Nice try Peter LaBarbera, but no dice

Sometimes it's nice to see folks like Peter LaBarbera twist in the ropes of their own nonsense.

Earlier this week, Peter took it upon himself to expose an alleged upcoming sadomaschistic hotel orgy.

Just one problem - this alleged event seems to have been heterosexual, which would not big deal in the matter except for the fact that LaBarbera has, in the past, made a name for himself by going to gay subcultural events such as Folsom Street Fair, taking pictures and posting them on his webpage, and going on talks shows decrying about how "gay culture" is indicative of these events.

In this case, Peter seems to have out trumped himself. Lgbts have nothing to do with this upcoming event.

So what does he do now?

A. Let the situation die out, allowing it to add another dubious chapter to his reputation as Porno Petey.

B. Admit that he has been unfairly generalizing about all lgbts based on the alleged behavior of some gay men at a subcultural event?

C. Try to link this heterosexual orgy to lgbt culture irregardless of the fact that the orgys's very existence negates all of the bullshit he has been spouting about gays in the past.

If Peter had done anything but "C," I would have admired his new found maturity.

But, as I have come to expect from him, Peter picked the choice that not only deepens the wound but makes me wonder just how low can his reputation sink.

LaBarbera is actually trying to link this heterosexual event to lgbt culture by claiming that we "led the way" to sexual misconduct:

While homosexuals certainly cannot be blamed for the entire, sordid Sexual Revolution, the “gay pride” (GLBT) movement has paved the way for a perversion explosion among “heterosexuals.” For if it’s perfectly acceptable for men to sodomize other men in the name of “love” — and lesbianism and bisexuality and now transsexuality to be treated as OK (while it’s NOT OK to judge them as wrong) — then what on earth is stopping other perverts like Tristan Taormino (above left) from pursuing the same popularity and acceptance? And ditto for “poly rights” in the law.

So a bunch of heterosexuals decide a big sadomaschistic orgy in a hotel and it's not their fault. It's the GAYS who put the idea in their heads. It's the GAYS who started the entire thing.

I don't know what's funnier. The idea that LaBarbera actually believes this stuff or his insistence to sneak something about gay sex into the piece.

Sometimes I think he dwells on sodomy more than gay men.

If LaBarbera keeps this up, I'm going to have stop posting about him.

Exposing the lies of the religious right is one thing but dwelling on a man who seems to be melting down in the contradictions of his own nonsense is something else entirely.

And I'm not that sadistic to give an audience to it.

A lesson in evasion brought to you by One News Now.

But first, some news briefs to tide you over on this Friday.

Gay lawmaker says she was left off family committee in Missouri

Obama's faith-based council includes openly gay appointee

Fundie message to young people of color: thou shalt not master your domain

And now, my friends, I present to you the difference between good report and partisan spearing:
From One News Now - Hilda Solis - another 'taxing' embarrassment for Obama?

From Reuters UK - Obama labor secretary-nominee faces tax questions

Now the issue in question has to do with tax liens put on the business of Solis's husband.

This is how Reuters UK addressed the issue:

The White House indicated Solis was in a different category, with spokesman Robert Gibbs saying she was not involved in her husband's business and should not be punished for the tax lapse.

"We reviewed her tax returns and her tax returns are in order," Gibbs said. "She's not a partner in that business, so we're not going to penalize her for her husband's business mistakes."

Asked if Solis' husband paid the taxes at the prompting of the White House, Gibbs said: "I think he paid the liens back because he owed the taxes. ... The White House believes that if you owe taxes, you should pay them. But at the same time, this obviously is a business that she's not a partner in and we're not going to hold her responsible for."

This is what One News Now says about the issue:

Hans von Spakovsky, a visiting legal scholar at The Heritage Foundation, says it is hard to believe Solis was not aware of the tax liens while she was profiting from her husband's business.

"I think there is a problem when we have a recurring pattern here. You know, she says that she doesn't know about these tax problems. She also failed to reveal on those same disclosure forms that she was the treasurer of this outside organization, which I think is kind of a little bit difficult for her to not remember or really claim she made a mistake," he contends. "If it wasn't a recurring pattern, there might be more credibility to that claim -- but I think this is an accumulating problem that she has."

There is no word on whether or not One News Now even tried to seek a response from the Obama Administration.

Also, I find it highly ironic who the phony news site chooses as a legimate person to cite in this article. Spavoksky isn't exactly an objective individual.

But apparently he is adequate enough for One News Now.

The state of Christianity in this country is SAD.

What the hell is wrong with ABC News

First, a continuation of the post from yesterday.

It appears that despite the wranglings, press releases, hyperbolic nonsense, and the intervention of Senator Jim DeMint, the religious right lobby against part of the stimulus package that they say discriminates against Christians has failed:

Right Wing Zombie Lies Fail in Senate February 5, 2009 - God Bless America.

This next issue isn't exactly lgbt related per se, but it gives a good reason why it's difficult for us to win the p.r. argument:

ABC: Obama Is Hypocritical For Limiting Wall Street Pay While Having A ‘Lavish Lifestyle’:

Yesterday, President Obama instituted a pay cap on bailed out businesses after it was revealed that Wall Street doled out an estimated $18.4 billion in bonuses last year. “If the taxpayers are helping you, then you’ve got certain responsibilities to not be living high on the hog,” he explained.

In what appears to be an attempt to call Obama a hypocrite, ABC’s Scott Mayerowitz “reports” today that the President also has a “lavish lifestyle.” Under the title: “Obama’s Perks: Private Jet, Chef Tax-Free,” ABC notes that Obama earns $400,000 dollars a year and even has a private jet

Unbelievable. And here I thought Obama was the President of the United States and leader of the free world who will constantly be on call for at least four (I'm hoping eight) years.

Must have been my mistake.

The big question is will the religious right and other conservatives actually run with this article? Or will they show restraint for a change.

The religious right and the precision of their lies

Earlier this week, while I speculated on the power of the religious right echo chamber, People for the American Way did me one better.

The organization is following an actual case demonstrating just how the religious right is able to successfully push distortions and lies.

The following increments is taken from PFAW's Religious Right Watch:

ACLJ Demands Non-Existent Threat Be Stripped from Stimulus Bill - Feb. 3, 2009 - The right wing American Center for Law and Justice inaccurately claims that President Obama's stimulus package contains a threat to religious activities on colleges and universities.

DeMint Lends Voice to Bogus Controversy Over Stimulus Bill - Feb. 4, 2009 - My Senator from South Carolina, Jim (gays shouldn't be allowed to teach) DeMint gets involved.

Bogus Stimulus Outcry Grows as Liberty Counsel and TVC Hop on the Bandwagon - Feb. 4, 2009 - the Liberty Counsel and the Traditional Values Coalition get involved. Also, the lie gets a shout-out from Fox News due to this unbelievably biased framing of the issue - "Democrats in Congress have declared war on prayer, say conservative groups who object to a provision in the stimulus bill that was passed by the House of Representatives last week. "

ACLJ's Zombie Lie Becomes Official Right Wing Talking Point - Feb. 5, 2009 - Now the Family Research Council gets involved.

The Zombie Lie Lumbers On - Feb. 5, 2009 - And now the Christian Anti-Defamation League get involved. You remember that group, don't you? They were the ones who accused President Obama of bashing Christians simply because he has a different view of the religion.

Sen. DeMint Spews Zombie Lies on Senate Floor, Compares Opponents to George Wallace - Feb. 5, 2009 - And now, Senator DeMint has been handed the ball and he is running with it. By the way, the defintion of irony alert - South Carolina Senator DeMint evoking the image of a racist George Wallace while the Confederate Flag hangs at the SC State House along with a statue dedicated to a virulent racist (Ben "Pitchfork" Tillman) who bragged on the Senate floor about murdering African-Americans.

And that, my friends, is how it is done.

While I certainly can't give the religious right points for integrity, they get a '10' in precision.

See how they lie

Jeremy from Good As You pointed this out and I just want to piggyback on it.

Yesterday, I wrote how Peter LaBarbera is going on another crusade against an alleged bondage/sadomaschistic event at a hotel.

Usually LaBarbera goes after gay subcultural events and tries to use them to generalize about all lgbts.

However, this event in question has to do with heterosexuals, not lgbts. Even LaBarbera's screechings about the event emphasizes this point.

But today comes the news that this doesn't stop World Net Daily from proclaiming the following:

Another homo-sex-fest set for hotel'

Winter Wickedness' to include 'sadomasochistic perversion'

What can you say about a "Christian" news source that will tell such a blatant lie?

Say it with me now - GO AWAY SALLY KERN!

I never did like the controversy regarding Oklahoma legislator Sally Kern.

I didn't like the way she consistently relied on bad information from Paul Cameron and the religious right to make her case that lgbts are as bad as terrorists.

I didn't like the way she hid behind her so-called Christian religion when questioned about her comments.

And most of all, I didn't like how the lgbt community pretty much let her get away with it.

We wasted time speculating on whether or not her son was gay or talking about what Ellen DeGeneres said about the situation. The fact that Sally Kern was a good example of how the religious right flim flams guillible people of faith into believing the worst about lgbts was a point that got lost in all of the controversy.

I was glad when the controversy died down. One wonders if Kern was because she keeps making an ass of herself:

Speaking at the Clouds Over America conference, run and organized by the John Birch Society in Oklahoma City, Kern told a welcoming crowd that she found the elusive gay agenda between the pages of Marshall Kirk's and Hunter Madsen's 1990 book After The Ball: How America Will Conquer Its fear & Hatred Of Gays In The 90s. Its authors mostly argue in 432 pages that gays and lesbians will most likely be accepted once they are liked by the general public.

Oklahoma Gazette, the Oklahoma City alternative weekly, reports Kern spoke to a packed crowd.

“You know,” Kern said, “I've done a lot of reading on this. I wish I could describe to you their behavior. I will not because I would be redder than this suit. It's their behavior that we oppose.”

Here we go again. Gays are following a six point plan to take over America. It's a standard urban legend in religious right dogma.

From time to time, the religious right will claim that the lgbt community is using the book After the Ball as a sort of blueprint to allegedly force acceptance. Then they will point to certain incidents that somehow "connect all of the dots."

To a lot of us, these incidents (i.e. more visibility and a little more acceptance for lgbts and our families) mean nothing more than positive evolutionary steps of the human existence. To the religious right, these steps are the result of planning by a group of evil geniuses intent on conquest.

Apparently they got us mixed up with their efforts to ban same-sex marriage nationwide.

For the record, the vast majority of lgbts have never heard of After the Ball - not that it matters to Kern and folks who agree with her.

The real question is will our community finally bring more attention to the fact that the religious right is intentionally putting out bad propaganda about lgbts?

Somehow I doubt that this will happen.

To some of us, it's much more fun to focus on issues such as Kern's age or weight.

The religious right's Biblically nice rhetoric

First, one little matter.

I noticed Michelle Malkin saying that due to the Tom Daschle situation, President Obama's transition has been a disaster.

Oh stop it already. Like I'm actually shocked that Malkin is criticizing Obama. She would call his State of the Union address a disaster if he coughed briefly while giving it.

If she wants induce shock, she would give President Obama credit for something.

I don't think it's a big deal. Clinton had Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, Bush had Linda Chavez, and now Obama has Tom Daschle.

It happens and it's called getting a feel for the office.

Now onto other matters - I ran across a hilarious bit in One News Now by former Concerned Women for America spokesperson and now director of Cultural Affairs at Liberty Counsel and 2008 Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters Misinformer of the Year Matt Barber.

And what is he talking about? Why lgbt folks yet again in a piece entitled Homosexuality & the laws of moral physics.

So now being a phony expert gives one expertise in "moral physics." I guess it's not enough for the religious right to fake credentials in legitimate sciences; they are now creating imaginary ones.

Anyway, it's a rather long and ponderous piece of mumbo jumbo in which Barber cites Biblical texts talking about homosexuality (and naturally excluding the parts that say homosexuals should be executed, which is highly ironic seeing that he complains about people cherry picking the Bible).

But I noticed what isn't there. Where is the "homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle" lie that I have come to expect from folks like him? Where are the discredited studies or the studies taken out of context?

I know. Wishful thinking.

Paul Cameron and gerbils still have a place in religious right lies about lgbts.

But I think there will be some subtleties played from now on.

This emphasis on the "religious wrongness of homosexuality" will probably be a recurrent theme. And the minute that President Obama tries to push something pro-lgbt forward, count on the religious right to use this theme to get them over in the African-American community.

It's not as farfetched as one thinks. The minute hate crimes legislation or ENDA comes up, expect the religious right to put on their consoling faces and try to be the heterosexual black community's best friend (despite months of inferring that black folks are racists for supporting Obama). Expect them to exploit the idea that black folks are highly religious and therefore disapproves of homosexuality in a high number.

As a black gay man, I can tell you that the notion is bullshit. It's the inability to talk about lgbt issues in the black community that has led the notion to flourish. But that's irrelevant right now.

What will most likely happen next will be the following - the black community will be too proud to admit that it is being used and the lgbt community will be too angry to realize that the religious right is counting on it to behave irrationally. Neither side will unite against the common enemies of ignorance and fear.

This will thereby lead to the end result - black folks will be angry, gay folks will be angry, Obama will be humbled, the religious right will have more press, and lgbts of color like myself will end up feeling like Gloria Vanderbilt after that custody trial.

Geez, I almost miss the Paul Cameronesque rhetoric already.

Maybe we are getting to Porno Petey

Peter LaBarbera is on another one of his crusades about bondage events:

BREAKING STORY — Columbus, Ohio Holiday Inn Hotel Hosts ‘Winter Wickedness’ Perversion-Fest

But this one is different.

LaBarbera is generally known for attending gay subcultural events (such as Folsom Street Fair), taking pictures of the most outrageous things he sees there, and then describing the events as indicative of the entire lgbt community.

So imagine my shock when I see that the event he has attacked this time (wait for it) has absolutely nothing to do with lgbts.

I kid you not. This alleged Winter Wickedness Perversion Fest seems to be strictly heterosexual.

Will wonders ever cease? And it brings up two points.

In the past, when Peter went on his jags about "homosexual perversion," he was accused of unfairly targeting the entire lgbt community. He would never talk about heterosexual subcultural events.

You think maybe he has taken the criticism to heart?

And one other thing. When talking about Folsom Street Fair and the like, he would use the events to generalize about the alleged perversions of homosexuality - thereby inferring that what he took pictures of was indicative of all lgbts, including those who have never attended Folsom Street Fair or any gay subcultural event.

His commentary today was free of such generalizations about the alleged "radical heterosexuals" or how heterosexuals are behind the "perversion of America."

It's an important point to remember when Peter does in fact try to use another gay subcultural event to stigmatize the entire lgbt community.

The religious right and the power of transference

A few minutes ago, I had a say what moment.

A say what moment is when someone says something so unbelievable that it renders you silent for a few minutes with your mouth open in shock.

Who was the culprit of this say what moment? Why my and your favorite anti-gay spokesperson, Peter LaBarbera. In a piece he wrote about the recent Creating Change conference, LaBarbera complains about a speech by Rea Carey of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

One of his points:

. . . thousands of left-wing, grassroots activists attend these annual “Creating Change” conferences; there is no parallel on the social Right for this scale of people and groups working closely together toward common goals. There are precious few organizing and political “how-to” conferences for pro-family conservatives. The Left eats and breathes politics; the Right is more distrustful of government, worse at politics, but more oriented toward God, family and church (the latter is obviously a good thing).

And thus, my say what moment.

Did LaBarbera actually say that there is no parallel on the social Right in terms of conferences and groups working together for their own agenda and the like?

Then what the hell were the Justice Sunday events in which religious right organizations whined about the courts?

Or Vision America, where pastors are "organized" to fight supposed "Godlessness,"

or those unbelievable Values Voters summits.

It's nice that LaBarbera seems to be fearful of lgbt power but his whining about organizations on his side of the so-cultural battle having no power is patently false, or to be less polite about it, a blatant lie.

At any rate, its a perfect segueway to what I wanted to write about today.

It always amazes me when I hear religious right spokespeople and organizations claim that lgbts are following some type of pragmatic plan to take over the country.

We should be so fortunate to be that organized.

I've come to the conclusion that whenever they accuse us of playing James Bond villian games, it's only to cover up just how skillful they plan and organize.

Follow me now:

The Supreme Court rules favorably for lgbts in a certain case.

One News Now, owned by the American Family Association, prints an article (biased, of course) against the ruling and quoting only so-called “pro-family” leaders such as Gary Bauer who claim that the ruling is a travesty on the country.

Other talking heads such as Michelle Malkin write columns falsely claiming that the Supreme Court ruled against them because of alleged biases of the justices. These columns are filtered
to other right-wing publications and blogs.

James Dobson (Focus on the Family) criticizes the ruling on his radio program, as does Tony Perkins (Family Research Council). Other articles are written trying to prove how the ruling will hurt America. More articles are written digging up speeches that the judges made, hinting on flimsy correlations between their ruling and so-called personal biases.

The blogs begin smear the reputations of the judges. Religious right code words (i.e. "activist judges") is repeated in columns, articles, and books.

The Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council, and other so-called “pro-family” groups solicit donations making the claim that either the ruling will doom Christians and will lead to homosexuality being taught “as normal” to children or it will lead to criticizing homosexuality as being designated as a hate crime. They get people of faith who are gullible enough to believe their lies to write letters to their local newspapers (using a script of anti-gay industry talking points.)

Backdoor meetings are held and suddenly, Congressmen friendly to religious right causes begin to cite religious right talking points in speeches and on the floor of Congress.

So-called news programs (Fox News) begin debating whether or not judges have a bias against people of faith.

Talk show hosts such as Mike Huckabee have religious right spokespeople as the sole guests on their shows where they spew talking points unchallenged.

Events such as Justice Sunday fill the airwaves, scaring people of faith about a supposed plot to take away their liberties and their ability to worship.

And then they really begin to organize.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is how planning and organizing is done. And folks like Peter have cornered the market on it.

How to write an anti-gay tract courtesy of Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle Bulletin is a highly useful site that doesn't get all of the props it deserves.

From a complete listing and refutation of Paul Cameron's lies to a break down of how the religious right distorts legitimate studies, Box Turtle Bulletin should be required viewing for all those interested in countering religious right lies.

I ran across something from the site that I think needs more attention.

You ever notice how almost all anti-gay tracts and talking points seem to have the same theme to them? And also how people with no credentials (i.e. Peter LaBarbera, Laurie Higgins, Linda Harvey, Matt Barber) can suddenly be considered "experts" on sexual orientation?

You too can become an "expert" on sexual orientation by following Box Turtle Bulletin's How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps

People should not only read this report, but study it for future reference.

But allow me to break down its main points:

Step 1: Set the stage

Step 2: Talk about sex. A lot.

Step 3: Use plenty of references.

Step 4: Cite authoritative sources, such as national probability-sampled surveys or governmental statistics.

Step 5: Slip in other less reliable “random” surveys.

Step 6: Cite casual surveys.

Step 7: Add behavioral statistics using convenience samples from clinical research, especially STD/AIDS and other medical studies.

Step 8: Manipulate the data.

Step 9: Use your opponents’ words and actions against them.

Step 10: Get really kinky.

Step 11: Cite a threat to marriage and the family.

Step 12: Cite a threat to health.

Step 13: Cite a threat to children.

Step 14: Cite a threat of a societal breakdown.

Step 15: Close on a compassionate note.

Oh sure, there is so much more you can do once you put your imagination to work. There are rhetorical flourishes to explore, strawman arguments to knock down, red herrings to catch and release. You can add guilt by association, urban myths (gerbils anyone?), religious condemnations — these and more, depending on the audience you’re trying to reach. With a little work and creativity, you too can become an “authority” on just about anything.

I tell you, it's easier than baking a cake!

Black History Month - did you think that I would forget

First Michael Phelps, now Christian Bale.

Somedays I am so glad that I'm not famous. You can't get away with anything these days with all of the cellphones and the like that tape your every move.

Somewhere, George Orwell must be laughing his head off.

Anyway, February is Black History Month so rather than dividing identities (which is done so often, unfortunately), I want to take this time to demonstrate just how the lgbt and African-American identities intersect by spotlighting key lgbt of color figures.

You can see a list of figures on the right of this blog, but with this list, I'm adding more detail:

Paul Winfield - Oscar nominee and Emmy award winning actor who portrayed Martin Luther King, Jr. in a 1970s miniseries. Amongst other things, had a successful 30-year relationship with his partner, Charles Gillan, Jr. - something you aren't allowed to hear about when it comes to lgbts of color and relationships.

Barbara Jordan - Congresswoman from Texas from 1973-1979, proving that sometimes good things do come to Washington from Texas. If it weren't for bad health, she would have been the first African-American female and lesbian U.S. Supreme Court Justice. She wasn't open about her orientation but who can blame her with how things were back then? Had a successful 20-year relationship with her partner, Nancy Earl.

Peter J. Gomes - Harvard theologian and author of The Good Book. When people say that there are no visible lgbts of color, Gomes's presence serves as a reminder of just how lazy they are. Visible lgbts of color are out there - you just have to look for them (i.e. that message is for you, BET, Ebony, and Essence magazines).

Wanda Sykes - I've liked Ms. Sykes since the Chris Rock Show and even through the debacle of her own show. Funny though, I haven't heard anything else about her since she came out. Where is the Advocate, if not Ebony. Proof yet again of selective visibility.

Opposing a public official simply because he is gay? Come on guys, you gotta do better than that

It turns out that the man selected to be chief executive of Chicago's public school system is gay.

Pam's House Blend has an excellent breakdown of the article talking about him:

New Chicago Public Schools CEO Ron Huberman has now come out in a profile published in the Chicago Sun-Times. Here is some of the biography:

"Huberman was born in Israel to a family with Holocaust survivors on both sides. When he was 5, his family moved from Israel to Oak Ridge, Tenn., where his father, a scientist specializing in cancer research and cell mutation, took a research job. Seven years later, an offer at Argonne National Laboratories brought the family to La Grange.

At 15, while attending Lyons Township High School, Huberman made a declaration that, at first, was difficult for his parents to accept: He's gay.

"It's always difficult for kids. It was difficult for my parents at first. But they've become very accepting and very supportive," said Huberman, who lives with a partner who's a friend from college. They reconnected four years ago.

The question was inferred as to how long will it be before we will be hearing from the religious right ala phony gay expert Peter LaBarbera and phonier gay expert Laurie Higgins.

The answer is not long:

Chicago Public Schools New CEO Ron Huberman Openly Embraces Homosexual Immorality

I won't even try to recap this piece because the gist of it is short: LaBarbera and Higgins oppose Huberman simply because he is gay.

That's it.

No talk about Huberman breaking the law or engaging in impropriety of any kind. Just a lot of hypothetics backed up by the usual anti-gay nonsense (yadda yadda sexual deviancy, yadda yadda homosexuality being a dangerous lifestyle).

And it strikes me as sad. Someone's personal religious beliefs should have nothing to do with another person receiving a job. You believe homosexuality is a sin? Fine. But that is your belief and it shouldn't dictate whether someone is employed or not.

Huberman should be judged on his credentials, not his orientation. However in all fairness, I think his orientation is a plus. It's a tremendous psychological boost for lgbt children to know that he exists. He could be seen as a role model for a community of folks ( i.e. lgbt youth) who need to see some positive visibility.

But I doubt that his orientation was why he was hired. And it's not a good reason to oppose his hiring.

What's difference between opposing Huberman because he is gay and opposing him if he happened to be African-American?

Before you launch into some ridiculous argument about black people "not being to able to choose their skin color," how about if I put it a different way.

What is the difference between opposing Huberman because he is gay and opposing him because he is Jewish or Catholic, or even Southern Baptist? After all, isn't religion a choice?

There is no difference. All of these options are equally wrong.

Opposing the hiring of someone simply because they are gay is no different than opposing someone because of his/her race or religion.

And none of that sort of thinking should be allowed to dictate anything in this country.

(Forgive me if you think this piece is a bit simplistic, but sometimes you have to dismiss flowery prose and break things down to the basics.)

News briefs

Businessmen, lawyers and Church in challenge to gay adoption - Some ugly chicanery across the seas. I hate to see children caught in the middle of this. Hopefully it will work out.

Obama seeks assessment on gays in military - An outright executive order here would be disastrous, galvanizing the opposition and giving Elaine Donnelly some undeserved credibility. President Obama is doing the right thing by moving slow.

Steele: GOP should reach out to supporters of gay rights, abortion - I'll believe this when I see Matt Barber french kiss Micheangelo Signorile.

Bill would allow concealed guns in Arkansas churches - Perfect example of how Christianity is going down hill in this country. Who in their right mind would consider a law like this? My pastor would sit those lawmakers down and ask them where is their faith that God will protect them from all harm? Speaking of my church (yes I do attend church from time to time), we are having something quite opposite in which we encourage people to surrender their guns.

Monday after the Superbowl - news briefs for now

The Superbowl is over and my Steelers are champs again.

Yaaaay!

Of course I'm depressed that it seems everyone involved in the victory is younger than me (Coach Tomlin included.)

I'll just console myself with the fact that I'm prettier.

Seriously though, since things are moving slow, I thought I would throw out a few news briefs you may or not have heard about:

SC House leader scolds tourism agency head - As a board member of the South Carolina Pride Movement, I was in the middle of that controversy in which our state officials demonstrated just how scared they get at the mention of the word "gay." Now the controversy pops up again briefly in state budget talks. Rather than repeat known information about just how stupid the situation was, I would rather give huge props to Representative Gilda Cobb-Hunter for saying what should have been said by a state official when the madness took place.

Mormon church lists more Proposition 8 expenses - The religious right has tried to spin the tale of the Mormon church a victims of "radical homosexuals" due its spearheading of the pro-Proposition 8 vote. While I do not agree with some of the tactics that some of my fellow lgbts have engaged in, let's not forget the big picture. The Mormon church acted irresponsibly, unethically, and possibly illegal in their attack against marriage equality in California. The Mormon church is NOT the victim here.

Obama nominates homosexual activist for high federal post - brought to you by One News Now where every lgbt in a public position is a "homosexual activist."

Mayor won't vote for same sex marriage resolution - I just had to add this. Huge kudos to this mayor . . . for now.

Getting past awareness and totally into exhibitionism

Peter LaBarbera is a strange dude. And it's getting to the point where I can no be in shock at his tactics because they crack me up so much.

Take for example, his again attacking the Gay and Lesbian Task Force on whom they give their Leather Leadership Award to:

The Task Force presented Graylin Thornton, the co-owner of a company that sells homosexual porn videos, with its “leather” award at Creating Change, an annual conference for grassroots activists advocating the following sexual misbehaviors: male homosexuality; lesbianism; bisexuality; transsexuality; sadomasochism and other fetishes; prostitutes (”sex workers”); and “polyamory/nonmonogamy” (multiple-partner and open relationships).

Thornton runs Grey Rose Video Productions, which states on its website: “As active members of the BEAR, LEATHER, and AFRICAN AMERICAN communities, both Graylin and [business partner Chris Meister] are dedicated to continuing a standard of excellence in the production of videos featuring the hot, hung, hunky and hairy ‘real men’ that represent those communities.”

LaBarbera is trying to recreate a mess he nearly started with last year's Creating Change conference. Last year, he said that the Gay and Lesbian Task Force was presenting its “Leather Leadership Award” to Guy Baldwin, an advocate of “erotic” and “consensual slavery.”

His angle at that time was attacking the Democratic Party for donating to this conference. LaBarbera claimed that they advocated slavery.

Ironically his angle backfired when Rush Limbaugh picked up the story and, with his usual omission of truth, said that the entire Creating Change conference was a S&M event.

Hugely embarrassing, not for the Gay and Lesbian Task Force, but for LaBarbera.

But like a trooper, he soldiers on in another attempt to slur Creating Change.

For the record, Creating Change is the one and only time each year that more than 2,000 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights advocates from every corner of the country converge to strategize, socialize and mobilize for LGBT equality.It features top-level trainings, workshops, networking sessions and action-planning with our movement’s best thinkers and brightest innovators — oh yeah, there’s also tons of opportunities for socializing, meeting up with old friends and making lots of new ones.

It's funny and infuriating at the same time how LaBarbera tries to pick out one thing and brand the entire conference as some sex session. So I guess that every year, we can count on LaBarbera going through the Creating Change brochure and picking out things he can exploit and misrepresent.

He manipulates workshops to make it look as if lgbts are not only engaging in madness, but are trying to "indoctrinate children."

But anyone wanting to see an actual version of the workshops taking place (without LaBarbera's commentary) can go here.

Also, about the awards, Creating Change gives them to a wide variety of people. The list includes former South African President Nelson Mandela, Mrs. Coretta Scott King, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Ted Kennedy, former Sens. Carol Moseley Braun and Tom Daschle, Bishop Gene Robinson, film producer Bruce Cohen, actors Wilson Cruz, Alec Mapa, Sir Ian McKellan and Mathew St. Patrick, comedian Margaret Cho, and the Indigo Girls.

What is so comical is how Peter tries to play on the shock about the award given to Thornton. On his webpage are pictures of the videos coming from Thornton's company.

Now I have to ask, was those pictures necessary, especially that last one?

I am not a psychoanalyst but I really don't think posting those pictures weren't for anyone's benefit but his own.

Take what you can out of that statement.

The entire nonsense over last year's conference is here, particularly in the Feb. 8 and 11th entries.

Possible appeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell attacked . . . by a former gay porn star

And now we have reached the realm of ridiculousness.

President Obama's pledge to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the policy that deals with gays in the military, has received much praise from some corners and much criticism from others.

But the criticism he received this week puts everything in Rod Serling territory.

From Fox Forum:

The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) would force the United States military to accept the future same-sex marriages of those serving. Activists would use this federal recognition of gay marriage in the military to challenge and force a repeal of state constitutional amendments, but wedding bells are not the only reason why gay advocates and military officials should not be heading to the altar.

A 2008 Military Times poll of members of the armed forces found that the troops were opposed to the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell by a margin of 2 to 1.

The queer thing about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is that President Bill Clinton mandated the policy after numerous campaign promises to the Clinton lesbian, gay and transgender constituency. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was designed to protect those who serve and participate in the LGBT lifestyle against unfair prosecution from their superiors.

Never mind that the Military Times poll was said to have been sloppy and biased (Participants in the survey were drawn from a volunteer pool of readers to the 'Military Times', instead of a random sampling of active duty personnel) because I am concerned with the author of this column - Matt Sanchez.

For the benefit of those who don't know, Sanchez served as a Marine reservist. He also used to be involved in gay porn under the names Pierre LaBranche and Rod Majors.

So from gay porn star to War Correspondent and Political Commentator. I guess anyone can achieve anything in America.

The entire thing confuses me. I liked it better when Elaine Donnelly was spinning tales black lesbians raping white service women.

As I understand it, Sanchez considers himself straight. That being the case, the evil side of me is just itching to make a bad joke.

What the hell:

Sanchez's very appearance more than proves that gays in the military isn't a bad idea. He is proof that all of us can put our sexual orientation aside when we have a job to do, whether that job be defending our country or sucking (shut your mouth)!

How anti-gay campaigns start

The Queer-Straight Alliance in East Chapel Hill High School (North Carolina) recently held an assembly that students were allegedly required to attend.

In doing so, they may have violated school policy:

The principal of East Chapel Hill High School said a gay-awareness club and its advisers violated school policy Wednesday by holding an assembly that hundreds of English students were required to attend.

Principal David Thaden said in an interview Thursday that he was unaware of the assembly, which was held several times during the day.

Thaden said he planned to talk with the teachers who work with the Queer-Straight Alliance and also the English teachers who brought their students to the assemblies.

Thaden said that any assembly involving material that is not part of the school curriculum must be approved by the administration, and this was not.

All of the details of this incident isn't known and for the record, only three parents complained. But if this does pan out the way it looks, simple reprimands are in order.

But from the comments under the article (some of which are proving the need for such an assembly), someone is already pushing for the Allied Defense Fund to be called in. And we know how they can exploit a situation like this.

How long will it be before One News Now or our friend Peter LaBarbera comes out with a one-sided article about the incident? How long will be before they inaccurately frame this incident as a "plot to indoctrinate children into the gay agenda?"

Or Bill O'Reilly to feature a biased news piece on the incident complete with his foaming at the mouth commentary and interruptions?

Or Michelle Malkin to write a nasty diatribe about the incident?

Or Focus on the Family, the American Family Association, the Liberty Counsel, or any of those other phony "pro-family" groups to start sending out press releases or making videos exploiting this incident in attempts to beat back gay-straight alliances nationwide.

I don't know what's worse: the possibility that this incident may be blown out of proportion or the knowledge that none of these folks would make a peep if the situation had to do with an lgbt child getting bashed.

Friday news briefs

Steele Elected RNC Chair - Who would have thought? Black is the new black. However, before anyone starts popping the champagne, please be aware that Steele isn't exactly a good guy. How long will it be before he possibly starts exploiting the divisions between the lgbt and African-American community?

They're organizing to protect DOMA already - John Aravosis is spot on when he says "This is indicative of the difference between conservatives and liberals: The right organizes years on an issue years in advance, the left organizes after we've lost." And, if I might add, they don't think that studying the tactics of the opposition is beneath them (the opposition in this case being us). If only some of us took the same frame of mind when it comes to them.

Anti-gay Arguments We Don’t Bother With (And Should): Part 2 - The continuation of the Box Turtle Bulletin series.

Lesbian couple wins court round - Ending the week on a happy note.

and now for something having to do with absolutely nothing . . .

Rainn Wilson auditions for PARANOID PARK - The only thing I know about Rainn Wilson is that he is a cast member of The Office. I don't know what Paranoid Park is. But this is strange, especially at 1:04. But I figure a little homoeroticism never hurt anyone.

Laurie Higgins - yet another phony expert

One of the most annoying things about the religious right is how they seem to anoint every Tom, Dick, and Harry as an "expert" on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Credentials such as degrees and such are not needed here. All you need is a so-called Christian mind and the temerity to lie in the name of God.

I've seen this sort of thing before with Linda Harvey of Mission America. Harvey, a former ad executive who supposedly accepted Jesus in her heart, took it upon herself for develop some sort of "risk management" test for high schools who dared to acknowledge the existence of lgbt students and teachers.

I'm glad to say that her nonsense was pretty much ignored.

Now comes another phony expert, Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute.

She is angry that two transgendered women are suing the state in order to change the sex on their birth certificates. And she takes it upon herself to diagnose these two women with a medical condition, despite the fact that she has no expertise to do so:

In the Jan. 28, 2009 edition of the Chicago Tribune, there is a story about the two sexual amputees who are suing the state over the refusal of the state to change the “gender” designation on their birth certificates from “male” to “female.” Several important points must be made. First, it’s utterly reprehensible that anyone in the medical community would be complicit in facilitating a psychological disorder by amputating healthy body parts. There is a condition known as either apotemnophilia or Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) that is characterized by the desire to amputate a healthy limb. It is useful for comparison in that it is thought by many to be closely related to Gender Identity Disorder (i.e., transsexualism), which society is increasingly accepting as a valid identity that emerges from biological influences and whose behavioral manifestations are morally legitimate.

Sexual amputees? You mean ugly language.

Higgins's unhinged commentary shines a light on just what direction the religious right will be going in order to exploit people's ignorance of the transgender community.

Oh these folks want to mutilate themselves. They want body parts sliced off.

What Higgins is doing is the old tactic of nauseating instead of educating. It's a cynical ploy and fits very well with the modus operandi of these supposed pro-family spokespeople.

The issues involving the transgender community have nothing to do with body mutilation. They are more complicated and frankly I think that there should be more education on who our transgendered brothers and sisters are.

That way, ignorant seeds, like those planted by Laurie Higgins, won't be allowed to sprout.

By the way, for more information about Higgins, including her unwarranted attacks on Illinois's Deerfield High School, go here.

Conflict resolution - it's a good thing

Joe Brummer has a new site .

Brummer, a good friend and supporter of mine from day one, has in the past brought an intelligent and calm perspective to this so-called cultural war.

Via his old site, Brummer consistently refuted religious right lies in a manner that gave the purveyors of these distortions respect but called them out for their dishonesty.

On his new site, Brummer wants to solely focus on conflict resolution and nonviolence training. Other services he provides are communication training, mediation, conflict coaching, facilitation, and web design.

I say more power to him, especially in this climate.

Stop misrepresenting the Lisa Miller/Janet Jenkins custody case

There has been a case going through the courts for the past couple of years regarding two lesbians and a child they agreed to raise.

Or rather, a lesbian, a "former" lesbian, and a child they agreed to raise.

This is how the religious right organization Liberty Counsel has described the case:

Activist judges in Vermont have declared that a legal stranger is a mommy to another woman's biological child. Now, a Vermont judge will decide whether to order the six year old little girl be stripped from the loving arms of the only mommy she has ever known - her biological mother, Lisa.

Lisa Miller left the homosexual lifestyle and became a Christian when Isabella was 17 months old. Janet Jenkins, who was Lisa's same-sex partner when Lisa gave birth to Isabella, then sought full custody of Isabella, claiming she was a parent even though she was not biologically related to Isabella and never sought to adopt her.

Not only did Vermont create new law from the bench to declare that Isabella has two mommies, but appellate courts in Virginia (the state where Isabella was born and has lived all but 13 months of her life) directed Virginia to fully recognize the Vermont orders giving Janet (who lives in Vermont) liberal unsupervised visitation. In doing so, the courts ignored Virginia's Marriage Amendment and marriage laws declaring all rights arising from same-sex relationships void and unenforceable.

However, like always with religious right groups, the Liberty Counsel omitted several things thereby distorting the case in pursuit of its own agenda.

In December 2008, Newsweek magazine featured a long article about the case. Here are some facts that the Liberty Counsel omitted:

Miller and Jenkins agreed to raise Isabella together.

Jenkins said the reason why she did not file for adoption was because she was told she didn't need to because they had the civil union (the two had married in a Vermont civil union before Isabella was born).

When the two broke up, Miller agreed to allow Jenkins to have visitation rights. Jenkins even paid child support. Miller allegedly began keeping Isabella away from Jenkins. Even now, she refuses to allow her to have unsupervised time with Isabella even though she has been ordered to.

The entire controversy is solely because Miller will not allow Jenkins to have unsupervised time with Isabella. Jenkins mainly won her case due to the Federal Kidnapping Prevention Law.

Miller has claimed she witnessed Isabella engage in disturbing behavior after vists with Jenkins. The claims were investigated by Virginia's Child Protective Services and were deemed "unfounded."

I hope that in the long run, things work out for little Isabella.

But in all honesty, how the Liberty Counsel is framing this case is extremely dishonest. These women agreed to raise the child together. And after they split up, they agreed on visitation, with Jenkins paying child support.

It seems that Miller decided that she didn't like what is going on and took it upon herself to void whatever agreement she and Jenkins had. My opinion is that Jenkins has a right to a say in the raising of her daughter.

The Liberty Counsel does no one justice in the way it attempts tug at emotions with inaccurate connotations of a crying child being ripped from the arms of her mother.

It's a shame that this "Christian group" feels the need to stoop so low. In a case where there should be no villains, the Liberty Counsel is doing its best to fill that role.