Monday, October 12, 2009

New lie lodged against Kevin Jennings - he 'advocates' murder

Don't be fooled by the fact that we haven't heard anything new regarding the right's war on Obama appointee Kevin Jennings.

We probably haven't heard anything because those who oppose him are digging through the manure trying to find something that will stick when they throw it at him..

Such as this bit via the rightwing site Gateway Pundit:

Obama's Safe Schools Czar Wrote That Killing Someone Who Called You Names Was "Not Aberrant Behavior"

Verum Serum discovered this article by Obama's Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings in 1998:

We need to own up to the fact that our culture teaches boys that being “a man” is the most important thing in life, even if you have to kill someone to prove it. Killing someone who calls you a faggot is not aberrant behavior but merely the most extreme expression of a belief that is beaten (sometimes literally) into boys at an early age in this country: Be a man – don’t be a faggot.

As Suzanne Pharr so eloquently explained in her landmark work Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism, antigay bigotry is inextricably intertwined with the maintenance of “proper” gender roles by which little girls are supposed to be “sugar and spice and everything nice” and boys are supposed to be, well, quite the opposite. When boys take up guns to kill those who torment them with words like “faggot,” we shouldn’t be surprised. They’re just doing what we have taught them to do.


And on Free Republic is this piece:

Safe Schools Czar Absolves Murder for Anti-gay Slurs

Here we go again. Expect Hannity and company to jump on this.

Of course the claim that Jennings advocates murder is a distortion of what he actually said - and a rather bad one.

The piece in question, Be A Man, was originally published in September 29, 1998 in The Advocate magazine.

Jennings never advocated anything even resembling murder. He was actually saying in his piece that society contributes to violence in schools by pushing gender stereotypes.

At the beginning of the piece, he says the following:

When I was 8, my dad died unexpectedly of a heart attack. As the youngest of five siblings (four of us, boys), I looked to my brothers for guidance on how to act in this unsettling and unfamiliar territory. At dad's funeral I got the message. When I started crying, my brother Mike looked down and barked, "Stop crying. Be a man.
Don't be a faggot."

While astoundingly insensitive in his timing, my brother was simply passing down the code of masculinity he'd been taught. "Real men" don't show their feelings, and those men who do are faggots—which is the last thing any real man would want to be. It's a lesson I have spent nearly three decades trying to unlearn. Many important lessons—the kind that shape our lives—are learned long before college or grad school. Sadly, today's boys seem to be learning the same lesson—with far deadlier results. Consider these examples:


Then he proceeds to list examples of violent incidents that took place in America's high schools; incidents precipitated by someone being called a "faggot.

Then he says the following:

Why haven't you heard more about these incidents? Well, sadly, homophobic harassment in our schools is so commonplace that it is no longer news. But surely this seemingly novel phenomenon of youth taking up firearms in response should have made headlines. And here's the real kicker: None of the boys who perpetrated these attacks identifies as gay.

What's going on here? As we begin another school year close on the heels of one in which schoolyard shootings became a dreary staple of the nightly news, it's time to analyze why some young people are driven to kill. Obviously, we could prevent some killings if we restricted the ease with which anyone can get a firearm, but that would not get at the root cause of the problem. We need to own up to the fact that our culture teaches boys that being "a man" is the most important thing in life, even if you have to kill someone to prove it. Killing someone who calls you a faggot is not aberrant behavior but merely the most extreme expression of a belief that is beaten (sometimes literally) into boys at an early age in this country: Be a man—don't be a faggot.


From that perspective, it doesn't sound like Jennings is advocating violence, does it?

It's sad to watch how desperate people get when trying to destroy someone's reputation.




Bookmark and Share

Harvey Milk gets his day and other Monday midday news briefs

Gov. Schwarzenegger signs gay rights bills - Harvey Milk gets his day!

HRC Building Vandalized - And the scuttlebutt is some of our people did it. What in the hell is wrong with some of us! This is not the way to take care of our problems. If you disagree with HRC, then handle it in some other manner!

Boehner: Hate Crimes Bill Is Offensive - The smell of nonsense is thick in here!

Memo to Pentagon: Can We Talk About "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or Not? - You gotta be kidding me!

I Don’t Wear Pajamas - About that anti-bloggers comment the White House supposedly said . . .




Bookmark and Share

Sunday, October 11, 2009

What the National Equality marchers didn't do says a lot about what they accomplished


I didn't attend yesterday's National Equality march because of personal feelings and family obligations. I did manage to catch it on the news channels and shows.

I also saw many of the pictures and read the stories from those participating.

And I noticed something that needs to be put on record.

Now I can say a lot of things about the marchers and what they did, but allow me to dwell on the things they didn't do:

They didn't lie about attendance numbers,

They didn't post any phony photographs,

They didn't carry offensive signs about the president's place of birth or racial heritage,

They didn't need to call themselves "patriots,"

They weren't led by an astroturfing groups, venomous think tank lackeys, phony news networks, or millionaire demagogues.

They weren't led by the nose with conspiracy theories involving Kenya, Acorn, or death panels,

And none of them were given to annoying weeping jags regarding about how "they wanted their country back."

These people who came to Washington yesterday were the true cross section of the country. They were mothers, fathers, and children who, while some may say that they had every reason to be rude and ugly (being denied your basic rights tends to bring the monster out in some people), came with reverence and respect.

And most of all, they came with the belief that sooner or later, America will fulfill its promise of equality for all, even if the President has to be prodded to push the country in that direction.

Not to totally put down the teabaggers, but one cannot escape the contrast between them and the participants of yesterday's National Equality March.

The teabaggers came to Washington demanding that the ill-conceived status quo be preserved. And they did it rather rudely.

Lgbts and their allies came to Washington in pursuit of what should have been theirs in the first place. And they did it with dignity.

When it's all said and done, which group best represents the true spirit of America?

Picture taken from National Equality March webpage.


Editor's note - Okay folks. Let's hold ourselves to the same standard that we hold President Obama. Let's take this momentum and do something with it.

Related posts:

My take on the President's speech to HRC





Bookmark and Share

My take on the President's speech to HRC

Well Obama said his speech in front of HRC last night and the lgbt blogs are either propping it up or tearing it apart.

It was a good speech and I didn't expect too much from it but the nice words.

From day one of this "Why hasn't President Obama supported the lgbt community more" argument, I have spent a considerable amount of time sighing with exasperation.

The one thing I've learned from this entire situation (and it upsets me to say this) is that an empowered lgbt with no sense of direction is the most dangerous thing to the community. The mouth runs but the mind tends to be on strike.

I have no problem with the anger that some in the community are feeling. But I have a serious problem with the direction which the anger may lead us.

There is a thin line between demanding that President Obama follow through on this promises to the lgbt community and declaring him as an "enemy of the people."

Unfortunately many of us have crossed that line.

Do I want things to move swifter? Yes. Should the lgbt community give pressure to the President AND Congress? Yes.

Do I think that our biggest weakness in this entire thing are the people who have made this issue about President Obama vs. the lgbt community? Oh hell yes.

I think both sides have very good points but in weighing the casted opinions, I am little more put off by the words of some folks who take every perceived slight as some sort of license to rally people to take to the streets as some sort of solution.

I'm more put off by those who would, by way of hyperbole, imply that the President is an "oppressor" and that we should "abandon" him.

I'm put off by those who would take the guise of snobby patrons of a restaurant and view the President as a waiter who brought their drinks two minutes too late. These individuals kick aside the good the President has done for the lgbt community (it's not much by any stretch of the imagination but it's a good start - pay attention to that final word - "start") simply because they can't get everything they want at one time.

We seem to expect with a wave of a wand (or a pen), the President will take care of all of our needs. He will solve all of our problems in an expeditious nature.

It ain't going to happen like that.

In our anger at the President, we are losing perspective. Some of us may not like how he is moving on this issue but he has never been the enemy. The cause of lgbt equality has never been about him.

And that's why I ask those who spin the hyperbole at the drop of a hat where was this firm fire when dealing with religious right groups? How come we don't give the Family Research Council or the Traditional Values Coalition the same amount of hell that we are giving the President?

They give us grief every damn day. And whether we want to acknowledge them or not, they are the ones who are the true enemy in this matter.

While we wage war with the President for not taking the role of "daddy," while we engage in a circular firing squad, these groups will working to place future roadblocks in the way of lgbt equality; roadblocks that we will not address in an adequate manner.

Some in the lgbt community are suffering from a sort of "battered wife" syndrome. We are lashing out at our friends rather than our abusers. We wonder why our friends won't help us the way we want them to, but fail to realize that we are in control. No one can help us unless we help ourselves.

Despite the nice words, the lofty aspirations, the Obama Administration is a means to an end for the lgbt community. That's all. And rather than raising hell when we discover that the President does not have gossammer wings, a magic wand, or appears in a bubble in the sky that will slow descend to Earth, let's apply some good old fashioned pragmatism and cynicism to this situation.

He needs to be prodded, but not have stones thrown at him.

Kennedy needed to be prodded to support the 1950/60s civil rights movement and so did Johnson. Obama is no different when it comes to our issues..

That's how I view today's march. It is a way for the lgbt community to get empowered and gain the numbers who will lobby for our interests.

It's not about who helps us to get equality. It only matters that we get it.




Bookmark and Share

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Know Your LGBT History - Fortune and Men's Eyes

Fortune and Men's Eyes (1971) predates the HBO series OZ by several decades but it was nonetheless powerful.

It tells the story of Smitty, young man who enters prison for a six-month stretch and has to deal with the ins and outs of this rough world.

He becomes the victim of this prison life dichotomy and has to fight for survival.

I will be honest - I don't know that much about this movie. I do know that it was controversial for its time, particularly the following scene.

Despite the supposed "hotness" of the men involved, this is still a vile scene:



Past Know Your LGBT History postings:

Know your lgbt history - California Suite

Know your lgbt history - Taxi (Elaine's Strange Triangle)

Know your lgbt history - Come Back Charleston Blue

Know your lgbt history - James Bond goes gay

Know your lgbt history - Windows

Know your lgbt history - To Wong Foo and Priscilla

Know your lgbt history - Blazing Saddles

Know your lgbt history - Sanford and Son

Know your lgbt history - In Living Color

Know your lgbt history - Cleopatra Jones and her lesbian drug lords

Know your lgbt history - Norman, Is That You?

Know your lgbt history - The 'Exotic' Adrian Street

Know your lgbt history - The Choirboys

Know your lgbt history - Eddie Murphy

Know your lgbt history - The Killing of Sister George

Know your lgbt history - Hanna-Barbera cartoons pushes the 'gay agenda

'Know your lgbt history - Cruising

Know your lgbt history - Foxy Brown and Cleopatra Jones

Know your lgbt history - I Got Da Hook Up

Know your lgbt history - Fright Night

Know your lgbt history - Flowers of Evil

The Jeffersons and the transgender community




Bookmark and Share

Friday, October 09, 2009

Citing Paul Cameron does make you a homophobe, Matt Barber

Editor's note - I haven't forgotten about the Know Your LGBT History segment. It will run either later tonight or tomorrow morning:

Much has been said and twisted the initial event that placed Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber in the anti-gay limelight.

The religious right are always quick to declare that the column which got Barber fired from AllState was one he wrote on "his own time."

Of course they never tell you that he used AllState equipment to write the piece nor the fact that he identified himself as an employee of AllState, thereby involving the company in his personal pursuits.

But what exactly was the column about?

Our other anti-gay friend, Peter LaBarbera, took the initiative to post "the column" on his webpage in anticipation of Barber giving an address to his Americans for Truth group later this month.

The piece, ‘Intolerance’ Will Not Be Tolerated, is the usual "homosexuality is evil and lgbts are plotting to push their lifestyle down everyone's throat" nonsense that I've come to expect from those pushing the religious right line.

And in that same spirit, it has some choice interesting statements:

There are those who hold to the theory that people who engage in homosexual behavior are “born that way” — that they’re merely acting upon intrinsic characteristics of their own, unique genetic make-up. They desperately cling to, and repeatedly cite various “studies” which seem to support the “born that way” theory. They entirely disregard the fact that to date, there has been no credible, empirical evidence to support the theory, nor has the “respectable” scientific community embraced even one study. In fact, the vast majority of studies have been debunked outright, and the associated “scientists” have been exposed as homosexual activists attempting to further an extremist agenda.

In his ridiculously vague style, Barber doesn't even give us one example of the so-called debunking.

Then there is this statement, the piece de resistance:

As a result of the concerted effort by liberals to mask the devastating effects of the gay lifestyle, many people are shocked to learn that the average life expectancy of a homosexual male is only about 45 years old - 30 years younger than that of a heterosexual male.

You recognize that citation? It's from Paul Cameron's "gay life span" study. You know, the same study discredited by so many others including former Reagan official William Bennett.

And we all know Paul Cameron, don't we? The man who said the following:

“If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get—and that is what homosexuality seems to be—then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men, and women on women if all you are looking for is an orgasm . . . Marital sex tends toward the boring end. Generally, it doesn’t deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does.” - Rolling Stone, March, 18, 1999

He is also the man who has been censured and dismissed from organizations such as the American Psychological Assocation, the American Sociological Association, the Canadian Psychological Association, etc., etc.

Apparently these scientific bodies don't abide by horrendous research techniques or methodology.

Too bad Barber don't have their scruples. He even had the nerve to channel another Cameron distortion:

The men frequently suffer from other sodomy related injuries, and are far more likely to be murdered (likely by another homosexual) than their heterosexual counterparts; this, due to the typically raucous and oft anonymous nature of the gay lifestyle.

And the irony of it all? This portion of his piece:

But it’s predictable — any time anyone dare expose the aforementioned truths about the homosexual lifestyle, or criticize the homosexual lobby for its radical anti-marriage, anti-family agenda, there’s an enormous backlash. It’s an age-old tactic geared toward silencing one’s critics. It consists primarily of the ad hominem attack — Homophobe! Hate-Monger! Bigot! Gay Basher! Neanderthal!

So according to Barber, it's perfectly alright to cite the discredited studies of a researcher who couldn't be believed even if his blood was replaced with truth serum, but to call truth about these studies is wrong.

How dare those lgbts cry foul and defend themselves against lies! Why that's worse than African-Americans protesting when white racists accused them of wanting to integrate so that black men could have access to white women.

Why that's worse than the Jewish people getting angry at Anti-Semitic slurs.

Matt, a personal note from me to you (I know that from time to time, you google your name to see who mentioned you online), when you cite discredited studies designed to denigrate lgbts, it does make you a homophobe.

If you disagree, I would love to hear your opinion on the matter.



Bookmark and Share

No scalp for Hannity thus far and other Friday midday news briefs

No scalp for Sean Hannity thus far:



And in other news:

Maine Attorney General "Appalled By Yes On 1 Ads" - More bad news for the anti-gay marriage folks in Maine.

Parental Rights of Non-Legal Parent Upheld by Montana Supreme Court - BOOM!

Obama's Nobel Prize Inspires Conservative Outrage And Confusion - These folks are like Erica from "All My Children." Weren't they happy last week when the U.S. didn't get the Olympics? I thought that Obama's "international appeal" had taken a hit.

Supreme Court Refuses Two LGBT Cases - Apparently we won one. I can't make heads or tails of the other.

A Step in Faith - Here is an interesting story of an evangelical Christian supporting lgbt rights.





Bookmark and Share