'AFA angry at Kellogg's support of gay pride' & other Monday midday news briefs

So the American Family Association is angry at Kellogg for sponsoring Atlanta's Gay Pride march and festival. One would think the organization would've have been angry about the strange relationship between those three elves promoting 'Rice Krispies.' What does "snap, crackle, pop" mean anyway?

Hat tip to Jeremy Hooper

In other news:

Religious Right Aiming To Block All Obama Judicial Nominations - History repeats itself. Every time the Republicans win an election, the religious right take it as a cue to act the fool. Then they take it too far. They always do . . .

Uganda Could Pass Another Draconian Anti-Gay Law - And this one could be worse than the last monstrosity.

Two Brides Tie The Knot In Russia, Prompting Outrage - Bravery does not come from pleading victimhood status when you know you are in an insulated environment. It comes from things like this - putting yourself on the line for basic freedom.

My Lesbian Mom Died Terrified of Going to Hell - It's not right how people use religion to scare each other.

Transgender child's rap song devastates ignorance

 If you have seen this video, so what. See it again. In fact, view it every time you feel depressed, despondent, or overwhelmed by the anti-gay machine. Having the courage to stand up for yourself  knows no race, no age, and definitely no sexual orientation or gender identity.

From the Huffington Post:

Alex hasn't even left elementary school but he already has a firm grasp on his identity and what it means to be transgender. He wrote a rap about coming out to his mother and shared it on stage at Camp Aranu’tiq, a camp for transgender and gender-variant youth.

According to its website, Camp Aranu'tiq focuses on, "building confidence, resilience, and community for transgender and gender-variant youth and their families through camp experiences."

Missouri gays closer to marriage, The Advocate choose Putin' & other Friday midday news briefs

Federal Judge Rules Missouri Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional - Boom! We haven't lost the momentum in spite of yesterday's ridiculous appeals court ruling. 

You'll Never Guess Who The Advocate's Person Of The Year Is - Anti-gay Russian president Vladimir Putin. There are so many questions with this pick and deservedly so. Did The Advocate give such attention to all of the anti-lgbt persecutions efforts in Africa. And why not someone more positive. While I'm sure the magazine made the choice on what is considered as impact, I still feel a more positive choice would have been in order. Personally I see nothing wrong with Laverne Cox. Why not put Putin in a category about those who seek to harm the lgbt community? Just my opinion.

In Blistering Dissent, Appeals Court Judge Slams Colleagues Who Upheld Gay Marriage Bans - Speaking of yesterday's ridiculous appeals court ruling, the dissent deserves another read. Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey NAILS what's wrong with the ruling, i.e. the justices didn't see lgbts as people needing redress of a wrong done to them.  

Tyler's Story From The Let Love Define Family Series - A single gay father talks about adoption and his son. Awesome story.  

Dallas adds LGBT protections to city constitution in landslide vote - Sweet!!

Family Research Council's president' won't stop lying about organization's 'hate group' designation

Beltway media wrongly gives Perkins, FRC free pass to lie.

In a recent fundraising letter to followers, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins pulled out all of the stop to weasel as much money as possible. Of course he used the usual lie about how Christians' "religious liberty" was being attacked. Perkins also brought up the awful incident in which the group was targeted by a deranged gunman named Floyd Corkins. In 2012, Corkins sought to begin a mass shooting at FRC headquarters but was stopped by the security guard before anyone was seriously hurt.

The fact that Corkins was prevented from carrying out his plot was a good thing. The unfortunate thing is how FRC has continuously exploited the incident, such as in the fundraising letter when it said:

On August 15, 2012, Floyd Corkins walked into FRC’s Washington offices and opened fire. His intent was to kill as many FRC employees as he could. And he had the ammunition to murder or maim dozens. But thanks to divine intervention, and the quick actions and bravery of the unarmed Leo Johnson, who took a bullet as he subdued Mr. Corkins, no one else was hurt.

What instigated this unprovoked attack? The website of the wealthy liberal organization misnamed the Southern Poverty Law Center. You see FRC was targeted on the SPLC “hate map” for its stand against same-sex “marriage.”

Uh no.

Probably for the thousandth time on this blog, NO.

Corkins was man off of his medication who had thought about harming anti-gay groups long before SPLC called out FRC as an anti-gay hate group. And also, FRC earned the designation not because of its stand against marriage equality, but for something much more sinister and enduring.

According to SPLC's Richard Cohen right after the Corkins incident:

Contrary to what the FRC has repeatedly claimed, we do not list the FRC as a hate group because of its opposition to gay marriage or because of its religious beliefs. Instead, we list the FRC because it engages in baseless, incendiary name-calling and spreads demonizing lies about the LGBT community.

The FRC portrays gay people as sick, evil, perverted, incestuous and a danger to the nation. It insists that gay people are “fundamentally incapable” of providing good homes for children – a myth that has been rejected by all relevant scientific authorities. One of its key leaders has actually said that homosexual behavior should be criminalized.

Perhaps the FRC’s most dangerous lie is its claim that pedophilia is a “homosexual problem,” to use Perkins’ words. Here’s what the American Psychological Association says: “Despite a common myth, homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.” The APA adds, “There is no scientific support for fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by their parents or their parents’ gay, lesbian or bisexual friends or acquaintances.”

Linking the LGBT community to pedophilia is not an expression of a religious belief, as Perkins would have it. It’s simply a lie – and a particularly ugly one at that. Constantly portraying gay people as sick, evil, perverted, incestuous and a danger to the nation simply adds fuel to the fire.

It's one thing to be bullheaded and stubborn when it comes to beliefs, but this issue of why SPLC designated FRC to be a hate group has been covered repeatedly. Enough times to for Perkins to know that his claim is false.

In other words, Tony Perkins is lying. And he knows that he is lying every time he makes that claim.

GLAAD has compiled a list of comments by FRC president Tony Perkins and spokesperson Peter Sprigg which more than proves SPLC's points about FRC. For example:

Tony Perkins:

 Says about gay people: “They are intolerant. They are hateful. They are vile. They are spiteful"..."pawns" of the "enemy.” (See 1:30 mark.)

Claims LGBT activists are going to "start rolling out the boxcars" and carting away Christians (a reference to the Holocaust)

Claims gay parents ''provide distorted values to innocent adopted kids"

Despite what health experts have said, insists that pedophilia is “a homosexual problem.”

Peter Sprigg:

 “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States, because we believe that homosexuality is destructive to society.” (See 0:11 mark here.) [*NOTE: A week later, Peter rolled back his statements, saying he "used language that trivialized the seriousness of the issue and did not communicate respect for the essential dignity of every human being as a person created in the image of God"]

Says he wants to see being gay punished by law: “I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.”

Claims: “There is, for example, a single and simple solution for smoking-related illnesses, and we have all heard it—‘If you don’t smoke, don’t start. If you do smoke, quit.’  It’s long past time for public health authorities to say the same” (about being gay)

Claims transgender men and women "are people who DENY who they really are;" says laws protecting transgender individuals "force private actors to affirm delusions"

It's relatively sad to consider that Perkins and the Family Research Council have gotten away with what they have been doing for so long. One reason may be because they are so deeply entrenched in the jaded Washington D.C. Beltway that they are given somewhat of a free pass by the media. After all, many members of that group has referred to Perkins as an evangelical or faith leader on a number of occasions, in spite of his vicious dehumanization of the lgbt community.

But every time Perkins is referred to as a "faith leader" and every time he gains access to the media without having to answer for his statements against the lgbt community is a poor indictment on not just the Washington D.C. Beltway media, but all American media in general.

To the Supreme Court we go - Sixth Circuit Appeals Court upholds marriage equality bans in four states

Looks like the issue of marriage equality may have to be finally decided by the Supreme Court thanks to an absolutely ridiculous ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

From Buzzfeed:

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld four states’ bans on same-sex couples’ marriages on Thursday, splitting with the decision of four other appellate courts and likely setting up a Supreme Court showdown on the issue.

Judge Jeffrey Sutton, writing for the 2-1 majority of the court, wrote the opinion upholding the constitutionality of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee’s bans.

“When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers,” he wrote. “Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way.”

That statement is just plain ridiculous. What does Sutton think judges are for? If we left it up to him, segregation would have had to have been decided through African-Americans waiting on the benevolence of white voters. It is an absolute shirking of his duty.

According to Talking Points Memo, Sutton also said the following:

"[T]he right to marry in general, and the right to gay marriage in particular, nowhere appear in the Constitution. That route for recognizing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage does not exist." 

Sutton sounds like one of those types who believes that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was when it was written and not taking into account that it has to be a "living document" such a belief is impossible in terms of the multitude of changes taking place in American culture over rhe years.

The one judge who voted against upholding the bans, Martha Craig Daughtrey, called out her colleagues in what The Huffington Post called a "blistering dissent:"

The majority opinion "treats both the issues and the litigants here as mere abstractions," Daughtrey wrote.

"Instead of recognizing the plaintiffs as persons, suffering actual harm as a result of being denied the right to marry where they reside or the right to have their valid marriages recognized there, my colleagues view the plaintiffs as social activists who have somehow stumbled into federal court, inadvisably, when they should be out campaigning to win 'the hearts and minds' of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee voters to their cause," she wrote.

"But these plaintiffs are not political zealots trying to push reform on their fellow citizens; they are committed same-sex couples, many of them heading up de facto families, who want to achieve equal status ... with their married neighbors, friends, and coworkers, to be accepted as contributing members of their social and religious communities, and to be welcomed as fully legitimate parents at their children’s schools," she continued. "They seek to do this by virtue of exercising a civil right that most of us take for granted -- the right to marry."

Citing the Supreme Court ruling that struck down key provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, Daughtrey said that the majority of the federal appeals court ignored the damage to the children of same-sex couples whose unions were not recognized.

People familiar with the Supreme Court ruling in the Windsor case, Daughtrey wrote, "must have said to themselves at various points in the majority opinion, 'But what about the children?' I did, and I could not find the answer in the opinion."

She added that it was "ironic that irresponsible, unmarried, opposite-sex couples in the Sixth Circuit who produce unwanted offspring must be 'channeled' into marriage and thus rewarded with its many psychological and financial benefits, while same-sex couples who become model parents are punished for their responsible behavior by being denied the right to marry."

In concluding her dissent, Daughtrey cited the oath of office she took more than 20 years ago when she was sworn into office. She said her colleagues "seem to have fallen prey to the misguided notion that the intent of the framers of the United States Constitution can be effectuated only by cleaving to the legislative will and ignoring and demonizing an independent judiciary." She wrote that the judiciary existed to "ensure that rights, liberties, and duties need not be held hostage by popular whims."

"If we in the judiciary do not have the authority, and indeed the responsibility, to right fundamental wrongs left excused by a majority of the electorate, our whole intricate, constitutional system of checks and balances, as well as the oaths to which we swore, prove to be nothing but shams," she wrote.

To the tell the truth, this piecemeal approach was annoying. Hopefully the Supreme Court will deal with this soon.

'Marriage equality a silent winner in midterm elections' & other Thursday midday news briefs

Midterm exit polls show marriage equality's momentum, staying power - I see why the Family Research Council didn't talk about marriage equality during their gleefest about the midterms. Turns out marriage equality was a big, but quiet, winner. 

State Judge Overturns Missouri’s Ban On Same-Sex Marriage - By the way, THIS happened. The march goes on. 

 How Did Gay, Lesbian, And Bisexual People Vote? - That's a good question. I'm scared to find out the answer but it is still a good question. 

 Laverne Cox Named A Woman Of The Year By Glamour Magazine - Congratulations Laverne Cox!

Family Research Council 'forgets' to mention marriage equality in election night bragging fest

The end result of the 'religious freedom argument'

Just as I figured, the Family Research Council is crowing like a crowd of roosters because of Republican election night wave:

Via an email from FRCAction:

President Obama has bailed out a lot of things in six years -- but last night, the Democratic Party wasn't one of them.

By night's end, his policy failures accounted for one of the largest Republican waves to hit Capitol Hill since World War II, as the GOP won back control of Congress. With a 12-seat cushion in the House and seven-plus gains in the Senate, conservatives sent more Democrats packing than the city has moving vans.

The message from an angry electorate was clear: the experiment in lawlessness has gone on long enough. And while Republicans were the beneficiaries of the country's outrage, Tuesday's victories were not so much an endorsement of the GOP as they were a repudiation of Senator Harry Reid's (D-Nev.).

Angry voters used Republicans to remind the White House that the President and his party can bypass Congress. They can even ignore the Constitution. But as long as democracy exists, they cannot silence the people. With a 52-45 edge in the Senate and a comfortable double-digit majority in the House, a new political dynamic is already taking shape. This morning, voters woke up to even more surprises, as Democrats continued to fall like dominos in liberal strongholds like Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts.

It goes on like this, except for in one unexpected place. There is nary a mention about marriage equality. There is an offhand comment about the recent 'I Stand Sunday' event but even then there is no mention of marriage equality or the argument about "religious liberty:"

 For all the talk that the evangelical movement is dead or irrelevant, last night's results should put those rumors to rest. Thanks to the momentum from I Stand Sunday, Star Spangled Sunday, and unprecedented church engagement, 26% of the voters in yesterday's midterms were evangelicals (1% higher than their turnout in 2010). A whopping 78% of them broke for the GOP. And that's just the tip of the evangelical iceberg. Experts believe there's plenty of untapped potential in the pews, especially if a third of possible evangelical voters stayed home. Imagine the growth possibilities for the GOP if it did more to mobilize its social conservative religious base! Meanwhile, the non-churchgoing vote fell heavily Democratic -- a reminder of how important the evangelical movement is to the Republicans' success. Once again, the youth vote was an unreliable one for either party, with a 12% turnout for 18 to 29-year-olds (a seven-point drop from 2012).

It's fascinating that an organization so invested in exploiting people's inaccurate fear and religious opposition to marriage equality would go out its way to exclude mentioning it on its post election night gleefest.

Could it be that FRC recognizes that marriage equality was not a large factor the Republican victories? Could it be that the organization is tacitly scaling back its vocal commitment against marriage equality because it recognizes it can't stop the progressive onslaught of  the issue?

Naw.  FRC is planning something and I bet that it will be huge.

In the meantime, let's do what we can to make the above picture the true face of the "religious liberty,"  "religious freedom" argument.

Photo taken from BradPritch on Instagram via Goodasyou.org