'SCOTUS puts hold on Utah marriages, religious right plots for 2014' and other Monday midday news briefs

Supreme Court Halts Utah Same-Sex Couples’ Marriages While Case Is Appealed - Come on folks. You really didn't it was going to be that easy, did you? TEMPORARY setbacks are inevitable in the fight for equality. 

 
Utah’s Novel Argument: Banning Same-Sex Marriage Encourages ‘Diversity’ In Parenting - An analysis of Utah's anti-marriage equality argument.

 Scary Summit: Religious Right Leaders Meet To Plot Big-Money Blitz For 2014 Elections - It's this sort of thing which scares me more.  

How the right profits from the culture wars - This is a fascinating article. 

 CeCe McDonald, Transgender Woman, To Receive Early Release From Men's Prison - A sister were defending herself and winds up in prison. I am so glad she is getting out.

Utah marriage equality opponents want 'uprising' over the issue

Oh lighten up, people. It's only marriage equality. However, what you do propose is ludicrous.

Know Your LGBT History - The 1965 San Francisco New Year's Ball Raid

We hear so much about the raid at Stonewall and its history in lgbt equality. However our community mythologizes it so much that a lot of other events of equal importance get left by wayside. The 1965 San Francisco New Year's Ball Raid is an important part of lgbt history because not only was it one of the first times that heterosexuals were given a front row view of how the police harassed the lgbt community back then, but it also created links between the lgbt community and the inclusive religious community.

 From Box Turtle Bulletin (which gave me the idea to spotlight this event):

 Early San Francisco LGBT-rights advocates had long recognized that much of the opposition to homosexuality rested on religious objections, and that if any progress was to be made, it was necessary to foster links between the gay community and the bay area’s religious leaders — at least those leaders who might be inclined to be supportive, whether publicly or privately. Earlier in 1964, Daughters of Bilitis founders Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, together with Glide Memorial Methodist Church, formed the Council on Religion and the Homosexual. CRH was notable for two reasons: not only was it the first organization in the U.S. to incorporate the word “Homosexual” in its name, but it was also the first organization to bring straight and gay people together to minister to the gay community.  

 And that opportunity for those early straight allies to get a first-hand taste of what gay people routinely experienced came on New Year’s Day of 1965, when CHR held a New Years Mardi Gras as a fundraiser at California Hall. When the ministers informed the San Francisco Police Department on December 23 of their planned costume party, the police tried to coerce the hall’s owners into cancelling the rental. Organizers again met with police on December 29, for negotiations which the ministers described “strained.” SFPD officials couldn’t understand why these ministers were arguing on behalf of gay people. Observing the wedding bands on the ministers’ fingers, one officer reportedly said, “We see you’re married. How do your wives accept this?” Their wives, the ministers explained, would be at the ball also, along with other members of their congregations. Police tried to question them on theology and warned them that they were being “used” by local homophile organizations, but the ministers persisted. Finally, the two parties reached a deal where police promised not to arrest anyone in costume, including those in drag.  

 Those promises quickly proved empty. As guests began arriving at 9:00 p.m. on New Year’s Day, they encountered police officers snapping photographs of everyone as they entered the building. The obvious attempt at intimidation deterred many — organizers expected 1500 to show up but only about 500 actually attended. Later that evening, police demanded entry into the building. Three CRH lawyers explained that the party was a private party under California law and that police could not enter without buying tickets or showing a warrant. The lawyers were arrested, along with a ticket-taker, and charged with obstructing an officer. Two other gay men were arrested for “disorderly conduct” after one of them tripped over a chair; police accused him of trying to kiss another man and both were hauled in. Throughout the night, police repeatedly entered the hall to conduct “fire code inspections.” The ball was scheduled to end at midnight, but organizers decided to end the ball an hour earlier. Their next job was to get their guests safely out of the building. One minister was threatened with arrest while escorting two guests to their cars 

. . . . The following morning seven of the ministers who had attended the party held a press conference where they described the pre-event negotiations and the resulting “intimidation, broken promises and obvious hostility” of the San Francisco Police. The American Civil Liberties Union agreed to represent those under arrest. The New Year’s Mardi Gras party, occurring as it did some five years before Stonewall, proved to be a turning point for gay rights in San Francisco. As the Mattachine Society’s Hal Call  recalled, “That was when we got newspapers, TV, and radio on our side. The police were so brutal. And with some respectable clergymen on our side, that was a turning point.” Phyllis Lyon said that it was “our first step into some kind of connectedness with the rest of the city.” City officials, embarrassed by the obvious police misconduct, responded by designating officer Elliot Blackstone as the first liaison between the department and the LGBT community. (At his retirement dinner in 1975, Blackstone was saluted by LGBT community leaders for his ensuing twenty years of advocacy and support.)

Past Know Your LGBT History Posts:

'Social conservatives may support hate group leader's bid for US Senate' and other Friday midday news briefs

FRC's Tony Perkins

Social conservatives could get behind Tony Perkins for U.S. Senate in Louisiana - Family Research Council head Tony Perkins as a United States Senator should scare the hell out all of you. 

Chris Kluwe Blasts Vikings For Cutting Him Over LGBT Advocacy - This controversy hasn't even BEGUN to near the ending yet.  

Brendon Ayanbadejo Backs Chris Kluwe - Awesome!

 CDC Reverses Discriminatory Breast Cancer Screening Rule for Trans People - Good news!

 Jamaican Dancehall Star Sizzla Banned From Music Festival For Anti-Gay Lyrics - Free speech my foot! This is not a free speech issue.

Why won't FRC's Tony Perkins engage in face-to-face debate on lgbt equality?

Earlier today, I talked about the revelation that during a recent appearance on Fox News, Family Research Council head Tony Perkins refused to engage lgbt activist Jeremy Hooper in a face-to-face debate. Most likely it's probably because when he has to debate his anti-gay position against someone who knows their stuff, the following happens:

'Why did FRC's Tony Perkins refuse a face-to-face debate with lgbt activist?' and other Thursday midday news briefs

The conversation we're having versus the forced monologue they want us to dignify - We keep hearing ad nauseam from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council that we are trying to silence folks like him when it comes to the issue of lgbt equality. We know this is a dodge and now comes a bit of proof which we SIMPLY MUST INVESTIGATE FURTHER. My friend Jeremy Hooper, during an excellent post about how anti-gay activists like to turn tv interviews into talking point monologues, has revealed some interesting information regarding a recent appearance he and Perkins made on Fox News. Allegedly, Perkins REFUSED to debate him face-to-face. Subsequently, Megyn Kelly did back-to-back interviews with Hooper and then Perkins. Enough of the jaded comments of "well I'm surprised." We need to demand answers. Why didn't Tony Perkins want to go head-to-head with Jeremy. We know the answer, but the question still needs to be raised - PUBLICLY!  That's the difference between them and us. If they had such a revelation about us, they would broadcast it to the heavens. We need to broadcast this revelation in the same manner.

Limericks By Matt Barber - This is just dumb. Instead of good arguments as to why his side opposes lgbt equality, anti-gay activist Matt Barber is now writing juvenile limericks. You gotta be kidding me!

 Amazon pulls book telling parents to ignore their gay kids - Thanks to another blogging friend of mine, Wil Kohl of Back2Stonewall.com, this book has been pulled from Amazon. Free speech my tuckus! Amazon is a private company. Besides if we run this claptrap by a woman who has NO expertise in lgbt healthcare, or anything else resembling lgbt healthcare, why not run books supporting lobotomies?  

No ‘Mass Exodus’ From Boy Scouts As New Gay Scout Rule Goes Into Effect - Another religious right fear story bites the dust.

Anti-gay activist attack researchers for daring to correct how he distorts their work

LaBarbera

 Peter LaBarbera is again posting a ludicrous attack on lgbts on his webpage, complete with pictures of dildos. The post which accompanied LaBarbera's photo was a rambling piece of nonsense, PUTTING THE “SEX” BACK IN HOMOSEXUALITY, by Eric Holmberg. The piece is the usual claptrap about homosexuality being a "health risk" which actually tries to defend Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty's rather graphic homophobic comments regarding anal and vaginal sex. LaBarbera added some of his personal nonsense to the piece, particularly this part:

According to one peer-reviewed [1997] study done towards the end of the 20th century, the life expectancy for the average 20-year-old gay or bisexual man [assessing "vital statistics data ... obtained for a large Canadian urban centre from 1987 to 1992"] was 8 to 21 years less than his heterosexual counterpart. (See the International Journal of Epidemiology.) Here [in 2001] the authors actually condemn as “homophobic” anyone who dares to point to their research as evidence that homosexuality carries with it certain inherent health risks. And yet they in no way deny the statistical evidence their research has uncovered. (This is one of the best examples of “professing to be wise and remaining fools” I have ever stumbled upon.) [Editor's Note: Life expectancy for homosexual men is now much longer compared to when the original IJE study was done in 1997 -- due mainly to AIDS antiretroviral drugs. Nevertheless, "men who have sex with men" (MSM) remain at the epicenter of the HIV/AIDS epidemic," said a CDC specialist describing a Fact Sheet assessing 2010 infections and published by the CDC earlier this year. Read the original 1997 Canadian study on "gay" and bisexual men's lifespan HERE and the authors' short 2001 response (referenced by Holmberg above) to conservatives who used their data to criticize pro-homosexual activism HERE.]

Allow me to explain. Anti-gay groups generally distort a 1997 Canadian study to claim that gays have a shorter lifespan than heterosexuals. In 2001, the authors of the study complained that their work was being distorted. LaBarbera continues to not only distort their work but also attack them for correcting the lies, claiming that their correction did nothing to disprove his negative point about lgbts. That's not true. In the 2001 letter, they said:

In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871. In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia. It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive measure. Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man's risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used. In summary, the aim of our work was to assist health planners with the means of estimating the impact of HIV infection on groups, like gay and bisexual men, not necessarily captured by vital statistics data and not to hinder the rights of these groups worldwide. Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.

And the grand irony of LaBarbera's explanation? The CDC fact sheet  he used to make another point about the supposed health risk of homosexuality is also another distortion. Here, LaBarbera commits the sin of omission by not including another fact sheet which calls out the socioeconomic factors which heightens HIV risk, including poverty, discrimination, stigma, and homophobia. At no point does this fact sheet back up LaBarbera's idea that the lgbt orientation is a "health risk."

LaBarbera is beyond sad here. He not only distorts legitimate research but attacks the authors of the research for daring to complain about the misuse of their work  He is like one of those birthers who cling  so strongly to the notion that President Obama is not an American citizen that every bit of proof contradicting their belief is merely a piece of the "conspiracy."

To put it another way, LaBarbera is what I like to call a "true believer," the most pathetic of anti-gay activists. Unlike some folks like Brian Brown of NOM or Tony Perkins of FRC, LaBarbera isn't doing what he does for a paycheck. He seems to have a deep, personal animus against gays which he covers up with Scripture and platitudes of love.  Rip away that phony cover and you find someone with not a hatred of gays, but a fear of gays. It's a fear which is so intense, he won't hum a show tune because he thinks  it would "turn" him gay.

Sometimes LaBarbera acts so much like a homophobic clown that he should be laughed at. Now, however, he should be pitied.