Family Research Council doesn't want lgbt students protected from bullying

Count the anti-gay hate group Family Research Council as another religious right entity speaking against President Obama's anti-bullying initiative:

Tom McClusky, vice president of Government Affairs at the Christian Conservative group Family Research Council (FRC), has attacked President Barack Obama's anti-bullying campaign as an attempt to force anti-gay students “in the closet.”

. . . “It's ironic that when the President was trying to push this bullying program that he cited that he was once bullied as a child, because that's exactly what his policies are leading to, is bullying by the federal government and by a homosexual agenda that seeks to make children hide their Christianity and their religion in the closet and to silence those who would speak out against what they don't believe,” McClusky said.

In reality, the President's initiative doesn't exclude anyone but it does pay special attention to the bullying of lgbt students. And this is because:

Young LGBT people may be more at-risk for bullying. Compared to their heterosexual peers, some LGBT kids, teens and young adults are at increased risk for bullying, teasing, harassment, physical assault, and suicide-related behaviors.

Over a ten-year period more than 7,000 LGBT middle and high school students (aged 13-21), were surveyed. The results were published in The 2009 National School Climate Survey. The survey found that in the preceding year, because of their sexual orientation:

• Eight in ten LGBT students had been verbally harassed at school
• Four in ten had been physically harassed at school
• Six in ten felt unsafe at school
• One in five had been the victim of a physical assault at school

Unfortunately, these types of experiences with violence also occur outside of school and may continue into young adulthood.

Young LGBT people may be more at-risk for sexual discrimination and bias. Young LGBT individuals may be bullied as a part of sexual/gender discrimination and bias by their schoolmates, ethnic or religious groups or by other societal concerns related to sexual orientation and gender identity.

In McClusky's beleagured whinings, he didn't cite an iota of proof that "Christian students" will be ignored by Obama's initiative. Nor does he cite any statistics regarding the "bullying of Christian students" which is comparable to statistics regarding the bullying of lgbt students.

In fact, he doesn't cite any statistics at all.

So in other words, McClusky's claim is just hot air and the only problem that FRC has with the President's anti-bullying initiative is that it includes lgbt students.

It's sad enough when any students - especially lgbt students - are being bullied. It's even worse when a so-called Christian group wants us to ignore the problem.

Related posts:

Homophobic writer makes case for Obama's anti-bullying campaign

Focus on the Family's love for anti-gay bullies

Homophobic writer makes case for Obama's anti-bullying campaign

The basic lack of integrity from some on the right who would attack President Obama's anti-bullying initiative was seen again last week.

According to Media Matters, Robert Knight, a veteran expert in smearing the lgbt community, wrote a column about Obama's initiative in which he cited the concerns of one Laurie Higgins, a member of the SPLC-declared hate group the Illinois Family Institute:

The government, under the auspices of three federal agencies, has created a website dedicated to ending bullying. Paraphrasing Mrs. Higgins, here's the site's underlying philosophy: 1) Homosexual behavior is equivalent to race, 2) any kind of sex is morally positive, and 3) expressing any conservative moral beliefs leads to bullying. What a neat formula for suppressing dissent.

Let's ignore for a brief moment the fact that nothing in the President's initiative has anything to do with sexual intercourse and let's ignore Knight's silly need to define the lgbt community in accordance to his fevered imagination regarding what exactly is "homosexual behavior."

It's that third point which catches my eye - "expressing any conservative moral beliefs leads to bullying."

One has to wonder what exactly does Knight feel is an "expression of any conservative moral beliefs."

Are they something like this:

"Homosexuals say they don't want the children, but boy they put a lot of energy into going after them."

Or this:

“If you look at the footage from Operation Rescue, um, vigils outside abortion clinics, you will see that the anti Operation Rescue demonstrators invariably have a pink triangle on and they are usually pretty big heavy set women who look like they’ve been over working October Fest for the last six years . . .”

Or this:

"You can’t fool nature. The rectum was not made for sexual activity.” Then, impishly, he adds, “it is an exit ramp, not an entry ramp.”

These are past comments by Robert Knight and they illustrate a point I've made before. If you look at the past statements and comments of the vast majority of those raising "concerns" about the President's anti-bullying initiatives, you would find that they've said things about the lgbt community in the past which goes well beyond that of "expressing a moral belief" In fact, these statements sound as if they are voiced by grade school and high school bullies.

We saw an example of this last week with Focus on the Family interviewing the Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber about Obama's anti-bullying initiative in spite of the fact that Barber's past actions and comments against the lgbt community totally wrecks his credibility to speak on the issue - particularly the tasteless tweets he made about gays and lesbians serving openly in the military

So the big question here is not whether President Obama's anti-bullying initiative is unfair to those who have a moral objection to homosexuality.

The question - which should be put to Knight and those like him - is are they trying to protect the bullies?

Know Your LGBT History - Dynasty

Dynasty will be remembered as one of the campiest soap operas on television. The story of a Colorado tycoon Blake Carrington (John Forsythe), his family, and his diabolical ex-wife (Joan Collins) remains a popular staple in the minds of many.

Dynasty also  featured one of the first gay men to ever appear on a prime-time drama. Steven Carrington (first played by Al Corley and then Jack Coleman) was the son of Blake Carrington. His homosexuality was an interesting plot device on so many occasions. His father accidentally killed his lover in season one and thus had to stand trial. This led to the introduction of the villianess of the drama, Blake's ex-wife Alexis.

And then Steven married a woman, had a child, had plastic surgery, fought his father for custody of the child, got married to another woman, got custody of his child, reconciled with his father, got into relationship with another man which ended when this guy was killed during a wedding massacre, saved his father, walked out on his family, came back and had a happy relationship with another man.

Whew. Well to tell the truth, Steven's trials and tribulations didn't interest me. The one thing I did find interesting though was how Steven's sexual orientation created a shift. Alexis, usually the villain in the soap opera, supported him, while Blake - the hero - had serious problems accepting him.

The scene above is from the Dynasty reunion miniseries when Blake finally, finally accepts Steven.

Past Know Your LGBT History Postings:

NOM playing Hispanic community against lgbts in Rhode Island and other Friday midday news briefs

NOM dividing us as a people: Rhode Island Hispanic Church edition - Fresh from exploiting the fears of African-Americans in Maryland, now the National Organization for Marriage is doing the same to the Hispanic community in Rhode Island.

Slim majority back gay marriage, Post-ABC poll says - Speaking of which, the president of NOM, Brian Brown, is angry at this poll and is trying to "game the referee."

Barber & Staver: Sex Ed Is Poisoning The Minds of Young People - Of course they have to attack openly gay Obama appointee Kevin Jennings.

Committee passes NV bill adding transgender people to hate crime protection - Good news out of Nevada.

Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill Slated for Debate - Ugh, I say. Ugh.

More than half of Americans support gay marriage according to poll

In news which I know will cause the religious right some consternation, it would seem that the nation is warming up to gay marriage:

More than half of Americans say it should be legal for gays and lesbians to marry, a first in nearly a decade of polls by ABC News and The Washington Post.

This milestone result caps a dramatic, long-term shift in public attitudes. From a low of 32 percent in a 2004 survey of registered voters, support for gay marriage has grown to 53 percent today. Forty-four percent are opposed, down 18 points from that 2004 survey.

The issue remains divisive; as many adults "strongly" oppose gay marriage as strongly support it, and opposition rises to more than 2-1 among Republicans and conservatives and 3-1 among evangelical white Protestants, a core conservative group. But opposition to gay marriage has weakened in these groups from its levels a few years ago, and support has grown sharply among others – notably, among Catholics, political moderates, people in their 30s and 40s and men. 

And here is something which will really send the religious right into orbit:

The poll has an insufficient sample size to evaluate individual racial minority groups reliably. However, support for gay marriage is essentially identical among whites, 53 percent, and nonwhites, 54 percent. That's up by 13 points among whites – and by 20 among nonwhites.

Support is up by a striking 23 points among white Catholics, often a swing group and one that's been ready, in many cases, to disregard church positions on political or social issues.

However, I still remain cynical. Like I said last night:

  . . . we know the religious right works - some overly generous funds from anonymous sources, a couple of hundreds of thousands of glossy pamphlets blanketing a few states talking about how children will turn gay because of marriage equality, a few greased palms to various black ministers who will be more than eager to decry about the "highjacking of the civil rights movement" (you really don't think these ministers are raising hell out because of personal righteous indignation, do you), a few hundred thousand emails filled with homophobic talking points, a few visits to Fox News and then the tide turns.


In other words, we'll see how this poll holds up.

Is article about DOMA a case of positive overhyping?

According to Talking Points Memo, the issue of overturning DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) is a positive for Democrats due to the fact that it's no longer a wedge issue:

In the wake of President Obama's decision to drop support for portions of the Defense of Marriage Act, gay rights advocates have been unabashed in claiming that beyond the merits of their underlying argument they now have the political advantage as well. Not only does public opinion polling suggest they're right, but the reaction of gay rights opponents does, too.

On Wednesday, House and Senate Democrats held separate press conferences announcing the introduction of legislation to repeal DOMA. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), one of the sponsors of the House bill, was asked whether Democrats were politicizing gay rights as a wedge issue against the GOP, as Majority Leader Eric Cantor alleged last month.

"What do I say to the idea that this is a wedge issue? I say 'Hallelujah,'" Frank told reporters. "The fact that we've now evolved to the point where the Republicans are complaining about the fact that we introduced this bill because it causes them political problems is a great sign of progress. It used to be the other way around."

Frank noted that the original 1996 DOMA was used by Congress in part to put President Clinton in a tough political spot ahead of his re-election race against Bob Dole. Many political observers credited Republican efforts to ban gay marriage on the state and federal level with helping secure President Bush's re-election in 2004 as well. In his memoirs last year, Rove wrote that a 2003 Massachusetts court decision legalizing gay marriage "did affect the 2004 election by motivating culturally conservative Democrats and independents who might otherwise have voted Democratic to abandon Kerry over his wobbly views on marriage."

In his statement on President Obama's decision to abandon DOMA, Cantor revealed how much the tables have turned, calling the move "a clear political exercise by the Administration." A recent poll commissioned by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, found a majority of Americans opposed DOMA and backed Obama's position. Other polls have found support for legalizing gay marriage entirely trending rapidly towards a majority -- a recent Pew survey found 46% of respondents opposed to allowing gay marriage versus 45% who back the idea.

"The wedge has lost its edge," Republican strategist Mark McKinnon, who worked on Bush's 2004 campaign, told The New York Times last month. 

Pardon me for being a bit cynical but we know the religious right works - some overly generous funds from anonymous sources, a couple of hundreds of thousands of glossy pamphlets blanketing a few states talking about how children will turn gay because of marriage equality, a few greased palms to various black ministers who will be more than eager to decry about the "highjacking of the civil rights movement" (you really don't think these ministers were raising hell out because of personal righteous indignation, did you), a few hundred thousand emails filled with homophobic talking points, a few visits to Fox News and BOOM:

The media will be talking about how DOMA has been resurrected as a "wedge issue."

Why do African-American homophobes ignore Bayard Rustin?

Another day goes by and another ignorant black preacher sets himself up as the arbiter of just what the civil rights movement was all about. This time, it was in Iowa:

Speaking before a conservative-minded crowd of around 400 on the west steps of the Capitol, Rev. Keith Ratliff criticized gay rights activists for equating their struggle with the civil rights movement of 50 years ago.

“For the few victories that the gay community is claiming,” Ratliff said, “they have won it mostly based on the hijacking of them trying to parallel themselves on the backs of the civil rights movement, here in America.”

He said their is “no parallel” of what an “insult” it was for them to compare themselves with the civil rights movement.

Ratliff, of the Maple Street Missionary Baptist Church in Des Moines, said not being able to marry a person of the same gender was no where near what it’s like to be denied service in a restaurant or hotel for the color of their skin.

“For those that spiritually see the big picture, this issue is a battle ground as we said and not a playground,” Ratliff said.

Every time I hear an African-American leader make such statement, I always wish I could ask that leader about this man, Bayard Rustin:



Bayard Rustin was an African-American openly gay aide of Martin Luther King, Jr. He organized the 1963 March on Washington. If it weren't for him, that march would NOT have been a success.

Michele Bachman to 'advance kingdom of God' and other Thursday midday news briefs

First look: NOM's soon-to-launch DefendDOMA site - Oh look. The National Organization for Marriage lauches a Defend DOMA so they can help defend that law in the courts just like they helped defend Prop 8. Oh wait . . . they didn't, or rather refused to.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein Introduces Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act – Speaking of which . . .

Scarborough Meets With Bachmann to Discuss How To Advance The Kingdom of Christ - I'm just speechless cause it's too easy to say something.

Seton Hall gay student from Ridgefield Park sues over change in dorm room - I had college roommates who couldn't handle me being gay. THEY moved, not me.

Media ignores lgbt youth in story about Christian foster parents

A recent case in Great Britain about foster parenting and lgbts have some of the right practically salivating in terms of how they can exploit the situation. And as it turns out, they got it all wrong. What's worse is how the mainstream media pushed the story.

This the scenario laid out:

Owen and Eunice Johns of Derby, England, were told by judges sitting in the High Court in London that gay equality laws must "take precedence" over the rights of Christians to act in line with their faith.

The couple, who have fostered 15 children, had sought a judicial review of a 2009 decision by the Derby City Council to defer their application to be approved as short-term, respite, foster caregivers because of their views on sexual morality.

The judges were asked to consider the abstract question of whether public authorities should consider applicants' views on sexual ethics when deciding to approve them as foster parents.

The judges stated that Christian beliefs on sexual ethics may be "inimical" to children and implicity upheld a submission by the publicly funded Equality and Human Rights Commission that children risked being "infected" by Christian moral beliefs.

If children are placed with parents who have traditional Christian views, "there may well be a conflict with the local authority's duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children," the judges said.

The "discriminated Christian" angle is taking up all of the attention in the media. The following are the headlines laid out by various news sources:

British court rules couple too Christian to care for kids ‎ - USA Today
Pentecostal couple find no comfort in the High Court ‎ - Church Times

And several other articles feature personal exposes of the couple complete with pictures of the two in either a loving embrace or holding hands.

However it would seem that a lot of folks went for the senationalistic appeal of this story and did not bother to do suitable background work.

NOM loves playing African-Americans and lgbts against one another

The National Organization for Marriage just can't seem to help itself. Fresh off its victory in Maryland against a gay marriage bill, the organization continues to stoke the same sentiment which helped (I didn't say led to) its victory.

From Equality Matters:

This Wednesday, National Organization for Marriage (NOM) continued its effort to pit African Americans and the LGBT community against each other. In response to Kevin Naff's  Washington Blade column rebuking four Maryland delegates who waivered in their support for marriage equality, the NOM blog posted the following:

...of the 4 delegates he targets, three are African-American.
We've been accused of playing the race card before. But what is the Washington Blade urging? [NOM Blog, 3/16/11]

What Naff is urging, of course, is that Maryland delegates be held accountable for backing away from their pro-equality promises - not that African-American delegates be targeted for being African-American. 

Unfortunately, this is not the first time NOM has opted to play the race card in order to generate opposition to marriage equality. Earlier this month, while the LGBT community was reacting to Del. Sam Arora's marriage betrayal in Maryland, NOM's Maggie Gallagher got into some hot water for accusing pro-equality advocates of "targeting" racial minorities. On the NOM blog, she wrote:

... as someone married to an Indian-American, I find it interesting that the gay marriage machine appears to be re-focusing its attacks from Black Democrats who oppose gay marriage to an easier target: Indian-Americans.

Tiffany Alston appears now to be off the hook regardless of how she votes. [NOM Blog, 3/3/11, emphasis added]

Gallagher's comments sparked outrage and criticism from many equality advocates who accused her of attempting to inject race into public discourse to advance her own agenda.

After the Maryland bill had been scuttled, Gallagher returned to the issue of race, attempting to characterize the effort in the House as a battle between "white urban liberals" who use the "N-word" when they don't get their way and African Americans who support traditional marriage. Once again, Gallagher's comments were criticized by gay rights activists who chastised her for trying to redraw the debate over marriage equality along racial lines.

I guess NOM figures why stop a working strategy. Because the bill was not voted on this year, it could come back up next year in another session. Of course NOM has a vital interest in keeping African-Americans and lgbts at each other's throats.

The question is what are folks going to do about it? Are they going to recognize how NOM - a third party coming into the state with no other interest other than pushing its own agenda - will exploit Marylanders against one another?

Related post:

From one black man to the black community - stop the homophobic madness!

Church forcing choir to sign anti-gay statement and other Wednesday midday news briefs

CWA: Learning About Sexual Behavior Furthers The “Homosexual Agenda” - Because keeping our children ignorant about sexual behavior is the "Christian" thing to do.

Megachurch wants choir to sign anti-gay covenant - Unbelievable.

Attorney General Bill Schuette: EMU's student's religious beliefs against homosexuality violated - If you refuse to do the job, then you don't need the job. Period.

Ogden, Utah, Manages to Pass Inclusive Non-Discrimination Ordinance - And the dish didn't run away with the spoon. Amazing.

Scott Lively's homophobia in living and repulsive color

Remember when homophobe and supporter of the Uganda "kill the gays" bill Scott Lively complained in January about how he was being "persecuted for his Christian beliefs? Remember how in that same month some folks on the right - particularly Peter LaBarbera ran to his defense against us supposed mean-spirited activists who pointed out how Lively's rhetoric may have led to the needless murder of Ugandan activist David Kato?

This following video putS everything in a new perspective. It's allegedly Lively giving a talk about homosexuality while in Uganda. But regardless of where it took place, what Lively says gives serious room for pause for anyone who would call him a "Christian activist." It should give serious room for pause for anyone who call Lively a decent human being:

Will DOMA be the new Terri Schiavo and other Tuesday afternoon news briefs

The Pro-Bullying Lobby: Conservative Leader Explains Why He Is Mobilizing Against Anti-Bullying Measures - Disgusting, but the first in a much needed series by Think Progress.

Dem Poll: Majority Oppose Defense of Marriage Act, Support Obama Position - Yeah I know that it's an HRC commissioned poll so some folks will scream bias, but check out the scenario here - The GOP is forced to unpopular action by its "base," - action which is opposed by a majority of Americans. DOMA has become Terri Schiavo.

Gingrich Group Funneled $125K To AFA To Remove Iowa Judges - For those keeping score - adultery nets 2 (two being the number of times Newt Gingrich cheated on his old wife with his soon-to-be new wife), impartial judges - 0.

'National Catholic Reporter': Tick tock on the 'protect marriage' clock - They won in Maryland and already they are scared. Good.

House Committee OKs End to Antigay Aid - Not bad.

Focus on the Family's love for anti-gay bullies

Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel

Focus on the Family does not like President Obama's focus on preventing bullying. The main reason of course is because the needs of lgbt youth are talked about and as we know, anything which deals with lgbts in a positive manner gives organizations like Focus on the Family "the vapors."

Focus on the Family has spoken out against President Obama's actions.

However, as Jeremy Hooper from Goodasyou points out, it's not just how the organization wants everyone to sidestep the needs of lgbt students when it comes to stopping bullying, it's who the group is calling to assist in it's subterfuge:

The Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber.

Now for those who do not know, Barber isn't just anti-gay. He expresses opposition to the lgbt community sometimes in a manner so vindictive that he can give Fred Phelps pause. Hooper breaks it down a little:

But as for Matt, who doesn't even work for FOtF? Well let's look at some of what he's put on record. There was the time Matt said that gay male relationships constitute "one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love’”; the time Matt called President Barack Obama an anti-american enemy; the time he accused Obama and Barney Frank of being anti-religious bigots; the time he suggested there are "sinister motives" in the Obama White House; the time he agreed with TVC's Andrea Lafferty that homosexuality is "among a litany of...sexual deviances" that include things like sex with an amputee's stump and sexual behavior involving feces and urine; the time he likened pro-equality progressives to Fred "God Hates F*gs" Phelps; the time he referred to marriage equality advocates as "purveyors of evil"; the time he compared gay unions to marrying a house plant; the time he said Ellen Degeneres "guides her many adoring housewife fans into rebellion against God's divine and explicit natural order"; the time he called Google "satanic" for supporting marriage equality; the time he accused gay-friendly media outlets of trying "to make the absurd appear reasonable and normal"; the time he referred to the Muslim faith as "Satanic";etc., etc. More than just about anyone in the "pro-family" world (with the possible exception of Bryan Fisher), Matt has made the choice to go as personal, as negative, as hyperbolic, and as wantonly hurtful as humanly inhumanely possible. He does this on the daily. 

And let's not forget the following tweets in which Barber shows his "love" for the lgbt community (Editor's note - you may see a message saying the Barber is "protecting his tweets." Kinda proves my point, doesn't it?):

•  January 14, 2011: “Look pal, you won’t be able to ‘ask’ or ‘tell’ if you don’t get your hand off my knee! http://yfrog.com/h4d67zoj
•  January 25, 2011: Soldiers, does your foxhole buddy have your back or want to rub it?
•  January 29, 2011: Drudge:”Man Subjected To Body Cavity Search At Traffic Stop.” Other News: “Barney Frank Waves Down Police in Traffic.” http://tiny.cc/spo05
•  January 30, 2011: DADT repeal implementation underway. “Slap fighting” & “tickle parties” to be added to special forces training. http://tiny.cc/jfcdx
•  January 31, 2011: She-male model stirs Brazil fashion show. In other news: Man buys Rolex & discovers it’s a knock-off. http://bit.ly/gxcfVW
•  January 31, 2011: SNL skit mocking Tranny inanity has homosexual activists fuming (warning: a little crude) http://bit.ly/ewYd0A
•  February 1, 2011: Queering the Marines: From morally upright 2 immorally down-low. From semper fidelis 2 limp-wristed fellas http://bit.ly/fBcuqH
•  February 23, 2011: Today’s Army: Trannies, drag queens & she-males, oh my! http://tinyurl.com/6kcrssb
•  February 25, 2011: The homofascist bullying & brainwashing begins: “Combat troops to get gay sensitivity training:” http://bit.ly/dKqh4b

A little advice to Focus on the Family - if you are going to speak against President Obama's anti-bullying initiative, perhaps its best not to seek aid from a man whose comments sound like they have been uttered from your typical school bully.

Related post - Focus On The Family Dubs Anti-Bullying Programs “Pro-Homosexual Curriculum”

Hat tip to Goodasyou and Asterik.

A little peek at the National Organization for Marriage's questionable financial history

One has to give it to the National Organization for Marriage. In a very short time, the organization led a coalition of religious folks to stop the gay marriage vote in Maryland. This included having speakers in front of the legislature, booking itself on many local programs, mobilizing churches, and promising a huge amount of money (one million dollars) to sway legislators on future vote regarding marriage equality. Not bad.

An article earlier this year in the Iowa Independent may give a reason as to why it has been easy for NOM to be successful. In the words of a famous rapper - "cash rules everything around me:"

Three-quarters of the funding for the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a 501(c)(4) nonprofit dedicated to opposing same-sex marriage, comes from just five sources, according to its most recent 2009 990 form filed with the Internal Revenue Services.

NOM spent $635,627 in Iowa in 2010 to help bankroll the successful campaign to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices over a ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. In 2009, the organization spent nearly $100,000 supporting a Republican House candidate in a special legislative election. NOM has also done a series of robocalls concerning same-sex marriage and held a pair of rallies in Iowa in early August to promote their point of view.

“The National Organization for Marriage has emerged as the nation’s only major national grassroots organization dedicated to protecting marriage,” said NOM’s president and founder, Maggie Gallagher, in July 2009. NOM describes itself as “the nation’s only grassroots organization focused on the threat to marriage at state and local levels.” NOM Executive Director Brian Brown said in a January 2010 press release, “NOM’s goal is a national grassroots organization that can make a difference in all 50 states, as needed.”

However, at least in terms of funding, its donations are quite concentrated. According to its 2009 990 form (PDF) obtained by the Human Rights Campaign, NOM received $7,106,388 in donations in 2009. Three donations of $2.4 million, $1.2 million, and $1.1 million constituted 68 percent of its total donations. Two additional donations of $400,000 and $150,000 mean that three-quarters of its funding came from just five sources.

Donations to 501(c)(4) organizations are not tax-deductible and organizations do not have to disclose their donors.

In September, reporter Jesse Zwick uncovered a $1.4 million donation from the Knights of Columbus to NOM in 2009, which does not seem to appear on the organization’s 990. NOM has a pattern of pushing the boundaries of disclosure laws: The organization sued the Rhode Island Board of Elections over the funding of ads, has been the subject of campaign finance complaints in Maine and Iowa and used a loophole in Minnesota campaign finance law all to avoid disclosure.

It's fascinating to me. Of all of the things I have written and said about religious right groups (including the Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council, etc), I don't think I have ever had to focus on their finances. But questions about money and how the organization tries to skirt finance laws seems to be NOM's Achilles heel.

No doubt the organization will claim that all inquiries about its finances are made in an effort to undermine its work against marriage equality. Perhaps. But that doesn't take away from the fact that NOM has a problem being truthful about its finances.

According to the webpage nomexposed.org, in the span of four years, NOM's budget went from a little over $500,000 to $10 million.

And during that time, while the organization have had huge victories in places like California, Maine, and Maryland, it also left many raised eyebrows  regarding its ethics and financial disclosures in those places as well as in Rhode Island, Washington State, and Iowa.

Lastly, we must remember that the chairman of NOM, Maggie Gallagher herself is no stranger to ethical impropriety. In 2005, it was discovered that she received over $40,000 from the Bush Administration to promote its marriage initiatives, which she did in her supposedly objective column published in various newspapers throughout the country.

After the discovery, Gallagher said she didn't disclose the payment (again over $40,000) because "she forgot."

It's doesn't take an Einstein to realize that beneath its veneer of supposed respectability and morality, there seems to be another, more unsavory side of NOM.

And rather than blow our stacks at the organization's success, or make cute side comments about its members, maybe it's time for those of us in the community who are adept in such things to put our shoulders to the grindstone and start uncovering all of NOM's secrets.

At the very least, it will be a new goal for me.

Related:

Nomexposed - more people need to not only join AND study this site

NOM has "generously" supplied a link to all of its tax returns for those who are interested

Black Lesbian Fierce & Funny Gloria Bigelow

From a segment from NoMoreDownLow.TV comes comedian Gloria Bigelow. Remember that name because she is going to be a big star:

Anti-gay New York politicians facing corruption scandals and other Monday midday news briefs

Two anti-gay New York state Senators under investigation for corruption - One of these senators allegedly said that if "they" offered her a million dollars tax free, she would never support gay marriage. Perhaps we now know why.

Harry Jackson Credits The Black Church With Stopping Marriage Equality In Maryland - It's lying hucksters in the pulpit like Harry Jackson who make it harder for decent black folks like myself.

Harry Jackson: Point Man for the Wedge Strategy - And just in case you are interested, here is why Harry Jackson does what he does. And it's not for the betterment of anyone but himself.

Mediation under way in Eddie Long case - I am NOT saying that Long is guilty, but . . .

New Birth reduces jobs and salaries - Rumor control has it that his church is reducing salaries and laying folks off in anticipation of the mediation's possible settlement.

And just in case you need a recap in terms of how we got here with Eddie Long - here it is.

From one black man to the black community - stop the homophobic madness!

During last week’s legislative session in Maryland when lawmakers were pondering the idea of gay marriage, a few black lawmakers took the time to not only criticize gay marriage but also the notion of lgbt equality in general.

We’ve all heard the hurtful sayings before - “you can’t compare gay rights to black civil rights because you can hide being gay,” “gays and lesbians were never oppressed in the same manner in which blacks were oppressed,” etc., etc.

It would be an awful generalization to say that all in the African-American community have these beliefs. In Maryland many African-Americans, including Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo, publicly supported marriage equality.

However, statements voiced by some Maryland lawmakers unfortunately stand out and not in a good way. In answer to these comments, I could go on about the many lives either crippled and lost at the hands of gay bashers like that of Matthew Shepard, or the wholesale genocide of lgbts by the Nazis in German, or the suicides of lgbt youth such as Tyler Clementi, or the present day usage of junk science by religious right groups to demonize the lgbt community.

But why bother. I’ve reached the point where I hate having to do it.

It’s sad how no one ever talks about how this tug of war between the African-American and lgbt community over equality can negatively affect us lgbts of color. For me personally, it’s an awful psychological rending, a forced dividing of myself into two halves which have no business separating in the first place.

And as a gay man, I especially hate it. I hate the idea of us lgbts having to put the history of our oppression on some sort of display. I hate the notion that lgbts are put on a witness stand where we have to list how many times we have been beaten, disrespected, or denied our basic humanity in order to somehow prove our “worthiness.”

It always leaves me wondering are the scars of the lgbt community deep enough? Is our humiliation painful enough? Have we shed enough blood to suit those who would judge on us on those things?

Don’t get me wrong. I am all for understanding the aesthetic differences between the African-American struggle and lgbt struggle for equality. But there comes a time when we must recognize the folly of this constant struggle over whether the two are similar.

And that time is now.

It distresses me to no end that on the subject of lgbt equality, some African-Americans are taking on the guise of those who oppress them.

Those who oppressed (and continue to oppress) African-Americans have the belief that somehow blacks are inferior and will never measure up. Therefore they figure that black people are not deserving of certain basic rights. What’s more awful is how they use the Bible to justify their discrimination.

Now, it seems that some African-Americans have told members of the lgbt community that their suffering is inferior and will never measure up. And therefore, the lgbt community are not deserving of certain basic rights. And guess what? They too use the Bible to justify their discrimination .

It’s a nasty, stupid game. And those who choose to play it should know better.

Being oppressed is not a status symbol. Being oppressed is not a mark of achievement. It should never be used as a pedestal to somehow judge whether or not a group of people are “worthy” of being treated like basic human beings.

Know Your LGBT History - Milk

A movie which needs no introduction. Sean Penn rocked as Harvey Milk and won a well-deserved Oscar for Best Actor.

Now when is someone going to do a movie about Bayard Rustin?

Harvey Debates Senator Briggs
Milk at MOVIECLIPS.com

Gay Pride Rally Speech


Milk
at MOVIECLIPS.com

Past Know Your LGBT History Postings:

Family Research Council has no sense of logic and other Friday midday news briefs

Family Research Council's "The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex 'Marriage'" Defies Logic - Just when did the Family Research Council and logic ever mix?

Peter Sprigg proves the Family Research Council to be a hate group (again) - And here is another piece about that FRC pamphlet written by yours truly.


Man Charged in West Village Hate Crime Says He's No 'Bigot' - I'm sure he feels that he isn't a bigot NOW. But that night when he acted as if he was got him into trouble.


Maryland Bi-National Same-Sex Couple Avoids Separation - Nice to see some good news today.

Gay couple hotel appeal withdrawn - Just in case religious right groups try to squeeze new lies from this old case, here is some clarification.