'Porno Petey' writes a dirty headline and other Wednesday evening news briefs

Due to my having to address Peter LaBarbera's absolutely hilarious "calling out," I had to push back today's news briefs until now:

New York gov extends protections to transgender New Yorkers - Good news out of New York. NOM will just plotz!

NC: largest county - Mecklenburg - approves domestic partner benefits for workers - Don't celebrate just yet. In the middle of the hearing regarding the vote, not only did the opposition try to push a phony report, but a commissioner said something nasty to another commissioner regarding her deceased son who died of AIDS. Par the course.

Liberty Counsel May Lead Pullout of CPAC if Homosexual Group GOProud Remains as Co-Sponsor - I rarely link to LaBarbera during my news briefs but the story not only shows the singleminded nastiness of folks on his side, but the headline is hilarious. What can one expect from Porno Petey?

Updated: Christian registrar Lillian Ladele loses appeal - Do the job you were paid to do or quit. It's that simple.

Oklahoma City school board passes protection for gay pupils - Good news from the land of Sally Kern.

Uh oh! Peter LaBarbera and Americans for Truth tries to call out my blog

Mark your calendars because it has finally happened!

Peter LaBarbera actually mentioned me by name in one of his silly anti-lgbt hit pieces. The piece is about Fox News's article on the smears against Kevin Jennings. Apparently LaBarbera didn't like my comments in it:

The fact that Fox reporter Maxim Lott had to go to homosexual activist Alvin McEwen of “Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters” blog — definitely a B-teamer among homosexual activists — is perhaps an indication of Jennings’ declining position. (McEwen is obsessed with bashing AFTAH — he smears us as the equivalent of racists — and he even denies the obvious connection between homosexual behavior and HIV, even as other homosexual militants admit, “HIV is a gay disease.”)

Well I'm honored that he calls me a "B-teamer" because I've never thought of myself as being so high. I'm just a young black gay male from the South with a part-time blog in which I try to expose lies of the religious right.

And Lord knows there are so many of them (and if you want to read about some really bad religious right distortions, check out the Best of links located on the right side of my blog).

I find it ironic that LaBarbera calls attention to my supposed ranking seeing that he is sinking down the religious right food chain faster than the Lusitania after it was hit by the torpedo.

Honestly speaking, if the Southern Poverty Law Center ever labeled LaBarbera's organization (Americans for Truth) as a hate group, it would be an act of charity.

But to answer LaBarbera's charges, I do think of AFTAH and him the same way one would think of racists mostly because of LaBarbera's attempt to smear the lgbt community in general.

Look at what he has written:

(McEwen is obsessed with bashing AFTAH — he smears us as the equivalent of racists — and he even denies the obvious connection between homosexual behavior and HIV, even as other homosexual militants admit, “HIV is a gay disease.”)

LaBarbera's claim about me denying the obvious connection between homosexual behavior and HIV, even as other homosexual militants admit, “HIV is a gay disease" stems from an email argument I had with him regarding a speech he and other religious right members exploited.

Last year, former Gay and Lesbian Task Force head Matt Foreman gave a speech in which he called HIV/AIDS a "gay disease."

However, what Foreman was doing was challenging the lgbt community to do more to fight the spread of the disease, much like noted African-Americans Phil Wilson and Julian Bond challenged the black community to do when they called "HIV/AIDS" "a black disease."

My post on that is here.

I was making the point that LaBarbera and others who used Foreman's words to stigmatize the lgbt community are no different than racists who would use Wilson and Bond's words to smear the black community.

And I want to make it clear that any problem I have with Americans For Truth has nothing to do with the religious beliefs of its founder (i.e. LaBarbera).

My problem lies with LaBarbera's need to rely on stigmatization, junk science (much like this piece in which LaBarbera actually defends the work of the discredited researcher Paul Cameron), and the exploitation of current events to make the lgbt community seem like the bad guy.

Or in other words,  my problem lies with the fact that LaBarbera is a liar. He relies on fear and distortions to make life harder for lgbts (myself included). And then he wraps himself up in the piety of Christian virtue, as if claiming that he is wearing a halo should obsure the fact that he actually has horns and is wielding a pitchfork.

And then he wants to be paid for it via "donations."

He labels what I write about him to be an "obsession," but I call it looking out for my interests and also for the interests of my lgbt brothers and sisters who either are not aware of what's going on or don't have the platform to let everyone know what's going on regarding LaBarbera and the rest of the so-called religious right.

I may be a "B-teamer," but at least I have never had to lie or rely on bad studies to defend myself, the lgbt community, or my personal religious beliefs.

Now I could go on about why LaBarbera has the nickname of "Porno Petey" in the lgbt community but I would rather leave you with an online discussion that I had with him.

It speaks for itself regarding his mindset Notice how LaBarbera sidesteps when asked point blank about negative religious right tactics AND their use of junk science::

Nice try Peter LaBarbera, but you are no hero

Seriously though, seeing who LaBarbera has attacked in the past (i.e. Jeremy Hooper from Goodasyou.org Wayne Besen, Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend, and so many others) I am honored to be in such company of such "radical gay activists."

Lgbts catching hell in Rwanda

Things are ugly in Uganda and look awful in South Africa for lgbts.

According to Box Turtle Bulletin, it's not exactly cool in Rwanda:

BTB has just learned that the Rwandan Parliament is scheduled to take up consideration of a change to Rwanda’s penal code which would criminalize homosexuality with a punishment of five to ten years. It would also ban counselling and advocacy that could be interpreted as “encouraging or sensitizing” people to enter into same-sex relationships.

The problematic section in the penal code is article 217 which states that:

Any person who practices, encourages or sensitizes people of the same sex, to sexual relation or any sexual practice, shall be liable for a term of imprisonment ranging from five (5) to ten (10) years and fine ranging from Two Hundred thousand Rwanda Francs (200.000 RwF) to one million (1,000,000)Rwanda francs.”

The fines range from US$350 to US$1750. The average annual income is just US$370.

One key phrase of the proposed penal code, “encourages or sensitizes,” would have the effect of criminalizing advocacy on behalf of LGBT people. It would also severely impact the ability to deliver health services to LGBT people.

The Horizon Community Association of Rwanda (HOCA) and the Coalition of African Lesbians (CAL) have denounced the bill (PDF: 56KB/3 pages), saying that Rwandan citizens still experience gross violations of human rights. “Our country and our people refuse to recognize the fact that we exist,” said Naomi Ruzindana, President of HOCA.

We need to start thinking of lgbt equality as more of a global issue. Whether or not we get full rights and privileges that we deserve in this country, let's not forget about our lgbt brothers and sisters catching hell around the world.

In celebration of D.C. pro-gay marriage vote, let's revisit the 'D.C. hot mess'

This post is for an facebook buddy who says that I'm always posting negative stuff:

Good news out of D.C.:

The City Council passed a measure Tuesday legalizing same-sex marriage, making the nation’s capital the first jurisdiction below the Mason-Dixon Line to allow such unions.

The bill, which passed by an 11-to-2 vote, may still face obstacles in Congress, among city voters and in the courts, but most advocates say they expect it to become law by the spring. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty has said he will sign it.

“Today’s vote is an important victory not only for the gay and lesbian community but for everyone who supports equal rights,” said Councilman David A. Catania, an independent and the author of the bill.

Opponents have vowed to overturn the bill by putting it to a referendum or by working with Congress, which has a month to review the measure once it is signed.

The city already recognizes gay marriages performed in states where the practice is legal — Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont. New Hampshire will begin allowing same-sex marriage early next year.

Republicans and conservative Democrats in the House, which oversees the district’s budget, are considering a variety of legislative methods for blocking the bill, including adding a rider to future appropriations bills. But Democrats who support the measure can probably prevent that.

In celebration of this victory, I would like to replay a favorite video of mine from the testimony regarding marriage equality in D.C.

With opposition like this . . . never mind. I'm still speechless over it:

The 'enemy' won in Houston? and other Tuesday midday news briefs

D.C. history: Don't miss it - By the time I come back online, this may have been decided. But thanks to Goodasyou.org, you can catch it!

Unraveling the Right's false attacks on Kevin Jennings - All smears against Jennings and how they are wrong courtesy of Media Matters.

US Right Wing Charities Tied To Uganda Death Bill - Why are we even surprised anymore?

Sentence for hate crime: one year - He deserved more time.

Welch Apologizes For Failing to Defeat The "Enemy" In Houston's Mayoral Race - One guess who the "enemy" is.

Sen.Jim DeMint fears a gay president

In a recent interview, South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint said the following:

“Marriage is a religious institution. The federal government has no business redefining what it is,” DeMint says. This is one issue where he doesn’t support states’ rights; state government shouldn’t have the right to permit gay marriage: “Governments should not be in the business of promoting a behavior that’s proven to be destructive to our society.”

He cringes at the notion of a gay or lesbian president: “It would be bothersome to me just personally because I consider it immoral.”

Granted it wasn't the only wild thing DeMint said in the interview but that nugget of nuttiness particularly stands out.

I wish the writer, Albert R. Hunt, had allowed DeMint to go into detail about this because it sounds like DeMint was implying that Paul Cameronesque nonsense about "homosexuality being a deadly lifestyle."

I would have loved for him to be nailed for that lie.

Really though, I have to give DeMint points for consistency. He has never particulary like lgbt people.

Back in 2004 when he ran against Inez Tenenbaum for the seat he won, he talked about banning gay teachers.

When he apologized for the comment, the reasoning he gave was highly infuriating:

“I answered as a dad with my heart and I did not answer as a Senate candidate. I apologize for making the remark because it distracted from the debate,”

Then in June of this year, he wrote a letter to various national religious leaders and pastors inaccurately saying lgbt-inclusive hate crimes legislation would lead them being arrested for merely claiming that homosexuality is a sin.

So the fact that DeMint fears having a gay president doesn't surprise any of us lgbts in South Carolina.

It's just more proof that DeMint doesn't care about us - the people whom he was elected to represent.

Fox News cites me in article about Kevin Jennings . . . and almost gets it right

Last week, Maxim Lott of Fox News interviewed me for an article about the attacks on Obama appointee Kevin Jennings.

To tell the truth, knowing the reputation of Fox News, I was a bit fearful that I would be misquoted or quoted in a way to further smear Jennings.

Actually I found it to be an almost objective article . It even told the truth about "The Little Black Book" (although Lott omitted the fact that no students actually received the "Book") and the supposed "fisting/dental dams."

Of course our friends Peter Sprigg and Peter LaBarbera were quoted. But it was only fair that they would be.

One thing that I found interesting was that the original supposed "Fistgate" incident wasn't mentioned. Could it be this story was even too wild and vulgar for Fox? Maybe.

But I think Lott did go into a lot more detail than he had to about GLSEN's supposed "porngraphic reading list." One wonders if he was trying to induce discomfort rather than report. Media Matters adds some very excellent points about this:

Lott reported on passages from three of the books "targeted for children between Grades 7 to 12," two of which are from the same essays previously cited by The Washington Times as evidence that the books "clearly promote homosexuality and promiscuity," including "kids having sex with adults." But like the Times, Lott omited the portions of those essays in which the authors make clear that they are not promoting those practices. 

Media Matters places these portions in their proper context, showing that they are not "promoting" anything but giving personal experiences. Some of these personal experiences are rather sad and illustrate that this country needs to suitably address the needs of  lgbt youth.

If I were one for irony, I could easily point out that the constant barrage of negativity thrown at the lgbt community (and especially lgbt youth) by people like Sprigg and LaBarbera and the organizations they run with only add to conditions that cause lgbt youth to be placed in situations like those mentioned in the books .

Another thing which troubled me about Lott's s article was the recounting of the Brewster incident. It couldn't have hurt for Lott to have gotten some more quotes from Brewster regarding the incident. After all, the young man did compliment Jennings for his advice in the matter.

One point I would like to highlight before it's obscured by the hoopla of the supposed controversy is how clueless folks like Sprigg are regarding contemporary literature:

McEwen said that the attacks on Jennings and GLSEN were motivated largely by homophobia.

"There are a lot of heterosexual books that are just as explicit. In the first page of 'The Color Purple' [a 1982 novel that has caused controversy when assigned in schools], the character talks about being raped in graphic terms... what's in [GLSEN's] books is no different from what's in The Color Purple."

But Sprigg disagrees that books like "The Color Purple" are comparable to those recommended by GLSEN.

"We are not talking about 'The Great Gatsby' or 'The Grapes of Wrath' here," he said. "A lot of people who have only read the news and opinion pieces on this story, without reading the actual excerpts, may think that we are talking about the kind of sexual content that might, in a film, earn a PG-13 or R rating. We are not."

We certainly aren't talking about The Great Gatsby or The Grapes of Wrath. Weren't they both written before the 1940s?

But mostly I was glad to be able to throw out some very pertinent quotes in the articles:

"This is ridiculous guilt-by-association ... just another moral panic thought up by people who don't have any legitimate reason to oppose Jennings, so they've made a mountain out of molehill."

Of course some of the right-wing blogs might not think so. I've already seen one exclude the defenses of Jennings in the article and focus on the charges. 

You just can't convince some people of anything.

UPDATE - Apparently there is supposed to be a "witness" who claims that Jennings was at the conference where the supposed "Fistgate" incident took place. The witness also claimed that Jennings was aware of the incident that took place at the workshop. But there are two problems of a minor and major category with this witness. Jennings may have given an address at the conference but there is no proof that he was at the workshop in which the incident took place. 
 
And the big problem - we don't know a thing about the witness. It was a "taped" interview with an "anonymous" ex-teacher. For all we know, it could have been a member of Mass Resistance or a person dragged off of the street and paid. It's the same as taping an anonymous person accusing someone of murder. No court in the world would think that such evidence is admissible and the same goes for this nonsense.