Indiana marriage equality opponents starting campaign with 'spooky' ad about voting

According to People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch, Indiana marriage equality opponents have officially kicked off their campaign for the state to pass an anti-marriage equality amendment with the following ominous ad:



Right Wing Watch also points out:

 Advance America is the same group that has been distributing flyers warning that marriage equality will result in the imprisonment of pastors and lead the state to “legalize ‘gender identity.’” 

 According to Think Progress, those flyers included the following familiar anecdotal stories designed to swing voters against marriage equality:

 1. Beginning in kindergarten, schools would be required to teach children that homosexual marriages are normal and acceptable and the same as heterosexual marriages. 

 2. A Pastor that preaches what the Bible says about homosexuality could be prosecuted as a criminal under a hate crime law resulting in jail and fines.  

 3. The next step would be to legalize “gender identity” which would give men who dress as women legal access to women’s restrooms and women’s dressing rooms.  

 4. Christian businesses could be fined and sued if they refuse to participate in homosexual wedding ceremonies (ex. bakers, florists, catering halls, photographers, etc.). 

 Think Progress also points out why these claims are false:

 1. Marriage law does not dictate curriculum, so no change in marriage law would impact what kindergartners are taught. Regardless of whether marriage equality passes — which isn’t even on the table right now because state law still bans same-sex marriage — there are same-sex families raising children who go to Indiana schools. Advance America’s objection to acknowledging the normality of these families does not account for their actual visibility.
  

2. Hate crimes laws only apply to behaviors that are already designated as crimes, so no speech would ever be impacted. The Indy Star notes that Eric Miller, head of Advance America, has campaigned heavily against hate crimes protections based on sexual orientation for many years. In that regard, he’s been successful, because Indiana doesn’t even have such a law. If constitutionally codified discrimination is rejected, it will impact neither hate crime laws nor the freedom of speech — for pastors or anybody else. 

 3. Gender identity is not something that is currently illegal, which is a good thing considering that everybody has a gender identity. Advance America seems to be referring to people who are transgender — offensively so, given trans individuals are people who present as the gender they identity with, not “men who dress as women” — but being trans isn’t illegal either. Unfortunately, nor is it very well protected. Indiana offers absolutely no nondiscrimination protections based on either sexual orientation or gender identity, which means it’s still perfectly legal for LGBT people to be fired, denied housing, or refused access to a public accommodation just because of their identity. Advance America seems to want to prevent LGBT people from having any shred of equality, through marriage, nondiscrimination protections, or otherwise.  

 4. Lastly, marriage law has little to do with whether businesses treat all customers equal under the law. In other cases where professionals lost in court after denying service to same-sex couples, like the New Mexico photographer or Colorado cake shop, those states have laws protecting against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Incidentally, neither New Mexico nor Colorado actually have marriage equality, thereby debunking Advance America’s claim. Given Indiana doesn’t even have such protections and none exist at the federal level, there is nothing to prevent Christian businesses in Indiana from continuing to discriminate against the gay community. 

 Advance America demonstrates the dishonesty behind the "let the people vote" charge and also shines a light on why courts have been overturning these votes. It's easy to talk about letting people vote when you beat them down with horror stories about gays supposedly recruiting children or pastors being arrested in their pulpits, or the especially vile lie of "men dressed as women sneaking peeks in female bathrooms and locker rooms."

However, there is a difference between public opinion and a court of law. Unfortunately public opinion can sometimes be swayed with an easily proven lie. Not so in a court of law.

The playbook in Indiana against marriage equality is a familiar one. But either way - and I am hoping that if there is a vote, our opponents lose - I'm not too worried. Yet.

'Anti-gay donor pulls funding from orphanage' and other Thursday midday news briefs

Planting Peace Haiti Orphanage Has Funding Pulled By Anti-Gay Donor - So much for thinking of the children.

Well if you want Google Alerts, anti-trans Californians, here's one for ya... - Will there be a referendum on the California law protecting transgender students? We don't know yet. I've heard so many interpretations regarding the awful campaign to stop the law that my head is spinning.

Lakewood Cake Maker Appeals Order To Serve Gays - Using the vast resources of anti-gay groups no doubt.

Utah Marriages Of Same-Sex Couples “On Hold” Pending Appeal, Governor’s Office Says - This is terrible.

 3 Big Questions About The 1,360 Same-Sex Couples Married In Utah - So where does that leave these folks?

NOM makes desire for anti-gay marriage amendment official, then changes its mind

According to my online blogging friend, Jeremy Hooper of Goodasyou.org, this post is now gone from NOM's blog.  Luckily for us, he managed to save a copy of it. Exploiting the now old Duck Dynasty controversy, NOM is officially pushing for an anti-gay marriage equality constitutional amendment:

NY Giant Victor Cruz helps bullied teen gain closure

On the risk of sounding preachy (oh the hell with it, I might as well), I think it would do our community some good to focus less on trivial things, such as wondering if Green Bay quarterback Aaron Rodgers is gay, and more on things like this:

In NFL Characters Unite, Cruz meets 19-year old Joey Kemmerling, who came out when he was a middle school student. Joey was relentlessly bullied for years because of his sexual orientation. Classmates called him hateful names, physically hurt him and even threatened to light him on fire. The school locker room was a particularly painful and dangerous place for Joey, as much of the taunting took place there. At one point in high school, the situation got so bad that he contemplated suicide. With the support of his mother, Joey was able to move past the homophobia and harassment he experienced and he decided to use his voice to help stop bullying. He launched a youth-led anti-bullying organization, became active with the nonprofit GLSEN and has spoken to groups of students, educators and even members of Congress. Now, thanks to Victor Cruz, he gets an opportunity to clear another hurdle: revisiting a locker room, a place that still conjures up painful memories. Cruz takes Joey on a tour of the New York Giants locker room to help him put the agony of his past truly behind him. Joey gains closure he needs to continue on his path to full recovery and learns to Never Say Never to overcoming his fears.

'NOM's Brian Brown continues self-delusions' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Editor's note - Today marks a very special anniversary for me. On January 8, 2013, I published How They See Us: Unmasking the Religious Right War on Gay America. Since that time, I have no doubt driven a lot of you crazy with my constant promotion of the booklet. However, there is a method to my supposed madness. I'm not naive to not realize that one day, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters will exit the public arena of blogging. I know that one day, I may get too tired, too burnt out, or something else of an emergency nature may cause me to cease this blog.  And when that day comes, I want to leave something of a legacy. I want to leave a reminder about what we fight. We aren't fighting religions, nor people in a general sense. We are fighting ignorance and lies peddled by those who seek to exploit fear and religious beliefs. The lgbt fight for equality is about dignity, respect, embracing our God-given right to self-determination, and the ability to fully embrace our sexual orientations without fear of reprisal. Most of all, I want to empower the lgbt community (especially our lgbt children) to fight the principalities and organizations which seek to keep us shackled in a second-class status. And fight to win.

So, as I have always done, I encourage folks to read, download and share How They See Us either via new site established in December or via Scribd. We will win this fight. Of that I am most certain.

In other news:

2014 may be the year of decision for marriage - How do you know when you have lost the fight against marriage equality? When you write an column in a right-wing publication calling for a constitutional amendment against marriage equality and the majority of commentators say "you must be crazy!" It's very very rare that I would link something from that awful Daily Caller but this is a hoot.

NOM prez pretends his movement has momentum; and I'm a unicorn - And this confirms the first item. NOM president Brian Brown is getting delusional. It's okay. He gets paid extremely well for it.  

Not Pono: Hawai'i Republicans Bash Transgender Teacher - More lies about lgbts wanting to 'indoctrinate' children. Cut it out, folks.  

Philadelphia PD Revamps Policies For Dealing With Transgendered - Good. We need more like this.

LaBarbera: Kids Better Off In Single-Parent Household Than With Same-Sex Parents - Dear Peter, the next time you whine about being called a bigot, please remember that attacking same-sex families is in fact bigoted.

A lesson in anti-gay 'paraphrasing' via Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' memoir has just been published and Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council sent out the following tweet:

Memoir: Fmr SecDef Gates was "blindsided" by Obama push to repeal law on homosexuality in military @washingtonpost http://t.co/Ca712FwPMS
— Peter Sprigg (@spriggfrc) January 7, 2014

This is the portion of Gates' memoir which Sprigg paraphrased:

“For me, 2010 was a year of continued conflict and a couple of important White House breaches of faith,” he writes. The first, he says, was Obama’s decision to seek the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy toward gays serving in the military. Though Gates says he supported the decision, there had been months and months of debate, with details still to work out. On one day’s notice, Obama informed Gates and Mullen that he would announce his request for a repeal of the law. Obama had “blindsided Admiral Mullen and me,” Gates writes. 

Now some may say that this still doesn't look good, but I disagree. Sprigg's tweet fails to mention that Gates supported the decision to repeal DADT. The only problem was that Obama, as per his prerogative as President, pushed for the decision more immediately than Gates wanted.

The way Sprigg tweets, it fits his organization's false narrative of Obama supposedly pushing a "radical homosexual agenda" when the truth is less about agenda and more about a simple disagreement as to the immediacy of policy change.

'Utah marriage opponents denies calling for an 'uprising'' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

AFA Affiliate Defends Russian 'Gay Propaganda' Law -  Don't get mad. Broadcast.  

Did Sheriff Richard Mack Really Call For An Uprising Against Gay Marriage In Utah? - Utah marriage equality opponents - "Hey, we never said a thing about an 'uprising' because of marriage equality. I mean no one said it in the meeting and just because the word was in our literature didn't mean we were talking about violence. We were really talking about a nice game of croquet where everyone participating gets trophies . . ." 

Pittsburgh City Council Elects First Openly Gay President - Looks like our nefarious plan to "indoctrinate" the Pittsburgh Steelers is right on track. I get Troy Polamulu  

Evander Holyfield Has Homophobic Beliefs But ‘Love For Gays’ - Don't they all. That's like getting slapped in the face and then being kissed on the lips by the same person. In spite of what some folks claim, lgbts neither figuratively nor literally go for that crap.

 17 Politicians Who've Faced Gay Rumors Or Sex Scandals - No comment two times. Those who know what I mean know what I mean (and that's not a typo.)

NOM's Brian Brown whines about being called a bigot while acting like a bigot

Apparently the irony of acting like a bigot while decrying being called a bigot is something National Organization for Marriage's Brian Brown never considered as he recently railed at the gay marriage conducted at the Rose Parade:

"All along, we’ve been hearing from activists who support same-sex marriage, ‘Hey, if we redefine marriage, it won’t have any effect on you, this is about loving individuals, what they decide to do, it will have no effect on you.’ Well, lo and behold, it has to be shoved in the face of families -- many of whom voted to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman – on a float at a family event. … We know that when you redefine marriage this is taught in schools, we know that teachers tell kids that folks who believe in this notion of marriage as a union between a man and a woman are discriminating, they’re the functional equivalent of bigots. And now it hasn’t even stopped in the classroom, now the idea has to be, well, at family events we need to make a point to have a same-sex marriage to sort of put it right in their faces and call them out. Well, that’s just wrong. In America, we can disagree over key issues, but the idea that you would target children and make this about using a family event to sort of indoctrinate kids, that’s just wrong."

Or in other words:

Yep, no bigotry there.

FRC's Tony Perkins crows about 'Duck Dynasty' while hiding his fear of debating

Of course Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council is crowing like a rooster over the recent 'Duck Dynasty' controversy.

"Although the victory belonged to the Robertsons, the real winners may be the American people -- who finally witnessed homosexual activists for what they are: intolerant bullies. As FRC has said for years, the goal of GLAAD and others is to silence anyone who dares challenge the idea that homosexual behavior should be celebrated. We've seen these vicious tactics used against wedding florists, bakers, photographers, sports journalists, students, and teachers who've been fired, hauled into court, fined, suspended, and ordered to violate their religious beliefs by endorsing same-sex "marriage." For once, the American people have stood up and shouted, "enough!" I had the opportunity to talk about this incredible sea change over the holidays. If you missed it, check out the video from those interviews on ABC's "Nightline" and Fox News's "Kelly File . . ."

If you ask me, I think he is overestimating the entire thing by calling it a "sea change for three reasons.

First, wasn't he and others on his side making the same ridiculous comments last year about how the "American people stood up to gay bullies" during the Chic-Fil-A controversy? And we see how much of a "sea change" that did NOT turn out to be.

Secondly, I find it ironic that Perkins would mention his interview on the  "Kelly File" It was on that program which Perkins allegedly REFUSED to debate lgbt activist and bloggger Jeremy Hooper, thereby forcing host Megyn Kelly to interview Hooper and then Perkins in one-on-one sessions. A good journalist knows how to find a new angle in any news story, but unfortunately everyone seems to have missed this one, including the lgbt media.

Lastly, if Perkins wants to talk about ugly tactics and intolerant bullies, perhaps he should take another look at his organization, as this clip shows:



According to Media Matters:

Perkins has called gay people "pawns" of the "enemy," said that gays will experience "eternal damnation," praised a Ugandan bill that would impose the death penalty for homosexuality, and declared that members of Congress who voted to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell had the "blood of young Marines" on their hands. His organization has been labeled a "hate group" for routinely peddling the myth that gay men are more likely to be pedophiles than straight men. In addition to regularly spouting anti-LGBT rhetoric, Perkins has also been linked to white supremacist groups in his native Louisiana.

Of course Kelly didn't ask Perkins about any of these issues even after assuring Hooper that she would.

It's relatively easy to use an interview to bolster your view of a "sea change" when you have the person doing the interview in your hip pocket, isn't it Tony?

Robin Roberts: ' “I have never been happier or healthier than I am right now.'

Those who read this blog know that I have railed several times against the lgbt obsession with celebrities. However, this time is an exception.

African-American lesbians don't have as much visibility as they should, not even in the black media. While gay black men, bisexuals, and transgender men and women have to deal with being stereotyped, black lesbians are generally erased, as if they don't exist.

So when Good Morning America anchor Robin Roberts came out, it was a good thing.

And today was even better as she debuted a picture of her and her girlfriend, Amber, at her niece's wedding while talking her happiness and health:

Roberts:“I’m going to tell you all this, because you have had a front row seat for that tumultuous year,” Roberts said. “I have never been happier or healthier than I am right now. And my year-end post was just full of gratitude and just telling everyone all that I’m grateful for, including my girlfriend, Amber, who loved me through a very difficult year.”

'SCOTUS puts hold on Utah marriages, religious right plots for 2014' and other Monday midday news briefs

Supreme Court Halts Utah Same-Sex Couples’ Marriages While Case Is Appealed - Come on folks. You really didn't it was going to be that easy, did you? TEMPORARY setbacks are inevitable in the fight for equality. 

 
Utah’s Novel Argument: Banning Same-Sex Marriage Encourages ‘Diversity’ In Parenting - An analysis of Utah's anti-marriage equality argument.

 Scary Summit: Religious Right Leaders Meet To Plot Big-Money Blitz For 2014 Elections - It's this sort of thing which scares me more.  

How the right profits from the culture wars - This is a fascinating article. 

 CeCe McDonald, Transgender Woman, To Receive Early Release From Men's Prison - A sister were defending herself and winds up in prison. I am so glad she is getting out.

Utah marriage equality opponents want 'uprising' over the issue

Oh lighten up, people. It's only marriage equality. However, what you do propose is ludicrous.

Know Your LGBT History - The 1965 San Francisco New Year's Ball Raid

We hear so much about the raid at Stonewall and its history in lgbt equality. However our community mythologizes it so much that a lot of other events of equal importance get left by wayside. The 1965 San Francisco New Year's Ball Raid is an important part of lgbt history because not only was it one of the first times that heterosexuals were given a front row view of how the police harassed the lgbt community back then, but it also created links between the lgbt community and the inclusive religious community.

 From Box Turtle Bulletin (which gave me the idea to spotlight this event):

 Early San Francisco LGBT-rights advocates had long recognized that much of the opposition to homosexuality rested on religious objections, and that if any progress was to be made, it was necessary to foster links between the gay community and the bay area’s religious leaders — at least those leaders who might be inclined to be supportive, whether publicly or privately. Earlier in 1964, Daughters of Bilitis founders Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, together with Glide Memorial Methodist Church, formed the Council on Religion and the Homosexual. CRH was notable for two reasons: not only was it the first organization in the U.S. to incorporate the word “Homosexual” in its name, but it was also the first organization to bring straight and gay people together to minister to the gay community.  

 And that opportunity for those early straight allies to get a first-hand taste of what gay people routinely experienced came on New Year’s Day of 1965, when CHR held a New Years Mardi Gras as a fundraiser at California Hall. When the ministers informed the San Francisco Police Department on December 23 of their planned costume party, the police tried to coerce the hall’s owners into cancelling the rental. Organizers again met with police on December 29, for negotiations which the ministers described “strained.” SFPD officials couldn’t understand why these ministers were arguing on behalf of gay people. Observing the wedding bands on the ministers’ fingers, one officer reportedly said, “We see you’re married. How do your wives accept this?” Their wives, the ministers explained, would be at the ball also, along with other members of their congregations. Police tried to question them on theology and warned them that they were being “used” by local homophile organizations, but the ministers persisted. Finally, the two parties reached a deal where police promised not to arrest anyone in costume, including those in drag.  

 Those promises quickly proved empty. As guests began arriving at 9:00 p.m. on New Year’s Day, they encountered police officers snapping photographs of everyone as they entered the building. The obvious attempt at intimidation deterred many — organizers expected 1500 to show up but only about 500 actually attended. Later that evening, police demanded entry into the building. Three CRH lawyers explained that the party was a private party under California law and that police could not enter without buying tickets or showing a warrant. The lawyers were arrested, along with a ticket-taker, and charged with obstructing an officer. Two other gay men were arrested for “disorderly conduct” after one of them tripped over a chair; police accused him of trying to kiss another man and both were hauled in. Throughout the night, police repeatedly entered the hall to conduct “fire code inspections.” The ball was scheduled to end at midnight, but organizers decided to end the ball an hour earlier. Their next job was to get their guests safely out of the building. One minister was threatened with arrest while escorting two guests to their cars 

. . . . The following morning seven of the ministers who had attended the party held a press conference where they described the pre-event negotiations and the resulting “intimidation, broken promises and obvious hostility” of the San Francisco Police. The American Civil Liberties Union agreed to represent those under arrest. The New Year’s Mardi Gras party, occurring as it did some five years before Stonewall, proved to be a turning point for gay rights in San Francisco. As the Mattachine Society’s Hal Call  recalled, “That was when we got newspapers, TV, and radio on our side. The police were so brutal. And with some respectable clergymen on our side, that was a turning point.” Phyllis Lyon said that it was “our first step into some kind of connectedness with the rest of the city.” City officials, embarrassed by the obvious police misconduct, responded by designating officer Elliot Blackstone as the first liaison between the department and the LGBT community. (At his retirement dinner in 1975, Blackstone was saluted by LGBT community leaders for his ensuing twenty years of advocacy and support.)

Past Know Your LGBT History Posts:

'Social conservatives may support hate group leader's bid for US Senate' and other Friday midday news briefs

FRC's Tony Perkins

Social conservatives could get behind Tony Perkins for U.S. Senate in Louisiana - Family Research Council head Tony Perkins as a United States Senator should scare the hell out all of you. 

Chris Kluwe Blasts Vikings For Cutting Him Over LGBT Advocacy - This controversy hasn't even BEGUN to near the ending yet.  

Brendon Ayanbadejo Backs Chris Kluwe - Awesome!

 CDC Reverses Discriminatory Breast Cancer Screening Rule for Trans People - Good news!

 Jamaican Dancehall Star Sizzla Banned From Music Festival For Anti-Gay Lyrics - Free speech my foot! This is not a free speech issue.

Why won't FRC's Tony Perkins engage in face-to-face debate on lgbt equality?

Earlier today, I talked about the revelation that during a recent appearance on Fox News, Family Research Council head Tony Perkins refused to engage lgbt activist Jeremy Hooper in a face-to-face debate. Most likely it's probably because when he has to debate his anti-gay position against someone who knows their stuff, the following happens:

'Why did FRC's Tony Perkins refuse a face-to-face debate with lgbt activist?' and other Thursday midday news briefs

The conversation we're having versus the forced monologue they want us to dignify - We keep hearing ad nauseam from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council that we are trying to silence folks like him when it comes to the issue of lgbt equality. We know this is a dodge and now comes a bit of proof which we SIMPLY MUST INVESTIGATE FURTHER. My friend Jeremy Hooper, during an excellent post about how anti-gay activists like to turn tv interviews into talking point monologues, has revealed some interesting information regarding a recent appearance he and Perkins made on Fox News. Allegedly, Perkins REFUSED to debate him face-to-face. Subsequently, Megyn Kelly did back-to-back interviews with Hooper and then Perkins. Enough of the jaded comments of "well I'm surprised." We need to demand answers. Why didn't Tony Perkins want to go head-to-head with Jeremy. We know the answer, but the question still needs to be raised - PUBLICLY!  That's the difference between them and us. If they had such a revelation about us, they would broadcast it to the heavens. We need to broadcast this revelation in the same manner.

Limericks By Matt Barber - This is just dumb. Instead of good arguments as to why his side opposes lgbt equality, anti-gay activist Matt Barber is now writing juvenile limericks. You gotta be kidding me!

 Amazon pulls book telling parents to ignore their gay kids - Thanks to another blogging friend of mine, Wil Kohl of Back2Stonewall.com, this book has been pulled from Amazon. Free speech my tuckus! Amazon is a private company. Besides if we run this claptrap by a woman who has NO expertise in lgbt healthcare, or anything else resembling lgbt healthcare, why not run books supporting lobotomies?  

No ‘Mass Exodus’ From Boy Scouts As New Gay Scout Rule Goes Into Effect - Another religious right fear story bites the dust.

Anti-gay activist attack researchers for daring to correct how he distorts their work

LaBarbera

 Peter LaBarbera is again posting a ludicrous attack on lgbts on his webpage, complete with pictures of dildos. The post which accompanied LaBarbera's photo was a rambling piece of nonsense, PUTTING THE “SEX” BACK IN HOMOSEXUALITY, by Eric Holmberg. The piece is the usual claptrap about homosexuality being a "health risk" which actually tries to defend Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty's rather graphic homophobic comments regarding anal and vaginal sex. LaBarbera added some of his personal nonsense to the piece, particularly this part:

According to one peer-reviewed [1997] study done towards the end of the 20th century, the life expectancy for the average 20-year-old gay or bisexual man [assessing "vital statistics data ... obtained for a large Canadian urban centre from 1987 to 1992"] was 8 to 21 years less than his heterosexual counterpart. (See the International Journal of Epidemiology.) Here [in 2001] the authors actually condemn as “homophobic” anyone who dares to point to their research as evidence that homosexuality carries with it certain inherent health risks. And yet they in no way deny the statistical evidence their research has uncovered. (This is one of the best examples of “professing to be wise and remaining fools” I have ever stumbled upon.) [Editor's Note: Life expectancy for homosexual men is now much longer compared to when the original IJE study was done in 1997 -- due mainly to AIDS antiretroviral drugs. Nevertheless, "men who have sex with men" (MSM) remain at the epicenter of the HIV/AIDS epidemic," said a CDC specialist describing a Fact Sheet assessing 2010 infections and published by the CDC earlier this year. Read the original 1997 Canadian study on "gay" and bisexual men's lifespan HERE and the authors' short 2001 response (referenced by Holmberg above) to conservatives who used their data to criticize pro-homosexual activism HERE.]

Allow me to explain. Anti-gay groups generally distort a 1997 Canadian study to claim that gays have a shorter lifespan than heterosexuals. In 2001, the authors of the study complained that their work was being distorted. LaBarbera continues to not only distort their work but also attack them for correcting the lies, claiming that their correction did nothing to disprove his negative point about lgbts. That's not true. In the 2001 letter, they said:

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 measure. 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 the grand irony of LaBarbera's explanation? The CDC fact sheet  he used to make another point about the supposed health risk of homosexuality is also another distortion. Here, LaBarbera commits the sin of omission by not including another fact sheet which calls out the socioeconomic factors which heightens HIV risk, including poverty, discrimination, stigma, and homophobia. At no point does this fact sheet back up LaBarbera's idea that the lgbt orientation is a "health risk."

LaBarbera is beyond sad here. He not only distorts legitimate research but attacks the authors of the research for daring to complain about the misuse of their work  He is like one of those birthers who cling  so strongly to the notion that President Obama is not an American citizen that every bit of proof contradicting their belief is merely a piece of the "conspiracy."

To put it another way, LaBarbera is what I like to call a "true believer," the most pathetic of anti-gay activists. Unlike some folks like Brian Brown of NOM or Tony Perkins of FRC, LaBarbera isn't doing what he does for a paycheck. He seems to have a deep, personal animus against gays which he covers up with Scripture and platitudes of love.  Rip away that phony cover and you find someone with not a hatred of gays, but a fear of gays. It's a fear which is so intense, he won't hum a show tune because he thinks  it would "turn" him gay.

Sometimes LaBarbera acts so much like a homophobic clown that he should be laughed at. Now, however, he should be pitied.

News briefs special - 2013 was an extremely successful year for lgbt equality

WATCH: ABC News Looks Back at One Big Gay Year - It was a very good year (apologies to Frank Sinatra. On the other hand, you DO NOT want to hear me sing it, much less anything else.)

Michelle Obama Congratulates Robin Roberts On Coming Out - How cool is this? The First Lady of the United States publicly acknowledges and congratulates someone coming out.

 20 Of The Most Compelling Queer People Of 2013 - LOVE the list. Although I am not completely down with the "queer" definition. It's nothing personal, just a little stubbornness on my part. I don't like someone labeling me without giving me an understanding of what that label means. I know that I am a gay man, but would like the "queer" paradigm explained to me before I choose to embrace it.  

23 Photos Of Same-Sex Couples That Will Warm Your Heart - Expect to see more of these couples AND their children because marriage equality is here to stay!  

How They See Us: Unmasking the Religious Right War on Gay America - Oh come on, folks. Did you really think I wouldn't include this? For me, 2013 will be remembered for my successful (though underground and cult status) booklet which took a unique look at anti-gay propaganda. We need more stuff like this and done by larger and more moneyed sources. (Editor's note - this link is not to Scribd but to my new webpage where you can download my booklet free of charge. Of course if you would rather move onto the adobe acrobat version of the booklet and avoid the site, which gives a good explanation of the booklet, you can go directly here.)

Moments of LGBTQ pride in 2013 should be required viewing

This video from Buzzfeed which looks back at some of the best lgbtq moments of 2013 should be required viewing:

Conservatives forget love of defending 'rights' because of Rose Parade wedding

That didn't take as long as I thought it would.

Remember all of that good stuff conservatives were popping about Phil Robertson's "rights" last week? Apparently we are now learning that some conservatives think that what should be true for Robertson shouldn't be true for gay couples wanting to be married.

From the Advocate:

The Los Angeles Times reports that a Facebook group calling for skipping the parade has more than 1,600 backers. And antigay comments are being posted to the Rose Parade's own Facebook page, according to the Times: 

“I am a 79 year old Los Angeles native and have not missed a parade since I was about 4 years old. I have watched my LAST one due to your decision to allow this unbiblical, gay marriage to take place on one of your floats,” one man wrote. 

“2 gay men in a ‘wedding’ ceremony is highly offensive to me and millions of Americans,” one wrote. “I can't think of many things LESS appropriate for families and especially children. It's completely the wrong venue for a stunt like this.” 

. . .The complaints started because a float from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation will feature the wedding of Aubrey Loots and Danny Leclair, who will be real-life wedding cake toppers. The theme of this year's parade is “Dreams Come True,” and this is the year that Proposition 8 was struck down by the Supreme Court and couples in California — where the Rose Parade is held — are once again legally able to wed.

I fail to see what seems to be the problem. Granted, neither case (regarding Phil Robertson and the one involving the gay couple) is about the free speech, but if conservatives can defend Robertson's anti-gay and racist comments, what's the problem with this couple? Gay marriage is legal in California and obviously Loots and Leclair went through the proper channels so have been given permission.  So if Robertson can be made into a hero for his vulgar anti-gay and racist comments because of his "rights," then why can't this couple be publicly married for the same reason, i.e. their "rights."

It's astounding that some folks - such as our favorite anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera - can make a reverse turn from defending Robertson's supposed rights to defaming this couple's right to have their wedding at a public venue. To Loots and Leclair, this is not a stunt. And so what if children are watching. Children are already aware of gay marriage and many live in same-sex households. It's not as scary for children to witness this as some folks like to think.

But what really galls me is this remark:

2 gay men in a ‘wedding’ ceremony is highly offensive to me and millions of Americans,”

Big fat #%@! deal. I'm going to put it like some folks did when they defended Robertson:

Not everyone agrees with you on this issue. And maybe you should show some true tolerance instead of trying to use force to get your way. And stop shoving your beliefs down our throats.