Columbia shows how it should be done
South Carolina, being a Southern state, gets a bad reputation for ignorance.
But it is places like my home city of Columbia that shows this reputation to be partly undeserved:
People are having consensual sex in Columbia’s parks — but primarily in Granby Park along the river — and a loophole in the city’s ordinance has kept the city from prosecuting them.
But City Council members approved an ordinance Wednesday that is expected to clear up any misunderstandings about what conduct is not allowed in city parks — spelling out in explicit language what is unlawful.
It is now unlawful for anyone to “knowingly or intentionally” have sex on any “streets, sidewalks, bridges, alleys, plazas, parks, driveways, parking lots, automobiles (whether moving or not), and those portions of buildings open to the general public.”
People are having consensual sex in Columbia’s parks — but primarily in Granby Park along the river — and a loophole in the city’s ordinance has kept the city from prosecuting them.
“We are not going to tolerate criminal behavior in our public places and parks,” Columbia Mayor Bob Coble said. “This gives law enforcement and the parks the tools to enforce it.”
Please that Mayor Bob Coble did not denigrate the entire gay community. The article does mention cases of men having sex in parks, but neither Coble nor anyone else cited in it takes the opportunity to grandstand or play up stereotypes.
I am reminded of the situation in Florida with Mayor Jim Naugle. He used the problem with public sex to denigrate the entire lgbt community as a whole and then had the temerity to act as if he wanted to reach across the aisle to them to combat the problem.
Then he feigned shock when he received negative comments.
Mayor Bob and the Columbia City Council shows how one takes care of a problem like this. Naugle should pay attention.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Gay adoption, a tale of two families, and the groups behind the word 'pro-family'
In light of last week's excellent decision in Florida striking down the ban on gay adoption, I want to make you aware of something that I found very interesting.
The family in the middle of the case includes Martin Gill and his partner of 10 years. Four years ago, they took in two brothers as foster children. One was four and other was four months old. Both had been horribly abused. Since that time, things have gone considerably well for the boys. This is just a snippet of their home life via court documents:
On weekdays, the household wakes up at about 6:30 a.m. Petitioner usually prepares
breakfast, permitting each child to assist with an assigned kitchen duty. Each morning, the family eats together without distraction from the television. As each child finishes his breakfast,he puts his dish in the sink and proceeds to the bathroom to brush his teeth and hair. Petitioner and Roe purchased a Ford minivan, which Petitioner jokes was not his dream car, however, to accommodate the family size, is the most feasible. Tom Roe, Jr. is dropped off at school first.
Afterwards, Petitioner takes John and James to school, walking them into their classrooms and usually speaking to their respective teachers. In the afternoon, after Petitioner picks the boys up from school, they generally go to the park for tennis lessons. At the conclusion of their lessons, the family heads home for dinner. At mealtime, the family blesses the food together and takes turns sharing the highlights of their day. Phones are not answered and the television is off during dinner. After the children are excused from the table, the older children load the dishwasher.
A scene out of Ozzie and Harriet or in this case, Ozzie and Harold.
Now compare this to an incident that took place recently:
A Girl Scout leader and her husband were arrested after an emaciated, terrified and nearly naked 17-year-old showed up at a gym with a chain locked to his ankle, saying he had just fled his captors, authorities said Tuesday.
Police were also seeking the boy’s aunt and had an outstanding felony warrant against her for an earlier alleged assault against the teen.
The boy, who authorities said ran away from a Sacramento foster home last year, came into the In-Shape Sports Club in Tracy on Monday wearing only boxer briefs and covered in what appeared to be soot, gym manager Chuck Ellis said. Tracy is about 70 miles south of Sacramento.
Ellis said the teen was scared someone was going to come after him and asked to be hidden.
“He said, ’Don’t let them get me, don’t let them get me,”’ Ellis said. “He was totally terrified.”
The boy said he had been held captive for nearly a year, said Ellis, adding that he looked as if he were only 10 to 12 years old.
So who do you think the religious right and other conservatives are attacking?
I will give you one guess:
Free Republic:
The gay advocates of the Lawrence v. Texas decision said it was about consenting adults in private. When does a child consent to be raised in a same sex household by non-birth parents under an alternative lifestyle?
Daddy, why is there a brown stain on the FRONT of your undershorts?
so imagine a child being adopted by a homo , and for their life they will see mostly homo’s coming and going, they will be took to freak parades they have, they will be used a a trophy, the poor child will see two men sleeping in the same bed
It’s disturbing that our broken justice system puts young impressionable minds in the hands of sick and perverted individuals that have little or no regard for their own safety let alone the safety of the innocent. Their trying to make the homosexual lifestyle normal, it’s anything butt! (ò¿ó)
The Liberty Counsel:
Most states ban homosexual adoption through legislation, regulation, or court precedent. These states ban adoption by homosexuals because the best interest of children is served by placing them in homes with a mom and a dad or where there is a likelihood of a mom and a dad. A homosexual home automatically excludes one gender, either the mom or the dad. Only a handful of states actually permit homosexual adoption.
Culture Campaign:
Judge places young boys with homosexual men
(Editor's note - The headline is a vile attempt to exploit stereotypes about men molesting boys. In addition, the site also prints a highly misleading version of the case. According to Culture Campaign - "The attorney general's office had argued that gay men and lesbians are disproportionately more likely to suffer from mental illness or a substance abuse problem than straight people, rendering them less fit to parent -- especially children in foster care who already are under tremendous stress."
This is technically accurate but ethically false. Culture Campaign conveniently omits that it was the state's hired "expert" George A. Rekers who said this. It also omits Rekers saying that based on this reasoning, Native Americans should be kept from adopting children. Lastly, Culture Campaign also omits the fact that the judge in the case discredited Rekers' testimony.)
Please do not think that I am attacking heterosexual families. There are good two-parent mom and dad families out there and there are bad ones.
The point of this piece is to show the inanity of those who oppose gay adoption.
To say that lgbt households are not good places to raise children and to continue to push an empty talking point that "the best family for a child is one with a mom and dad" despite events happening in the time frame that prove both notions to be false is not only pointless but yet again, homophobia defined.
But if the other side of the argument is intent on bashing their heads against a brick wall, who am I to stop them?
In light of last week's excellent decision in Florida striking down the ban on gay adoption, I want to make you aware of something that I found very interesting.
The family in the middle of the case includes Martin Gill and his partner of 10 years. Four years ago, they took in two brothers as foster children. One was four and other was four months old. Both had been horribly abused. Since that time, things have gone considerably well for the boys. This is just a snippet of their home life via court documents:
On weekdays, the household wakes up at about 6:30 a.m. Petitioner usually prepares
breakfast, permitting each child to assist with an assigned kitchen duty. Each morning, the family eats together without distraction from the television. As each child finishes his breakfast,he puts his dish in the sink and proceeds to the bathroom to brush his teeth and hair. Petitioner and Roe purchased a Ford minivan, which Petitioner jokes was not his dream car, however, to accommodate the family size, is the most feasible. Tom Roe, Jr. is dropped off at school first.
Afterwards, Petitioner takes John and James to school, walking them into their classrooms and usually speaking to their respective teachers. In the afternoon, after Petitioner picks the boys up from school, they generally go to the park for tennis lessons. At the conclusion of their lessons, the family heads home for dinner. At mealtime, the family blesses the food together and takes turns sharing the highlights of their day. Phones are not answered and the television is off during dinner. After the children are excused from the table, the older children load the dishwasher.
A scene out of Ozzie and Harriet or in this case, Ozzie and Harold.
Now compare this to an incident that took place recently:
A Girl Scout leader and her husband were arrested after an emaciated, terrified and nearly naked 17-year-old showed up at a gym with a chain locked to his ankle, saying he had just fled his captors, authorities said Tuesday.
Police were also seeking the boy’s aunt and had an outstanding felony warrant against her for an earlier alleged assault against the teen.
The boy, who authorities said ran away from a Sacramento foster home last year, came into the In-Shape Sports Club in Tracy on Monday wearing only boxer briefs and covered in what appeared to be soot, gym manager Chuck Ellis said. Tracy is about 70 miles south of Sacramento.
Ellis said the teen was scared someone was going to come after him and asked to be hidden.
“He said, ’Don’t let them get me, don’t let them get me,”’ Ellis said. “He was totally terrified.”
The boy said he had been held captive for nearly a year, said Ellis, adding that he looked as if he were only 10 to 12 years old.
So who do you think the religious right and other conservatives are attacking?
I will give you one guess:
Free Republic:
The gay advocates of the Lawrence v. Texas decision said it was about consenting adults in private. When does a child consent to be raised in a same sex household by non-birth parents under an alternative lifestyle?
Daddy, why is there a brown stain on the FRONT of your undershorts?
so imagine a child being adopted by a homo , and for their life they will see mostly homo’s coming and going, they will be took to freak parades they have, they will be used a a trophy, the poor child will see two men sleeping in the same bed
It’s disturbing that our broken justice system puts young impressionable minds in the hands of sick and perverted individuals that have little or no regard for their own safety let alone the safety of the innocent. Their trying to make the homosexual lifestyle normal, it’s anything butt! (ò¿ó)
The Liberty Counsel:
Most states ban homosexual adoption through legislation, regulation, or court precedent. These states ban adoption by homosexuals because the best interest of children is served by placing them in homes with a mom and a dad or where there is a likelihood of a mom and a dad. A homosexual home automatically excludes one gender, either the mom or the dad. Only a handful of states actually permit homosexual adoption.
Culture Campaign:
Judge places young boys with homosexual men
(Editor's note - The headline is a vile attempt to exploit stereotypes about men molesting boys. In addition, the site also prints a highly misleading version of the case. According to Culture Campaign - "The attorney general's office had argued that gay men and lesbians are disproportionately more likely to suffer from mental illness or a substance abuse problem than straight people, rendering them less fit to parent -- especially children in foster care who already are under tremendous stress."
This is technically accurate but ethically false. Culture Campaign conveniently omits that it was the state's hired "expert" George A. Rekers who said this. It also omits Rekers saying that based on this reasoning, Native Americans should be kept from adopting children. Lastly, Culture Campaign also omits the fact that the judge in the case discredited Rekers' testimony.)
Please do not think that I am attacking heterosexual families. There are good two-parent mom and dad families out there and there are bad ones.
The point of this piece is to show the inanity of those who oppose gay adoption.
To say that lgbt households are not good places to raise children and to continue to push an empty talking point that "the best family for a child is one with a mom and dad" despite events happening in the time frame that prove both notions to be false is not only pointless but yet again, homophobia defined.
But if the other side of the argument is intent on bashing their heads against a brick wall, who am I to stop them?
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Religious right tries to use Proposition 8 protests for advantage in Obama Administration
The following item from Pam's House Blend gave me pause today:
The Blend has received word that the The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is pulling together a full page ad to run in the NY Times within the next few days, charging the LGBT community's response to Prop 8 is a "Campaign of Violence."
According to our source, the ad will cite an incident where a white powder was sent to a church, and "document" disruptions of services at houses of worship. The Becket Fund is also allegedly contacting like-minded anti-gay organizations to request that they sign on to the ad.
Here we go again - the time honored religious right tradition of using anecdotal information as a way to stigmatize the gay community.
It's highly ironic that this group is doing this given the number of times the gay community has been accused of trying to "use the emotional argument" to sway the so-called cultural war.
In this ad, we'll probably hear:
about the 69-year-old woman, Phyllis Burgess, who had a styrofoam crossed ripped from her hand during an anti-Proposition 8 protest (but not about how she allegedly pushed her way through the crowd of protestors in order to be on camera, knocking down a disabled man in the progress).
about the white powder that was mailed to several places of worship (which is totally uncalled for. However it has not been determined who sent the powder. At any rate, to blame the lgbt community for it really isn't fair).
about the Bash Back incident in a Michigan church (but not about how this group had nothing to do with the Join the Impact protests or about how police say the church exaggerated the incident).
And we will probably be made privy to every negative comment posted about Proposition 8 on pro-gay blogs (without the admonitions by the blog owners that said comments were wrong and uncalled for. And we won't be made privy to the equally vile and nasty comments posted about lgbts from places such Free Republic).
The Becket Fund is obviously going to push the notion that lgbts are engaging in a coordinated campaign of intimidation and wildcat violence. No doubt this group will be aided by One News Now, Peter LaBarbera and other religious right members of the echo chamber. And let's not forget Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly who be complicit to this public relations campaign with a wink, a nudge, and nary a peep from an opposing side.
The Becket Fund's ad is a cynical grab for position by groups who have rightfully guessed that the era of dominance given to them by the Bush Administration is over. Thus they seek to gain advantage and thereby control the argument over gay rights in an Obama Administration by unfairly painting the lgbt community as a mindless violent horde via anecdotal or exaggerated urban legends.
The Becket Fund is like so many religious right and conservative groups - heavy in the purse string department but short on integrity. If they had any, they would recognize the nasty game they are playing.
One News Now today features an article regarding a gay man who has been convicted and sentenced for murdering a heterosexual man. In the formulaic lament that I have come to expect from the religious right, One News Now talks to one source who complains about the "silence of gay activists" about this murder.
To me, that doesn't make any sense.
Is it expected for women's groups to make a statement every time a woman is convicted of a violent crime? Is it expected for a pro-Jewish group to make a statement every time an individual Jewish person is convicted of a violent crime? Or how about the African-American groups when an individual black man or woman is convicted of a violent crime?
Now if someone would argue in the affirmative in the case of women's groups, Jewish groups, or African-American groups, he would be blasted as either a sexist, an Anti-Semite or a racist.
And with good reason.
So how is it that someone could stigmatize the gay community on the allleged crimes of individual gays and not wear the mantel of homophobia?
Any incident of wildcat violence regarding Proposition 8 should be condemned by those for and against the amendment. Emotions and tensions ran high. But for the large majority, protests against Propostion 8 have been peaceful.
This consistent attempt by conservatives and the religious right to use sparse incidents to somehow condemn the entire lgbt community is wrong and exploitative.
More than that, it's homophobia defined.
But apparently so many people have a problem with saying so.
The following item from Pam's House Blend gave me pause today:
The Blend has received word that the The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is pulling together a full page ad to run in the NY Times within the next few days, charging the LGBT community's response to Prop 8 is a "Campaign of Violence."
According to our source, the ad will cite an incident where a white powder was sent to a church, and "document" disruptions of services at houses of worship. The Becket Fund is also allegedly contacting like-minded anti-gay organizations to request that they sign on to the ad.
Here we go again - the time honored religious right tradition of using anecdotal information as a way to stigmatize the gay community.
It's highly ironic that this group is doing this given the number of times the gay community has been accused of trying to "use the emotional argument" to sway the so-called cultural war.
In this ad, we'll probably hear:
about the 69-year-old woman, Phyllis Burgess, who had a styrofoam crossed ripped from her hand during an anti-Proposition 8 protest (but not about how she allegedly pushed her way through the crowd of protestors in order to be on camera, knocking down a disabled man in the progress).
about the white powder that was mailed to several places of worship (which is totally uncalled for. However it has not been determined who sent the powder. At any rate, to blame the lgbt community for it really isn't fair).
about the Bash Back incident in a Michigan church (but not about how this group had nothing to do with the Join the Impact protests or about how police say the church exaggerated the incident).
And we will probably be made privy to every negative comment posted about Proposition 8 on pro-gay blogs (without the admonitions by the blog owners that said comments were wrong and uncalled for. And we won't be made privy to the equally vile and nasty comments posted about lgbts from places such Free Republic).
The Becket Fund is obviously going to push the notion that lgbts are engaging in a coordinated campaign of intimidation and wildcat violence. No doubt this group will be aided by One News Now, Peter LaBarbera and other religious right members of the echo chamber. And let's not forget Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly who be complicit to this public relations campaign with a wink, a nudge, and nary a peep from an opposing side.
The Becket Fund's ad is a cynical grab for position by groups who have rightfully guessed that the era of dominance given to them by the Bush Administration is over. Thus they seek to gain advantage and thereby control the argument over gay rights in an Obama Administration by unfairly painting the lgbt community as a mindless violent horde via anecdotal or exaggerated urban legends.
The Becket Fund is like so many religious right and conservative groups - heavy in the purse string department but short on integrity. If they had any, they would recognize the nasty game they are playing.
One News Now today features an article regarding a gay man who has been convicted and sentenced for murdering a heterosexual man. In the formulaic lament that I have come to expect from the religious right, One News Now talks to one source who complains about the "silence of gay activists" about this murder.
To me, that doesn't make any sense.
Is it expected for women's groups to make a statement every time a woman is convicted of a violent crime? Is it expected for a pro-Jewish group to make a statement every time an individual Jewish person is convicted of a violent crime? Or how about the African-American groups when an individual black man or woman is convicted of a violent crime?
Now if someone would argue in the affirmative in the case of women's groups, Jewish groups, or African-American groups, he would be blasted as either a sexist, an Anti-Semite or a racist.
And with good reason.
So how is it that someone could stigmatize the gay community on the allleged crimes of individual gays and not wear the mantel of homophobia?
Any incident of wildcat violence regarding Proposition 8 should be condemned by those for and against the amendment. Emotions and tensions ran high. But for the large majority, protests against Propostion 8 have been peaceful.
This consistent attempt by conservatives and the religious right to use sparse incidents to somehow condemn the entire lgbt community is wrong and exploitative.
More than that, it's homophobia defined.
But apparently so many people have a problem with saying so.
Monday, December 01, 2008
World AIDS Day - Good and Bad
(Editor's note - I redid this blog post because I wasn't satisfied with how it was written. It was a busy day and plus, I hate Mondays.)
I just came back from a very moving World AIDS Day ceremony at the South Carolina State House.
This state has unfortunately bore a huge brunt of the AIDS virus and I commend everyone who fight every day to stop this disease.
While there are good things about this day and how the community comes together, there are also bad things.
You know that I speak of our friend Peter LaBarbera and his friend, the phony "gay expert" Linda Harvey.
This is the nonsense LaBarbera has on his page:
SHUT DOWN THESE PERVERSION CENTERS? With 300,000 men dead from AIDS due to homosexual sex, why are homosexual bathhouses and sex clubs flourishing in the United States? At left is an ad in a homosexual newspaper for the Crew Club, a Washington, D.C.-based bathhouse where men go to commit anonymous sodomies with other men (our editorial comment is in red). It’s time for American AIDS policy to stop indulging and encouraging male homosexual behavior, which is one of the main risk factors of HIV/AIDS.
Of course this comes with a huge picture of a gay steamroom ad.
I guess I should be happy that LaBarbera has toned it down and not shown any explicit sex.
And he accompanies that drivel with a piece by Harvey about HIV:
December 1 marks the annual observance of “World AIDS Day.” While we should rightfully mourn the passing of so many victims, let’s get real about what can be done to prevent future death and disability, not to mention the expenditure of billions of dollars.
In short, we need to recognize that HIV/AIDS is largely a male homosexual disease in the U.S., and it is highly preventable.
Okay let's stop there. First of all, Harvey is NOT an expert of anything. She is a former ad executive who feels that God is telling her to stop homosexuality.
George A. Rekers is more of an expert than she is and that is only because he has degrees (if not knowledge) .
And then there is that problem of stigmatization:
It’s time for American AIDS policy to stop indulging and encouraging male homosexual behavior, which is one of the main risk factors of HIV/AIDS.
Notice that LaBarbera doesn't say a word about unsafe sex, but "male homosexual behavior."
LGBT behavior does not cause HIV/AIDS. Unsafe sex does, which means you can catch it regardless of whether you are gay or straight.
Harvey claims that according to the CDC, gay men are the highest at risk group to catch HIV.
Well what she is doing is contributing to the problem.
When HIV/AIDS first came into prominence in the 80s, a lot of gay men took good prevention advice as yet another attempt to stigmatize the gay community. And why? Because of people like Anita Bryant, Jerry Falwell and the rest who constantly dehumanized them in different ways.
Because of how they were persecuted on their jobs, in their families, and neighborhoods for being gay.
So how in the world can LaBarbera and Harvey actually try to claim credibility when they are contributing to this dehumanization and stigma? On her webpage, Harvey repeats every Paul Cameronesque lie about gay men from the short life span to the alleged high level of pedophilia.
And if anti-gay activism is ever included in a museum, LaBarbera should have his own wing.
If LaBarbera and Harvey are serious about fighting HIV/AIDS, might I suggest they look at themselves and their behavior.
Perhaps Harvey should eliminate some of the wild things she has said about gays molesting children from her webpage. Perhaps LaBarbera should start by not taking pictures at street fairs, but actually trying to meet gay families. Perhaps he should eliminate that section of his webpage called "Victims of Homosexual Murderers."
Maybe a total reorganization of his webpage would be in order.
Maybe LaBarbera and Harvey should try to help and stop the problem instead of contributing to it for a change.
Gay Adoption and a Sign of the Apocalypse - Town Hall feature pro-gay column
When I saw this column in the conservative Town Hall yesterday, I looked outside my door. I wanted to see what the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse looked like:
Gay Adoption: The Real Agenda
Don't be alarmed. It's a pro-gay article through and through:
The Florida ban is simple and stark. It says, in effect, that a child may not be adopted by gays even when the adoption is in the best interest of the child . That's the main reason the court overturned it: It violates the rights of children and "causes harm to the children it is meant to protect."
Those who want to keep gays from adopting think that's a small price to pay for blocking the "homosexual agenda." But then, they're not the ones who will be paying it.
Granted, the Freepers are going nuts over this (and not in a good way), but that's okay.
Anything that makes them angry must be a good thing.
(Editor's note - I redid this blog post because I wasn't satisfied with how it was written. It was a busy day and plus, I hate Mondays.)
I just came back from a very moving World AIDS Day ceremony at the South Carolina State House.
This state has unfortunately bore a huge brunt of the AIDS virus and I commend everyone who fight every day to stop this disease.
While there are good things about this day and how the community comes together, there are also bad things.
You know that I speak of our friend Peter LaBarbera and his friend, the phony "gay expert" Linda Harvey.
This is the nonsense LaBarbera has on his page:
SHUT DOWN THESE PERVERSION CENTERS? With 300,000 men dead from AIDS due to homosexual sex, why are homosexual bathhouses and sex clubs flourishing in the United States? At left is an ad in a homosexual newspaper for the Crew Club, a Washington, D.C.-based bathhouse where men go to commit anonymous sodomies with other men (our editorial comment is in red). It’s time for American AIDS policy to stop indulging and encouraging male homosexual behavior, which is one of the main risk factors of HIV/AIDS.
Of course this comes with a huge picture of a gay steamroom ad.
I guess I should be happy that LaBarbera has toned it down and not shown any explicit sex.
And he accompanies that drivel with a piece by Harvey about HIV:
December 1 marks the annual observance of “World AIDS Day.” While we should rightfully mourn the passing of so many victims, let’s get real about what can be done to prevent future death and disability, not to mention the expenditure of billions of dollars.
In short, we need to recognize that HIV/AIDS is largely a male homosexual disease in the U.S., and it is highly preventable.
Okay let's stop there. First of all, Harvey is NOT an expert of anything. She is a former ad executive who feels that God is telling her to stop homosexuality.
George A. Rekers is more of an expert than she is and that is only because he has degrees (if not knowledge) .
And then there is that problem of stigmatization:
It’s time for American AIDS policy to stop indulging and encouraging male homosexual behavior, which is one of the main risk factors of HIV/AIDS.
Notice that LaBarbera doesn't say a word about unsafe sex, but "male homosexual behavior."
LGBT behavior does not cause HIV/AIDS. Unsafe sex does, which means you can catch it regardless of whether you are gay or straight.
Harvey claims that according to the CDC, gay men are the highest at risk group to catch HIV.
Well what she is doing is contributing to the problem.
When HIV/AIDS first came into prominence in the 80s, a lot of gay men took good prevention advice as yet another attempt to stigmatize the gay community. And why? Because of people like Anita Bryant, Jerry Falwell and the rest who constantly dehumanized them in different ways.
Because of how they were persecuted on their jobs, in their families, and neighborhoods for being gay.
So how in the world can LaBarbera and Harvey actually try to claim credibility when they are contributing to this dehumanization and stigma? On her webpage, Harvey repeats every Paul Cameronesque lie about gay men from the short life span to the alleged high level of pedophilia.
And if anti-gay activism is ever included in a museum, LaBarbera should have his own wing.
If LaBarbera and Harvey are serious about fighting HIV/AIDS, might I suggest they look at themselves and their behavior.
Perhaps Harvey should eliminate some of the wild things she has said about gays molesting children from her webpage. Perhaps LaBarbera should start by not taking pictures at street fairs, but actually trying to meet gay families. Perhaps he should eliminate that section of his webpage called "Victims of Homosexual Murderers."
Maybe a total reorganization of his webpage would be in order.
Maybe LaBarbera and Harvey should try to help and stop the problem instead of contributing to it for a change.
Gay Adoption and a Sign of the Apocalypse - Town Hall feature pro-gay column
When I saw this column in the conservative Town Hall yesterday, I looked outside my door. I wanted to see what the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse looked like:
Gay Adoption: The Real Agenda
Don't be alarmed. It's a pro-gay article through and through:
The Florida ban is simple and stark. It says, in effect, that a child may not be adopted by gays even when the adoption is in the best interest of the child . That's the main reason the court overturned it: It violates the rights of children and "causes harm to the children it is meant to protect."
Those who want to keep gays from adopting think that's a small price to pay for blocking the "homosexual agenda." But then, they're not the ones who will be paying it.
Granted, the Freepers are going nuts over this (and not in a good way), but that's okay.
Anything that makes them angry must be a good thing.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Florida paid a pretty penny for discredited work against gay adoption
Editor's note - May, 5, 2010 - In light of recent developments regarding Rekers and a male escort, it has come out that he (and a colleague- Walter Schum) were actually paid $87,000 to testify against gay adoption.
According to court records, the state of Florida paid former University of South Carolina professor George A. Rekers a $60,000 retainer to testify for the gay adoption ban.
Ironically, according to the same court documents, it is clear that Rekers’ testimony didn’t help the state’s case.
Court documents said:
Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy.
Despite all of this, organizations on the right maligned Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman for her decision, calling her an “activist judge.”
Matt Staver of the Liberty Counsel said:
"This judge is merely an ideological activist, and ideological activists have no reason to don a black robe and sit behind a bench and pontificate. This judge's decision should be overturned, and moreover, this judge should be voted out of office.”
Moreover, comments on right-wing sites such as One News Now and Free Republic questioned not only Lederman’s objectivity, but her sexual orientation in lurid terms.
The American Civil Liberties Union, in an excerpt of proposed findings to the court, criticized the state of Florida for using Rekers as an expert witness even after he had been discredited in a similar Arkansas case involving gay adoption.
In 2005, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy White ruled that the state did not have justifiable grounds to keep gays from adopting children.
The Arkansas court specifically said that “Dr. Rekers’ willingness to prioritize his personal beliefs over his functions as an expert provider of fact rendered his testimony extremely suspect and little, if any, assistance to the court” and "Dr. Rekers' personal agenda caused him to have inconsistent testimony on several issues."
That ruling led to a ballot initiative that was passed in November barring unmarried heterosexual and gay couples from adopting children.
Rekers would later sue the state of Arkansas for $200,00 for his testimony but settled out of court for $60,000.
About Rekers's testimony, the ACLU said, "The fact that the State resorted to hiring Dr. Rekers - and paying him a $60,000 retainer - despite the fact that he had already been severly discredited by another court in a similar case suggests an absence of credible experts who would testify in support of the prohibition against adoption by gay people."
What happened in Florida is nothing new. For years the religious right/anti-gay industry have brought in phony experts to push for anti-gay laws or stop the passage of pro-gay laws. If Lederman’s criticisms of Rekers sound familiar to you, then you obviously have read opinions about Paul Cameron. The two are almost interchangeable in their lies about the gay community.
According to a 1994 OutFront magazine article, the then Colorado Attorney General Gail Norton paid Paul Cameron over $15,000 in an effort to defend the state’s newly passed law outlawing gay rights ordinances. When Norton learned of Cameron’s dubious reputation, she did not use him or his “research.”
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the law in the same year.
According to court records, the state of Florida paid former University of South Carolina professor George A. Rekers a $60,000 retainer to testify for the gay adoption ban.
Ironically, according to the same court documents, it is clear that Rekers’ testimony didn’t help the state’s case.
Court documents said:
Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy.
Despite all of this, organizations on the right maligned Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman for her decision, calling her an “activist judge.”
Matt Staver of the Liberty Counsel said:
"This judge is merely an ideological activist, and ideological activists have no reason to don a black robe and sit behind a bench and pontificate. This judge's decision should be overturned, and moreover, this judge should be voted out of office.”
Moreover, comments on right-wing sites such as One News Now and Free Republic questioned not only Lederman’s objectivity, but her sexual orientation in lurid terms.
The American Civil Liberties Union, in an excerpt of proposed findings to the court, criticized the state of Florida for using Rekers as an expert witness even after he had been discredited in a similar Arkansas case involving gay adoption.
In 2005, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy White ruled that the state did not have justifiable grounds to keep gays from adopting children.
The Arkansas court specifically said that “Dr. Rekers’ willingness to prioritize his personal beliefs over his functions as an expert provider of fact rendered his testimony extremely suspect and little, if any, assistance to the court” and "Dr. Rekers' personal agenda caused him to have inconsistent testimony on several issues."
That ruling led to a ballot initiative that was passed in November barring unmarried heterosexual and gay couples from adopting children.
Rekers would later sue the state of Arkansas for $200,00 for his testimony but settled out of court for $60,000.
About Rekers's testimony, the ACLU said, "The fact that the State resorted to hiring Dr. Rekers - and paying him a $60,000 retainer - despite the fact that he had already been severly discredited by another court in a similar case suggests an absence of credible experts who would testify in support of the prohibition against adoption by gay people."
What happened in Florida is nothing new. For years the religious right/anti-gay industry have brought in phony experts to push for anti-gay laws or stop the passage of pro-gay laws. If Lederman’s criticisms of Rekers sound familiar to you, then you obviously have read opinions about Paul Cameron. The two are almost interchangeable in their lies about the gay community.
According to a 1994 OutFront magazine article, the then Colorado Attorney General Gail Norton paid Paul Cameron over $15,000 in an effort to defend the state’s newly passed law outlawing gay rights ordinances. When Norton learned of Cameron’s dubious reputation, she did not use him or his “research.”
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the law in the same year.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The Liberty Counsel's ridiculous defense of Florida's gay adoption ban
Well that didn't take long.
I was waiting for a religious right group to answer back to yesterday's ruling in Miami,FL that the state prohibition on gay adoption was unconstitutional.
And leave it to the Liberty Counsel to push the talking points that will most likely been seen on The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes as well as World Net Daily, One News Now and everywhere else that the conservative/religious right echo chamber resonate. I am going to point out the parts I found "interesting":
Miami, FL – Today, an activist Miami State Court Judge ruled that a 1977 Florida law that bans homosexual adoption is unconstitutional. (First thing's first. Smear the judge for not ruling the way Liberty Counsel felt she should. According to the Liberty Counsel, she didn't rule objectively. Somebody put roots on her.)
Earlier this month voters in Arkansas passed a law which bans unmarried heterosexuals and homosexuals from adopting children. (Notice that turn of phrase. In legitimate articles, I have read this phrase to say "voters in Arkansas passed a law which bans unmarried couples, whether they be heterosexual or gay, from adopting children." The way the Liberty Counsel claims, it looks like the Arkansas law bans gays from adopting outright.)
In September, the Kentucky Court of Appeals strongly rebuked an activist lower family court for permitting a lesbian woman to illegally “adopt” her female companion’s child, in clear violation of both Kentucky law and the Kentucky Constitution. The higher court reaffirmed that in Kentucky, stepparent adoptions are only legal when the stepparent is married to a biological parent and that same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. (This is true. The Kentucky Court of Appeals did say that stepparent adoptions are allowed only when the stepmother or father is married to the biological parent. But that has nothing to do with the Florida case. The Florida case deals with Frank Gill, a man who wanted to adopt two foster childen he had been raising for four years.)
Most states ban homosexual adoption through legislation, regulation, or court precedent. These states ban adoption by homosexuals because the best interest of children is served by placing them in homes with a mom and a dad or where there is a likelihood of a mom and a dad. A homosexual home automatically excludes one gender, either the mom or the dad. Only a handful of states actually permit homosexual adoption. (The big lie!!! In most states, the orientation of the potential adoptive parent is not an issue i.e. the state does not ask about orientation. Florida was the only state that outright banned gay adoption. However some states may be moving the way of Arkansas and making it difficult for lgbt couples to adopt children. One guess which organization will be helping to nudge them along.)
There is a vague mention of "studies" that show that the best place for a child is in a home with a mother and father.
This talking point is faulty for two reasons - 1. How many of these "studies" measured heterosexual households to same-sex households? From what I understand, none did.
2. Also, the talking point does not address the fact that across the nation, there is a waiting list filled with children waiting to be adopted. The notion that "children do best in a home with a mother and a father" is an empty talking point because it does not address the fact that these "homes" are not present to adopt these children.
Also - I noticed how the Liberty Counsel omitted the George A. Rekers testimony, probably because it was embarrassing to their side. Rekers testified for the ban and said that he would look into banning adoption for Native Americans.
Expect the religious right to try and not mention Rekers's testimony. Don't let them get away with it.
Now everyone can get on with their holiday travels and the like. Have a happy Thanksgiving!
Well that didn't take long.
I was waiting for a religious right group to answer back to yesterday's ruling in Miami,FL that the state prohibition on gay adoption was unconstitutional.
And leave it to the Liberty Counsel to push the talking points that will most likely been seen on The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes as well as World Net Daily, One News Now and everywhere else that the conservative/religious right echo chamber resonate. I am going to point out the parts I found "interesting":
Miami, FL – Today, an activist Miami State Court Judge ruled that a 1977 Florida law that bans homosexual adoption is unconstitutional. (First thing's first. Smear the judge for not ruling the way Liberty Counsel felt she should. According to the Liberty Counsel, she didn't rule objectively. Somebody put roots on her.)
Earlier this month voters in Arkansas passed a law which bans unmarried heterosexuals and homosexuals from adopting children. (Notice that turn of phrase. In legitimate articles, I have read this phrase to say "voters in Arkansas passed a law which bans unmarried couples, whether they be heterosexual or gay, from adopting children." The way the Liberty Counsel claims, it looks like the Arkansas law bans gays from adopting outright.)
In September, the Kentucky Court of Appeals strongly rebuked an activist lower family court for permitting a lesbian woman to illegally “adopt” her female companion’s child, in clear violation of both Kentucky law and the Kentucky Constitution. The higher court reaffirmed that in Kentucky, stepparent adoptions are only legal when the stepparent is married to a biological parent and that same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. (This is true. The Kentucky Court of Appeals did say that stepparent adoptions are allowed only when the stepmother or father is married to the biological parent. But that has nothing to do with the Florida case. The Florida case deals with Frank Gill, a man who wanted to adopt two foster childen he had been raising for four years.)
Most states ban homosexual adoption through legislation, regulation, or court precedent. These states ban adoption by homosexuals because the best interest of children is served by placing them in homes with a mom and a dad or where there is a likelihood of a mom and a dad. A homosexual home automatically excludes one gender, either the mom or the dad. Only a handful of states actually permit homosexual adoption. (The big lie!!! In most states, the orientation of the potential adoptive parent is not an issue i.e. the state does not ask about orientation. Florida was the only state that outright banned gay adoption. However some states may be moving the way of Arkansas and making it difficult for lgbt couples to adopt children. One guess which organization will be helping to nudge them along.)
There is a vague mention of "studies" that show that the best place for a child is in a home with a mother and father.
This talking point is faulty for two reasons - 1. How many of these "studies" measured heterosexual households to same-sex households? From what I understand, none did.
2. Also, the talking point does not address the fact that across the nation, there is a waiting list filled with children waiting to be adopted. The notion that "children do best in a home with a mother and a father" is an empty talking point because it does not address the fact that these "homes" are not present to adopt these children.
Also - I noticed how the Liberty Counsel omitted the George A. Rekers testimony, probably because it was embarrassing to their side. Rekers testified for the ban and said that he would look into banning adoption for Native Americans.
Expect the religious right to try and not mention Rekers's testimony. Don't let them get away with it.
Now everyone can get on with their holiday travels and the like. Have a happy Thanksgiving!
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Florida's ban on gay adoption declared unconstitutional!!!!!!!!!!
Well what do you expect when you have such "experts" like George A. Rekers against it.
The story is here.
I am just waiting for the anti-gay industry/religious right to try and spin this one.
Yes boys and girls, just try and say that gays and lesbians should not adopt children. Especially after that remark from Rekers about Native Americans:
(Rekers) said he would also consider banning Native Americans from adopting because research shows that they are also at much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse. ''They would tend to hang around each other,'' Rekers testified. ``So the children would be around a lot of other Native Americans who are . . . doing the same sorts of things.''
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)