Will the Family Research Council ever fulfill its promise and address SPLC's charges?

"We will be preparing a more detailed response to Cohen’s charge that FRC spreads “falsehoods” in our well-documented research, which does show that certain harms are associated with homosexual conduct." - Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council on December 22, 2010 in response to the charges from the Southern Poverty Law Center and SPLC president J. Richard Cohen that FRC uses propaganda and inaccurate science - i.e. studies taken out of context - to smear the lgbt community.

Dear Peter, I know that you are busy speaking in Rhode Island and Maryland against gay marriage - probably following the same modus operandi which got you into trouble with SPLC in the first place - but if you aren't too busy, do you think that either you, Tony Perkins, or anyone else from FRC can respond to SPLC's charges like you said you would?

It has been almost two months. SPLC specifically laid out the demonizing claims you make about the lgbt community including:

Homosexuals molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals,

Same-sex parents harm children, and

Homosexuals don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals.

No one wants to silence you despite of your claims to the contrary. In fact, we want to hear what you have to say about these charges.

So start talking. We await with baited breath.

Why is it taking so long for you to respond?

Gay teacher reaches nice settlement with district and other Monday midday news briefs

Gay Teacher, District Reach $75K Settlement - A happy ending as far as I am concerned. But check out the comments under the article. Folks, when someone says he or she is an lgbt, it is NOT an automatic description of sexual intercourse. It's sad when folks have that mindset. The student asked why the teacher could not marry and the teacher was honest with him.


Fischer and the AFA Try To Weasel Out Of Their Latest Outrage - No you don't boys. Enjoy your medicine.

"Family" group sacrifices child security on the altar of anti-gay animus - And this surprises us because?

Sherrod Sues Breitbart For Damaged Reputation - Not necessarily an lgbt issue per se but SOCK IT TO HIM, SHIRLEY!

Why don't the Family Research Council support actual family issues?

In the realm of much ado about nothing but it may mean something comes this item from the Family Research Council:

In a statement released this morning, Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) introduced legislation that will protect the integrity of parent relationships between mothers, fathers, and their children.  This comes in light of the State Department announcing that it would be changing the passport applications to be “gender neutral” by replacing “mother” and “father” with “Parent 1” and “Parent 2.”

H.R. 635, Rep. Forbes’s bill, would require that all federal agencies use the words “mother” and “father” when describing parents in official documents and forms.  Forbes said:

“Symbolism is important and this legislation seeks to preserve the sacred relationship mothers and fathers share with their children.  Referring to parents as “Parent 1” or “Parent 2” on official government documentation is a bureaucratic attempt to redefine traditional parent roles.  These subtle, but nonetheless significant, changes undermine the traditional American family relationships that have served as the bedrock of our nation since its inception.”

However, there is a question that remains.  Why is the Obama Administration forcing the need for such legislation?  After all, traditional family values should be accepted and encouraged in our society.

Notice the semantics here. The Obama Administration is "forcing the need for the legislation." And nowhere in FRC's writings is there an acknowledgment of same-sex households.

Personally I don't see the problem with the "Parent 1" and "Parent 2" label. It is merely a change to underscore the fact that not all families have the "mother/father" image. I refuse to use the word "traditional families" because the phrase is a nonsequitir, i.e. something obviously thought up in a boardroom as a way to allow organizations like FRC to avoid having to mention same-sex households while making themselves sound like heroes for defending so-called "traditional morality."

And FRC - and Forbes - underscores just how much they don't care about families at all in this useless fight.

In 2003 the Gay and Lesbian Task Force came out with a report showing that while organizations like the Family Research Council claim to support marriage and the family, their focus is not on issues that would protect the family:

The Family Research Council, a $10 million-a-year group that “shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family,” had 203 documents on its website containing the word “homosexual,” only 39 containing the word “divorce,” 37 with “poverty,” 26 with the words “domestic violence,” 18 with the words “health insurance,” and only two with the words “child support.”

Eight years later, I doubt things have changed.

Forbes's bill is nothing but useless symbolism. As for FRC, they don't care how many families are this close to the soup lines and  poor houses.

Just that those families fit the "mother /father" classification.

Know Your LGBT History - Hotel

Hotel was a 1980s anthology series which dealt with the comings and goings at a ritzy hotel.

In the annals of lgbt television, it should be remembered for two reasons.

The first reason is just simple gay trivia. The legendary Bette Davis portrayed the hotel owner in the original made-for-television movie. However, she was too ill to continue in the series, so the producers got Anne Baxter.

For those of us up on our lgbt movie history, Anne Baxter and Bette Davis both starred in the legendary 1950s movie All About Eve in which Davis portrayed an aging Broadway star while Baxter played the ruthless ingenue determined to replace her.

Now the second reason why Hotel should be remembered was for its lgbt storylines and there were many. Some were good, while others plain stunk.

Unfortunately the following isn't one of the good ones. I'm sure the producers meant well but this storyline in which Jan-Michael Vincent finds out that his Navy buddy, Boyd Gaines, is gay was awful on so many levels.

Vincent refuses to accept his Navy buddy, even after Gaines is bashed by a homophobic street gang. The gang tries the same thing with Vincent and he beats the crap out of them.

However, the ending is not a happy one. Vincent still refuses to accept his former friend and ends the friendship.

Okay, first of all, couldn't Gaines have gotten a shot in on the gay bashers? His character came across as a wimpy so-and-so. I mean wasn't he in the Navy?

And secondly, that ending. Would it have killed the writers to have Gaines not look so forlorn? How about a "okay, your ignorance is your problem, not mine" moment from Gaines.

Couldn't they have given Gaines at least a little gumption?




Past Know Your LGBT History postings:

Is GoProud about to be stabbed in the back and other Friday midday news briefs

GOProud undeniably won one. But what about 'one-two? - I don't really care for GoProud but it's obvious that they are about to be shafted here. Come on now - yesterday conservative blogger Erik Erikson whines that GoProud is being mean to other conservatives. And then the head of the group sponsoring CPAC just happens to echo Erikson's mess. Typical game-playing from some of those on the right.

Colorado: officer resigns - posted hundreds of racist, homophobic comments on news sites on the job - As an lgbt of color, that makes me feel sooo safe.

Mills 'tracked by armed cops for being gay'- How very NOT SURPRISING. Homophobes in Uganda try to have an international journalist arrested for "being gay."

Dallas Couple Meets at ‘Ex-Gay’ Ministry and Marries - This awesome story is an excellent way to end today's news briefs

PolitiFact catches anti-gay group NOM in a huge lie about gay marriage and children

The Pulitzer Prize winning site PolitiFact just called out the National Organization for Marriage for pushing a misleading statement.

And it's a huge lie - one that is central to the organization's argument against same-sex marriage:

In early January, just days after Lincoln Chafee replaced Donald Carcieri as governor of Rhode Island, advocates on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate ramped up their annual battle.

This year, the fight is taking on new intensity because, while Carcieri vowed for eight years to veto any bill to legalize gay marriage, Chafee supports it.

Recently, a leading opponent, the National Organization for Marriage, mailed brochures throughout the state that included the headline: "Imposing same-sex marriage has consequences." The brochure listed four "real consequences" of "redefining marriage to a genderless institution."

We chose to examine one of the claims: "Massachusetts’ public schools teach kids as young as kindergartners about gay marriage. Parents have no legal right to object!"

We contacted Christopher C. Plante, executive director of the Rhode Island chapter of NOM, who told us that many schools in Massachusetts -- where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004 -- have books on the subject in their libraries.The "poster child," he said, is a picture book called "King & King," by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland.

The book tells the story of a queen who decided it was time for her son, the prince, to marry. He rejects every princess she offers. Finally the last candidate enters, and the prince feels "a stir in his heart." But it was for the princess’s brother, Prince Lee.

The two marry, and the book says "everyone lives happily ever after." On the last page, the two princes kiss, with a red heart covering their mouths.

PolitiFact said that when they asked for examples of where this book is being taught to kindergartners, Plante referred them to Lexington, MA:

  . . .two couples -- David and Tonia Parker and Robert and Robin Wirthlin -- filed a federal lawsuit against Lexington school officials. The suit alleged that the Parkers’ son was given a book in kindergarten that depicts various forms of families, including one with parents of the same gender. And, the suit said, when the Wirthlins’ son was in first grade, he was read another book,  "King &King," in school.

PolitiFact went on to recount the Parker/Wirthlin lawsuit (a more in-depth version of the David Parker controversy is here) but was still not receiving any answers regarding the claim that "gay marriage is being taught to kindergartners in Massachusetts."

Plante referred PolitiFact to Kris Mineau, executive director of the Massachusetts Family Institute. The Massachusetts Family Institute is another so-called pro-family group. This is what Mineau told Politifact:

Mineau said he has been fighting same-sex marriage advocates for eight years and he is certain their message is being spread in schools throughout Massachusetts.

But he acknowledged he could not cite any examples other than Lexington. "I don’t have documentation of everything going on," Mineau said. "It’s very difficult to quantify."

Mineau also claimed that the outcome of the Parker/Wirthlin case (Parker and Wirthlin lost) supposedly "discouraged" parents from complaining.

PolitiFact then spoke with Jonathan Considine of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Curriculum, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and Thomas Gosnell, president of the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts.

All of these groups and individuals said that they were not aware of any school, classroom, or situation in which gay marriage is being taught to kindergartners.

Politifact concluded thusly:

Bottom line: The National Organization for Marriage mailing says that Massachusetts public schools teach kindergartners about gay marriage. The wording, including the present tense verb, gives the impression this is happening now, in many schools.

But the group’s only evidence is two incidents five years ago. It’s possible that somewhere, in one of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts, other kindergartners have been taught about same-sex marriage. But NOM couldn’t cite any other examples. We find its statement False.

PolitiFact is the same site which called out Sarah Palin for her "death panel" lie and also the Republican party for claiming that the Obama Administration was pushing a "government takeover of health care."

Both of these claims received the PolitiFact Lie of the Year for 2009 and 2010, respectively.

Depending on the reach of its claim, it's obvious that NOM's lie regarding "gay marriage being taught to kindergartners in Massachusetts" may be a front runner for the 2011 Lie of Year.

My bottom line - NOM either needs to back up its claim with some suitable proof or take back what it said and apologize for misleading people.

Hat tip to my online buddy Bob Barnes for pointing the article out to me. I took the liberty in bolding the word "false" in the PolitiFact statement.

Watershed moment for gay marriage in Maryland?

I read the following about lgbt families via Goodasyou from Jennifer Roback Morse. Morse is affiliated with the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage and she was testifying against allowing same-sex marriage in Rhode Island:

"When slavery was abolished, all slaves became free men and women. When women obtained the right to vote, the discrimination ended with the very next election. But for children of same sex marriage, the situation will be different. When we come to our senses 30 years from now and realize that we have perpetrated a grotesque injustice, not a single child born fatherless or motherless within a same sex marriage will get his missing parent back. Only prevention will protect children’s rights.

The thin disguise of marriage equality will not mislead anyone, nor will it atone for the wrong this day done"

Is it just me or is that rhetoric a tad nasty when it comes to same-sex families.

Perhaps it isn't just me. We are learning that it was rhetoric just like that which made a Maryland State Senator, Jim Brochin, recently change his vote from opposing same-sex marriage in the state to supporting it. He released this statement to the press:

“What I witnessed from the opponents of the bill was appalling.” Brochin said. “Witness after witness demonized homosexuals, vilified the gay community, and described gays and lesbians as pedophiles. I believe that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather people are born one way or another The proponents of the bill were straightforward in wanting to be simply treated as everyone else, and wanted to stop being treated as second-class citizens.

Brochin added, “For me, the transition to supporting marriage has not been an easy one, but the uncertainty, fear, and second-class status that gays and lesbians have to put up with is far worse and clearly must come to an end.”

What's happening here is simple. When the right first began attacking same-sex marriage in 2004, the understanding about it was a bit simplistic. They were able to exploit people's ignorance by terming it as selfish homosexuals wanting to redefine marriage.

However, fast forward to 2011. People are starting to realize that same-sex marriage is not about lgbts wanting to "force affirmation." It is about love. And most of all, it's about family.

Lawmakers in Maryland were able to see and hear from real families who are affected positively by marriage equality. And what did the folks on the right have to oppose this? A bunch of hypothetical statements tuned to sound logical, but really amounted to the demonization of lgbt persons and families - a three dimensional personification of truth vs. lies, if you will.

Personally, I am all for it. When truth faces up against lies, sooner or later, truth wins.

And it's about time, too.