Maggie Gallagher, NOM should simply stop being such liars

Today's Know Your LGBT History has been pre-empted because apparently Maggie Gallagher and the National Organization for Marriage think that gay people are stupid.

Yesterday I posted that Equality Matters caught the National Organization for Marriage putting a post on its blog which used the work of the discredited researcher Paul "gays stuff gerbils up their rectums" Cameron.

Equality Matters also pointed out that this sort of thing is the standard for NOM. On its blog and on the blog of its affiliated group - The Ruth Institute, NOM posts links to pieces either showcasing anti-gay propaganda or junk science designed to demonize the gay community, especially in terms of our interaction with children.

Apparently attention to this fact must have really bugged NOM because today, former chairwoman Maggie Gallagher posted a piece on the group's blog which basically said that just because NOM puts something on its blog doesn't mean that its endorsing the work:

Some in the gay blogosphere are trying to assert that NOM--or me--endorses the view of every blogger/article NOM links to, by the act of linking to it.

This would lead to the absurd conclusion that NOM endorses the editorial positions of the New York Times, because NOM links to them--or The Advocate for that matter, as we often link to stories in the gay press.

If you want to know what NOM's message is, there are abundant videos and press stories (including our own press releases) with me, or Brian Brown, or other NOM personnel actually speaking. Fair enough to criticize us for what we actually believe and say.

The standard "a link constitutes an endorsement" would cut off the free flow of ideas at the knees.

 I would like to say personally that nothing in any argument I've ever made on gay marriage, rests on the idea that same-sex couples harm their own children at any higher rates than any other family form. (If there is data that shows this, I've never seen it.)

Excuse me? Apparently Gallagher must think that we are stupid. Passing along information about the gay community which you know to be inaccurate and incredibly stigmatizing is not the "free-flow of ideas."

It's lying. You can't explain it away and you certainly can't sugarcoat it.

And when you put it front and center on your blog, you are in fact endorsing it because you want people to see it. And you want people to link to the piece in question.

Maybe I shouldn't be so abrupt with Gallagher. She was always a poor spokesperson. Remember this part of her piece:

If you want to know what NOM's message is, there are abundant videos and press stories (including our own press releases) with me, or Brian Brown, or other NOM personnel actually speaking. Fair enough to criticize us for what we actually believe and say.

Okay, how about when Brian Brown told the following lie at a New York rally early this year:

" . . . kids as young as kindergarten are taught in Massachusetts that their parents are bigots because they believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman."

Or how about the time earlier in 2010 when Gallagher cited a study about abused children to make the case against marriage equality even though no same-sex couple took part in the study.

 Or how about when NOM blanket states with flyers designed to imply that gays want to use marriage equality to corrupt the innocence of children. Flyers like so:

Or how about now when NOM is teaming up, even as I speak, with the Minnesota Family Council, a group which spreads inaccurate information via its site that gays engage in pedophilia, bestiality, and the consuming of urine and feces.

Of course Maggie Gallagher doesn't attack same-sex couples.  She simply leaves those nasty actions to the groups NOM aligns itself with and then plays stupid when these groups are caught in the act.

If that's not bad enough, Jeremy Hooper  from Goodasyou.org points out several other things:

For starters, we could talk about the times you, Maggie, called homosexuality an "unfortunate thing" and "at a minimum, a sexual dysfunction much as impotence or infertility," suggested gays "can always control their behavior," called on a sitting President to give more research dollars to "ex-gay" research, or talked about the "several kinds of sins" that both gays and their supports commit every time they support marriage equality. Then we can go from there. 

You see this is why so many lgbtqs cannot stand Gallagher or NOM. It's bad enough that they are trying to take away our rights. It's bad enough that they demonize us, our children, and our families on a daily basis.

But absolute final straw is when NOM - and Gallagher - have the audacity to lie to us that they mean us no harm when we see their weapons for our destruction plainly behind their backs. And they aren't even trying to hide them.

The lgbtq community knows the difference between a kiss in the lips and a kick in the chops and Gallagher's piss poor explanations to the contrary are fooling no one.

'Did NOM's Brian Brown assault reporter at Gingrich event?' and other Friday midday news briefs

As we all know, the National Organization for Marriage is cozying up to various Republican presidential candidates, including Newt Gingrich.

And apparently because of that, we have the following footage of an incident which took place when a recent Gingrich fundraiser. Allegedly, NOM's president, Brian Brown, attacked a reporter, Andy Kroll, from Mother Jones - a progressive magazine - and shoved him out of the room when Occupy protesters appeared. From Joe.My.God comes a segment of the Keith Olbermann show with the reporter in question talk about the incident along with video footage. The part about Brian Brown begins at 3:12:



Pull your eyes from the lovely video of Brian Brown making an idiot of himself on camera (again) to ponder the irony that his organization thinks that gays and lesbian wanting to protect their relationships and families are the biggest threats to marriage, while a thrice divorced politician is it's savior

In other news:

Perry’s Staff Divided Over ‘War On Religion’ Ad - Rick Perry's gay staffer opposed a homophobic ad. What's wrong with that sentence? The fact that a gay person would work for such a man.

Malawi To Review “Bad” Laws - Hopefully a positive effect of the Obama Administration's new policy.

Faith-Based Group on Troy Mayor Controversy: 'Enough is Enough' - The mayor of town makes a nasty statement about gays, faces a backlash, and now some folks are sticking up for her. The poor thing. Her religious liberty to call gays "queers" (in a negative connotation of course) has been violated.

“I no longer identify as a Christian . . .” they write - A good friend of mine is fed up with phony cries of "Christian persecution coming from the religious right.

Woman files lawsuit because she can't harass transgender customers

Unbelievable. Earlier this week, I post a piece about a Macy's employee who was fired for harassing a transgender customer. Today, we learn more details about this case because she is now suing:

Natalie Johnson is a 27-year-old student and, until last week, worked at the River Center Macy's.

On Nov. 30, a teenager shopping caught her attention.

"I made sure to keep an eye on him because he was shopping for women's clothing," remembered Johnson.

She said she was convinced the shopper was a man. So when she saw him in the women's dressing room, she told him he couldn't change there.

"I had to just straight forward tell him, 'You're a man,' and of course that made him really got him steamed," said Johnson.

But the group of people he was with supported the shopper, arguing Macy's policy allows transgender people to change in the fitting room of the gender they associate with.

"I've made my choice the other day," Johnson told her manager. "I refuse to comply with this policy."

Johnson said she was let go.

Johnson filed a complaint with the Federal Employment Commission, claiming her religious beliefs prevent her from recognizing transgender people.

"There are no transgenders in the world. A guy can dress up as a woman all he wants, that's still not going to make you a woman," said Johnson.

There are so many things to be said about this. First of all, I refuse to believe that this woman filed this lawsuit on her own volition. Someone, or rather some organization talked her into it. This woman has no case because she admits that she refused to comply. The religious belief argument is a dodge. No one was attacking her religious beliefs. She was the aggressor. She was the violator. If she had a problem, she should have stepped aside. No one was forcing her to be in the dressing room (aren't dressing rooms usually confined to one person anyway) with the customer?

I mean what's next? Should harassing same-sex couples or same-sex couples and their children in stores be protected under the false umbrella of  "religious liberty?"

This woman felt that she was above following the policies of her employer and found out that no, she was not.


No doubt the organization - and I bet it's the Liberty Counsel -  that pushed Johnson into filing this lawsuit hopes to exploit people's fears about the transgender community and the lie about "men being able to invade women's bathrooms," etc.

But I think this going to backfire. This frivolous lawsuit demonstrates just how hollow the claim of "religious liberty" by the religious right are. It's obvious that "religious liberty" to some of them means the liberty to give us hell.

Those who are steaming over this - and you should be -  should forget making this woman the onus of your anger. She is nothing more than a tool. Email Macy's and send the company your support for standing up for our rights and dignity. And most of all, tell Macy's to not back down.

Related posts:

Macy's stands up for the lgbtq community

Why I get a nagging feeling every time I hear the phrase 'religious liberty' 

NOM is now pushing the discredited work of Paul Cameron

NOM is now pushing P. Cameron's discredited work

You all knew that this would happen sooner or later.

From Equality Matters:

Earlier today, Equality Matters reported that the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) Ruth Institute was endorsing a book that claimed, among other things, that gay parents are more likely to molest their own children than heterosexual parents.

Now, NOM appears to be doubling down on that claim – and this time on its main blog.

In a December 8 blog post, NOM promoted an essay posted on the “Bad Catholic” blog titled “Two Lesbians Raised a Baby and This Is What They Got...” The essay – written by blogger Marc Barnes – is a response to a video of an Iowa man speaking eloquently in defense of his two moms, which recently went viral. 

Referring to the video as “false advertising,” Barnes attempts to lay out the case for why gays and lesbians aren’t fit to raise children:

• Gay couples are less likely to stay together
• Gay couples don’t want to get married
• Gay relationships are more likely to be violent/abusive

Near the end of his essay, Barnes makes an argument which is apparently becoming NOM-dogma – gay parents molest their children at higher rates than heterosexual parents:

Similarly, the children of homosexual parents are much more likely to be sexually abused. The journal Adolescence reports that a “disproportionate percentage—29 percent—of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent…. Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50″ (P. Cameron and K. Cameron, “Homosexual Parents,” Adolescence 31 (1996): 772.).

That's right.  Barnes - and NOM, since it is featuring Barnes' piece -  is now pushing the work of the discredited Paul "gay stuff gerbils up their rectums" Cameron.

Do the religious right even care about the victims of anti-gay persecution?

Based upon religious right reaction to the new Obama Administration policy regarding worldwide anti-gay persecution, one has to ask do these so-called followers of Christ have any problem with rape, "honor-killings," and murder if these actions are done to gays.

It sounds harsh to say that but what other opinion can one gauge after reading the words of religious right talking heads such as

Peter LaBarbera:

Homosexuality -- once widely regarded as a Crime Against Nature -- is no more a "fundamental human right" than any other sexual sin.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council:

It is startling that President Obama is prepared to throw the full weight and reputation of the United States behind the promotion overseas of the radical ideology of the sexual revolution.

Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel and radio show host Janet Mefferd:

Mefferd: Here’s a question I had too. In all the stories I was reading yesterday about this directive, in none of them did I see any break down of statistics on the number of homosexuals and transgenders worldwide who are being tortured, persecuted and killed for being gay, have you seen any statistics like that?

Barber: Of course not, it’s nonsense. It’s Orwellian New Speak.

These folks aren't stupid. They're willfully ignorant. And sad.

Now in some cases, in between the verbose adjectives about "sexual anarchy" and claims about how the Obama Administration is trying to" impose sexual madness" on other countries, came a spattering of pronouncements about how it was "awful that these things are happening" and how "no one should condone violence." (LaBarbera's press release didn't even have the good taste to do this.)

It seems to me that the all of the huge declarations, the adjectives of disgust should be aimed at the plight of the victims.

But these folks are so concerned with demonizing homosexuality that the victims of anti-gay persecution are merely an afterthought to them.

Victims like:

Nathaniel Cunningham, who was chased out of his home in Jamaica by an anti-gay mob.

Noxolo Nkosana and Noxolo Nogwaza who were both stabbed and raped by groups of men in South Africa. Nkosana lived. Nogwaza was murdered and her face and body was disfigured.

 Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni who, in 2005, were publicly executed in Iran for being gay after a trumped up charge of sexual assault.

And these are just a few of many. People like them, innocent gays and lesbians caught up in hateful cultures, are the people the Obama Administration is seeking to help.

But God forbid that the religious right even acknowledge the plight of these people. God forbid that these holier-than-thou folks be accused of  pushing the so-called gay agenda.

The absolute nastiness of these folks is best demonstrated by LaBarbera's last comment in his press release:

All Americans who love God and respect His wonderful design for mankind should be ashamed of Obama's and Hillary's campaign to force a deeply flawed sexual ideology on innocent nations that do NOT want to emulate American decadence.

Someone should tell LaBarbera that you can't talk about God's "wonderful design" while intentionally covering up the act of devils.

'Rick Perry anti-gay ad is a disaster on youtube' and other Thursday midday news briefs

Marriage Criminalization Bill Introduced In Nigerian House - In response to the Obama Administration's new policy, the Nigerian legislature is playing the "bricks without straw" game. We all know how that ended when the Pharaoh played it against Moses.

Occupy Rick Perry: He is the 2% - Rick Perry's gay bashing ad is a disaster for his campaign. How nice.

Gay Servicemembers Tell Rick Perry To Get His Facts Straight Before Running Ads That Slam Them - Yep! A TOTAL disaster.

Va. man surrenders in Vt. lesbian custody case - Slowly but surely, the noose is tightening around the religious right regarding Janet Jenkins/Lisa Miller case. I am guessing that certain members of a certain religious right group are wetting their pants in fearful anticipation.

Iowa’s Influential Social Conservative: Gingrich Convinced Us He ‘Asked God’s Forgiveness’ Over Affairs - How convenient . . . and phony as hell.

Religious right exploits Christian ignorance

Let me be clear on something.

I generally have no problems those who feel that based on their religious beliefs, homosexuality is a sin.

Despite the public buzzword to the fact, neither I nor a vast majority of the lgbtq community is looking for "tolerance." We are not looking for approval. We just want what should be afforded to us as tax-paying Americans - the right to live our lives not defined by someone else's standards of how we are or fevered imaginations about how we may engage in sexual intercourse.

You don't have to approve of me. Just don't stand in the way of me getting what belongs to me.

I have very deep problems with organizations like the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage. I have severe issues with people like Tony Perkins, Peter Sprigg, or Maggie Gallagher.

I feel that these folks are not only deliberately spreading distortions and propaganda against the gay community, but also deliberately exploiting the ignorance of some Christians.

A perfect example of what I am talking about is what happened last night. My piece, Attacks on Obama Administration policy shames Christianity, published here, Pam's House Blend, and The Huffington Post generated some blowback. One young lady felt compelled to write me. Another young lady also felt compelled to respond on a comment board.

What was compelling about the two response was how alike they were. Both were struck by the stories of the lesbians in South Africa being raped in order to try and change their orientation.

Both women condemned the practice.

Both women then threw the standard religious right phrasing at me about how it was "wrong to elevate homosexuality into a human rights issue."

And both women were shocked speechless when I informed that they were doing just that - "elevating homosexuality to a human rights issue" by condemning the practice of women being raped for being lesbians.

It left me thinking. If these women had abandoned the religious right buzzwords and dogma about the "gay lifestyle," they would have found common ground with me. They probably would have still thought of homosexuality as a sin, but they would have still understood not only the President's actions, but also the plight of gays worldwide.

It saddens me to think that not only these two women, but many other folks are led possibly led astray by people like Gallagher and Perkins and that many other people are also swayed against their gay neighbors by junk science studies and inaccurate anecdotes of spooky gay people all propagated to feed on their fears and religious beliefs.

It's a shame to realize that maybe we can actually all get along if it weren't for some people.