'Ryan Anderson - an anti-lgbt activist on the rise with help of junk science' & other Wed midday news briefs

Ryan Anderson peddles anti-lgbt junk science in a "nice" way.

Meet Ryan Anderson, The Anti-LGBT 'Scholar' Peddling Junk Science To National Media - When Michelangelo Signorile and the rest of us intrepid lgbt activists say that the battle for lgbt equality is not over SHOULD SCOTUS rule for marriage equality, people like Ryan Anderson are the reasons why. Anderson is the new face of anti-lgbt activism - intelligent, less fire and brimstone and more attempts to form "logical" arguments which speak against marriage equality and lgbt equality in general. Silly jokes about his possible homosexuality won't work on him. They have the opposite effect because this young man wraps himself in self-victimization like a second skin. BUT, as with all anti-lgbt activists, he has flaws in his arguments and sources. Educate yourselves on him because unfortunately you will be seeing and hearing more from him.

New Study Shuts Down Common Claim Against Same-Sex Parenting - Yet ANOTHER study proving that same-sex parenting is no danger to children. I'm all for it because the more studies proving this, the better when folks like Mike Huckabee, etc claim that our raising of children is simply a "social experiment."  

Pope Francis's Comments On Heterosexual Parenting Alienate Gay Catholics - But someone needs to tell the Pope about this study. He came around on climate change, now how about same-sex parenting.  

We Deserve Representation, Too - A letter to the editor by me published in The Free Times, local newspaper. Apparently the gay vs. black divide has hit the city of Columbia by way of a human relations committee and a ministry association wanting to play the "Oppression Olympics." The head of the association needed to be reminded that lgbts of color exist. It's always pleasant to be complimented on what I write, but writing stuff like this always depresses me simply because while I receive kudos and lots of reads, it generates NO needed discussion. Kinda like the column of mine about the systematic erasing of lgbts of color from Black history & the Black community, which was published last year by The Huffington Post. I got a lot of read and positive comments, but still no needed discussion by the folks who really should be having one. Unfortunately a large part of the African-American community either love playing the "black vs. gay" argument or pushing narratives which see lgbts of color pleading for acceptance from their heterosexual black brothers and sisters. Nothing too defiant or assertive because it scares people too much to talk about.

 'Spiritual warfare' on gay marriage declared by Southern Baptists - Oh stop it already. The Southern Baptists have declared "spiritual warfare" on lgbts so many times that at the beginning of every year, we mark the date they will make the announcement on our calendars.  

North Carolina Teacher Quits After Reading Gay Fairy Tale To Third Grade Class - I really wish he hadn't have done that.

Brian Brown, NOM, & the church of ' I'm not gay no more!'

Brian Brown of NOM recently bragged about the following:

Recently I had the great honor of presenting two distinguished awards to leaders of the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) at their 65th annual Women's International Convention/Crusade in Minneapolis. Over 10,000 people were in attendance as I presented Bishop Charles Blake the "Outstanding Leadership Award" for his principled stand for faith, family and God's definition of marriage. Bishop Blake is the Presiding Bishop and Chief Apostle of COGIC. . .

For those not familiar with COGIC, that's the church which was the subject of a, shall we say, interesting event at its convention last year:



Imagine. Hanging around with a group full of charlatans who exploit people's fear about lgbts . . . . COGIC should know better.

'GOPers threatening constitutional crisis over possible marriage ruling' & other Tuesday midday news briefs

The New Nullification Crisis: GOPers Vow To Defy SCOTUS Over Gay Marriage - Allow me to put it plainly as I can - IF SCOTUS rules for marriage equality, you have to follow the ruling. If elected officials encourage any type of defying, they are creating a constitutional crisis. You just can't decide NOT to follow a ruling because you don't like it.  

The Rise of Christian Conservative Legal Organizations - Dear lgbt community, familiarize yourself with these groups. IF we win at SCOTUS, you will hear from them whether you want to or not (and you will not want to). 

 Fisher-Price Backs LGBT Families - Here is where we have to call out folks who attempt to call this move "political." Fisher-Price is merely acknowledging the existence of same-sex households and the children who grow up in these households.

How Mexico Gradually Became A Marriage Equality Nation - By either the easy or hard way (and there is no easy way) we win again.  

This Trans Man's Breast Cancer Nightmare Exemplifies The Problem With Transgender Health Care - What happened here was awful and any health care provider who even tries to plead "religious liberty" in a case like this deserves to get a foot broken off in their tuckuses.

Signorile - Lgbts fell for a false 'turning point' narrative after Indiana win

Michelangelo Signorile

Ah, but the Indiana moment, I was told by some activists, was truly different from the Arizona moment. The Indiana moment, they exclaimed with jubilation, was really, totally and completely the true turning point, honest!

Unfortunately, they were swept up in victory blindness, intoxicated by a win, letting their guard down, seduced into believing in the inevitability of equality while anti-LGBT forces moved on to other states. Just last month I penned an op-ed in the Washington Post pointing out that, on balance, anti-LGBT conservatives actually had a pretty good 12 months, despite Indiana and other losses. I noted that they operate through trial and error, and that they'd be back, finding a new way to turn their animus into law. Last week they did, and it was a stellar win for them and an infuriating setback for LGBT people.

And please, spare me the argument that the laws won't hold up in court, which is often yet another symptom of victory blindness. First off, no one knows that, and after the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, we should all be concerned. Secondly, the goal of anti-LGBT conservatives is in fact to keep LGBT equality tied up in the courts as they gather their forces, raise more money and deny us our rights for as long as possible while they attempt to roll them back, just as they do on abortion rights, voting rights and other issues. So, yes, they had exactly the win they were seeking.

Michelangelo Signorile, Why Indiana Wasn't a Turning Point on LGBT Rights -- and Why You Should Be Mad About It

Michelangelo Signorile, in his new column, Why Indiana Wasn't a Turning Point on LGBT Rights -- and Why You Should Be Mad About It, puts the right perspective on the recent anti-gay laws passed in Michigan and North Carolina.

The lgbt community is like a character in a cheesy horror movie in that we hit the monster once and then celebrate a supposed victory. Meanwhile, the monster gets back up and we are in the same position we were before.

We  celebrated prematurely after Indiana because we believed a false narrative. There are too many of us ready to declare the battle for equality over after one victory. When we do this, we seriously underestimate those who fight against lgbt equality and set ourselves up for future disappointments.

The battle for equality will be long and strenuous. In the long run we will win, but it won't be pretty. If people on our side of the spectrum are ready to talk about "turning points" or wanting to celebrate  after one victory in the beginning of a new chapter of this battle, then maybe those folks should either re-educate themselves or examine their minds to see if they are up to the fight in the first place.

LGBT myths revealed and debunked

This video about the debunking of LGBT myths may either make you laugh or have you saying "no kidding!" However consider that the totality of our struggle for equality has been and currently is people with money and influence believing these lies or fooling an enormous amount of folks to believe these lies and then conflating them with their faith. The question becomes how do we combat that?

'Anti-gay archbishop resigns in disgrace' & other Monday midday news briefs

Anti-gay Archbishop Nienstedt just resigned in disgrace.

Southern Baptist Manual Offers Suggestions on How to Get Around LGBT Anti-Discrimination Laws - How about just obeying the law? One thing has never changed in this world. Those who claim the loudest to be on the side of the angels do so in order to divert attention away from their horns and tails. 

44,500 People, Including Two Presidential Candidates, Vow To Defy The Supreme Court On Marriage Equality - Y'all, perhaps you should wait for the court to rule before making such plans. It's not like the ruling (if it goes on the side of lgbts) will force you to marry someone gay. 

 Archbishop John Nienstedt, Deputy Resign After Archdiocese Of St. Paul and Minneapolis Charged With Sex Abuse Coverup - No happy karma here. Just sad truth. I know an archbishop who directed so much attention to stopping gay couples from getting married, that he may have failed to protect the children from monsters, like he was supposed to. 

 Rupert Murdoch: LGBT Advocacy In Clinton Speech "Almost Fascist" - Murdoch accuses Hilary Clinton of saying something she never said. Just in case where you wondered where Fox News gets it from, look towards its founder.  

Rick Santorum Interviewed By Gordon Klingenschmitt, Colorado's Premier Anti-Gay Demon-Hunting Legislator - And there was no spontaneous combustion involved. Darn.

Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg - Marriage equality IS segregation

Peter Sprigg

Loving Day is an annual celebration held on June 12 and it commemorates the day the Supreme Court struck down laws against interracial marriage via the Loving vs. Virginia ruling.

The lgbt community has taken this day and the Loving vs. Virginia ruling to heart because it gives us hope that anti-marriage equality laws will be defeated in the same manner.

However, leave it to the Family Research Council, and one of its spokespeople, Peter Sprigg, to attempt to claim that laws against interracial marriage and laws against marriage equality are different.

And Sprigg's attempt at doing so should leave you scratching your head or laughing your proverbial butt off.

In a column, What Loving Means, Sprigg goes through the history of Loving Vs. Virginia and then compares that to what he seems to think marriage equality entails. It's a boring, legalese-filled piece until this hilarious sequence of paragraphs (bold emphasis added by me):

The clear purpose of the bans on interracial marriage was to build walls between two groups of people in society, blacks and whites. Such laws were designed to reinforce a system of racial segregation, keeping the races apart from one another.

In contrast, defining marriage as the union of male and female has exactly the opposite intent and effect. Rather than building walls between two classes of people, it creates a bridge across the most fundamental gap in humanity -- the gap between male and female. Bridging the divide of the sexes by uniting men and women in marriage is common to all human civilizations, and serves the good of society.

Interracial marriage does not change the definition of marriage, and laws against interracial marriage had as their only purpose preserving a social system of racial segregation.

Homosexual "marriage," on the other hand, changes the fundamental definition of the institution, and would form at least three segregated forms of marriage: male-only unions, female-only unions, and opposite-sex unions.

In addition to  me saying "that don't make a lick of sense," allow me to go into short detail as to why. In his first statement, Sprigg is accurate. Bans on interracial marriage were to enforce a system of segregation. But that's the only thing Sprigg gets correct.

The problem lies with his sleight of hand. Defining marriage solely between man and a woman does have the same effect as banning interracial marriage, particularly because gay couples do exist and these couples have children. Keeping the rights and privileges of marriage away from them and their children does in fact reinforce a system of inequality designed by animus to tell gays that they are second class citizens. Neither Sprigg nor anyone else on his side of the argument has been able to prove that such animus does not exist

Furthermore, there is the simple fact that allowing gays to marry does not prevent the "uniting of men and women together." At no time does allowing gays to marry prevent heterosexuals from marrying each other.

Which of course means that Sprigg's claim that marriage equality would create "three segregated forms of marriage" is just plain stupid. More than that, Sprigg comes across as a high school student spinning odd theories in order to fulfill a quota of words in a class writing assignment.

If that were the case and I was Sprigg's high school teacher, I would give him an "F" for that paragraph alone.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will be as strict of a teacher to Sprigg and all of those on his side of the marriage equality spectrum who would try to pass his hokum as any degree of truth.