Combat the USA Today's love letter to the religious right

Today, an article in the USA Today sent me farther north than I would prefer to be.

The article, Gay marriage? These voices say 'No' and explain why, focused on those who oppose marriage equality, i.e. organizations such as the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage and folks like Brian Brown and Tony Perkins.

Nothing wrong with that. And though I was not happy about the slant of the article - i.e. Brown, Perkins and company are portrayed as  "defenders of traditional marriage" - I could have dealt with the slant if the writer, Richard Wolf, looked as if he actually wrote the article.

If you will forgive me for being blunt, the way this article was written looked as if Wolf handed a series of questions to these folks while telling them to write anything and he would "pretty it up" later.

In other words, this isn't an good article. It's an incomplete piece of nonsense which is highlighted by the fact that Wolf glossed over the tactics of these groups. He pretty much omits the fact that these groups and individuals have possessed a long-term animus against the gay community.

I am not kidding.  Wolf writes about Brown and NOM and William Owens and his group, the Coalition of African-American Pastors, without mentioning NOM's gay vs. black strategy. He doesn't even mention the fact that Owens is on NOM's payroll and CAAP was attempting to undermine Obama's support in the African-American community while NOM was supporting Romney.

Wolf talks about Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council, making sure to note that awful shooting last year. But he omits comments by FRC staffers expressing the desire to deport gays and to criminalize homosexuality. He omits the lies, junk science, and cherry-picking of studies FRC routinely engages in to demonize the lgbt community. He doesn't even mention Perkins' comments comparing us to pedophiles and terrorists.

Basically, every organization and person spotlighted in Wolf's article has a history of defaming the gay community in the same manner racists defame African-Americans, but Wolf fails to mention these important details.

Wolf's article is sad but it is also totally indicative of what the lgbt community has to deal with when it generally comes to the mainstream media and their articles about religious right groups. Too often, the lies and tactics used against us - the comparisons to pedophilia, the studies taken out of context, the ugly omission of our families and children, and the reduction of the entirety of our lives to a sex act - are either glossed over or not referred to at all.

And religious right groups get a free pass to plead Christian ennui while they hide their true motives and actions.

I say this time, we don't allow this situation to pass without comment.  On the right side of the link to the article is a way to contact Wolf. I say that as many of us as possible write this man and tell him that his article omitted a huge amount.  Please go to this page and leave a comment about Wolf's article on the comments and clarifications section. The organizations he spotlighted are not groups attempting to "protect" so-called traditional marriage. They are, in fact, bigoted groups willing to hide their homophobia behind religious beliefs.

Be nice but make sure to include a copy of GLAAD's Commentator Accountability Project so in the future, he knows who he is dealing with.

And maybe a copy of How They See Us wouldn't hurt.

'Meet the one gay man the religious right actually does like' and other Thursday midday news briefs

Far-right itching to turn Doug Mainwaring's solo act into an orchestra - Doug Mainwaring is ONE gay man who opposes marriage equality. If the religious right has their way, his single belief will trump the rights of thousands of same-sex couples who do want marriage equality. It doesn't make sense, but then again, we are talking about the religious right. THIS is the warning.  

Nation’s Largest Pediatrics Organization Supports Same-Sex Marriage, Criticizes Regnerus Study - The American Academy of Pediatrics becomes the latest medical group to vouch for same-sex parenting and destroy Mark Regnerus's bogus anti-gay parenting study. It's a bit long but worth the read. You know, sometimes I think I am sadistic for posting all of these rebukes of Regenerus's work. But then I realize that he started it and is only getting what he deserves.  

Republican Lawmaker Opposes Marriage Equality Because He Doesn’t Want To Marry A Man - Based upon this article, we have some pretty DUMB Republicans holding office. 

LaBarbera: Treat Gay Family Member Like a Drug Addict - 'Porno Pete' strikes again.

FRC's Peter Sprigg sets a new low for logical failure

Peter Sprigg

The Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg is a master at cherry-picking legitimate science to demonize the lgbt community. I know this well because I have caught him committing this offense on more than one occasion. I would like to think that it is my constant monitoring of him which led him into the following ridiculous convolution of logic.

 In a post on the FRC webpage, Sprigg was attempting to explain why discrimination against interracial marriage isn't the same as discrimination against marriage equality. To say that Sprigg fails miserably is an insult to all failures in the history of mankind.

I'm serious.

There has to be a new definition of failure invented to describe just how off-base Sprigg went. The following is the gist of his piece:

Laws against interracial marriage served only the purpose of preserving a social system of racial segregation. This was both an unworthy goal and one utterly irrelevant to the fundamental nature of marriage.

Bridging the divide of the sexes by uniting men and women, on the other hand, is both a worthy goal and a part of the fundamental purpose of marriage, common to all human civilizations.

Ironically, this means that in one key respect, it is the supporters of marriage redefinition who resemble the opponents of interracial marriage. Both merely exploited the institution of marriage to advance a social goal that has nothing to do with the purpose of marriage, which is to promote responsible procreation. Virtually everyone now opposes the goal of one (racial segregation), whereas society remains sharply divided on the other (the forced affirmation of homosexual relationships), but this is ultimately irrelevant. Neither of these goals is related to the public purposes of marriage. Allowing a black woman to marry a white man does not change the definition of marriage, which requires one man and one woman.  Allowing two men or two women to marry would change that fundamental definition.

That's some serious Cheech and Chong logic there. Allow me to break down the errors.

1. Just who decided that the purpose of marriage was procreation. To make this point omits children born to unmarried couples as well as married couples who don't have children.

2. Sprigg is implying that marriage equality would upset the social order and pollute marriage. His implication is ironic. Earlier this year, Howard University School of Law submitted a brief to the Supreme Court making the case that those who opposed interracial marriage and those who oppose marriage equality have made similar illogical arguments. Number one on their list was how the opposers of both marriage situations claimed that they (i.e. interracial marriage or marriage equality) would upset the social order.

3. And the largest refutation to Sprigg's argument is simple. He does not say just how allowing gay couple to marry would "redefine marriage." He does not say how allowing gay couples would damage the marriages of heterosexual couples.  That so-called fundamental purpose of uniting heterosexual couples Sprigg mentioned would still take place. No one, Sprigg included, has ever accurately spelled out just how would allowing gay couples to marry damage heterosexual couples. And I don't mean some hypothetical, metaphysical point thought up in a boardroom. I mean concrete evidence. And let's face it. Neither Sprigg nor his bunch have any.

This hot mess of a post by Sprigg reveals something more than a man literally talking out of his ass. It reveals that if one was to take away the religious right's tendency to rely on junk science and cherry-pick legitimate science, this disgrace of a column is all you have left of their arguments against the lgbt community.

It's nothing but hot air propelled by bigotry.

Michelle Shocked claims her anti-gay tirade was misunderstood

The Michelle Shocked controversy has dominated the week but I haven't really paid attention. The lgbt community is angry that the folk singer went full blown homophobic on stage at a concert and with good reason. Her outburst - heard below, starting at 4:37 has to be heard to believed.  She is now saying that she was misunderstood. Editor's note: Hat tip to John Becker for the audio.

However, while not excusing anything she said, it sounds like to me that she had a Michael Richards type meltdown. No matter what the reasons, her career is suffering big time because now her concert tour is canceled. However, if she can pull off the explanation of being "misunderstood," girlfriend deserves some type of award.



 

NOM's Morse wants you to forget that lgbts of color exist

In the years which I have observed the religious right, the thing which always disturbs me the most regarding their talking points and claims is how they always attempt to manipulate the world to suit their purposes. In other words, anyone who doesn't fit their narrative or refutes their narrative is omitted and excised as if they don't exist.

We've seen how organizations like the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage are deliberately careful not to mention same-sex families and their children when speaking against marriage equality. This is because they don't want to admit that same-sex couples are just as good when it comes to being parents as the two-parent heterosexual dynamic they hoist on a pedestal.

But same-sex couples and their children aren't the only ones who receives this nasty treatment.
The following clip below courtesy of Equality Matters features Jennifer Morse of NOM's Ruth Institute speaking for the African-American community and proclaiming how black people in general get offended when lgbts supposedly compared the gay equality movement to the African-American civil rights movement:

 

Morse makes a small point. There are some African-Americans - ignorant African-Americans - who seem to think that the black civil rights movement and the gay civil rights movement aren't the same. However, please note that I said "some." There are others who see the similarities in both. And more importantly, Morse didn't mention the category of people whose existence unites both movements, lgbts of color, like the following:

 

No matter how neat Morse's divide and conquer strategy is, it will always fail when it runs into the brick wall called reality.

'Religious right groups produce weak, insipid brochure' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Anti-Gay Organizations Refuse To Address Questions About Same-Sex Families - This is BEYOND pitiful. The Family Research Council, the National Organization for Marriage, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Heritage Foundation team up for a slick brochure explaining why marriage shouldn't be "redefined" and it's filled with hackneyed Maggie Gallagheresque talking points and points to only one study to boost its point - the refuted Regnerus study. And what's more, it deliberately ignores the existence of same-sex families and children. I'm almost insulted, but then I realize that probably the reason why this silly brochure contains no studies is probably due to the painstaking work of bloggers like myself who refuted the junk science and cherry-picked studies that the religious right included in past brochures.  

FRC, NOM, ADF, Heritage issue sleek new brochure; sleekness can't polish this discriminatory turd - Jeremy Hooper describes the brochure in another way.

 LGBT Teen To Senators: ‘I Am Not Broken, I Am Not Confused, I Do Not Need To Be Fixed’ (Video) - Preeeach!  

Farah: 'Dangerous and Totalitarian' Gays Seek 'the Active Recruitment of Children' - Folks, if gays could recruit, forget the children. We would recruit people with money, like Warren Buffet and (gasp) Donald Trump.

Coy Mathis, Colo. Transgender Child Banned From Using School Bathroom, Ignites Debate Over Anti-Discrimination Laws - This is ridiculous. A silly overreaction based upon fear and ignorance of the transgender community!

Editor's note - and finally, I am pleased to announce that my booklet How They See Us: Unmasking the Religious Right War on Gay America is the third most read political book (4-100 pgs) on Scribd this month! 'How They See Us' is also the 22nd most read political book (4 - 100 pgs) of all time on Scribd!  I am currently working on a Facebook page! Thank you to everyone for my booklet's continued success.

Anti-gay group angry at Madonna for speech at GLAAD awards

Madonna's appearance last weekend at the GLAAD Awards got many tongues wagging.

 She was there to present Anderson Cooper with an award, but practically stole the show by wearing a Boy Scout uniform and making very articulate speech regarding the Scout policy of not allowing gays to join.

Needless to say, the Family Research Council was not happy. In voicing its displeasure, the organization made it seem that Madonna came to the awards frothing at the mouth:

Maybe they call her the "Material Girl" because Madonna always gives the press something to write about. If so, she delivered this past weekend. Dressed head-to-toe in a Boy Scouts uniform, the controversial pop star appeared at the GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) Awards to lash out at the BSA in a profanity-laced tirade that tried to discredit the organization's 103-year track record of American service and character-building.

When she wasn't swearing, the singer (who said her idea of scouting is "scout[ing] for boys!") compared the group's beliefs to terrorists'. "[I]t's no different than a white Supremacist hanging a black man from a tree before the civil rights movement. OK? It's no different. It's no different than a member of the Taliban shooting a young girl in the head for writing a blog about the importance of [getting an] education... I don't know about you, but I can't take this [expletive] anymore." At one point, the same Madonna with song titles that couldn't be read aloud on network television, even invoked Christ. " [I]t's so absurd. What did Jesus teach? 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' "
It has always amazed me how people who have done everything possible to push God and His standard from our country feel free to invoke this passage of scripture. It only works when they insert their definition of "love" not the biblical definition of love  . . . In this conflict of values, Madonna is the face of the other side. As a mom or dad, whose moral compass would you want your kids to follow: a performer who strips on stage (when she isn't bashing the military) or an organization devoted to public service and character development?

Let the Boy Scouts know that Madonna doesn't speak for America. If you've already signed FRC's petition encouraging the Scouts to stand strong on their convictions, another way you can help is by completing the comment form that the BSA has distributed to its members. You can read the survey questions here. If you are a member of the Scouts, or have a son who is, please ask your local Scoutmaster to send you the survey if you have not yet received it. If you have friends who are in Scouting, make them aware of the need to complete the survey, too. When you send in your survey, be sure to write something like, "Homosexuality is incompatible with the tenets of Scouting and should not be introduced to the boys entrusted by their parents to Scout troops. Keep the current policy."

Just in case you are interested in viewing, here is Madonna's speech in its entirety.  Please note that it's not even close to the wild tirade FRC made it out to be:

Endorsers undermine the message of NOM's march

With the National Organization for Marriage's March for Marriage just around the corner, the group is quickly gathering up the endorsements.

However, NOM would do better than to not let certain people endorse its march because they contradict its false message of  simply "defending marriage" without malice towards the gay community.

 Let's look at the recent endorsement NOM received from Focus on the Family's Tom Minnery:



Pay no attention to Minnery's wilted delivery and inaccurate claim regarding how God endowed marriage to be one way since the beginning of civilization. For my money, I am drawn to the nonsense he says about children needing the best chance to have a mom and a dad.

One would think he wouldn't have the audacity to make such a statement regarding children and parents when one remembers how he got busted during a Congressional hearing by Sen. Al Franken in 2011 for attempting to distort a study in order to make a negative assumption about same-sex families:



And then there is former senator and now head of the Heritage Foundation Jim DeMint:



One has to give it to DeMint how he seems to have memorized NOM's talking points. I especially liked it when he said that all Americans have the right to live as they choose, but do not have the right to "redefine marriage." But not for the reasons that you think.

You see, DeMint doesn't actually believe that.  What he does believe - and he said this in 2004 and 2010 - is that gays and sexually active unmarried women should not be allowed to teach in schools

So why is this important? Because of how NOM attempts to claim that it and those who support the organization, who supposedly believe in so-called traditional marriage, are being bullied and unfairly labeled as bigots

But yesterday, we got a good look at the vile anti-gay animus which many NOM supporters embrace. And today, we see the same animus, albeit tapered down, by two prominent individuals who support NOM and its march.

It all leads to the simple conclusion that NOM's whinings of unfairly being labeled as bigots is just a dodge to gain sympathy.

In spite of all of its false claims, NOM doesn't shy from having an bigoted anti-gay animus. NOM embraces it. If it didn't NOM wouldn't have any follower or allies.

'NOM's march suffers ANOTHER embarrassment' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Pro-gay artist gets NOM 'March For Marriage' ad yanked on copyright grounds - If you ask me, Brian Brown's decision to belittle lgbt bloggers and not take us seriously is beginning to play Jaws on his tush. I am presently working on a post which will hopefully cast further shadows on NOM's credibility . . . that is if no one else beats me to it.  

ACLU Claims Sultana High School Administrators Bully LGBT Students - Receiving the right to marry is awesome, but don't let our pursuit of it make us forget our children who have to make it through the firewall of nonsense that is adolescence in order to get to the point where they can marry.  
 Claims That There Is No Research About The Effectiveness Of Ex-Gay Therapy Are True - Tolerance, schmolerance. If you don't have any proof that the science you espouse actually works then don't expect to be given any type of credibility for it.  

Anti-Gay Activists Attack Rob Portman's Son's 'Disorder' and 'Abhorrent Lifestyle' - Now this is just pathetic.

Newt Gingrich underscores NOM's hypocrisy, desperation

Newt Gingrich

As the National Organization gets ready for its march, the group can't stop tripping over itself with embarrassment.

 Today's example - Newt Gingrich.

NOM posted a video clip of Newt Gingrich speaking about Sen. Rob Portman. Portman, a conservative Republican senator, recently revealed that he now supports marriage equality because of his relationship with his gay son.

In a blog post, NOM celebrates the fact that Gingrich said marriage should be between a man and a woman.

However in Gingrich's case, that should be a man and three women. Remember, Gingrich divorced his first wife of 18 years after an affair with another woman. He subsequently married this woman but divorced her after 12 years and an affair with another woman whom he is now currently married to. NOM is using this guy to defend marriage? This guy? Seriously?

A commentator to NOM's blog put it better than I ever could:

It's difficult to underestimate the sheer bare-faced chutzpah of this man and the fawning reverence paid to him by NOM and others, the outright cognitive dissonance it takes to believe that marriage is between one and one woman FOR LIFE and then to say he is an exemplar and supporter of marriage. He isn't. He is a destroyer of families, the very core of NOM's arguments. I would have more respect if there was at least one word addressing this hypocrisy.

Religious right activist makes poor case against marriage equality

Former Christian Coalition head and conservative activist Ralph Reed attempted to make the case against marriage equality to the Wall Street Journal. It was such a bad performance in his case. Feel free to pick him apart: 




Hat tip to Right Wing Watch.

'Hilary Clinton comes out in favor of marriage equality' and other Monday midday news briefs

Hillary Clinton comes out for marriage equality - Way to go Mrs. Clinton! 

 Republican National Committee Plan: Oppose LGBT Rights More Quietly - Now you KNOW we aren't going to let you get away with that.  

At CPAC, The Marriage Fight Is Over - At a recent meeting of Republican activists and bigwigs - actual and wannabe - NOM and its allies got extremely embarrassed while gay Republicans were received with open arms.  

Like so many brave visionaries before him, Bryan Fischer pushes GOP to stand for discrimination - Meanwhile, some folks are spooked that Republicans could embrace marriage equality.

NOM can't hide its supporters' ugly homophobia

I am so sick of NOM's talking point that those who oppose marriage equality are unfairly branded as bigots.

Let me rephrase that and say it the way NOM and its supporters do:

"It is unfair that those who support the traditional definition of marriage being between a man and a woman are called 'bigots.'"

That phraseology is no different than when the Klan sought to retool its image by saying  "we aren't anti-black. We are just pro-white."

Make no mistake about it, there is a certain animus directed at the lgbt community by many of those who claim to be fighting for "traditional marriage" and this animus is easily proven by those folks themselves.

Thanks to NOManiacs, a site which goes the extra mile by monitoring the stuff which NOM supporters say, the following gives a perfect view of the people who support NOM and the organization are hoping to come to its upcoming march.

NOManiacs assembled a bunch of comments from NOM's facebook page and created a flyer spotlighting these comments.  This flyer is highly NSFW and will no doubt get folks angry. Do not contact anyone, except your friends and allies in order to show them the truth about NOM supporters:

To see this flyer in a more readable form, click here.

The irony, according to NOManiacs is that many voices speaking for marriage equality have been barred from posting on NOM's facebook site, but these voices still remain.

Lgbts, African-Americans should pay attention to CPAC 2013

Know Your LGBT History has been postponed today so that I can feature on a point I wish to make:

Before any African-Americans or lgbts get roped again by outside groups (such as the National Organization for Marriage) in what I call the "Oppression Olympics, take a gander at these two videos from today's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Witness what happens when an African-American Republican tries to talk about minority outreach and how attendees react to the news that Republican Sen. Rob Portman (OH) now supports marriage equality due to his son coming out:



 

It puts it all in perspective. What's the use of  talking about who suffered the most or how much one movement for equality is not like the other if you fail to notice that the heel on both of your necks belong to the same people.

Hat tip to Think Progress.

'NOM digs its own hole with response to 'second best option' controversy' and other Friday midday news briefs

NOM chief responds to ‘second-best option’ remarks - Kudos to the Washington Blade for coming up in CPAC to ask that question. Excellent journalism preventing NOM from ignoring Eastman's comment.  

NOM Doubles Down On Anti-Adoption Argument Against Marriage Equality - Think Progress gives more detail and background on the entire "second best option" controversy.  

Bryan Fischer Compares Being Gay To Robbing A Bank - Bryan Fischer's tacky response to the news that Sen. Ron Portman now supports marriage equality due to his son coming out.  

FRC to Pastors: Now THIS is an Anti-Gay Sermon! - Simply VILE overkill! The inability to police its own rhetoric will be one of the reasons for the religious right downfall in America. 

 Musician featured in NOM's 'March for Marriage' ad supports marriage equality - NOM doesn't miss a trick, I swear!

 Dad Writes Heartwarming Letter To Son Struggling To Come Out - Probably the greatest coming out story you will EVER hear about. I swear, I get happy chills just reading the father's letter.

Video: Sen. Rob Portman explains his reversal on marriage equality

Conservative Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) announced yesterday that he now believes that same-sex couples should have the right to marry. This is a reverse of his original position on the issue. With this announcement, Portman becomes the first sitting Republican senator to support marriage equality.

Why did he change his opinion? It's simple:

 

While it is nice to see Sen. Portman make a welcomed change on the issue, the fact that he did not cut off contact with his son after the child came out to him is an even better thing to see.

This is what Christian values is all about.

Eastman, NOM places status above love in families

By now, many of you reading this post have heard of the comments uttered by National Organization for Marriage chairman John Eastman regarding Justice John Roberts' adopted children and adoption in general. And no doubt there will be some claiming that we are making too much of Eastman's statement or that it was a simple gaffe which takes needed attention away from the important subject of marriage equality

But attention over Eastman's words are not a phony moral panic and to label his comment as a simple "gaffe" is trivializing its harm.

What Eastman did was to push a concept into the idea of family which has no business being there. Families should never be judged on a tier. They aren't baked goods at the state fair to be given ribbons marking 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place.

Nor should it be implied that families exist in a caste system where the designated "gold standard" grabs all of the attention while other families who are not that "standard" are either hardly mentioned or downgraded.

When it comes to families, there is no such thing as a "second-best option," except unfortunately in the head of Eastman and his organization which - I may point out - has never offered any new ideas of placing orphaned or foster children into any family households at all, including the two-parent heterosexual household it holds so dear.

Nor has NOM ever offered any solutions to the real problems facing families of all stripe such as poverty, unemployment, lack of decent health and education options, or lack of good housing.

Eastman and NOM are like charlatans from days of old who would roll into town after town masquerading as physicians while hawking a useless cure-all with flowery rhetoric and flashy bottles.

In this case, the cure-all seems to be keeping members from the gay community from getting married and keeping same-sex families in the background. And like those charlatans, Eastman and NOM talk a good game, but when you get past the rhetoric and the flash you realize that the cure-all cures nothing.

Keeping gays and lesbians from getting married and keeping same-sex families in the background has never improved the quality of life of any household. It has never saved a family's mortgage nor gotten a family's children into a decent college.

Keeping gays and lesbians from getting married and keeping same-sex families in the background has never paid overdue utility notices, rent, or medical bills.

What this rhetoric does is pits us against one another by fooling us into thinking that the love and support each family is capable of giving should be judged not by how much good it does but who is the giver.

The rhetoric places status above love, support, and the willingness to sacrifice - three qualities which all good families have in abundance.

Eastman and NOM's rhetoric is a game, i.e. a vulgar exercise in passive-aggressive homophobia which cushions some from accepting the simple fact that maybe their disagreement  with marriage equality has less to do with saving the family and more to do with their inability to deal with innate inaccuracies about the gay community and same-sex families.

And unfortunately, as Eastman's comments demonstrate, other families are becoming collateral damage in this passive-aggressive game.

'NOM misrepresents child's testimony' and other Thursday midday news briefs

Let's look at the sad tackiness of the National Organization for Marriage:

Oh the poor baby, except for one thing:

And what makes it worse? In the words of a comment from where I gleaned NOM's tacky misrespresentation:

An additional thing that is incredibly deceptive about this is that when someone testifies before a legislative committee, typically it isn't a "give and take," it's a monologue by the person testifying. The committee is there to listen and let people have their say. The graphic makes it look like, oh, goodness, the lawmakers were left speechless by the perspicacity of this young child, whereas the reality of it was, they weren't there to ask OR answer questions. (Moreover, even if they were, one could hardly imagine that there would be lots of political capital in arguing with a pre-teen. It's pretty easy to see why this, almost certainly rhetorical, question would have been left alone.)

Misrepresenting a child's testimony. NOM is brazen and tacky, not to mention stupid. Did the organization think that no one would call it out on the lie?

In other news: 

‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill Could Prevent Counselors From Providing Mental Health Support - This ain't good, folks.

Tennessee Counseling Bill Would Let Student Psychologists Reject Gay Clients Without Punishment - And this just as bad.

24 Awesomely Creative Ways To Come Out Of The Closet - Okay this is funny and cute.

O'Reilly capitulates after harassing openly gay legislator

Apparently, there seems to be an ever so small degree of journalism integrity in Bill O'Reilly's ever so small conscience which led him to make the following statement after harassing openly gay Colorado legislator Rep. Mark Ferrandino.

O'Reilly had spent several segments of his show implying that Ferrandino was protecting pedophiles, causing many folks to cry "foul."

 

Transcript: 

 O’REILLY: I have to report the truth here. First truism, homosexuality has nothing to do with the crime of pedophilia. Second, everyone we report on is defined and that guy is proud of his circumstance and promotes it, so we reported it. 

Even as he admits that homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia, O'Reilly still tries to give himself a lifeline. Equality Matters isn't having it. The site slightly reminds folks of the time in which he did conflate pedophilia with homosexuality:

O’Reilly’s explanation for his attacks still doesn’t pass the smell test, but it’s at least an improvement from when he openly defended linking homosexuality to pedophilia last summer.

 

The love of bigots . . .

I know. The Catholic Church has a new Pope and he is as bad as the last one. Oh well, I wasn't all that surprised. What surprised me today is yet another reference to the "homosexuality/outlet plug reference." To those who are not familiar with this inane thing, it is yet another way as to how the religious right attempts to reduce lgbt relationships to that of sexual matters, like so:



Yet another demonstration of the saying, "the love of bigots is more dangerous than their hatred."