Eight seconds in the echo chamber

Yesterday, I didn't post an entry because I was sidetracked with a touch of the flu.

That doesn't mean that things weren't taking place.

The readers of this blog are aware of my keen interest in a situation in Maryland regarding an anti-discrimination law protecting members of the transgender community.

An organization seeking a referendum against the law apparently got enough signatures to force the vote. They accomplished this by claiming that the law would make it easy for men and pedophiles to enter women's restrooms and locker rooms.

They did this despite the fact that they were told the law would not allow such things to take place.

Almost immediately after they turned in petitions, their credibility came under a huge amount of scrutiny. Local council members went on record saying that the group was misleading people in order to get them to sign the petition.

So the group has now made a claim that they were harrassed by a council member's aide. They even have the alleged event on youtube.

You can see it here.

So was it harrassment? I doubt it. But judge for yourself.

The interesting thing about the entire situation is the echo chamber in which it played. The group's version of events played on World Net Daily, One News Now, and a press release by the Traditional Values Coalition - not necessarily gay friendly places.

And the Traditional Values Coalition was rather ugly in describing the alleged harrasser:

Hillary Clinton She-Male Advisor Harasses Maryland Signature Gatherers

These folks just gotta sneak Hilary Clinton in the situation. Talk about obsession.

And it gets more interesting. Apparently there is a chance that the signatures may be invalid if the petitioners misled potential signers.

It is too early to tell but that lie that bites you in the ass if you tell it long enough sounds like its beginning to sharpen its teeth.

Dawn Stefanowicz again?

It always amazes me how the anti-gay industry constantly complain that they are unfairly called bigots because they "merely oppose homosexuality on a Biblical basis" and then proceed to act out in ways that prove correct all arguments about their bigotry.

Case in point: This thing about Dawn Stefanowicz.

I have talked about this woman a few times here and here but her "story" bears repeating.

Stefanowicz claims that she suffered psychological abuse because of being raised in a same-sex household. She has not only written a book about it but also has a webpage.

The problem is that she (and many people who use her story) blame the gay orientation of her father for her abuse rather than the fact that he was a bad parent.

And it continues today with this link from our friend Peter.

Goodasyou.org breaks down this lie with its usual awesome candor, but I want everyone to check something out. It's something I noticed a while back and wrote concerning Stefanowicz's testimony:

In this article in Agape Press (editor's note -Thanks for the link, Emproph!), she recounts her tale, but using the verbage the anti-gay industry uses against us:

“According to Stefanowicz, the liberal media in Canada has done a ‘very poor job’ of presenting evidence on the influence the homosexual lifestyle has on children. ‘Scientific data and negative personal experiences related to this issue that are obviously relevant — they’re ignored, they’re not discussed,’ she says.”

And what studies are these? I noticed that on her personal webpage, she recounts her life. It is pretty much the same story she repeated in the August 2005 American Family Association Journal.

But there is one difference.

Her American Family Association story contains endnotes and references to studies and columns by various so-called “pro family” groups and spokespeople including Family Research Council’s Timothy Dailey (debunked on this and other sites), Stephen Bennett, and our friend Paul Cameron.

The version of her personal story present on her webpage have the endnotes and references conveniently omitted.

I used to give Stefanowicz the benefit of the doubt, but the more I hear about this woman, the more I am beginning to doubt the veracity of her story.

And constantly repeating her story as a correct indication of life for children in same-sex households says more about the homophobia of Peter LaBarbera and others like him more than we ever can.

The day after the Oscars

Sorry y'all but the Monday blaaaahs have a hold on me and it's the day after the Oscars so I am going to desist from talking about the anti-gay industry (just for today) and focus on what I saw last night:

John Stewart rocked as host and I don't care what anyone says. Of course I say this because a good friend of mine (and a writer on the Daily Show) helped write his jokes.

Jonah Hill is hot. Seth Rogen is hot. So is Philip Seymour Hoffman. You boys can have Colin Farrell. I know what I like.

I love that Tilda Swinton won. She should have been nominated for The Deep End a couple of years ago. Of course it's obvious that she didn't think she was going to win. Geez girl, put on a better dress and make up.

Cate Blanchette seems to be having a fun time even though she has lost her last three nominations. Last year, she was looking at Jennifer Hudson with a smile on her face when her name was called. This year, she practically leaped out of her chair when Marion Collitard won. Now that's an Oscar fan.

So the best picture is about a guy pursued by a psychopath with a bad haircut. Hell that's my life when I used to go to the clubs.

If you look closely at the mass of bling that Nicole Kidman wore around her neck, you can almost make out the phrase, "who the hell is Tom Cruise anyway?"

This message is to Jennifer Garner: Girlfriend, mace is a good friend to have. Gary Busey scares even me. And I'm the one who thinks Jonah Hill is hot.

Where the hell are my Edith Piaf records!

How could they snub Whoopi Goldberg during the montage of Oscar hosts!!!!

If you all think of any others, let me know

Situation in Maryland is nothing new

Peter LaBarbera's exploitation of African-American history (see below) was something I just had to comment on. But the following is the post I wanted to do for today:

The situation regarding the anti-discrimination law in Maryland is nothing new. Those seeking a referendum of the law got enough signatures on their petition because they made the false claim that the law created a loophole for men and pedophiles to invade women's restrooms and locker rooms.

This is an old tactic by the anti-gay industry known as dire consequences, or claiming that a pro-gay law would lead to all sorts of negative consequences. Usually the anti-gay industry relies on hypothetical sitautions and relie mostly on the fears and prejudices of their audience. I thought for today, I would print an excerpt from my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, that talks in detail about this tactic:

One of the most effective tactics of the anti-gay industry is to claim that pro-gay laws will lead to “dire consequences.” They claim that laws created to protect gays and lesbians would either a: cause homosexuality to be “forced” on everyone, particularly children or b: cause those who supposedly speak out against homosexuality to be jailed. Possible coercion by an “aggressive homosexual lobby” is a constant theme in anti-gay industry data.

. . . so-called “pro-family” groups create the same illogical leap to form the same incorrect conclusions. They claim that pro-gay laws would lead to all sorts of bad consequences. Then they list some of the most extreme examples of what could happen while not giving any evidence as to how the hypothetical events would take place.

For example:

“Few public officials and businessmen realize that when they allow the addition of ‘sexual orientation’ to their nondiscrimination codes, they are tying their own hands when it comes to objecting to:

A man in a highly visible sales job coming to work in a dress and high heels;

A woman in a highly visible position coming to work in men’s clothes;

A person of indeterminate sex who insists on using either the men’s room or the women’s room;

A person of either sex who indulges a taste for extreme sexual promiscuity and pornography during working hours despite being charged with representing the company’s tone and character;

A man who frequents prostitutes while on business trips and claims that it is none of the company’s business, regardless of the company’s public image.”—Why Nashville Should Reject the ‘Sexual Orientation’ Law, Robert Knight, Concerned Women for America, March 4, 2003

Knights’ replacement in Concerned Women for America, Matt Barber, made the same claims about the Employee Non-Discrimination Act in 2007:

“Imagine, if you will, a 280 lb linebacker who likes to wear a dress and high heels and lipstick, you know comes to church wanting a job at the front desk as a receptionist and they turn him away because they don’t feel that that represents their values or the image that they’re trying to hold at that church, under ENDA they could be held accountable for discrimination against that individual.”

The anti-gay industry also use the “dire consequences” claim in efforts to kill hate crimes legislation.

Hate crimes legislation already exists. It covers crimes based on race and religion. So-called “pro-family” groups have not expressed disagreements with these laws. They only have a problem with sexual orientation being added to the categories.

In December 2005, 20 so-called “pro-family” groups ran an ad in major newspapers claiming that hate crimes legislation places more importance on gays than those who call themselves “ex-gay.”


Playing up the slavery angle

Our friend Peter LaBarbera continues to attempt to milk the Creating Change conference:

Pastor Ken Hutcherson Calls on DNC to ‘Demand Its Money Back’ from ‘Gay’ Group that Honored S&M Slavery Advocate

“This is Dr. Kenneth Hutcherson responding to a donation made by the Democratic National Committee to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. I first heard from my good friend and fellow conservative, Rush Limbaugh that this had taken place. This has been confirmed by Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth. These are two sources that I trust and believe.

“The DNC gave at least $2,500 to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force so they could award Guy Baldwin, an advocate of sadomasochism and “consensual slavery.”

“As an African American leader and Pastor, I insist the DNC demand its money back. How can the DNC say they stand for African Americans and at the same time support a perversion that belittles and makes a mockery of our suffering under slavery?

“We must make sure we stand against all forms of tyranny and call out anyone who supports this agenda.”

So Peter is trying to push a "how dare the DNC promote something about slavery during Black History Month" angle.

Since when did Peter care about African-Americans. I know he doesn't give a care for African-American lgbts.

Now Hutcherson may be a black pastor but he has a reputation for egotism. This trait leads him to go off half cocked and make outrageous comments, many of which have been chronicled (with much amusement) here.

It was cute at first but his act is wearing thin.

And the inanity of this attempt by Peter doesn't exactly give Hutcherson any credibility. Nor does it help Peter.

Double standard? You got that right

I like to read One News Now because it is one of the best examples of anti-gay propaganda.

It pretends to be a Christian new source, but under the cover of religion, it prints biased and one-sided articles that generally portrays lgbts as predators and such.

But today, something caught my eye:

Attorney: Legal system favors female sexual predators

The lenient sentence handed down to a female teacher who sexually abused five male students is proof of a double standard in America's legal system, says prominent pro-family attorney Pat Trueman.

Allena Ward, 24, of Laurens, South Carolina, was sentenced this week to six years in prison after she admitted to having sex with five of her teenage students. "I wish healing for each person affected by my carelessness. And I offer my deepest and most sincere apologies to these young men," Ward apologizes.

But Pat Trueman, special counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, says Ward's crimes were not the result of "carelessness" but the conscious choices of a sexual predator. Her victims were children, he says, not "young men." And, he adds, things would have been different if Ward had been male and her victims had been girls . . .

What was interesting about this article was what it did not contain. There were no quotes from Peter LaBarbera or Matt Barber or any of the so-called critics of culture.

If the situation had something to do with a man molesting a male child or a female molesting a female child, the article would have been filled with junk science about how gays are most likely to molest children.

I even suspect our friend, Paul Cameron would be cited.

Really, anyone molesting a child is a criminal. But apparently in the eyes of One News Now, a person molesting a same-sex child deserves a special designation as a "homosexual" (even though such is generally not the case). And the article must be an inference as to how "evil" homosexuality is.

But if a woman molests a male child, then attention must be paid to the individual criminal rather than the orientation of the criminal.

How very "fair." (yes that is sarcasm)

The success of a lie

They say that a lie can travel around the world before the truth has time to put its shoes on.

This is very true in Maryland at the moment.

Apparently fear stories of men invading women's restrooms and hoaxes involving men in women's gym locker rooms have their uses.

Opponents of allowing the county's an anti-discrimination law to include transgendered people have turned more than 28,000 signatures into the Board of Elections to bring the legislation up to a vote by county residents.

The group, Citizens for Responsible Government, formed after the County Council passed the legislation last year, needed 5 percent, or 25,001 valid signatures for the referendum in the November balloting.

So if enough signatures are valid, there will be a referendum this November regarding the appeal of the anti-discrimination laws.

Now the way Citizens for Responsible Government went about gathering signatures was just wrong.

I talked about it before and it bears repeating. They told people the law actually allows men to invade women's locker rooms and rest rooms.

I am not kidding. I saw a news program where Lisa Gundling, woman gathering signatures, was interviewed. She actually told the interviewer that the law would allow men to enter women's rest rooms. She even actually said that the men don't have to go to any trouble of dressing up like women.

Don't believe me? Check out this link.

Also, from what I understand, the group was allegedly helped by pastors who told their congregations that the new law would lead to men invading women's restrooms. And to top it all off, it is possible that they staged a hoax involving a man dressed in women's attire going into a local gym's ladies locker room.

Talk about pulling out all of the stops. Very Machiavellian but not very Christian.

I really don't think that any of the people collecting signatures actually believe their own hogwash. Bear in mind that this group began with challenging the area schools' sex education curriculum.

They won at first but then proceeded to be stymied with every attempt to stop the new curriculum from being taught. And with every attempt, the group gave a new and faulty reasoning why the curriculum shouldn't be taught.

With their fight against the anti-discrimination law, they relied on the classic but still effective "this law endangers us all, especially children."

That's right. In many of their pleas, they actually said that the law endangers children.

What they did was to read the law, looking for a loophole. And when they found one, small one that it was, they distorted its implications as much as they could:

The County Council and County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) approved the law after removing a contentious amendment that would have also regulated areas like bathrooms and locker rooms. Without the amendment, operators of those facilities would retain authority on who uses them.

But opponents, such as CRG - which initially argued against the bathroom provision - still argue that the law is too vague.

Without question, this group has received help from national anti-gay industry groups. I recognize the anti-gay industry tactic of "dire consequences," i.e. claiming that a law protecting lgbts will lead to negative consequences for the entire community without giving proof as to how.
There is one group fighting their nonsense. And I wish them all of the luck.

One thing about truth: when it finally arrives, it takes care of the situation.

CRG and its supporters would do well to remember that.

You can only lie for so long before it bites you in the ass.

Tuesday blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahs

I hate the Tuesday after a three-day weekend holiday.

They always feel like Mondays.

A couple of things today:

Connecticut state legislator comes out, becomes nation’s first LGBT African American state legislator

Connecticut State Rep. Jason Bartlett publicly came out today during a meeting with The News-Times. The announcement makes Bartlett the nation’s first and only openly LGBT African American state legislator.

Bartlett, a Democrat, claims that he has been open about his sexuality with his family, but decided that now was the right time to make it public.

“For me the decision came down to why not now,” he told the paper. “To me this is about having a conversation with my larger family - the people of Greater Danbury who voted for me.”

Bartlett said rumors about his sexual orientation had circulated during past political campaigns.

That is the good news. The bad news? Watch how the mainstream African-American media and possibly members of the mainstream gay community fall over themselves to ignore him.

I guess Flava Flav and Bobby Trendy are so much more better role models.

I told you I hated the Tuesday after three-day weekend holidays.

Ken Hutcherson, who never met a self-aggrandizement he didn't like is attacking a high school GSA.

This is resulting from and incident that took place when he was invited to his daughter's high school to speak on Black History Month. Now one teacher may have acted irresponsibly (by booing him), but I am totally in the corner of another teacher who questioned him on his statements about lgbts.

The teacher was totally in the right to do this. Some may disagree but that is how I stand on the issue.

Long story short, this has blown over into a huge incident, exacerbated by a poster advertising the school's GSA.

Hutcherson has gone on record calling the GSA a "sex club."

And naturally, that "fair and objective news source," One News Now has gone out of its way to not only defend his nonsense but give him a platform (that naturally does not include questions and statements from folks who disagree) to spout his nonsense.

But all is not lost. A group of concerned parents have gotten together and formed this site (you can read the One News Now article (biased editorial) there.

I wish them all of the luck. And I think Hutcherson may help them. He tends to shoot from the hip.

And shots from the hip tend to miss their target but cause a whole lot of trouble.

Meanwhile, how many more of our lgbt children are going to suffer.

I don't want to go into detail about what happened in California because I don't think that I can add more to what others have been saying.

All I am going to do is pray for guidance, control, and intelligence for us all.