Know your LGBT History - Partners

The 1982 movie Partners is one of the single most ugly movies about the gay community I have ever seen.

There is no other way to put it. To label it as a "hot mess" would be too kind. In the immortal words of Bart Simpson - "I never thought it was possible for something to suck and blow and the same time."

Partners was supposed to be an action comedy starring Ryan O'Neal and John Hurt as two policemen who go undercover as lovers in the gay community to find a possible serial killer of gay men.

Laughs a plenty, huh?

The hook is that O'Neal is a super macho heterosexual man while Hurt is a mousy, quiet gay man afraid of his shadow. Apparently he is not only a desk clerk but also totally oblivious of the fact that everyone knows that he is gay.

Are you laughing already?

The whole point of the movie is supposed to an evolution of O'Neal's character from uncomfortable homophobia is somewhat acceptance of gays, but that falls flat because there are absolutely no positive gay characters in this movie. None whatsoever. The gay men are either spooky, oversexed, violent, so stereotypically nelly that they cry at the drop of a hat or worse - all of those characterizations at once. The only gay characters seen in a positive light is only due to the fact that they have very little screen time.

Even when the movie tries to send a message (via an absolutely nasty scene in which the police humiliate a gay man by making him walk naked to his cell), it falls flat. It's just one more indignity in a movie full of indignities.

The worst thing in the movie has to be Hurt's portrayal. He is just hideous and constantly bears an expression on his face that says "oh brother, I just have to keep thinking about my paycheck to get through this shit." And he really should have known better. In 1975, he received critical acclaim for his awesome portrayal of gay icon Quentin Crisp in The Naked Civil Servant. Why he chose to make a 360 degree turn and do this movie is one of the greatest mysterious of life. Anyhow, here is a scene from Partners:



Past Know Your LGBT History Posts:

NAACP to talk about gay issues and other Friday midday news briefs

NAACP Talks LGBT Issues - The NAACP will be holding a first ever town hall meeting about gay issues. Panelists will include Wanda Sykes Hall and Julian Bond. All I can say is it's about time!

Right-Wing Activist Says Homosexuality Creates "The Most Violent Societies" - Hallmarking yet again why the charges of the religious right about "in your face homosexuals" is bogus. I mean come on - what other groups of Americans have to deal with being called all of these names by someone who will hide behind religion?

NYT feature: Young New Yorkers united for marriage equality - 14 very good reasons why we are going to win this argument.

REPORT: Pentagon to Certify "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Repeal Today? - Just in case you haven't heard THIS news.

Maggie Gallagher's hypocritical whine about corruption

Sunday will be the day that gay couples in New York will be able to legally marry. And naturally the National Organization for Marriage isn't happy about it. The organization has planned protests across the state.

Maggie Gallagher, NOM chairwoman, conducted an interview with the American Family Association's One News Now talking about the situation. And if you ask me, based upon what she said, Gallagher is fortunate that lightning didn't strike her during interview:

She (Gallagher) reports that her group is hearing from "voters all over the state ... [who] are really upset, not only about marriage, but about the lying, the deceit, [and] the flip-flopping. It's really a symbol of the corrupt, insider politics which has dominated Albany for years and is now reaching a new height," Gallagher laments.

Is Gallagher for real? How can she whines about the "deceit" of the NY legislators while her organization are guilty of the following offenses:

sent out mailers and commercials claming that gays are using the marriage argument to corrupt children,

 unsuccessfully tried to skirt disclosure laws in six states in an attempt to hide its donor list,

cynically played the black and gay communities against one another,

gave misleading testimony during a Congressional hearing on DOMA,

knowingly faked an argument about legal scholars bothered by the NY law for marriage equality, and

is presently teaming up with the Minnesota Family Council to stop marriage equality in the state in spite of the fact that the organization claims that gays engage in bestiality, pedophilia, and the consuming of bodily wastes.

If Gallagher wants to talk about deceit, she should look to the organization she helped to start. If it weren't for deceit and corruption, NOM wouldn't have any victories to speak of.

Family Research Council is mad at Sen. Al Franken

The Family Research Council is furious at how Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) rebuked Focus on the Family's Tom Minnery during yesterday's DOMA hearing.

Franken called out Minnery for distorting a 2010 Health and Human Services study to make the case that two-parent heterosexual households are better at raising children than same-sex households:

The study in question, published by a division of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department in 2010, found better health outcomes among children in nuclear families – a point Minnery, senior vice president for public policy, said means children are better off with straight, married parents.

But Franken pointed out that the study’s definition of “nuclear family” does not specify the gender of the parents in such families, suggesting a lack of evidence that same-sex couples’ kids are less healthy than the children of straight couples.

In an email, Family Research Council head Tony Perkins said:

Homosexual activists are gloating over an exchange Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) had with Tom Minnery (of Focus on the Family affiliate CitizenLink) at yesterday's hearing on a bill to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Minnery had cited a December 2010 federal study which showed that children raised in a "nuclear family" have better health outcomes. Franken, however, triumphantly noted that a "nuclear family" was defined (in part) as one headed by "two parents who are married to one another"--not two opposite-sex parents. But did Franken forget the law he wants to repeal? DOMA says, "In determining the meaning of . . . any ruling, regulation, or interpretation o f the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States , the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

Since this was a federal study published by a federal agency based on a federal survey conducted by federal (Census Bureau) employees, its definition of "married" is bound by DOMA. Even if, by chance, the interviewers or authors violated that law, the survey data was collected from 2001 to 2007. During that time (and only from mid-2004 on) there was only one state (Massachusetts) in which homosexual couples could "marry." The vast majority of homosexual couples raising children fall in the categories of "unmarried biological or adoptive family," "blended family," or "cohabiting family"--all of which have poorer outcomes for children than the traditional "nuclear family."

Seeing that the Family Research Council had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of this study, Perkins's words are moot.

The words of the lead author of the study, Debra L. Blackwell, Ph.D.,on the other hand, has more credibility. And she said Franken was right:

The survey did not exclude same-sex couples, said Debra L. Blackwell, Ph.D., nor did it exclude them from the “nuclear family” category provided their family met the study’s definition.

The study’s definition of nuclear family is: “one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents of all the children in the family.”

That means the study does not provide evidence that straight couples’ children necessarily fare better than same-sex couples’ kids, as Minnery claimed.

Perhaps in this case it would have been better for Perkins to pretend that the exchange between Franken and Minnery never happened.

Good thing for the gay community that Perkins doesn't have that much restraint.

Related post - Tom Minnery's lies are commonplace in religious right data

'Gay barbarians' glitterbomb Bachmann's clinic and other Thursday midday news briefs

Gay ‘Barbarians’ Demand Ex-Gay ‘Discipline’ From Bachmann Clinic - Marcus Bachmann's clinic gets glittered.

Tom Minnery, you were wrong - The author of the study that Focus on the Family's Tom Minnery distorted has issued a public statement. And guess what she said . . .
  
What a difference - a look at the 1996 DOMA debate on the Hill - It stings a little but it's still good to look back. They wouldn't dare say that crap now.

DOMA: Keith Olbermann Recaps Senate DOMA Debate With Evan Wolfson - And now to add perspective, a look at how things are now.

 Center For Military Readiness Criticized For Lax Oversight- An anti-gay group having tax problems. Doesn't the group know that paying your taxes is the Christian thing to do?

Latest Response Rally Endorser: The Antichrist Is Gay - Aw heck, my cover has been blown!

Lawsuit Challenging Anti-LGBT Environment in Minnesota’s Anoka-Hennepin School District - Excellent news!

Christian Post article misses the point about 'bigots'

The Christian Post recently came out with an article asking how can Christians who stand against marriage equality not be called "haters" and "bigots."

But based on who the article chose to quote, it seems that those at The Christian Post missed the point:

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies with the Family Research Council, believes that Christians need to make it clear that they are motivated by love.

"I think that's kind of the major challenge that we face,” he commented to The Christian Post. “We in the pro-family movement ... those of us who are Christians, we know in our hearts that we are motivated by love, not hate. The definition of love is not that you let people do whatever they want.”

Bear in mind this is the same Peter Sprigg who said he would like to see gays exported from the United States.

The article conveniently did not mention that.

And Sprigg also said he thinks "homosexual behavior"  should be criminalized, which is another point the article omitted.

Lastly, Sprigg has been known, on occasion, to manipulate legitimate studies about the gay community to totally distort their meaning. Of course the article omitted that point.

The article also quoted "professional ex-gay" Greg Quinlan:

But what worries Greg Quinlan, president of the Pro-Family Network, is that many Christians aren't standing in opposition to gay marriage for the sake of getting along with those on the other side of the debate.

"I am intolerant,” he said, “but I don't hate. Yes, there is a difference ... We have to turn the definitions around."

"Christians have to understand how to tell the truth in love, but it isn't love until you tell the truth. Now, we have to not be concerned about what other people think of us. We have to stop trying to be nicer than Jesus."

Of course the article didn't talk about the following comment by Quinlan at last year's "Truth Academy," which was run by another supposed Christian, Peter LaBarbera:

“I wasn’t your flaming faggot, you know. I can say that because I’ve been there and done that. You know, the one’s whose wrists are so limp that when the wind blows they slap themselves in the face. I wasn’t one of them,” Quinlan said, as the small audience chuckled.

Maybe it's just me but if you are writing an article about why some "Christians" are considered as "haters," and then omit details about the anti-gay behavior of the "Christians"  whom you freely quote in the article, you are doing a half-assed job of addressing the issue.

This is the second article in two weeks which seems to intentionally avoid the true issue as to why some "Christians" bear the label of "haters" when it comes to gay equality. Last week, an "interfaith" website, Beliefnet, attacked the Southern Poverty Law Center for designating several religious right organizations as hate groups. Beliefnet made it seem that SPLC "unfairly labeled these groups as "haters" because they "merely" disagreed with gay equality. The site did not talk about how the organizations spread propaganda and lies about the gay community.

While the article by The Christian Post did not attack SPLC and did mention the exact reasons why it named certain religious right organizations as hate groups, it did not go into enough detail before opening the floor to representatives of these groups to ramble on about how much they "love" gay folks. And the irony is that it was printed the same day in which a supposed "pro-family" expert was busted in front of Congress for misrepresenting a study to make the case against same-sex households.

Until true Christians address those in their midst who spread lies about the gay community - i.e. we recruit children, we are diseased ridden monsters out to destroy American society, we have a short lifespan, we have lots and lots and lots of sex, we want to wreck the idea of marriage, we want to "force people to accept us" - they should expect the labels of "haters" and "bigots" to be thrown not only with frequency, but also with accuracy.

Tom Minnery's lies are commonplace in religious right data

Focus on the Family's Tom Minnery

The big news today is about the DOMA hearing and how Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) called out Focus on the Family's Tom Minnery for his distortion of a study.

Minnery cited a Department of Health and Human Services study to make the case that children do better in a heterosexual household as opposed to a same-sex household. Franken, however, proved that Minnery had distorted the study's wording.

While everyone is reveling (with good reason) in this pivotal moment from the hearing, let's not forget one thing.

What Minnery did was not an anomaly. His distortion was not a one-time thing from a lazy employee of an otherwise honorable organization.

Minnery's misreading of study in order present a bad picture of same-sex households is commonplace in religious right data. Often times, religious right spokespeople will cite studies which have nothing to do with same-sex households in order to claim that these households are not the best place to raise children.

Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage committed this grievance last year by misrepresenting a study of abused children.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council committed the same intentional faux pas earlier this year by citing two studies, neither having anything to do with same-sex households,

And we're not just talking about studies regarding households, either.When groups like Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, or the National Organization for Marriage aren't busy scaring people with how the gay community wants to "recruit children," they busy themselves distorting all sorts of legitimate data, creating conclusions that the researchers never intended or worked for.

We know this because at least 11 of these researchers complained about this. They include:

National Institute of Health director Francis Collins, who rebuked the right-wing American College of Pediatricians for falsely claiming that he stated sexual orientation is not hardwired by DNA.

Six researchers of a 1997 Canadian study (Robert S. Hogg, Stefan A. Strathdee, Kevin J.P. Craib, Michael V. Shaughnessy, Julio Montaner, and Martin T. Schehter), who complained in 2001 that religious right groups were distorting their work to claim that gay men have a short life span.

The authors of the book Unequal Opportunity: Health Disparities Affecting Gay and Bisexual Men in the United States (Professors Richard J. Wolitski, Ron Stall, and Ronald O. Valdiserri), who complained that their work was being distorted by Focus on the Family.

University College London professor Michael King, who complained that the American Family Association was distorting his work on depression and suicide in LGBT individuals

University of Utah professor Lisa Diamond, who complained that NARTH (the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality), a group which also share board members with the American College of Pediatricians, distorted her research on sexual orientation.

Dr. Carol Gilligan, Professor of Education and Law at New York University, who complained that former Focus on the Family head James Dobson misrepresented her research to attack LGBT families.

Dr. Kyle Pruett, Ph.D., a professor of child psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine, who has also complained that Focus on the Family distorted his work.

Dr. Robert Spitzer, Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, who has consistently complained that religious right groups distorted his study to claim that the LGBT orientation is easily changeable.

 Judith Stacey, Professor of Sociology at New York University, who has had to, on more than one occasion, cry foul over how religious right groups distorted her work on LGBT families.

Greg Remafedi, Professor  at the University of Minnesota, who has complained several times about how religious right groups such as the American College of Pediatricians and PFOX have distorted his work, all to no avail. The American College of Pediatricians refused his request to remove his work from their site.

And late last year, John Horgan, a science journalist and Director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, became the 11th researcher to complain.

These are the reasons why many of us are celebrating Franken's dressing down of Minnery. It revealed to so many what a lot of us in the gay community have known about the religious right for years - that all of their talk about "morals" and "values" and "personally held religious beliefs" are a dodge. They are a smokescreen which these organizations use to hide their deceptions.

When it comes to the gay community, the vast majority of religious right studies and data have been fallacious distortions designed to exploit fear, not educate.

It's not unintentional. These folks - Maggie Gallgher, Peter Sprigg, James Dobson, et. al. - know that when they misrepresent studies, particularly in front of Congress, they are committing fraud but they don't care as long as they can get away with it.

After today, however, it will be more difficult for them to get away with it.