Southern Baptist Convention doesn't know the meaning of the word 'irony'

Yesterday, the Southern Baptist Convention recently elected its first African-American president.

From The Washington Post:

When the Southern Baptist Convention met Tuesday, it elected its first African American president, Fred Luter Jr., a former street preacher and current pastor of a church in New Orleans’ Lower Ninth Ward.

Luter’s election marks a watershed moment for the SBC. The organization was founded in a split over slavery before the Civil War and for decades was a largely segregated, all-white denomination. It was not until 1995 that the organization adopted a resolution of racial reconciliation; it has come under scrutiny for racial insensitivity as recently as the Trayvon Martin case, when the president of its policy arm made racially charged comments about the case.

But the election of Luter will not be, at least primarily, about fixing the sins of the past. Rather, it will be about the future of an organization that has seen declining membership for five straight years. The denomination—the largest Protestant body in the United States—will need to seek new growth from urban centers and minority groups, or at the very least, maintain its size by helping struggling churches find ways to stay afloat. “I think they thought racial diversity would happen,” Ed Stetzer, the president of the SBC’s research organization, told the Associated Press. “Now they realize they have to make it happen,” he said.

I would probably applaud the SBC except for the following from The Associated Press:

 A day after electing their first African-American president, Southern Baptists were considering a resolution Wednesday opposing the idea that gay rights are the same as civil rights.

The resolution up for a vote at the denomination's annual meeting in New Orleans affirms Southern Baptists' beliefs that marriage is "the exclusive union of one man and one woman" and that "all sexual behavior outside of marriage is sinful."

It acknowledges that gays and lesbians sometimes experience "unique struggles" but declares that they lack the "distinguishing features of classes entitled to special protections."

"It is regrettable that homosexual rights activists and those who are promoting the recognition of 'same-sex marriage' have misappropriated the rhetoric of the Civil Rights Movement," the resolution states.

So let me get this correct.  An organization (the Southern Baptist Convention) which started over the question of slavery - it was for it -  and was heavily segregated during the Civil Rights Movement has now its first black leader and but is also presently thinking about passing a resolution accusing gays of  misappropriating the rhetoric of the Civil Rights Movement; a movement started in part because folks like the people in the Southern Baptist Convention justified the treating of black people as inferiors.

The irony boggles the mind, but it does justify an old saying.

You can't put a new auto body around a crappy engine and expect it to perform.

'GoProud sells out gay community for press coverage' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Purportedly pro-LGBT civil rights conservative org GOProud endorses Romney - No GoProud, endorsing Mitt Romney doesn't make you look edgy. It makes you look elitist, out-of-touch with your own community, and stupid. It's the equivalent of putting your head in the mouth of a hungry lion and then not expecting the lion to chomp down.  

Here you go: LGBT rights advances under President Obama that President Romney could undo - Just a reminder of how severe the bite of that lion can be. And remember that Romney did sign that National Organization for Marriage pledge.  

A Gay Couple weds at NYC's Midtown Comics Store - Go ahead. You know you want to say it - "Aw how cute!" 

 Obama is Not a Christian Because 'the Bible is Very Clear About Homosexual Acts Being a Very Evil Thing' - ONLY if they are done very early in the morning. Three a.m. is a very inhuman hour for "homosexual acts."

 Rubio: Society Shouldn’t ‘Tolerate’ Same-Sex Marriage - OH REALLLLLY! As long as society "tolerates" my tax dollars, it should (and will) tolerate my rights. 

Family Research Council destroys study's credibility

Peter Sprigg

The anti-gay parenting study authored by the University of Texas professor Mark Rengnerus just received another kiss of death aside from condemnation from social scientists.

Apparently the Family Research Council loves it.

FRC spokesman Peter Sprigg wrote a long love letter to the study, having this to say at the conclusion:

 The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever.

Of course that statement is strange, seeing that Regnerus - for all of the faults in his work - clearly said the study does not establish a relationship between same-sex parenting and negative outcomes (see point 2 in the Equality Matters link).

Also, according to the online publication The Daily Beast emphasis added:

In his Slate essay, Regnerus preemptively defends himself against  . . . criticisms with a limited interpretation of the results. “We didn’t have as many intact lesbian and gay families as we hoped to evaluate, even though they are the face of much public deliberation about marriage equality,” he writes. The results reflect on a previous generation of gay parenting, before the legalization of gay marriage in some states, he writes. “I’m not claiming that sexual orientation is at fault here, or that I know about kids who are presently being raised by gay or lesbian parents. Their parents may be forging more stable relationships in an era that is more accepting and supportive of gay and lesbian couples.” Regnerus says his study’s political implications are unclear and are not intended to undermine the legal parental rights of anyone.

But Sprigg has an interesting way of overlooking Regnerus's caveats. This is what he says:

While the Regnerus study is a vast improvement over virtually all the prior research in the field, it still leaves much to study and learn about homosexual parents and their effect on children. Author Mark Regnerus emphasizes the traditional caveat in social science, warning against leaping to conclusions regarding "causality." In other words, just because there are statistical correlations between having a homosexual parent and experiencing negative outcomes does not automatically prove that having a homosexual parent is what caused the negative outcomes--other factors could be at work.

This is true in a strict scientific sense--but because Regnerus carefully controlled for so many other factors in the social environment, the study gives a clear indication that it is this parental characteristic which best defines the household environment that produces these troubling outcomes. The large number of significant negative outcomes in this study gives legitimate reason for concern about the consequences of "homosexual parenting."

In other words, Sprigg is saying "Hey, the study does not say that same-sex homes causes negative behaviors and I won't say that they do either, but since the large number of significant negative outcomes in this carefully controlled study come from same-sex households, by all means feel free to make that assumption."

Herein we see the futility of Regnerus's caveats. Sprigg not only pushes them aside, he does it without apology, as does several other religious right groups and websites who are already claiming that Regnerus's study proves that same-sex households are somehow dangerous towards children.

I guess they didn't read Regnerus's caveats regarding causation. Or maybe, like Sprigg, they just don't care because they now have something which they can use against the gay community, caveats be damned.

Therein lies the immediate danger of Regnerus's work. It's not about science nor the slow process of coming to the conclusion about a social issue through research. It's about the impact of shock headlines and the assumptions that people like Sprigg and organizations like FRC will invite others to make; assumptions designed to denigrate same-sex households and distort images of the gay community before anyone has a chance to delve deeper into the issue.

I seriously wonder if Regnerus knows what he has gotten himself into with this. I also would suggest that Regnerus, if he is truly to be believed about the objectivity of his study, should step in and forcefully speak against the use of it to demonize same-sex households and the lgbtq community in general.

If he speaks out, we will know where he stands regarding the assumptions the religious right is making about his work.

If he is silent then I guess that will still let us know where he stands, won't it?

The danger of laughing at homophobia

We need to gain perspective on things when it comes to homophobia. For example, look at this video of a Los Angeles pastor at a pride parade claiming that gays eat human wastes:



It's hilarious, isn't it?

Then again, check out another scene just like it. From Youtube:

In this scene from Vanguard's "Missionaries of Hate," correspondent Mariana van Zeller attends a press conference during which Pastor Martin Ssempa shows graphic gay porn to a room full of international journalists. Mariana traveled to Uganda to learn more about the growing influence of American religious groups has led to a movement to make homosexuality a crime punishable by death:

Our struggle for equality is worldwide.  Let us realize that what may be funny to us is death to our brothers and sisters across the waters. It's something to remember that no matter how ludicrous homophobia may seem, don't spend so much time laughing that you forget how dangerous it truly is.

'Hate group leader embarrasses himself with attack on gay blog' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Game on, Tony Perkins! FRC leader attempts to smear me, draws more attention to his own smears - Hilarious! Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council has accused my blogging pal Jeremy Hooper of distorting quotes in order to "smear" an NC pastor. As proof of the charge, Perkins pulls up the quotes Hooper supposedly distorted, proving that not only Hooper was accurate but Perkins has to be either clueless or "on that stuff" when he chose to initiate this war.

  Uganda Police Raid Gay Rights Meeting - Our brothers and sisters in Uganda need our prayers.

 Romney: Kids Are Better Off With Straight Parents - Speaking of someone else clearly "on that stuff." I thought he was FOR gay adoption a while back.

 NOM Launches Full Court Press For Discredited Gay Parenting Study - Raise your hands those who are surprised over this. Anyone? Anyone?

 Linda Harvey Dubs Same-Sex Relationships 'Pathetic' and 'Lifeless' - Poor Linda. She is having no fun so she tries to keep others from having fun. 

NOM helping to create bad hysteria about same-sex families, gay marriage

Editor's note - Today begins Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters' "March to One Million." In less than a month, this blog will have it's 1,000,000 hit. Not bad for a part-time blog, huh? Seriously though, on the right side of the blog are what I deem are some of the best postings of Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters during its five and a half year run. Feel free to read as many as you like.

Last Saturday, the National Organization for Marriage linked to a UK Telegraph article pulling the hysteria act about marriage equality:

UK Telegraph: Teachers Could be Forced to Promote Gay Marriage in Classrooms

Parents will be powerless to prevent their children being taught about gay marriage at school if ministers press ahead with plans to legalise the move, it has been claimed.

Aidan O’Neill QC has provided the Catholic Church with a legal opinion stating that equality laws mean teachers will be forced to emphasise the validity of same-sex marriages.

Mothers and fathers with “traditional and often religiously-based views” will be “hard pressed” to insist that their offspring are educated in line with their convictions, he said.

The Catholic Church in Scotland, which commissioned the opinion, said it raised the prospect of classrooms being “flooded” with teaching materials promoting gay marriage.

Although the opinion considers the position in Scotland, where Alex Salmond’s administration is expected to legalise same-sex marriage, it is thought it could apply south of the Border where David Cameron is planning to do the same.

It's fascinating the language used in this article. How does one "promote" gay marriage? Is talking about the fact that gays can marry the same as "promoting" it?

We are dealing with some serious semantic mind games here. The mindset seems to be that if marriage equality is legalized, then schools in the UK will be forced to talk about gay marriage. And of course through NOM's osmosis, this should send a scary message when it comes to allowing marriage equality in this country.

It's so easy to manipulate people through fear and the thought of their children being harmed has to be one of the biggest fears of many.

But in this case, there is really nothing to fear.

I don't think that I am making a wild guess when I say that children from same-sex households already attend UK public schools just like they attend American schools.

So if there is a worry that talking about marriage equality would mean talking same-families and homosexuality, then I got news for NOM and the Catholic Church in the UK:

Discussions about marriage equality AND homosexuality AND same-sex parenting are already happening in schools in the UK and America. Children from no matter whatever household they come from tend to talk about their families.

And these discussions should continue. Are children from same-sex households supposed to be quiet about their families as if they don't exist?  Are they supposed to be ashamed of their families? Of course not.

It always amazes me when folks like NOM and others pull the "our children will be corrupted" riot act, they always omit the simple but crucial facts that same-sex families exist,  their children attend public schools, and these children will not and should not be ashamed of their families.

The omission is deliberate and it says more about NOM and others allegedly attempting to "save children" than it does about the idea of marriage equality.

The next time gays are accused of being 'drama queens . . '

From Right Wing Watch:

Last month, the Family Research Council hosted its annual "Watchmen on the Wall" conference in Washington DC and, in conjunction, organized a press conference where event speakers would gather to announce their support for the Defense of Marriage Act.

Among the speakers at the press conference was Jim Garlow, who took President Obama to task for saying that his Christian faith played a role in his support for marriage equality.  Declaring that anyone can call themselves a Christian but still be ill-informed, biblically illiterate, and even an apostate, Garlow offered Obama a lesson in "Basic 101 of Christianity" to set him straight that marriage has always been, and always will be, a union between on man and one woman.

Garlow then closed out his remarks by likening those opposing marriage equality today to Revolutionary War pastors who fought the British because, just like them, these Religious Right activists are are willing declare "if necessary, here we die!"

Throughout history, people have been willing to die in defense of their country and from religious persecution (which in all honesty, no one can call marriage equality religious persecution because isn't being forced to marry another man), but there has to be a special type of individual who will put his life on the line to justify his ego.

Come on Garlow and the rest of you guys! It doesn't even have to come to that. If you don't agree with marriage equality, you don't have to come to my wedding. Nor do you have to bring a gift.