Religious right continues to attack Kevin Jennings, lgbt community with proven lies

I'm happy to report that in two day's time, over 300 people have signed up for the Support Kevin Jennings Facebook Group and I know more people are coming.

And this is good news because the religious right won't stop gunning for Jennings. The following is from the Family Research Council's webpage. I gleaned it today:

Over the last two weeks, press outlets like FoxNews.com, Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs have picked up the Jennings story, and the Washington Times ran an editorial demanding an answer regarding Jennings's appointment.

Of course, one of the most shocking pieces of news about Jennings is a story he's told himself (in different ways at different times) about a 15 year old student who came to him and confessed that he was having sex with older men in a bus station restroom. Instead of reporting the high-risk behavior to the boy's parents, school administrators or the police, Jennings's only response was, "I hope you knew to use a condom."

So even after it's been confirmed by the young man in the center of the controversy that he did not have sex and even if he did, he was 16-years-old at the time (the legal age of consent in Massachusetts, the state where the situation took place), the Family Research Council insists on running the claim that "Jennings counseled an underaged child to have sex with an adult."

And the situation gets better, or stranger for lack of a better description

Our friend, the Las Vegas lounge pugilist, Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel, wrote a column about Jennings. With a title like Commies, Fascists and Perverts, Oh My!, you know it's going to be a hot mess.

Barber made sure to touch on the lies regarding Jennings, "fistgate," Harry Hay, etc.

Then he has the nerve to push an old religious right lie:

Multiple studies have established, for instance, that homosexual conduct, especially among males, is considerably more hazardous to one’s health than a lifetime of chain smoking.

One such study – conducted by pro-“gay” researchers in Canada – was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997. (see the study here: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/3/657.pdf)

While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual’s life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of “gays” by an astounding “8 to 20 years” – more than twice that of smoking.

“[U]nder even the most liberal assumptions,” concluded the researchers, “gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. … [L]ife expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.”

There are two things wrong with Barber's citation.

First of all, the 1997 study had NOTHING to do with comparing homosexuality to cigarette smoking. It never said anything about cigarette smoking.

The idea that "homosexuality is more dangerous than cigarette smoking" is a distortion originally generated by the discredited Paul Cameron.

Secondly, regarding the 1997 study, in 2001, the researchers of the study wrote a letter to the International Journal of Epidemiology complaining about how the study was being distorted by people like Barber. It reads in part:

In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871. In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.

It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure.5 Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man's risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used.

In summary, the aim of our work was to assist health planners with the means of estimating the impact of HIV infection on groups, like gay and bisexual men, not necessarily captured by vital statistics data and not to hinder the rights of these groups worldwide. Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.

And Barber is fully aware of this letter. In a 2008 column, he tried to blow it off:

Not surprisingly, that same homosexual lobby and its codependent enablers in the mainstream media moved quickly to sweep the IJE study under the rug. Under tremendous pressure, the researchers who conducted the study even jumped into the political damage control fray issuing a statement which read, "[W]e do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group."

Barber doesn't go into detail about just what was exactly done to exert pressure on the researchers.

I personally think he told a huge fib. But it's interesting how he continues to distort the 1997 even after he is aware that the researchers complained.

At this point, I'm at a loss for words about the religious right. No matter how low I think they have stooped, they always suprise me by stooping lower.

What is Tony Perkins' connection with white supremacists and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Tony Perkins and White Supremacy - This ought to over well with Harry Jackson and Ken Hutcherson.

Disney's Rich Ross: Hollywood's first openly gay studio chairman - We've officially taken over Disney (hehehehe)- for those not aware, that was strictly tongue-in-cheek. You have to be careful with religious right innuendo seekers lurking around.

Video: Louie Louie, oh no -- me gotta go (vomit) - I miss the good old days when if you were caught distorting an issue, you stopped telling the distortion (Who am I kidding? Those days never existed.)

French gay soccer team snubbed by Muslim team - I have a simple cynical feeling about this sort of thing gleaned from rooting for the bad guys in professional wrestling. I say to the Muslim team - "oh well, you lose."

Mike Huckabee, Congressional leaders 'pal around' with hate group

Former Arkansas Governor and Fox talk show host Mike Huckabee with Mass Resistance's Brian Camenker at the recent right wing "Take Back America" conference . Mass Resistance, you will remember, is a hate group as officially designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

It's important to remember that the Southern Poverty Law Center does not designate organizations as anti-gay group simply because they speak against homosexuality. According to the SPLC webpage:

Anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification.

In Brian Camenker and Mass Resistance's case, this would include:

Manufacturing a phony panic about "schools teaching children about homosexuality,"

Claiming in 2005 on Comedy Central's Daily Show that if given time, he would be able to connect gay marriage in Massachusetts to the "reduction" of the quality of life in the state, a spike in homelessness rates, or and a lowering the quality of the air in the state, or

Making a claim in 2006 that "gays were trying to get legislation passed to allow sex with animals" in Massachusetts.

But Mike Huckabee doesn't seem to have a problem with Mass Resistance. According to Camenker, Huckabee receives the group's emails.

And it would seem that neither does Congressional leaders Steve King, Michelle Bachman, Tom Price, Tom McClintock, Todd Aiken, or Trent Franks have a problem with schmoozing with an anti-gay hate group, as seen by the rest of the pictures on Mass Resistance's webpage.

But in Huckabee's case, it's a safe bet to say that if he gets anywhere near the White House, the lgbt community will be up "shit creek."

Related posts:

Conference Recap: Far Right Leaders Vow to 'Take Back America' from 'Evil' Obama and Democrats


Brian Camenker, Matt Barber create anti-gay hot mess

The anti-gays are encouraged to get more militant and disgusting

Mike Huckabee and Congressional leaders to attend conference with hate group

The religious right attacks another openly gay Obama appointee

Mercy! Am I going to have to create another facebook group for Chai Feldblum. Luckily, Media Matters is on the case of exposing lies against another Obama appointee:

Following their discredited and homophobic smears of Department of Education official Kevin Jennings, the right-wing media is at it again, this time using anti-gay rhetoric to target Chai Feldblum, President Obama's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) nominee. Rather than address Feldblum's qualifications, right-wing media have advanced their anti-gay agenda by targeting statements made by Feldblum and a statement she signed that have nothing to do with the job for which she has been nominated.

This is getting frustrating. Is this how it's going to play out? Will every openly gay appointee in the Obama Adminstration be a victim of false claims and innuendo?

I cringe to think the message this is sending to young lgbts.

There are two good things about this - lgbts have a history of learning from our mistakes and raising hell when we have another chance to.

A lot of us started defending Kevin Jennings a little late than we should have (luckily that turned out in our favor though), but now we are in the game and will fight the attacks on Feldblum's reputation with more vigor.

Also, how long will it be before these anti-gay attacks cue America to the true homophobic nature of the religious right?

Who knew the American Family Association could moonwalk?

. . . By his own admission he failed his legal duty to report what he believed to be a case of statutory rape when a young student approached him for counsel after the boy had been preyed on by an older adult in a local bus station bathroom. Jennings' main piece of advice: "I hope you know how to use a condom." - An email via the American Family Association

It would seem that religious right groups are backtracking from the "Kevin Jennings counseled an underage youth into a relationship with an adult" lie.

But they offer no apologies for pushing the pedophilia claim.

An of course they are not giving up the figh against Jennings. Groups like the American Family Assocation are now relying on the time-honored smear of "radical homosexuals looking to indoctrinate and change" lie:

Kevin Jennings is an open homosexual who is now serving the Department of Education as President Obama's "Safe and Drug Free Schools" czar.

Jennings is the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which pushes so-called "anti-bullying" policies which even GLSEN admits are really about promoting "affirmation" of homosexual behavior in the school system.

To a lot of us, it's no surprise that religious right groups oppose Jennings becauses he is openly gay. It's a suprise however that they finally admit it.

But very the fact that they tried to obscure their true feelings says more about their lack of credibility or integrity.

And it's more reason why we must fight them at every turn.

Catholic writer unsuccessfully tries to refute my ENDA post

Stephanie Block, founder of the Catholic Media Coalition, took it upon herself to call me out in an attempt to answer my refutations of religious right distortions regarding ENDA.

I'll give her props for the attempt. But she tends to get vague and dance around what was actually said in my piece.

And she made some very bad assumptions. She said the following:

The five “lies” McEwen has gleaned from religious right materials are that this legislation will permit transgendered males to use women’s restrooms. . .

I want to highlight that first claim of hers because I never said that. I said the following:

Distortion - ENDA (H.R. 2981 - H.R. 3017 - S. 1584) has been changed from the "gay-only" version the House passed in 2007 to include language banning job discrimination based on "gender identity" as well as sexual orientation - complete with special protections for the transgendered. It would mean your child's teacher, if he were a male but "felt" like a female, could go into the women's bathroom.

TRUTH - According to the Gay and Lesbian Task Force, over 100 localities (cities and counties) in the United States have trans-inclusive non-discrimination laws. There has never been a problem of a man "claiming to feel like a female" invading women's bathrooms. The claim is a non-issue created to scare people and distract from the true purpose of ENDA.

Not only does she not try to refute what I actually said, but she makes a nasty determination of the issue when she later terms it as "Last but not least: the transvestite male in the woman’s bathroom," thereby displaying a certain ignorance of the transgender community and covertly channeling the religious right claim of "men invading women's restrooms."

In one point, she says that I inaccurately said something was a lie/distortion:

Of these five “lies,” McEwen confirms two, arguing that federal law already protects workers from discrimination of any sort, even when stemming from an employer’s religious beliefs, and as “[n]ot all families are heterosexually-oriented… A national policy regarding families and marriage should embrace this change.” So fears that ENDA would redefine marriage and family seem pretty much on target. A person hasn’t “lied” or distorted the situation just because there are other people with opposing viewpoints.

Oh if it were that simple.

This is what was actually said:

Distortion - ENDA would approvingly bring private behavior considered immoral by many into the public square. By declaring that all sexual preferences are equally valid, ENDA would change national policy supporting marriage and family.

TRUTH - If "national policy supporting marriage and family" is changed, then it is a good thing. Not all families are heterosexually-oriented. Also, several states already offer lgbts either the right to marry or enter domestic partnerships. A national policy regarding families and marriage should embrace this change.

The sentence which I called a distortion is an exact phrase from American Family Association's talking points against ENDA. And it is a distortion because it reduces the lgbt orientation to that of sexual behavior. And this is an inaccurate assumption. Also, my point was that whatever "national policy regarding marriage and family" happens to be, it is already changing via domestic partnerships and lgbt marriages.

ENDA wouldn't lead a changing of a "national policy regarding marriage and family" because the change is already taking place.

Block also says the following:

McEwen argues that ENDA says nothing about sexual behavior and therefore concerns about special protection for gays and lesbians are specious (my word, not his). And furthermore, he says, no one is singled out for “special” protection – the law simply clarifies that sexual orientation and gender identity are no basis for employment discrimination, any more than race or creed are under existing law.

One can appreciate the argument. A person who is behaving appropriately – who dresses according to the workplace code, who speaks professionally, who doesn’t harass other workers, and who does a good job – shouldn’t have to worry about dismissal for “perceived” orientations or being “exposed.” In a professional atmosphere, the nasty divorce, drinking problems, and any host of other unethical aspects of one’s colleagues can be and are overlooked so long as they remain reasonably private.

On the other hand, there are no laws (of which I’m aware) making it unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail to hire or to fire any individual because of actual or perceived alcoholism. If there were, one would want it to clarify the law’s limits – that it protected a worker’s drinking only so far as professionalism and job-related performance standards were maintained. Without that clarification, one can understand that an employer might worry that the discrimination card is played when the issue is actually about fulfilling employment needs.

Is she inaccurately calling sexual orientation a behavior just as the AFA did or is she making the claim that if someone was fired for being an alcoholic, they can claim sexual orientation discrimination? She forgets that someone could make that claim regarding the other job protection categories (i.e. race, religion, etc.)

Either way, her argument here makes no sense. I actually said:

Distortion - ENDA is aimed at providing heightened protections for a particular sexual behavior - homosexuality. It would grant special consideration on the basis of "sexual orientation" that would not be extended to other employees in the workplace.

TRUTH - ENDA says nothing about sexual behavior. Potential employees are already federally protected in cases of race, religion, gender, and national origin. Heterosexuals would be protected under ENDA along with lgbts because adding sexual orientation does not single out gays and lesbians any more than gender singles out solely women or men.

Then she talks about the tax-exemption status of churches and invokes the controversy involving the New Jersey church pavilion:

When a gay couple wished to have a commitment ceremony in the wedding hall, the Association refused to accommodate them. This is very different from the employment situations contemplated by ENDA. ….It should also be noted that, although the Association initially lost its tax exemption, the State of New Jersey reinstated the Association's exemption from property tax for the beach and the rest of the boardwalk, but stated that it could not continue to exempt the pavilion as it was not truly open to the public.” [“Are We Ready? Arguments against ENDA (Part II),” The Bilerico Project, 9-13-09]

One appreciates that this is just one lawyer’s take, but here’s what we’re left with if Dr. Weiss’ logic is indicative of where this legislation is headed: tax-exempt religious bodies must follow the non-discrimination laws that apply to taxed bodies. Or, in other words, a religious body that claims an anti-discrimination exemption for itself will be stripped of its tax-exemption.

Block freely admits that this controversy had nothing to do with ENDA but then she tries to connect the two. In her attempt, she omits the fact that the pavilion was church property but not a part of the church. She also omits that the church knew full well the requirements that allowed the pavilion to receive tax breaks and agreed to them. A better argument is here.

That is a long way off from a "religious body that claims an anti-discrimination exemption."

Geez. You think that if someone was trying to refute my work, they would have the decency to focus on what I actually said instead of strawman paraphrasing.

I'm not one for hypothetical arguments or tangents. I try to deal with what's in front of me. It makes things simple and honest.

If some of these folks who fear ENDA would do the same thing, they would see that they have nothing to fear.

Join the Support Kevin Jennings Facebook group

Just a simple message this morning.

If you support Kevin Jennings and want to help stop the attack against him, join the Support Kevin Jennings facebook group.

The reason for this page is simple: There is a serious problem regarding school bullying. This problem adversely affects the mental and physical well-being of all children, specifically lgbt children.

Jennings is more than qualified to handle this problem. However there are people who will do what they can to take him down. Be it for ratings or personal homophobia, Jennings has a huge target on his back.

And that's not right. Someone who is trying to help our children should be supported and commended, not made the victim of those who would bear false witness or sling nasty innuendo in the name of God.

If the lgbt community and our allies don't stand up for Jennings, then we are turning our back on one of our own.

Frankly, I'm not down with that.

Fox News corrects inaccurate Jennings article. Politico does the same

The Plum Line is reporting that Fox News has issued an online correction of the Kevin Jennings article, making sure to include information to include the defense of the young man (Brewster) whom Jennings supposedly gave advice to in 1988. The statement is important because many have accused Jennings of "condoning statutory rape:"

When Jennings was a young teacher a teenager confided in him about having sex with a stranger and Jennings didn’t report it to authorities. Jennings has said he regrets his actions.

The “statutory rape” charge is based on the assertion that the kid was 15 years old at the time, a claim originally floated, wrongly, by Jennings himself, and continuously amplified by Fox News and the right even after it had been corrected.

On Friday Media Matters produced what it said was the kid’s drivers license, showing that the kid was 16, legal age of consent in Massachuttes, and also produced a Facebook exchange that seemed to show that a Fox News reporter had been informed directly by the kid himself that they’d misrepresented his age.

Fox News has now issued an online correction.

Plum Line now asks a very appropriate question: since Sean Hannity heavily pushed the claim of statutory rape, will he make a correction.

In that same vein, I asked the exact question about the site Politico. In a recent article, Glenn Thrush said that U.S. Rep. Steven King (R-Iowa) was demanding Jennings' dismissal.

Thrush, unfortunately, pushed the inaccurate claim that Brewster was 15-years-old.

I emailed Thrush informing him of his error and he has updated his article making the change.

Editor's note - Those who want to aid Jennings can join the Support Kevin Jennings facebook group. It refutes all of the lies lodged against him.

Chicago lost Olympics because of the HOMOSEXUALS and other Monday midday news briefs

Hartline: the Olympics bypassed Chicago because of the homosexualist anti-Christ spirit - Well that explains everything.

Raped trans woman 'harassed in public and on the internet' - This should not happen. period.

Obama to Speak at HRC Dinner on Eve of National Equality March - Email announcing lgbt protest about this event (and making sure to talk crap about HRC) in T-Minus 10 . . 9 . . 8 . .

Smart answers to lies about Kevin Jennings - a list of talking points

Throughout the Kevin Jennings controversy, it amazes me that many people (lgbts included) are still not informed of the truth.

I apologize for those who feel that I may have spent too much time on this issue but it's important to me because it has a lot to do with the safety of our lgbt children and us supporting our leaders.

Through the following short list of talking points, I hope to touch on the main distortions regarding Kevin Jennings.

The small stuff (he is anti-Christian, he said something ugly about God) will be ignored.

Distortion - Kevin Jennings is a czar

Truth - Kevin Jennings was appointed by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan as an Assistant Deputy Secretary to lead the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. This office was created in 2002 during the George W. Bush administration and Jennings is the third to hold the office.

Distortion - Jennings has no experience in his position

Truth - Via Thinkprogress.org : Jennings, in fact, will be the first head of OSDFS in years to have a background as an educator. His predecessor, Deborah Price, received her BS degree in home economics, worked on the National Prayer Breakfast, on the Senate Republican Policy Committee, and then doing student aid in the Department of Education. Her predecessor, Eric Andell, was a judge from Texas and was eventually fired. He “pleaded guilty in federal court to one misdemeanor count of conflict of interest that included using federal money to pay for personal expenses.” Jennings has received many mainstream education awards, including the Distinguished Service Award of NASSP. ThinkProgress spoke to NASSP Executive Director Gerald Tirozzi, who wrote a recommendation letter on Jennings’ behalf. He said that he has “always been impressed with Kevin and his forthrightness. He’s a very courageous young man.” Tirozzi stressed that Jennings’ work on school bullying made him an ideal fit for this particular position.

Distortion - Kevin Jennings advises children on sexual activities, such as "fisting," as proven by the "Fistgate" incident

Truth - Jennings wasn't present when the so-called "Fistgate" incident took place.

In 2000, Jennings' organization, GLSEN, co-sponsored a state conference, "Teach-Out," that was sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Education and the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. This conference was held at Tufts University.

Included among the conference-goers were preadolescents, who were (like the rest of Teach-Out's attendees) allowed to ask questions about sex in a safe environment.

One student asked what fisting was, and was answered with an explanation.

A rightwing group, Mass Resistance was entered unauthroized into the conference and a person working for Mass Resistance organization, Scott Whiteman, taped some of the students without their knowledge.

As a result of the outcry that was generated when parents heard tapes of the event, Margot Abels, a state employee who participated in the discussion, and two other state employees were fired.

Abels later sued the Massachusetts Department of Education, Mass Resistance leader Brian Camenker, and Whiteman for "violating her civil rights and the state's antiwiretapping law."

In 2001, she was not only reinstated but was also given back pay via arbitration. The arbitrator, Marc Greenbaum ruled that:

Abels was not acting on behalf of the Department of Education, but said the department had knowledge of and "supported" her participation in the presentation.

Greenbaum also said:

that her participation was "authorized by her superiors, and her conduct, while controversial, did not violate then-established department guidelines."

Lastly:

He also said that the tape was "misleading" because portions of it, which contained "important messages about AIDS prevention, abstinence, postponement, alternative forms of sexual intimacy and the need for students to enforce their own boundaries of personal security," were missing.

Distortion - In 1988, Jennings advised an underaged child to continue a sexual relationship with an older man and did not report the incident to authorities

Truth - In an interview with Media Matters, the young man in the center of the controversy said the charges against Jennings isn't true:

Since I was of legal consent at the time, the fifteen-minute conversation I had with Mr. Jennings twenty-one years ago is of nobody's concern but his and mine. However, since the Republican noise machine is so concerned about my "well-being" and that of America's students, they'll be relieved to know that I was not "inducted" into homosexuality, assaulted, raped, or sold into sexual slavery.

In 1988, I had taken a bus home for the weekend, and on the return trip met someone who was also gay. The next day, I had a conversation with Mr. Jennings about it. I had no sexual contact with anybody at the time, though I was entirely legally free to do so. I was a sixteen year-old going through something most of us have experienced: adolescence. I find it regrettable that the people who have the compassion and integrity to protect our nation's students are themselves in need of protection from homophobic smear attacks. Were it not for Mr. Jennings' courage and concern for my well-being at that time in my life, I doubt I'd be the proud gay man that I am today.

Distortion - Jennings expressed admiration for Harry Hay. Hay was one of the nation's first homosexual activists who launched the Mattachine Society in 1948, founded the Radical Faeries and was a longtime advocate for the North American Man-Boy Love Association, NAMBLA.

This means Jennings, by way of connection, has a liking for pedophilia

Truth - In the 1987 speech, Jennings didn't say a word about NAMBLA. He praised Hay for his early work for lgbt rights, not his later support of NAMBLA. Jennings made mention of Hay's pioneering work for lgbt rights, something that many obituaries did when Hay died.

We know that the right opposes Jennings because he is an openly gay man, as expressed so "eloquently" by Peter LaBarbera via our recent email exchange:

". . . Kevin Jennings is a lying, reckless, anti-Christian bigot . . ."

The question is what have we done to ensure that Jennings has the support of the community.

In layman's terms, we need to let everyone know that "we've got Jennings' back."

It's going to take more than wringing our hands after the fact.

You can go here to give some support to Jennings.

Matt Barber crosses another anti-gay plateau

Anti-gay Liberty Counsel figure Matt Barber has just crossed another plateau. He wrote a book.

No doubt it will repeat his distorted tale of being fired from AllState because he wrote an anti-gay column (which utilized the discredited work of Paul Cameron) "on his own time."

The tale is a distortion because Barber used company equipment to write the columnn and he also identified himself as an employee of AllState; two facts that always seem to be excluded from the religious right telling of the story.

This book leaves me conflicted for two reasons:

1. I don't want to wish any ill will on anyone, especially someone who is working hard on a book. Having had to self-publish one myself, I know how difficult it is to do such. Barber didn't have to work as hard as I did because he worked his connections. And I admire that just a little. Barber parlayed his AllState factoid into a cushy position at Concerned Women for America, the Liberty Counsel, and now a book with mentions by Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee.

You have to admire his chutzpah; that is if you ignore his basic disregard for truth.

2. Far be it from me to make comments on someone's personal appearance, but I have to say it. Barber looks like a Las Vegas lounge singer.

Oh come on. Can't you just picture him in a sleazy dive somewhere off of the Vegas strip singing some off-key version of a Frank Sinatra song with a phony Italian accent in front of a bevy of half naked female dancers where he will be followed by an awful comedian whose top pops off in the middle of her routine?

This is the guy who is fighting a culture war for the preservation of so-called American values? A guy who looks like a rejected character from Showgirls?

Seriously though, I'm sure the book will get lots of attention. And this isn't a good thing because Barber doesn't bring anything new to the table. He is yet another phony religious right expert who will exploit the Christian beliefs for his own purposes via peddling the same old lies.

Case in point, a recent One News Now article which inaccurately claims that he debunked a recent study which proved that children in lgbt households suffer no adverse effects:

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel tells OneNewsNow that the conclusions are totally false. He points to another massive study conducted by homosexual researchers at the University of California.

"The preponderance of studies shows that girls raised by lesbian so-called 'parents' are more sexually adventurous or less chaste. They're more likely to experiment and try lesbianism to self-identify as lesbians," Barber notes. "[And] boys raised by homosexual men have a fluid concept of gender roles and are more likely to engage in the homosexual lifestyle."

How in the world does Barber conclude that the pro-lgbt parenting study is false? Not only does he not give proof of this but he also doesn't give the name of the study which he says refutes it.

I emailed Barber asking which study he was referring to and of course I didn't receive an answer.

But after a little research, I discovered which study he was referring to; a 2001 study conducted by researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz.

And I think the reason why Barber didn't give any information regarding the study is because the way he distorted it has been debunked on numerous occasions by Stacey herself, as this link will show.

And as far as his other claims regarding "domestic violence" and a "short lifespan," those are lies peddled by the religious right for the past 30 years and have been easily refuted by so many others, me included.

But why in the heck should Barber care about truth? He has a book deal and more prominence.

That's all that matters, right?

Related posts:

How religious right groups distort legitimate research to demonize the gay community

Dissecting a One News Now article

New attack against Kevin Jennings - the 'NAMBLA' connection

Apparently some on the right are blowing off the embarrassment of their recent unsuccessful attack against Education Dep. appointee Kevin Jennings because they are starting a new one. The following nonsense (which is better described by the World Net Daily piece) is currently running on several blogs and sites.

Hannity will probably grab it next week:

A transcript from a 1997 speech shows Office of Safe Schools chief Kevin Jennings in the U.S. Department of Education expressed his admiration for Harry Hay, one of the nation's first homosexual activists who launched the Mattachine Society in 1948, founded the Radical Faeries and was a longtime advocate for the North American Man-Boy Love Association, NAMBLA.

"One of the people that's always inspired me is Harry Hay," the transcript shows Jennings saying, "who started the first ongoing gay rights groups in America. In 1948, he tried to get people to join the Mattachine Society. It took him two years to find one other person who would join.

"Well, [in] 1993," Jennings continued, "Harry Hay marched with a million people in Washington, who thought he had a good idea 40 years before."

However, according to Media Matters, the speech had nothing to do with NAMBLA:

Media Matters contends that Jennings was referring to Hay's pioneering work with lgbt rights; something that several obituaries also did when Hay passed on.

What's happening here is innuendo by association. I also admire Harry Hay's work for lgbt rights but I certainly don't like his support of NAMBLA.

So am I a pedophile now?

Many Americans list George Washington as one of the greatest Presidents this country ever had.

But Washington did nothing to stop the slave trade nor did he do anything to get women the vote.

So do the Americans who admire Washington for how he led this country at its founding support slavery and keeping women away from the ballot box?

This entire thing is ridiculous and the root of it is homophobia, pure and simple.

I wish the right would have the guts to admit it.

Know your lgbt history - California Suite

What a week, what a week!

After all of the petty ugliness of the Kevin Jennings controversy, I thought that I would devote this edition of Know Your LGBT History to some light comedy.

California Suite (1978) was a comedy written by Pulitzer Prize winning playwright Neil Simon.

It featured four episodes regarding the misadventures of couples who check into a ritzy hotel for the weekend.

Between you and me, the movie misses a lot, especially an opportunity to make the most of a once-in-a-lifetime team up of legendary comedians Bill Cosby and the late Richard Pryor.

The only place the movie does hit its mark is when it comes to the couple from England.

One of my favorite actresses of all time, Maggie Smith, portrays a distinguished English actress who has just gotten her first Oscar nomination for a silly comedy. She and her husband (Michael Caine) are in town for the ceremony.

As they prepare for the Oscars and the eventual letdown of her loss (her character does not win), they hilariously tear each other apart as they examine their relationship.

It seems that Smith's husband is gay, a fact that she is aware of and does not seem to mind. That is until after she loses and in the middle of her sadness needs some "physical comfort."

Smith and Caine are at the top of their game here. Whenever I rented California Suite, I always fast forwarded through the other couples to get to these two.

Interesting bit of trivia - Smith would win an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for this role, making it the first time someone has ever won an Oscar for portraying an Oscar loser.

Enjoy:







Past Know Your LGBT History postings:

Know your lgbt history - Taxi (Elaine's Strange Triangle)

Know your lgbt history - Come Back Charleston Blue

Know your lgbt history - James Bond goes gay

Know your lgbt history - Windows

Know your lgbt history - To Wong Foo and Priscilla

Know your lgbt history - Blazing Saddles

Know your lgbt history - Sanford and Son

Know your lgbt history - In Living Color

Know your lgbt history - Cleopatra Jones and her lesbian drug lords

Know your lgbt history - Norman, Is That You?

Know your lgbt history - The 'Exotic' Adrian Street

Know your lgbt history - The Choirboys

Know your lgbt history - Eddie Murphy

Know your lgbt history - The Killing of Sister George

Know your lgbt history - Hanna-Barbera cartoons pushes the 'gay agenda

'Know your lgbt history - Cruising

Know your lgbt history - Foxy Brown and Cleopatra Jones

Know your lgbt history - I Got Da Hook Up

Know your lgbt history - Fright Night

Know your lgbt history - Flowers of Evil

The Jeffersons and the transgender community

LaBarbera actively pushing lie against Kevin Jennings

To answer the question of my post this morning, I don't think some members of the religious right are ready to apologize to Kevin Jennings as of yet.

Our "friend," Peter LaBarbera is re-publishing a post on his webpage by the Illinois Family Institute slamming Jennings.

The post was from September 30 and it includes the inaccuracy that the young man Jennings counseled was 15.

LaBarbera is presently running the piece unchanged even though it has been confirmed that the young man was 16 and thus of legal age in Massachusetts.

This means that LaBarbera is actively pushing a blatant lie.

Other news briefs:

Real Mainers step up for 'No on 1' ads - The anti-gay marriage folks in Maine are using stock photos while our side are using real people.

Morehouse College fires an employee responsible for sending biased email from work addy - I don't like to see people fired but the employee was in the wrong. Period.

Anti-gay-marriage fundraising to be investigated - Two words - HOT DAMN!

Religious right owes Kevin Jennings an apology

You are so pathetic Alvin. Hanging on a technicality. You are as corrupt as the perverted movement you serve. Spare me the preaching.

Peter LaBarbera

After all of the time and energy he devoted to demonizing Obama appointee Kevin Jennings, Peter LaBarbera doesn't even have the decency to apologize for his inaccurate assumption that Jennings counseled an underage child to have sex with an adult.

I won't even publish what else he said about Jennings because I know some folks would really get angry. Needless to say, however, the unposted material proves the safety of children was the last thing on LaBarbera's mind when he attacked Jennings.

Meanwhile, he has focused attention on another member of GLSEN in a pathetic attempt to salvage some degree of credibility.

And LaBarbera is not alone in his duplicity.

Via Goodasyou comes the news that the Family Research Council issued a statement unbelievable in its audacity and willingness to distort the situation.

For people like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, and the rest of Fox News, this is just old hat; attacks on Jennings was politics as usual. Politics has been called the eternal sea where controversies rise and ebb on a daily basis and they were just merely "going with the flow."

However for people like LaBarbera, Tony Perkins, and the organizations they represent whose entire credibility lies with the fact that they are fighting for Godly principles, this moment has to be an embarrassment.

And in a perfect world, those who would defend people like Perkins and LaBarbera would question whether or not they deserve these defenses.

I'm not talking about the rabid supporters; the ones who think that lgbts lurk about in every corner looking to corrupt.

I'm talking about the supporters who are really comfortable of the methodology of the religious right but agree with the notion of so-called traditional values and morality.

Since when is it moral or traditional to drag a man's reputation through the mud, to look through past writings and speeches to find something that can be manipulated and sleazed up in order to brand someone?

And since when is it moral or traditional to not own up when you have been proven wrong?

Phony traditional values groups and figures have been lying about lgbts for so long that I doubt this will be the incident which finally shows them for the morally empty entities that they are.

But it's nice to dream.

UDPATE - Media Matters gives the final word on the matter:

EXCLUSIVE: Media Matters confirms student at center of Fox fueled Jennings controversy was of legal age.

In addition, Media Matters interviewed the young man who Jennings counseled, Brewster. Brewster, who is now in his mid-30s, said the following:

Since I was of legal consent at the time, the fifteen-minute conversation I had with Mr. Jennings twenty-one years ago is of nobody's concern but his and mine. However, since the Republican noise machine is so concerned about my "well-being" and that of America's students, they'll be relieved to know that I was not "inducted" into homosexuality, assaulted, raped, or sold into sexual slavery.

In 1988, I had taken a bus home for the weekend, and on the return trip met someone who was also gay. The next day, I had a conversation with Mr. Jennings about it. I had no sexual contact with anybody at the time, though I was entirely legally free to do so. I was a sixteen year-old going through something most of us have experienced: adolescence. I find it regrettable that the people who have the compassion and integrity to protect our nation's students are themselves in need of protection from homophobic smear attacks. Were it not for Mr. Jennings' courage and concern for my well-being at that time in my life, I doubt I'd be the proud gay man that I am today.

- Brewster

UPDATE 2 - Peter LaBarbera is re-publishing a post on his webpage by the Illinois Family Institute slamming Jennings.

The post was from September 30 and it includes the inaccuracy that the young man Jennings counseled was 15.

LaBarbera is presently running the piece unchanged even though it has been confirmed that the young man was 16 and thus of legal age in Massachusetts; a fact that he is aware of based upon his email to me.

The lgbt community needs to remember and remind people of how the right tried to destroy Kevin Jennings every chance we get.

Related post:

New facts vindicate Kevin Jennings - the young man he counseled was of legal age

New facts vindicate Kevin Jennings - the young man he counseled was of legal age

I was planning to post a piece comparing the pseudo controversy of children singing a song praising President Obama to past phony moral panics put on by the religious right.

But something caught my eye today via Americablog.

CNN covered the Kevin Jennings controversy and revealed a few facts that even I wasn't aware of.

And they aren't negative facts:



And if that's not enough, according to Media Matters:

. . . Jennings' attorney wrote in a 2004 letter that the student was 16 years old, which Jennings' book appears to support, and that 16 is -- and was at the time -- the legal age of consent in Massachusetts.

The funny thing about this is that a friend of mine, Matt Algren, has said from the beginning that the young man was the legal age of consent.

Take a bow, Matt. You nailed it!

I went to the mat for Jennings because I believed in what he was doing and I know how the religious right distorts situations.

Please don't think I'm gloating when I say this because I am not, but:

It feels good to be vindicated.

UPDATE - Peter LaBarbera gives statement about the latest developments in Jennings controversy

I wondered what folks like Peter LaBarbera felt about this new information.

LaBarbera published a lot of negative pieces on Jennings such as:

Was Troubled Teen Seduced by Adult Homosexual and Counseled by GLSEN Founder Kevin Jennings Really ‘Gay’?

Washington Times: Obama ‘Safe Schools’ Czar Kevin Jennings Enabled Sexual Predator of Teen Boy

I emailed LaBarbera saying that I felt he owes Jennings an apology. This is his reply:

You are so pathetic Alvin. Hanging on a technicality. You are as corrupt as the perverted movement you serve. Spare me the preaching.

So much for the Christian principle of apologizing when you are wrong.

Related posts:

Let's not be so quick to blame Obama if Kevin Jennings is dismissed

Washington Times publishes ugly hit piece on Kevin Jennings

The new attack on Kevin Jennings - he said something ugly about God

The continuing attacks on Kevin Jennings - now Fox News gets involved

The possible attack on the President's lgbt appointees

The tea party idiots - will they go after the lgbt community next?

Traditional Values Coalition attacks Kevin Jennings and . . . Tom Cruise?

Support Sean's Last Wish and Kevin Jennings

The religious right thinks that character assasination is a Christian virtue

The war against Kevin Jennings - now it's getting pathetic

Attacks on Kevin Jennings sleazy, un-Christian

More right wing lunacy on Kevin Jennings courtesy of Kevin McCullough

More attacks on GLSEN'S Kevin Jennings - Now the Family Research Council gets in the act'''

'Fistgate' and President Obama - religious right pushes a pitiful attempt of guilt by association

Homophobic mess at Morehouse, Jennings answers critics, and other Thursday midday news briefs

Homophobic email about same-sex wedding spurs controversy at Morehouse College - Here we go again. Maybe if some folks didn't see black men as a "commodity," this sort of thing wouldn't happen.

A closer look at Donald Mendell, Stand For Marriage Maine's latest talking point - Another Maine anti-gay marriage point exposed as a distortion courtesy of Goodasyou.org

Obama official regrets advice to gay student - Hopefully the final word on the Jennings situation. I love the way Jennings pointed out certain facts about the controversy.

Catania unveils marriage bill - I love it! Harry Jackson will have a fit!

UN: 4 million on AIDS drugs, others still in need - We definitely need to do more.

Family Research Council head misrepresents credible information to hurt ENDA

Recently, Family Research Council head Tony Perkins submitted testimony to Congress in opposition of Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

The bulk of his testimony were anecdotes of supposedly how ENDA would hurt free speech.

As Goodasyou.org pointed out, at least one of his anecdotes was a distortion of the facts. Perkins claimed that the person in the case was able to sue because he was merely perceived as gay.

Perkins was making the point that the lawsuit in that case was frivilous.

But Jeremy Hooper from Goodasyou.org showed that the person in the case was not only perceived as gay, but also harrassed and fired because of that perception.

And I think I found another sly distortion from Perkins regarding ENDA. The part I want to address is in bold:

The principle at stake is whether personal disapproval of these chosen and harmful behaviors (homosexual conduct and sex changes) should be officially stigmatized under law as a form of bigotry that is equivalent to racism. Since such disapproval is the dominant viewpoint in the American public,explicitly taught by leading religions,and empirically supported by the negative health consequences of those behaviors

Perkins is pushing the "homosexuality has negative consequences" factoid that has served the religious right well for so many years.

The endnotes of his testimony says:

Evidence for the negative health consequences of homosexual conduct is available even from pro-homosexual sources such as the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. See their "Top Ten Issues to Discuss with Your Healthcare Provider" online at: http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=586&parentID=533&nodeID=1

To echo Jeremy Hooper in his denunciation of Perkins, it's a matter of perception.

Perkins is pushing the notion that "if people engage in same-sex intercourse, they face negative consequences."

However, at no time does the Top Ten Issues even imply this. This is what it does say:

LGBT people have some unique health needs and concerns. Unfortunately, many health care providers don’t fully understand these issues, so it’s important to take charge of your health by asking your healthcare provider about the health matters that may apply to you.
The following lists will help you communicate even more effectively with your healthcare provider:

10 Things Gay Men Should Discuss with Their Healthcare Providers

(Click here to downoad .pdf version)

10 Things Lesbians Should Discuss with Their Healthcare Providers

(Click here to download .pdf verson)

10 Things Transgender Persons Should Discuss with Their Healthcare Providers (Click here to download .pdf version)

Now while this medical information breakdown does concede that in some cases, lgbts face bigger health problems than the heterosexual population, at no time does it ever say anything about these health problems being the "negative effects of homosexual behavior."

But it does say few things that Perkins may not appreciate. For example, take the subject of depression/anxiety in the lesbian community:

Lesbians have been shown to experience chronic stress from homophobic discrimination. This stress is compounded by the need that some still have to hide their orientation from family and colleagues at work, and by the fact that many lesbians have lost the important emotional support most others get from their families due to alienation stemming from their sexual orientation.

Or substance abuse:

Research indicates that lesbians may use illicit drugs more often than heterosexual women. This may be due to added stressors in lesbian lives from discrimination. Lesbians need support from each other and from health care providers to find healthy releases, quality recreation, stress reduction, and coping techniques.

Or how about this point regarding how difficult it is for the members of the transgender community to receive adequate health care:

Transgender persons are often reluctant to seek medical care through a traditional provider-patient relationship. Some are even turned away by providers. A doctor who refuses to treat a trans person may be acting out of fear and transphobia, or may have a religious bias against GLBT patients. It’s also possible that the doctor simply doesn’t have the knowledge or experience he needs. Furthermore, health care related to transgender issues is usually not covered by insurance, so it is more expensive. Whatever the reasons, transgender people have sometimes become very ill because they were afraid to visit their providers.

In other words, Perkins made the claim that being an lgbt has "negative health consequences," but cited a pro-gay document which in part said the health problems lgbts face have more to do with dealing with an unaccepting society.

If he weren't so consumed with using the material inaccurately, Perkins would realize that Ten Top Issues actually makes the case for ENDA. Less worries about how you would be perceived on the job as an lgbt leads to less stress. And less stress leads to good health.

Gone are the days when folks like Robert Knight brazenly cited Paul Cameron studies during their Congressional testimony.

But as Perkins proves, members of the religious right still have a way of distorting lgbt lives to suit their agenda.

Independent polling shows 'No on 1' leading in Maine

From Americablog Gay comes this awesome news:

Jesse Connolly, the campaign manager for No on 1/Protect Maine Equality posted new poll results over at DailyKos:

A new public poll from Democracy Corps was released yesterday, showing us with a slight lead this race 50% to 41%, a significant jump from kos's numbers from the other week of 46-48.

The numbers are encouraging, but it's that 9% undecided that will determine this race. The investment of our supporters has allowed us to get on TV before our opponents and counter every lie they have tossed at us.

Tonight at midnight is the end of the third quarter and all of you kossacks know what that means: we will need to turn in our fundraising report.

Our campaign will be judged on the strength or weakness of this report.

I suggest that everyone go to the link and see what they can do contribute to this campaign.

One thing I have to mention about this campaign is how much I like its consistency. From the very beginning, the No on 1/Project Maine Equality folks have defined the issue and hammered their message home.

And they weren't afraid to not only use actual families but also challenge the opposition on their lies.

That's how it's done.

The following commercial says it all:

FRC's Tony Perkins caught in a distortion and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Perception as a weapon: We'd de-arm both employers and Tony P. - Goodasyou.org catches FRC's Tony Perkins in a distortion about his anti-ENDA testimony.

Federal Court Throws Out Suit Against Miami Hospital By Lesbian Barred From Dying Partner - This is a hot mess!

President Obama Must Speak Out On Maine Now - I have one problem with that. Mixner should say this to ALL lgbt spokespeople. The situation with Matt Foreman calling AIDS a "gay disease" comes to mind. Foreman meant that lgbts should take a bigger role in AIDS/HIV prevention just as Julian Bond meant when he called AIDS a "black disease." However, Foreman's words were misconstrued by the religious right.

Ex-Gay Group Calls Hate Crime Laws “Anti-Ex-Gay” - This is funny.

Many Maine Catholics Supporting Marriage Equality, Despite Bishop's Efforts - This is good news!

Focus on the Family Seeks to Exempt Alabama Gays from Antibullying Protection - Why of why am I not surprised?

Doctors settle case for denying lesbian treatment - Good news for us usually means that One News Now and the rest of the religious right aren't pleased.