Thank you Peter for showing the hypocrisy of your side

It took him a while but our friend Peter LaBarbera finally came through in trying to defend Pastor Rick Warren. Let's look at some clips from his defense:

By blasting Obama for choosing Rick Warren as an Inaugural speaker — and demonizing Warren as a “homophobe” because he supported Prop 8 — homosexual activists are showing the world just how empty their “tolerance” ideology really is

Here’s an outstanding release from Pastor Bryan Fischer with the Idaho Values Alliance, an affiliate of American Family Association. Poor Barack Obama: he’s promised the world to one of the most demanding and unreasonable special interest movements on the planet. Imagine blasting the gregarious Warren as a “homophobe” because he supported Prop 8 in California.

The press release makes it seem that lgbts going to riot in the streets during the event:

Prediction: for the first time in American history, a speaker at a presidential inauguration may be booed unmercifully, and his remarks completely drowned out by angry jeers from an incensed crowd. We may even see shoes tossed at the inauguration platform by the hundreds. It could be a modern day lynching, only this time the victim of a vigilante mob will be proverbially strung up not because of skin color but creed.

At the end of the press release, there is a listing of articles detailing the controversy as if to further illustrate how supposedly "intolerant" lgbts are.

Allow me to present my own list and it speaks to the audacity of the folks on the other side of the issue.

They attack lgbts for our anger at the Warren selection and play that "they say they are tolerant but this proves that they are not" game despite the fact that a short time ago, a lot of them were angry at Newsweek for its article on gay marriage. And they made this displeasure known:

Homosexuality — The Evangelical Temptation

AFA Takes on Newsweek’s Shameful Distortion of the Bible to Shill for Homosexual ‘Marriage’

Mohler on Newsweek article: The ‘biblical case for gay marriage’ falls flat

Newsweek Religion Editor Rewrites the Bible

Answering Newsweek

They call us intolerant despite the fact that a prominent pastor on their side was forced to resign because of his support of same sex relationships:

Evangelical Leader Takes Heat For His ‘Shift’ On Same-Sex Relationships

They call us whiners because of our anger over Warren despite the fact that they have been acting like serious crybabies over incidents involving aetheist displays at Christmas. (Editor's note - If you want to see true award-winning whining, check out the comments section of these articles):

Illinois Christians angry over atheist display

Washington State rewrites holiday display policy

Multicultural displays 'neutering' Christmas

And not long before Peter started shilling for Warren's presence at the inauguration, he was raising hell that a gay marching band would be appearing:

Transgender Twirlers? Homosexual Band to March in Obama’s Inaugural Parade

So what's the deal here?

When the religious right complain about something, it's perfectly okay but when lgbts do the same thing, we are being intolerant?

I don't think so.

I noticed that One News Now has been noticeably silent on the Warren controversy. Thank God for Peter LaBarbera whose pathetic attempts to be relevant does his side more harm than good.

A new challenge to the lgbt community - analyze the war against lgbts

I've noticed that in the Obama/Warren controversy, folks have been making comparisons between inviting Rick Warren and inviting a known racist like David Duke:

You wouldn't give David Duke a prominent place at the inaguration. Also if Warren maligned any other group like he maligned gays, we wouldn't be having this conversation about "having a dialogue."

Those who press this argument do have a point. But the devil is in the details.

People are throwing around the word "homophobic" to describe Warren but what they don't understand is that the word "homophobic" does not have the same power as the words "Anti-Semite" or "racist."

With the words "racist" and "Anti-Semite" comes the history of lynchings, cross burnings, the Holocaust and various other acts of violence.

But before you point out the case of Lawrence King, Matthew Shepard, and others who have suffered homophobic violence, remember one thing.

The racists and the Anti-Semites don't have people like Tony Perkins or James Dobson invited on news programs to give their positions.

And not matter how ugly anti-gay violence is, people like Perkins and Dobson are able to distance themselves from these acts. With a calm visage and a smiling face, they are able to bat down the word "homophobic" as a term that gays use to bash Christians.

This speaks as to how insidious the war against lgbts actually is. For the most part, the weapons are not sticks, knives, and guns, but carefully worded rhetoric and soundbites that have been practiced consistently in meeting rooms until they have the semblance of sounding unthreatening.

So the question is how do we combat this without looking like raging dogs.

Chill out people! It's not the end of the world just yet

I cringe to say this and I know folks are going to be a little upset but . . .

Everyone needs to chill out about Obama selecting Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inaguration.

For the record, I am not in favor of the choice. I think Obama was showing that he is a president for all Americans, even though many of us do not share same views on controversial issues.

It was a clumsy attempt but as much as I hate to admit it, I have to give him points for it.

And I will tell you why I feel this way.

I was involved in the protest when Donnie McClurkin toured for Obama in 2006. I didn't like what happened then but mostly I hated how the entire thing ended. There were folks on our side who were too strident and undisciplined, Donnie McClurkin came out of the controversy smelling like a rose, and still the issues of lgbts of color were not addressed.

Subsequently, I did some soul searching and came to the conclusion that sometimes you have to step back and look at the bigger picture before going off half cocked.

Also, I remember how the religious right acted when Bush was re-elected in 2004.

I remember the cocky comments from pastors who loudly declared that they were the ones who got Bush re-elected and as such folks had better show them some respect.

I remember the words of Bob Jones University in a letter written to Bush after the election:

You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you.

I remember how Bush said the election gave him capital and he was going to use it. And use it he did. We are going to be paying for how he used his capital long after he leaves office.

So when I remember these things, I cringe when I hear the comments of my lgbt brothers and sisters who are already declaring “game over” and calling Obama everything but a child of God.

I cringe to hear the extreme hyperbolic claims that Obama has thrown lgbt families over the side.

Has he really?

No he hasn’t. All he did was reach out to a core of constituents.

Warren and people like him have been unfairly appropriating words like “family” and “values” and making their views seem moderate when they are anything but moderate.

But they are Americans too. And while we see them as misguided, Obama sees them as people that he has been elected to reach out to and represent.

The problem here does not lie with Obama. The problem lies with the assumption that Obama’s election is a magic lamp that will make our problems go away.

That’s not the case. The road got less bumpy with Obama in office but it is still a long road that we have to travel to get what we need.

And we still have work to do. We still have to educate Americans (Obama included) on who we are, what our needs are, and how we have a right to words like “family” and “values.”

Obama is going to be in office for at least four years. During that time, I know that I will not agree with every decision he makes.

But I am still glad he was elected. And I am not ready to say “game over” just yet.

Obama and Rick Warren - Let's do the right thing

Homobigot Rick Warren to deliver invocation at inauguration

I don't like it but can we do something other than getting on our computers and spew venom? I swear if some of us lgbts did what we needed to do in our individual communities as quick as we throw around hyperbole on blogs, we would be unbeatable.

Of course it's not supposed to be all peaches and cream. I'm sure before it's all said and done, Obama will do things to piss us off as well as delight us.

One thing for sure though. In light of their protests over the recent Newsweek article about religion and gay marriage, the religious right had better not say a damned thing about our supposed "lack of tolerance."

Of course who am I kidding?

But this is the perfect time to act as a community. I am sorry if I offended some by my first statements but I am of the opinion that we shouldn't waste time talking about how "Obama betrayed us."

We need to show our anger as a community over this action. When the religious right gets angry, they complain en masse.

Why should we be any different?

I don't like the assumption that Obama should "get where we are coming from" without some prodding from us from time to time.

And this is one of those times.

So, if you want to complain, here are the appropriate emails to do it. I don't think I have to tell you all to show some dignity and respect. Be courteous:

parag.mehta@ptt.gov (Parag Mehta is Obama’s LGBT liaison in the transition team.)

dnoble@barackobama.com

bbond@barackobama.com

steve@hildebrandtewes.com (Steve Hildebrandt)

fred.hochberg@ptt.com )

The Family Research Council and the Disappearing Studies on Homosexuality

While we are all anticipating an Obama Administration and while the religious right continues to compile inaccurate anecdotes about “gay persecutors,” something strange has taken place on the Family Research Council’s webpage.

Several “studies” about homosexuality are gone.

The following studies are no longer on the Family Research Council’s webpage - The Negative Effects of Homosexuality, Homosexuality and Child Abuse, and Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk.

If you click the following links (taken from here), you will see what I am talking about:

"Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse," Insight No. 247 (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council), May 17, 2002 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3)

· "The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality," Insight No. 232 (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council), March 6, 2001 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1)

· "Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk," Insight No. 238 (Washington: Family Research Council) November 1, 2001 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3)

These studies were supposed to show the so-called “dangers of homosexuality.” All of the religious right talking points about lgbts are touched on including:

Gays molest children at a high rate,

Gays have a short life span,

Gays and lesbians don’t know how to be monogamous,

Gays and lesbians have high rate of domestic violence.

The author of these items, Timothy Dailey, is still employed with the Family Research Council and one of his areas of "expertise" is homosexuality. This is highly strange because according to his bio, Dailey’s Ph.D. and qualifications all fall under religion.

For the record, his studies about homosexuality were highly flawed.

In them, Dailey cited out-of-date data compiled in the early 1970s, distorted other studies (including the 1997 Canadian study concerning the “gay life span”), and relied on discredited work (i.e. discredited researcher Paul Cameron).

One of his papers in particular, Homosexuality and Child Abuse, got complaints from former director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections, A. Nicholas Groth.

In 2002, Groth said that Dailey distorted his work to claim that gays molest children at a higher rate than heterosexual men.

The irony is that this was the same error Paul Cameron made with Groth’s work in 1984. Groth complained then too.

I don’t know when Dailey's studies was removed, but they were on the webpage in 2006. It was at that time on my blog I noted how some of them included the following proviso:

Please note: this article is an archived item on Family Research Council's website; the information contained therein may be outdated.

At the time, I called it a "cover your ass disclaimer."

I called the Family Research Council last week in order to get some answers. A very nice woman who answered my call told me that I would have to speak Dailey to get more details.

I left two messages via email and have yet to receive an answer.

So the question is are we seeing some quiet acknowledgment by the Family Research Council that some of their “studies” on lgbts were flawed?

Since I haven't spoken to Dailey, I cannot give a definite answer.

But if this is the case, then I think the Family Research Council owes the lgbt community more than an covert abandonment of these studies.

I would like to have something a bit more public from the Family Research Council. These studies are present on other unaffiliated sites and have probably been used numerous times in attempts to beat back pro-gay legislation.

Also they have helped form inaccurate images put forth about lgbts by the religious right.

In light of how we lgbts have been unfairly called terrorists for our reaction over the Proposition 8 vote, anything less than a full and public acknowledgement is unacceptable.

Anything less than a full and public acknowledgement would be a classic case of throwing rocks and then pleading innocence when those hit by the rocks react.

Has Robert Knight been put out to pasture?

Rumor control has it (via People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch) that long-time anti-gay talking head Robert Knight is out of a job. This was an email sent to Tips-Q (which despite the email is not an anti-gay site):

We need Bob Knight in the pro-family movement!

Bob and his whole department at Media Research Center have been laid off. Please circulate this message in hopes that another position will surface for him and the rest of his terrific staff.
The list of Bob’s stellar accomplishments would take pages and more time than any of us have. He was a reporter with the Los Angeles Times, has held key positions at several conservative think tanks, Family Research Council, and Concerned Women for America. He has been instrumental in the battle to preserve marriage. He has written compelling pieces about the threat to religious liberty of “hate crimes” and ENDA legislation. He has exposed the pseudo-science of the “born gay” claims of homosexual advocates.He has appeared on countless TV and radio shows and always represents our side with truth, humor and grace.

At MRC, Bob’s department has done a terrific job of tracking the bias against Christians and conservatives in the mainstream media.

As we approach one of the darkest times in recent American history, the knowledge and experience of a fine Christian man like Bob Knight is needed more than ever. We understand the tough financial woes of Christian groups, yet a background like his is rare and should not go unutilized.

Please circulate this to all Christian and conservative contacts.

Robert Knight is many things but I really don't think being a Christian would fit his classifications. And he has NOT represented the other side with truth, humor, and grace. On the contrary, he has used lies, innuendoes, and out-and-out deceptions.

For years, via his involvement with the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America, Knight has accused lgbts of everything except pulling tags off of mattresses and squeezing the Charmin.

Knight has called us pedophiles on more than one occasion:

“The ‘gay agenda’ targets children. They’re luring kids into homosexual behavior. There is a strong undercurrent of pedophilia in the homosexual subculture.” - Rolling Stone, March, 18, 1999

“Knight feels the festival organizers’ excuse that the kids’ films were being shown in a separate part of the theater is not good enough. He says there is a cavalier attitude on the part of pro-homosexual advocates, who believe there is nothing wrong with homosexual sex, and therefore, if the kids happen to get exposed to it, their response is ‘So what? Maybe some of them might be gay, and maybe this will inspire them.’" - Parents Warned Against ‘Family-unfriendly’ Film Festivals - Agape Press - December 13, 2004

He has disrespected our lesbian sisters:

“If you look at the footage from Operation Rescue, um, vigils outside abortion clinics, you will see that the anti Operation Rescue demonstrators invariably have a pink triangle on and they are usually pretty big heavy set women who look like they’ve been over working October Fest for the last six years . . .” - Reclaiming America For Christ Conference, “Homosexuality” panel, February 28, 1999

He has on occasion distorted the work of legitimate researchers and have attacked their credibility when challenged on it. In 1998, he attacked pediatrician Robert Garafalo when Garafalo complained as to how the religious right was misusing his study on gay teens. Knight had the temerity to call him a "thrall of political correctness."

Knight has even used the lovely time-old bullshit claim that homosexuality is wrong because the "parts don't fit:"

Just look at the human body!” Says Knight. “You can’t fool nature. The rectum was not made for sexual activity.” Then, impishly, he adds, “it is an exit ramp, not an entry ramp.”

To me, the most egregious thing Knight has done is to refer to the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron. He has done this on many occasion in his "research studies" and including in front Congress on July 29, 1994 when speaking against ENDA.

I had the misfortune of meeting Knight in 2004 and I asked him about using Cameron's work. His words to me were:

“Yes we have used his research. So what?”

And here I thought the Bible spoke against bearing false witness.

So if the rumors are true and Knight has been put out to pasture, I will not mourn his loss. I won't necessarily dance in the streets either.

To do such a thing would be tacky and let's face it - Knight will probably not be out of work for long. The religious right can always use a morally malleable individual like him.

But if he can't get a job with some other religious right group or conservative thinktank, let's hope Knight pursues an honest line of work for a change.

Might I suggest pimping. After all, he has gotten enough experience pimping lgbts.

Gee Matt Barber, why don't you tell us what you really think about decriminalizing homosexuality

The United Nations resolution urging countries to decriminalize homosexuality gives us an interesting view into the religious right mindset.

The non-binding resolution, backed by the 27-member European Union, calls on governments worldwide to decriminalize homosexuality. France, which put forth the initiative on Human Rights Day, is expected to submit a draft of the proposal at the U.N. General Assembly next week.

More than 80 countries have laws against homosexuality, including nine that prescribe death as punishment.

The resolution has opposition from the Roman Catholic Church which claims that it would lead to same-sex marriage.

Interestingly enough due to negative outcry, the Vatican seems be opposing the resolution and giving it support at the same time:

The United States government has yet to give an answer about the resolution which is still being drafted and carries the support of 56 countries.

But leave it to One News Now and former Concerned Women for American spokesperson Matt Barber to put an incorrect spin on the story:

The decision (I think the article meant resolution) represents just one step in the overall plan of homosexual strategists, according to Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel. "It's a brave new world out there, and homosexual activists have infiltrated the ranks of the United Nations. So I will not be surprised if this resolution does in fact pass," he contends.

. . . If the resolution succeeds, Barber fully expects a push to begin for recognition of homosexual "marriage" that could become a party of international treaties, binding signatory nations to recognition.

Barber offers no proof about his claim of "homosexual strategists" and it's not the first time he has exploited the fear of the unknown as a substitute for truth. On more than one occasion, Barber has conjured up the specter of invisible hordes of "homosexal strategists" or nameless groups of "radical homosexual activists" to justify his claims.

The most recent attempt came earlier this year when he addressed how researchers were complaining as to how he and other members of the religious right were distorting their work to claim that gays have a short lifespan.

Barber said that the researchers were under "tremendous pressure" to complain. Of course he didn't offer any proof of this at the time. Just like he doesn't offer any proof of his lie about "homosexual strategists" in the U.N.

(I talk about the situation regarding Barber and the Canadian study here and here.)

Using the threat of gay marriage to oppose a pro-gay law, ordinance, or resolution is a tactic the religious right have undertaken since their success in the 2004 general election. It is said that Bush was elected on the backs of so-called values voters who came to the polls in huge numbers to oppose same sex marriage.

Since that time, the religious right have sometimes tried to beat back potentially pro-gay laws or ordinances (be it anti-discrimination laws or hate crimes legislation) by claiming that they would lead us down a slippery slope to gay marriage, polygamy, and out-and-out chaos.

It's never amusing when they manipulate this fear, but on this occasion it's downright ugly.

To hear Barber say it, the United Nations should not worry about advocating that lgbts not be persecuted by arrest or death. Gays getting torched out of their homes or publicly hanged doesn't seem to be a big deal to him.

But allowing those same gays to walk down the aisle? That's worse than the Apocalypse.

Talk about your lack of priorities.

Hat tip to On Top Magazine for help on this post.