Analyzing and refuting the inaccuracies lodged against the lgbt community by religious conservative organizations. Lies in the name of God are still lies.
$30K Raised For Man Charged With Assisting Lisa Miller - Really not a surprise. I have no doubt $30,000 is there and I have no doubt that more is forthcoming. But I do doubt the notion that a lot of this money, if not all of it, was sent it by folks concerned about this man's well-being. My guess is that the same folks involved with keeping Janet Jenkins away from her daughter are the same folks footing the bill here.
Navy revokes guidance on same-sex marriages - Ugh. For one brief shining moment, it was Camelot. This is why voting is important folks. The religious right still has enough sway in Congress to buffalo stuff like this.
2. Maggie Gallagher of NOM unsuccessfully tried to refute the claim during an interview. She finally asked the interviewer to ask NOM's president Brian Brown about the claim.
A third reason doesn't necessarily come from NOM but someone they worked with in defeating the progression of gay marriage in Maine.
Marc Mutty, chairman of Yes on 1, said the following about the usage of hyperbole about school curriculum in an upcoming documentary on the vote:
Transcript:
We use a lot of hyperbole and I think that's always dangerous," says Mutty during a Yes on 1 strategy session, at the time on leave from his job as public affairs director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine.
"You know, we say things like 'Teachers will be forced to (teach same-sex marriage in schools)!' " he continues. "Well, that's not a completely accurate statement and we all know it isn't, you know?"
"No," interjects a woman off-camera. "We don't say that."
"Let's look back at our ads and see what we say," Mutty persists. "And I think we use hyperbole to the point where, you know, it's like 'Geez!' "
Later, Mutty tried to recant his statement, but he danced around what he originally said about hyperbole.
No matter how angry I get when the lgbt community is slandered by people like Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, and NOM; no matter how many lies are told on us by organizations like the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, no matter how many times elected officials who are supposed to look after our best interests kick us aside, I wouldn't trade places with these folks for anything in the world.
I sometimes feel sorry for them for so many reasons.
One reason is that they delude themselves into thinking that their efforts can somehow stop marriage equality permanently. The reality is that every victory they get is a mere postponement of the inevitabilty of marriage equality. The polls are on our side, the momentum is on our side, and most importantly, the youth of America (who will make up the next voting generation) are on our side. And you can only postpone the inevitable, but you can never stop it from happening.
The second reason is their ability to turn their backs on their own integrity. Mutty is a prime example of that. His admittance that he knew what they were lyng in Maine is sad. It probably wouldn't be if Mutty and his ilk could find a verse in the Bible which condones lying and bearing false witness in the name of God. Unfortunately for them, such a verse doesn't exist.
The third reason is that these folks have to look at themselves in the mirror after knowing what they have done.
And if when they look in the mirror, they fail to realize just how much their behavior and their lies trivializes their religious beliefs, morals, and values - well that would be reason number four that I pity them. Related posts:
According to Jeremy Hooper from the blog Goodasyou.org, the National Organization for Marriage is fighting against the possibility of same-sex marriage in the state of New York by running a commercial ad it used in 2009.
The commercial claims of "dire consequences" if same-sex marriage is approved in New York.
However, one of those "dire consequences" was proven to be a lie. Starting at .07 is the following claim:
Massachusetts schools teach second graders that boys can marry other boys.
That claim is an alteration of an original claim NOM made that kindergartners were "being taught about gay marriage in Massachusetts."
In February of this year, the Pulitzer Prize winning site PolitiFact called out the National Organization for Marriage for pushing that misleading statement.
At the time, NOM was fighting the passage of same-sex marriage in Rhode Island. The organization sent out brochures claiming:
"Massachusetts’ public schools teach kids as young as kindergartners about gay marriage. Parents have no legal right to object!"
During the investigation of this claim, PolitiFact talked to:
Christopher C. Plante, executive director of the Rhode Island Chapter of NOM,
Kris Mineau, executive director of the Massachusetts Family Institute,
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.
PolitiFact concluded that NOM's claim was inaccurate:
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.
So other than changing the grades of the children, NOM is still pushing a misleading implication that "being taught about gay marriage" is part of the Massachusetts school curriculum.
In the commercial aimed at New York, NOM also cites the story of children in California attending the gay wedding of their teacher as yet "another danger" of gay marriage. However, NOM conveniently omitted the fact that parents gave their children permission to attend this wedding.
The irony of NOM's commercial is that earlier today, the organization announced a $500,000 ad campaign geared to stopping the passage of gay marriage in New York.
NOM's tactics are more sophisticated, but they still add up to the lie told by Anita Bryant regarding children and "gay recruitment" when she led opposition against a Florida pro-gay ordinance in the 70s
No doubt the organization figures if pushing the implication of "gays recruiting children" worked for Bryant, then why can't it work for them.
Especially in light of the fact that NOM has more money to finance this lie.
The National Organization of Marriage today announced that it is spending $500,000 on a new ad and lobbying campaign to oppose same-sex marriage in New York and will spend $1 million to support Democratic State Legislators who cast their votes to defend the traditional definition of marriage and oppose any Republican Legislators who vote to redefine marriage.
“It’s become quite clear in recent days in New York that Governor Cuomo and same-sex marriage advocates are targeting a select number of Democrat state Senators, as well as some Republicans in their desperate attempt to coerce legislators to support their agenda,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM. “We want to be sure those courageous Democrats and Republicans who cast their vote of conscience in favor of traditional marriage will have a strong supporter if the radical gay activists come after them in their next election.”
I found the following part of the press release to be very interesting in light of how NOM called HRC "bullies" for its role in keeping the law firm King & Spalding from defending DOMA.
NOM pledged to vigorously oppose in their primaries any Republicans who support gay marriage. NOM previously played a leading role in defeating former Representative Dede Scozzafava in her Congressional primary bid. NOM has a long history of defeating Republicans who support same-sex marriage. They led the campaign to defeat Bill Binnie in New Hampshire and Tom Campbell in California US Senate primaries last year, and defeated legislators in Minnesota and New Hampshire who supported same-sex marriage there.
I guess things are different from when you are "bullying for Jesus."
NOM should be advised of the Biblical verse about how "pride goeth before a fall." To wit, this bragging by Brown of NOM's dedication in New York will no doubt raise questions regarding NOM's not-so clean, very questionable history regarding its ethics and its history of trying to sidestep state disclosure laws, which has gone hand-in-hand with NOM's "victories" against marriage equality. It's already happened six times.
A Christian organization fighting for the sanctity of a "noble entity" like marriage shouldn't have such a spotty history. I would like to know just what is NOM hiding.
When the National Organization for Marriage and the Minnesota Family Council spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on ads promoting a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions last fall, the groups should have reported those expenditures, according to a complaint filed with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board earlier this month. The complaint, which focuses on ads launched throughout the 2010 campaign cycle in support of gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, asks for financial penalties as well as an audit of NOM’s spending in Minnesota.
The filing by Common Cause Minnesota alleges that the Minnesota Family Council — and in particular its lobbyist, Tom Prichard — failed to report lobbying expenses related to several ads. Since the ad urged the public and legislators to act on legislation, in this case a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, it constitutes lobbying, the group argues in the complaint. The ads in question include references to an actual bill, SF120, and were created and distributed in partnership with NOM.
Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage claims that the organization has no animus against the lgbt community. They claim that the organization is only interested in "protecting marriage."
Gallagher herself has asserted on more than one occasion (usually in mainstream interviews or in public hearings but hardly ever when being interviewed by members of the religious right) that she has no problems with same-sex couples.
It's passive/aggressive nonsense. And that is NOM's game plan. Unlike other organizations such as the Family Research Council or the Traditional Values Coalition, NOM tries to make itself seem like a "kindler, gentler" opponent of marriage equality, i.e. lgbt equality in general.
But it's like what I have said when talking about Mike Huckabee - sometimes the most dangerous form of homophobia is wrapped in a soft glove.
AG Eric Holder Refuses to Enforce Federal Immigration Rules on Marriage, Invites NJ to Redefine "Spouse"
In what's being called an "extraordinary" intervention, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder vacated a Board of Immigration Appeals decision last week and asked the Board to reconsider a case concerning a foreign-born man facing deportation who acquired a New Jersey civil union with another man, who is an American citizen:
[AG Holder] inquires if, DOMA Section 3 not withstanding, there is any New Jersey state law that would grant the men the right to be considered spouses. He goes on to ask whether, absent of DOMA, the couple fulfills all other criteria that would grant the foreign-born partner the term spouse under the Immigration and Nationality Act... --Care2
The case NOM is talking about is a recent one involving a married gay couple in which one is not a United States citizen and therefore is facing deportation:
The couple, Josh Vandiver of Colorado and Henry Velandia of Venezuela, were married in Connecticut and live in New. Jersey. On April 20, Soloway received a notice from the chief counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that "termination of [Velandia's] removal proceedings would not be appropriate at this time because "the Attorney General released a statement in which he indicated that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) 'will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch'" -- despite Holder's decision in that same statement that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.
Soloway and others have argued, however, that the discretion given to the executive branch in its enforcement of immigration law allows it to exercise the discretion to put those cases on hold while challenges to the constitutionality of DOMA can be resolved.
Had the couple been heterosexual, the marriage would have been enough to keep deportation from taking place.
Notice what the NOM did. It just put out a tad bit of information. No making judgements. No comments about how this hurts marriage. No mean words.
Like a stereotypical mafia chief, NOM leaves all of that dirty work to those who support it by way of the comments section below the post. A few comments are as follows:
Wow. Is there really that much money flowing in from homosexuals to waste taxpayer money on this? Keep it up, Holder; November 2012 is coming soon.
This administration has less respect for democracy and law than any administration in history. If you don't like a law personally, simply ignore it.
Heh. I thought SSM activists keep saying that gays will uphold and strengthen the tradition of marriage by Only Getting Married For The Sake Of Love And Faithfulness and not, say, marrying for wealth, fame, or U.S. Citizenship.
. . . Now another reason why SSM hurts is becasue they can marry in a state like CT, and use that marriage to violate the laws of another state, and to violate the US immigration laws.
Holder should resign.
And there you go. NOM's hands are clean. Why should it be blamed for the words of those who support the organization's efforts?
A new documentary looks at the black-gay civil rights divide by centering on Massachusetts Rep. Byron Rushing (D) during the commonwealth’s push to legalize same-sex marriage. The African American legislator eloquently weaves the two movements together in the 15-minute film. Following a screening of the movie last month, I moderated a panel discussion at Aaron Davis Hall in New York City that looked at the marriage equality push in New York state from a black perspective. The panel was filled with luminaries, including media and fashion mogul Russell Simmons. But the star of the event was a soft-spoken man named David Wilson.
In the film, Wilson tells the heartbreaking story about the death of his then-partner. The trauma of finding him lying in the driveway. The terror of being arrested by the police on suspicion of breaking and entering or assault and battery before neighbors convinced police otherwise. The indignity of being denied information by the hospital because he was a legal stranger to his partner. Only after his partner’s 75-year-old mother told the hospital who Wilson was did they inform him that his partner of 13 years was dead on arrival.
Wilson swore he’d never go through that again. And he would find love again. In 2003, he and Rob Compton became one of the seven same-sex couples to sue for and win the right to marry in the 2003 landmark Goodridge vs. the Department of Health case.
In the panel discussion, Wilson gives a powerful reason “to put a black face on the Marriage Equality movement," including this heartbreaking passage of what happened at his church when he came out at age 37:
I was married to a woman, had three beautiful children and finally came to terms with being gay at the age of 37. My ex-wife and three teen age children supported my coming out process as did my Mother and Father. My mother met with her pastor to ask for his support and to also ask that he stop preaching hatred from his pulpit. My mother and father had been a member of their Black church for over 40 years but the pastor said he could not support her or me. My mother was forced to leave her church because she could not bear the hurtful messages delivered every Sunday. When my mother had a heart attack 15 years later with five subsequent congestive heart failures, she came to my house for her final 11 weeks under hospice care. She asked me to call her home church Pastor to ask him to come and [have] prayer with her. He refused and sent his associate pastor. When my mother passed away, she wanted to be buried from her home church but her pastor agreed to the funeral but refused to allow me to deliver my mother’s eulogy. After an all-out effort by my mother’s flower club, deaconess board and ladies club, he reluctantly agreed that I could deliver the eulogy from the lowest of the three pulpits, which I was willing to do for my mother.
After my mother’s funeral, my dad never went back to his or any church with the exception of the day that he attended my legal wedding to my husband, Rob Compton. Dad was 89 and could not have been more proud of our role as plaintiffs in the Massachusetts marriage law suit which resulted in the right for us to marry.
