when Target chose to sell pride t-shirts and donate the proceeds from the sale of that item only to a pro-equality group. I don't recall you objecting to NOM's actions then with the argument that Target customers not wanting to support equal treatment of their LGBT fellow citizens could simply chose not to purchase pride t-shirts. So you've merely provided us with yet of further example of situational ethics, without which NOMies would be completely bereft of any ethics what so ever.

Wayne Besen battles the 'gay exorcist' on the David Pakman show

On a recent episode of the David Pakman show, Former Navy Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt and Wayne Besen, Executive Director of Truth Wins Out debate "ex-gay therapy" and exorcisms.

Did I say debate? I meant slaughter. However, notice at the end of the debate how Klingenschmitt cites Mark Regnerus' recent anti-gay study:

'NOM's neutrality demand is a lie' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Bill Gates, Microsoft Founder, Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO, Each Donate $100,000 For Marriage Equality - Okay NOM, will you boycott Microsoft? Come on. I dare you. 

When you seek out NOM, you forfeit neutrality - Hypocrisy define - NOM demands that companies supporting marriage equality stay neutral, but embraces companies which supports NOM's madness.

The 11 Most Pro-Gay U.S. Representatives - I talk a lot about those who are anti-gay. Let's spotlight those who are pro-gay. 

Are Gay Black Men the 'Mammies' of Reality Television? - A good question and article.


Anderson Cooper’s Coming Out Reminds How Society Still Confuses ‘Sexuality’ With ‘Sex Life’ - So when you are open about being gay, folks still think you will be talking about your alleged sex acts. Welcome to our world, Anderson ;p

 

Group trying to dictate idea of civil rights to President Obama

President Obama

I read an absolutely ridiculous article this morning on the American Family Association's One News Now webpage.

I know what you are thinking and I agree. That webpage is always pushing ridiculously stupid, one-sided tripe. But this article is especially annoying. The title alone should tell you why:


Pastors: Obama doesn't understand 'civil rights'

And it gets more interesting:

The Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP) is demanding a meeting with President Barack Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder to discuss the president's endorsement of homosexual "marriage."

The CAAP is headed by Rev. William Owens, who says the majority of African Americans are on the opposite end of the agenda and "feel betrayed by the president"

"We have written him and asked him to reverse his position, and we're going to stay on it until we get some kind of answer," he asserts. "We're asking the African-American community to withhold their support until further notice."

Owens had a direct role in the civil rights movement that gained equality for African Americans, so he knows the difference.

"[Obama] wants to call [homosexual marriage] a civil right, so he undoubtedly doesn't understand the difference in the 'gay' and lesbian community and the African Americans who fought for civil rights, who put their lives on the line," the coalition leader offers. "To equate them is absolutely wrong, and it's like he has turned his back on the African-American community."

I think I speak for the vast majority of the black community when I ask what the heck is the The Coalition of African American Pastors.

From what I have read and have heard about this group, it seems to have been in the media recently as a counter group against marriage equality. In May, it came out with a statement saying that it does not agree with the NAACP's support of marriage equality (the statement was naturally highlighted by the right-wing publication The Daily Caller).

Since that time, the group has been constantly threatening to not support President Obama during the upcoming November election

Of course that would be very weird to me because I don't remember this group giving him support when he won in 2008.

With all due respect to Owens and the Coalition of African American Pastors, it sounds like this organization isn't on level. 

What it sounds like is someone else in the religious right decided to use the National Organization for Marriage's race wedge strategy and a certain person (I won't name names) decide to play the game with his hand out.

Owens has absolutely no idea what he is talking about when he claims that the black community feels betrayed by President Obama's support of marriage equality. Some articles have said that the black church has felt conflicted by President Obama's support of marriage equality. 

Others have noted an increase in support for marriage equality in the black community since Obama's announcement.

But nowhere have I ever read that the majority of black folks have voiced a feeling of betrayal.

Also, I take a bit of offense to the passage -  Owens had a direct role in the civil rights movement that gained equality for African Americans, so he knows the difference.

I sincerely doubt this is true and if I am wrong, Mr. Owens can correct me by pointing out his direct role. Was it more direct than the role of Bayard Rustin, Dr. King's  aide who coordinated the 1963 March on Washington?  Rustin was a black man who put his life on the line for civil rights and he was openly gay.

But I don't mean to preach. The article did provide me with a few laughs, particularly this statement by Owens:

"We're asking the African-American community to withhold their support until further notice."

Yeah right.

If Owens thinks that the black community is so monolithic and one-issue oriented that we will withhold our support from President Obama due to his support of marriage equality while ignoring other issues such as education and healthcare (i.e. Obamacare) then he is sadly mistaken.

And his presumptions only prove that Owens and his Coalition of African American Pastors are less concerned about the needs of the black community and more concerned with their own notoriety and press.

The religious right has an 'Erica Kane' complex

From Right-Wing Watch comes a yet another "oh Lawdy, Lawd! America is in the greatest trouble we have ever seen!" video from the religious right:




How many times have we seen religious right figures sound the alarm about yet another supposed moral calamity facing this country?

It would seem that America has had more close calls with disaster than Erica Kane from the soap opera All My Children.

My question will how long will it take before someone starts to ask just how many supposed calamities can one country face? According to the religious right, America has been at death's door so many times that we have worn out the welcome mat.

Either this country has problems or certain entities are making their name and money off of scaring folks.

I tend to think it's more of column B than column A.

'Anderson Cooper comes out, anti-gay study to be investigated' and other Monday midday news briefs

Anderson Cooper Comes Out To Andrew Sullivan! You're Welcome - Not one for the celebrity thing, but this is a HUGE deal.  

University Of Texas To Investigate Flawed Parenting Study - And while eclipsed by Anderson Cooper coming out, this is ANOTHER HUGE DEAL. 

 Related post -Anti-gay study another chapter in history of religious right distortions
 

BREAKING: Boehner appeals DOMA cases to Supreme Court - I'm personally all for this.

 Facebook stick figures catch up with wedded reality - And now, Facebook is getting with the times.

Anti-gay study another chapter in history of religious right distortions

Regnerus

In what should be front page news on a vast majority of lgbtq publications and blogs, as well as mainstream publications (but for some reason isn't), over 200 professors and therapists took the unusual step of calling out a recently published study by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas which challenges the notion that gay parenting is equal to heterosexual parenting.

The letter (seen here) signed by these professors and therapists called into question the study's credibility due to it's funding, poor methodology, and suspiciously short process it took Social Science Research (where the study was published) to review it prior to publication.

At the heart of the letter is the suspicion that from day one, this study was bought, paid for, and pushed by individuals who seek to not only curtail marriage equality, but gay equality in general under the guise of scientific legitimacy.

This controversy, which has been brewing since the study was announced in early June, is far from over. But for those interested in such things, it shines a light on what I have repeatedly called an overlooked  scandal in the fight over gay equality.

Over a number of years, there has been a tendency on the part of religious right and supposedly pro-family groups to either distort legitimate science in their pursuit of hindering gay rights.

There have been a number of researchers and professors who have had to openly complain as to how these supposedly Christian groups and their spokespeople distort their work in order to demonize the lgbtq community and prove a false theory that homosexuality is a "dangerous lifestyle."

They include:

National Institute of Health director Francis Collins, who rebuked the right-wing American College of Pediatricians for falsely claiming that he stated sexual orientation is not hardwired by DNA.

Six researchers of a 1997 Canadian study (Robert S. Hogg, Stefan A. Strathdee, Kevin J.P. Craib, Michael V. Shaughnessy, Julio Montaner, and Martin T. Schehter), who complained in 2001 that religious right groups were distorting their work to claim that gay men have a short life span.

The authors of the book Unequal Opportunity: Health Disparities Affecting Gay and Bisexual Men in the United States (Professors Richard J. Wolitski, Ron Stall, and Ronald O. Valdiserri), who complained that their work was being distorted by Focus on the Family.

University College London professor Michael King, who complained that the American Family Association was distorting his work on depression and suicide in LGBT individuals

University of Utah professor Lisa Diamond, who complained that NARTH (the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality), a group which also share board members with the American College of Pediatricians, distorted her research on sexual orientation.

Dr. Carol Gilligan, Professor of Education and Law at New York University, who complained that former Focus on the Family head James Dobson misrepresented her research to attack lgbtq families.

Dr. Kyle Pruett, Ph.D., a professor of child psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine, who has also complained that Focus on the Family distorted his work.

Dr. Robert Spitzer, Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, who has consistently complained that religious right groups distorted his study to claim that the LGBT orientation is easily changeable. Earlier this year, Spitzer not only retracted his study but apologized for conducting it.

 Judith Stacey, Professor of Sociology at New York University, who has had to, on more than one occasion, cry foul over how religious right groups distorted her work on lgbtq families.

Greg Remafedi, Professor  at the University of Minnesota, who has complained several times about how religious right groups such as the American College of Pediatricians and PFOX have distorted his work, all to no avail. The American College of Pediatricians refused his request to remove his work from their site.

In 2010, John Horgan, a science journalist and Director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, became yet another professor to complain about how religious right groups were distorting his work.

Earlier this year, Seton Hall professor Dr. Theodora Sirota complained that Rick Fitzgibbons of NARTH (the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) misused her work to make the case that children in same sex households are not raised better than children "in stable homes with a mother and a father."

In addition, there have been other cases in which religious right groups and their spokespeople have freely played the "sin of omission," i.e. citing a study to criticize the gay community while either omitting the fact that the study had nothing to do with the gay community or deliberately omitting details in said study which destroys their theory that "negative behaviors" such as drug and alcohol abuse are indicative of the gay community instead of the result of the homophobia thrown at the gay community.