Analyzing and refuting the inaccuracies lodged against the lgbt community by religious conservative organizations. Lies in the name of God are still lies.
Obama makes history for both the African-American and gay communities:
The White House announced on Wednesday that President Obama has nominated Judge William Thomas, an out gay man, to serve on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Thomas would be the first out LGBT black man to serve as a lifetime-tenured federal judge.
In a statement, Obama noted the diversity of Thomas and six other nominees, saying, "They ... represent my continued commitment to ensure that the judiciary resembles the nation it serves."
He added, "These individuals have demonstrated the talent, expertise, and fair-mindedness Americans expect and deserve from their judicial system. I am grateful for their willingness to serve and confident that they will apply the law with the utmost impartiality and integrity. Too many of our courtrooms stand empty. I hope the Senate will promptly consider all of my nominees and ensure justice for everyday Americans."
Thomas is the first out LGBT black judge to be nominated by Obama, but, if approved by the Senate, he would be the second out LGBT black judge. The first, Judge Deborah Batts, also was the first out LGBT federal judge. She was nominated by President Clinton and sat on the Southern District of New York bench. She took "senior status," a near retirement, earlier this year.
Yes this is a big #^@ deal, particularly to THIS black gay man and others who are like me because rarely do we see lgbt of color role models. It's not as if they aren't out there. It's just that very few folks focuses on them.
Certainly Mr. Thomas will not be seen as the "black gay judge" and Obama did not pick him because of those designations. However, in a world where gay black men have little visibility either sometimes by accident (by the gay community) or sometimes deliberately (by the African-American community), it's nice to see a spotlight on one of us who is successful.
Brian Tashman at Right-Wing Watch beat me to this, but it's so hilarious that it needs more attention.
Apparently Mass Resistance, a venomous SPLC-declared hate group in Massachusetts is angry at the National Organization for Marriage.
According to its founder, Brian Camenker, NOM lost the recent four ballot initiatives for several reasons, including not being anti-gay enough. Cameneker, in fact, called NOM' strategy "flawed."
In sharp contrast to the homosexual lobby's slick, sophisticated propaganda machine, the pro-family overall approach was largely the same moderate, inoffensive, often logically incoherent approach that they've coasted on until now. A number of activists made it a point to complain to us about that.
For example, most of the pro-family message was some variation of: Every child needs a father and a mother; the word "marriage" is special; marriage is about procreation; marriage is a timeless institution; gays already have all the rights marriage brings; etc.
These arguments are not emotional, fairly general, and not very compelling. In contrast, the homosexual lobby made the arguments in their ads emotional and personal.
At its root, "gay marriage" is really about the forced acceptance of homosexuality as a normal part of society. But both NOM and the state pro-family groups went to great lengths not to criticize homosexual behavior. They were very fearful of being perceived as "anti-gay" or "homophobic" especially in the liberal press. So they insisted on moderating everyone's messages. In Minnesota, for instance, activists were specifically told, "Don't make this a gay issue."
Those who deviated from this and took a more direct approach were shunned and even publicly criticized by the pro-family establishment.
This included some of the vocal black churches in Maryland who wanted to quote the Bible, and activists in Maine and Minnesota who felt compelled to discuss the negative aspects homosexual behavior.
Except for some material posted on websites of the local pro-family groups, there were no attempts at all that we know of to persuade the public through advertising that homosexual behavior was perverse, dysfunctional, and unhealthy.
Our side basically conceded that argument completely, and even went to lengths to state that "we're not anti-gay." The homosexual lobby took full advantage of that by aggressively portraying homosexuality as just another facet of normal human behavior.
This tactic is not sustainable, as it soon became clear. It certainly does not effectively counter the emotional strategies put forth by the homosexual lobby. At some point you have to engage in the real battle at hand.
It sounds to me as if that Camenker is angry that NOM didn't talk go for the jugular with the anti-gay stuff. In other words, Camenker sounds sore that NOM didn't take the route that Mass Resistance is famous for, i.e. making up horror stories about gays invading schools and harming children like so:
Or running repulsively insulting videos like the following:
Needless to say that Mass Resistance does worse. The organization makes it a point to take pictures of and videotape youth participation at pride events to push the ridiculous "gays indoctrinate children" lie.
And this group is criticizing NOM for not partaking in this madness. Between you and me, I kinda wish NOM would have because it would have led us to win by a larger margin.
However, as it is, I doubt NOM will be taking Mass Resistance's advice any time soon. NOM believes in subtle homophobia, not the in your face kind.
Tony Perkins gets another mainstream media pass - This is a hot mess. What the hell is The New York Times doing spotlighting FRC's Tony Perkins without giving a good view of the lies he and his organization, the Family Research Council, undertakes against the gay community? Indeed, evil triumphs when those who have the power to expose it do nothing.
The Family Research Council can't help itself when it comes to smearing gays.
Maybe it's a clinical thing.
In this particular scenario, the organization is not exactly happy that UPS has decided not to donate to the Boy Scouts due to its policy of not allowing gays to be members. According to FRC, UPS is punishing the Boy Scouts because the organization is supposedly trying to keep boys safe from pedophiles:
What UPS and other corporations refuse to acknowledge is that the Scouts' policy isn't a matter of intolerance--but security. After hundreds of cases of child sex abuse plagued the organization, the BSA tried to create a membership criteria in the best interest of kids' safety and parents' rights. Over the years, the Boy Scouts have paid millions--possibly hundreds of millions--to boys victimized by same-sex predators. And the financial toll was nothing compared to the emotional trauma of these children, whose lives are forever scarred by those encounters. For more than 100 years, the Scouts have focused on instilling character and leadership into America's boys. They aren't about to compromise that mission just to placate liberal companies and activists.
Note what FRC says here - "same sex predators," i.e. making the inaccurate point that a man who molests a boy should be automatically considered as gay.
As far as I am concerned, it's always a good thing when religious right figures trot their hypocrisies out in the public square.
My only concern is that we as a community don't take advantage of this more. Take former Family Research Council head Janet Parshall for example:
The above excerpt is from a ridiculous documentary she filmed with the American Family Association in 2009 entitled Speechless - Silencing the Christians. The documentary, with her as the host, makes inaccurate charges that gay equality will lead to the silencing and "persecution" of Christians. As you hear her ramble, please be aware that many of her claims are false, but I am sure you already know that.
But what I take from it is the false theme of "persecution" Parshall trots out. Using it, she implies the gay community are the aggressors. That we are the ones who use threats and ugly language against those we oppose.
It's a bizarre thing to take in when one listens to the following recent interview Parshall conducted with FRC's Peter Sprigg:
In case you need to keep to itemize certain realities, Parshall believes that gays gaining any form of equality is dangerous to Christians' rights of free speech. But her calling marriage equality a tool of the devil is right on.
Parshall's hypocrisy reminds me of the Kirk Cameron controversy earlier this year when he attacked gays, was criticized heavily for it, and then pleaded victimhood while hiding behind his so-called Christian beliefs.
And it made me realize a point which we hardly discuss.
To Parshall, Cameron, and other religious right talking heads and organizations, it's not enough for them to feel the negative way they do about the gay community. They seem to not only be angling to denigrate us unchallenged but also want their world view of homosexuality to be the prevalent view.
Think about it. Every time there is something which remotely puts the gay community in a positive light, these people and their groups trot out a stupid argument in which they push offensive phraseology like:
"Americans don't want the gay agenda rammed down their throat," or "parents don't want their children indoctrinated in the homosexual lifestyle."
The way they talk, the gay community sound like we are not Americans, we don't pay taxes, we aren't raising children, and we have no say whatsoever in the making of the laws which would govern our lives.
Let me put it as succinct as possible. People like Janet Parshall and organizations like the American Family Association want to control our lives. They want to put us in a box of sadness and self-hatred, where we settle for dangerous fumblings in public restrooms and parks for good relationships. Where we are content to grow old and alone because we feel that we are not worthy of creating families. Where we accept whatever so-called "tolerance" they give us because we feel that we don't deserve dignity.
Sorry guys, but I feel safe in speaking for the vast, vast majority of the gay community when I say get over yourselves.
You see, many of us have had that taste of sweet champagne which comes with the revelation that we are worthy of equality. And when you taste that champagne of equality, you don't go back to the bitter, lukewarm water of low self-esteem and self-denial.
You don't settle for a place in the corner when you have just discovered that you are part owner of the castle.
So my advice to the Janet Parshalls of the worlds, the Peter Spriggs, the American Family Associations is simple:
Give it up. Turn it loose. Because sooner or later, equality will be ours, regardless of you.
