Analyzing and refuting the inaccuracies lodged against the lgbt community by religious conservative organizations. Lies in the name of God are still lies.
In a Washington Post piece, columnist Petula Dvorak breaks down the Janet Jenkins/Lisa Miller custody fight in a way that is simple, to the point, and highly detrimental to religious right talking points:
Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins were in their 30s when they met in Virginia, moved to Vermont, were joined in a civil union in 2000, bought a house and had a kid two years later.
As many gay folks will tell you, moves like this aren't spontaneous, crazy or happy-go-lucky. Legal issues, paperwork, money, explanations to parents, doctor appointments, fertility treatments and insemination attempts make having a child a considered and costly process.
But after going through all that and parenting the child for a year and a half, Miller and Jenkins split. Miller, who gave birth to Isabella, got primary custody and moved back to Virginia. Jenkins stayed in Vermont, and the supreme courts of both states treated it like a ho-hum breakup. There would be regular visits, child support payments and so forth.
After taking the cash and sending homemade cookies and cards to Isabella's other mommy for some time, Miller apparently conked herself on the head and decided that her whole lesbian life had been a big mistake. She began going to a conservative, evangelical church and had declared herself a born-again Christian.
She simply wanted to erase it all, make the past go away. She decided Jenkins was not the other mommy, homosexuality is wrong and the lovely old folks they'd been visiting and calling "mom-mom" and "pop-pop" (Jenkins's parents) couldn't contact the little girl they treated as their granddaughter.
And that point that seems to be always obscured by members of the religious right, especially the Liberty Counsel, who by the way, has refused to give a comment on Miller's kidnapping of Isabella.
Dvorak wraps up her excellent piece this way:
Miller's legal team said in court that a move to Vermont, with a new school and new friends, would be disruptive for a 7-year-old.
And going into hiding isn't?
I think it'll be a lot trickier to explain to a child why one mommy is in jail than why another mommy likes girls.
Lisa Miller, come out of hiding and face this like a mom.
No matter how much they are being ignored, the attacks on Obama appointee Kevin Jennings are definitely red meat for the fringes on the right.
That's the only way to explain the absolute ludicrousness of Cliff Kincaid's latest attacks on Jennings.
Earlier this week, I wrote how Cliff Kincaid of AIM (Accuracy in Media) claimed that the outcry over the Ugandan anti-gay bill is really a dodge to cover up the supposed "building attention" over Jennings.
Kincaid has published a series of reports called NAMBLA-gate: The Strange Case of Kevin Jennings.
I hear he was going to call the report "Fistgate," but apparently Big Government had allegedly copywrote the name.
Now in part one of his "report," Kincaid said the following:
It would appear that the purpose of the orchestrated controversy over the proposed law in Uganda is to divert attention from the real scandal involving Obama Education Department official Kevin Jennings and his praise for the founder of the modern gay rights movement, Harry Hay, a supporter of adult-child sex.
Kincaid was referring to an old fake controversy where some members of the right were claiming that Jennings advocated pedophilia since he praised Harry Hay, a founding father of the gay rights movement who later voiced support for NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association).
But Jennings only praised Hay for his early work in gay rights. He never gave one word of support about Hay supporting NAMBLA.
In light of the New Jersey thing, I thought you all would enjoy this.
Did you know that there are 20 gender identities? A member of the religious right seems to think so.
Last week, I wrote a post about a group, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, cheering the fact that the United Nations General Assembly voted to delete the terms "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" from a proposed anti-discrimination document.
The head of the group, Austin Ruse, was quoted as saying:
What this body is trying to do is to elevate the homosexual agenda to a global right that governments are treaty-bound to accept. There was an attempt to have this reinterpretation officially accepted by the General Assembly, and it was defeated."
Naturally my post totally disagreed with that position.
Ruse took it upon himself to write me back. At first, he explained his position rather well. But he was less than forthcoming about why his group opposed the wording. After further questioning, Ruse demonstrates his ignorance about basic gender (his comments are in blue, mine are in red):
A year ago the Holy See and the Bush administration tried to get the General Assembly to endorse a statement condemning precisely the kind of violence against homosexuals that you cite. The effort was quashed by France and her allies in Europe? Why? Because these efforts are not really about stopping violence. They are about forcing a broad range of homosexual "rights" on traditional peoples using the least democratic venues possible.
Austin Ruse
President
C-FAM
Your statement is a wonderment. Just how do you "force" homosexual rights on "traditional peoples?" Austin, please get rid of the phraseology because you aren't speaking to the choir here. Why don't you be specific in your objections.
It is fairly detailed, but what happens is that UN human rights monitoring bodies re-write langauge from established human rights treaties. These human rights treaties were negotiated by sovereign states and ratified, largely, by democratically elected Parliaments. This new langauge is decided by individuals whose names no one knows without looking and voila there is a new human rights category that nobody knows about and nobody has agreed to. This new language is then adjudicated in national courts where they often find ideological friends This is profoundly anti-democratic and indeed is a kind of coercion. The language that was rejected by the GA was precisely as I describe. Last summer the human rights committee reinterpreted the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to include "gender identity and sexual orientation." Quick, name even one member of that committee! This new language was then placed in a UN GA resolution for the purposes of further banging the drum for a new "treaty norm." This effort this time was defeated. Even so, we expect to see court cases being heard on the committee's orginal reinterpretation.
But Austin, you didn't answer my question. You went through a lot of legalese and "harum," "harum," but did not defend your original point. How does one force "homosexual rights" on "traditional peoples?" You seem to be talking about the process here. But when you (were) originally quoted, you were talking about the fact that the process had to do with gays and lesbians? Is it the process that you disagree with or the fact that through the process, folks are seeking to protect lgbts. And if the latter is the case, you really need to defend defining "traditional peoples" as countries who would persecute and imprison lgbts.
When non-democratic bodies like unknown UN commmittees and courts make decisions like this and then impose them on the people, that is force. Should have made that clearer.Thought i did.
But you didn't make it clear. . . . in the One News Now article, you were all "how dare they try to elevate the homosexual agenda to a global right." Don't you think you aren't being honest?
Well, no. Because that is what they are trying to do. They are trying to bootstrap homosexual langauge out of a UNcommittee to a new global norm. Look up the Yogykarta Principles. It's all in there.
Now you are dodging by saying that I should read some third party document. And you still aren't clear. It is the process that you disagree with or the fact as you so put it that they are pushing protection for sexual orientation and gender identity?
You have hit on it. There are two questions. First, there is the question of how human rights law is made. We hold that backdooring it through unknown UN committees is wrong and anti-democratic.Second, is the thing itself. We object to there being special rights for "sexual orientation and gender identity" not the least of which that these are undefined terms that can be spun anyway courts want to. According to some, there are more than 20 gender identities. We believe this is crazy. So, yes, two questions. We oppose both.
There are not 20 gender identities. That doesn't even make sense. You are using propaganda created by groups such as the Traditional Values Coalition. What you are inferring(referring) to are paraphilias, not sexual orientations or gender identities.On that point, you are operating from ignorance. Secondly the ability to live your life without fear of persecution is not a special right and should never be viewed as such.
Well then, how many are there. Name them.
No you don't my friend. You made the charge about the 20 different gender identities. YOU name them.
What you were implying about is here is - http://www.athealth.com/Consumer/disorders/Paraphilias.html
and they have nothing to do with gender identities.
I stand corrected. Now name the genders.
You keep talking about gender. Don't you mean sexual orientations? In that regard, you are still relying on inaccurate data. When you said "20 genders," I think you were referring to an inaccurate claim that there are 20 sexual orientations. You see some religious conservative organizations thought up that nonsense by linking paraphalias to sexual orientations and claiming that they are one and the same, which they aren't. So basically it comes down to the fact that you were trying to refer to a religious right talking point and got it mixed up rather badly.
I'm pretty sure he will write me back. For more updates, if any, check out the original post.
But isn't it sad when folks can't get their distortions right? According to Ruse's bio:
He has briefed members of the U.S. House and Senate on U.N. matters, as well as briefing White House and National Security Council staff. Ruse has also briefed senior government officials, journalists, Church and non-governmental leaders from around the world.
He has appeared on a number of national cable network programs discussing UN and Catholic issues, including news programs on CNN, CBS News, MSNBC, and Fox News.
Ruse has published in First Things, Washington Times, National Review Online, Weekly Standard, Human Events, Touchstone, as well as newspapers around the world.
But apparently he doesn't know the first thing about gender or sexual orientation. Am I the only one scratching my head over that?
Where Are The Gay And Lesbian Opinion Columnists/Pundits? - Amen! No matter how people talk about the "diversity of America," if the only thing I see on my television are heterosexual (and white) pundits talk about the state of affairs, then I refuse to believe any notions about diversity.
On the heels of President Obama naming Amanda Simpson as a Senior Technical Advisor to the Department of Commerce (making her the first transgender presidential appointee) and the controversy amongst ignorant people it has caused comes the news that the Family Research Council is trying to use her appointment to stop ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
I received this email from FRC:
Stop Obama's Crossdresser Protection Bill
Dear Alvin,
On New Year's Eve, when most Americans were waiting for the ball to drop in Times Square, the Obama Administration dropped another bombshell in its agenda to radicalize America by appointing its first openly "transgender" person to a high federal post. "Transgender" is an umbrella term for anyone who "expresses" a "gender identity" contrary to their biological sex at birth-in other words, men who claim to be (and dress as) women, and vice versa.
Mitchell Simpson, a man who had sex-change surgery and now calls himself a woman (named "Amanda"), was appointed as Senior Technical Advisor to the Commerce Department. Simpson announced that "as one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds."
The day after Simpson began work, The New York Times reported that the main website advertising jobs with the federal government now says there will be no "discrimination" based on "gender identity"-even though Congress has never passed a law saying that.
This new policy applies only to the federal government. But there is a bill being considered in Congress, the so-called "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" (ENDA), which would require every employer in America to open every position to homosexuals (by making "sexual orientation" a protected category) and "transgenders" (by protecting "gender identity").
All American employers including Christian owned businesses and potentially Christian ministries would be affected.
"Gender identity disorder" is a recognized mental illness that should be treated-not affirmed and protected. And the right of employers to set "dress and grooming standards" for their employees should include the most basic standard of all-that people dress in a way appropriate for their biological sex.
Don't let Congress and President Obama force American employers to hire homosexuals, transsexuals, and cross-dressers.
Sign our petition to tell our elected leaders we oppose the so-called "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" (ENDA)
Sincerely,
Tony Perkins
President
Despite my name added to it, Perkins' note is simply a form letter. I wish it were an actual personal correspondence. That would have meant I could have emailed Perkins back personally with some choice words I haven't used in years.
Seriously, FRC's letter is ludicrous and gay-baiting (i.e. pink-baiting) at its worse. And it's par for the course in terms of how the religious right have reacted to Simpson's appointment:
"Is there going to be a transgender quota now in the Obama administration?" asked Peter LaBarbera, president of the anti-gay group Americans for Truth. "How far does this politics of gay and transgender activism go? Clearly this is an administration that is pandering to the gay lobby."
"Simpson's nomination was forwarded through to President Obama by a gay activist group, making it appear that this appointment of a male-to-female 'transgender' activist to a high level Commerce Department position to be payback to his far-left base for their political support," a spokeswoman for Focus on the Family said in statement.
However, it emphasizes something which the lgbt community needs to take to heart.
We know that the religious right will attack ENDA via ugly anti-transgender propaganda. They view ignorance about the transgender community as a weakness which they will try to exploit in an effort to kill protection for us all.
And bottom line - whatever ignorance or infighting we have going on needs to be stopped now.
We may view ourselves as passengers in different ships but when it comes to religious right propaganda and efforts to keep us from getting our rights, we are all in the same boat.
Scott Lively acts surprised and alarmed that Uganda is trying to pass a hugely Draconian anti-gay bill. But based on this video of anti-gay conference in Kampala, Uganda on March 5-7, 2009, I say Lively knew exactly what would happen.
■ Lively’s defense against being labeled a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center (Ex-Gay Watch has posted a longer unedited video segment of his defense),
■ Lively’s equating homosexuality with Nazism and fascism, and blaming the 1994 Rwandan genocide on gay people,
■ Lively’s reinforcement of the false stereotype of gay people as child molesters,
■ Lively denouncing foreign influences to “promote” homosexuality,
■ Lively describing AIDS as just punishment for homosexuality,
■ and the aftermath of Lively’s “nuclear bomb” in Uganda.
Janet Jenkins is now pleading for help from the public in finding her daughter, Isabella. Jenkins' former civil union partner, Lisa Miller (now claiming to be an ex-gay) was supposed to turn Isabella over to Jenkins after a court ruling. This ruling came about because of Miller's continued refusal to allow Jenkins access to Isabella, whom they were supposed to be raising together. Miller and Isabella have since disappeared and the belief is that Miller has taken Isabella and gone into hiding.
"I am so worried about Isabella. I do not know where she is or whether she is okay.
Isabella is my daughter. Lisa and I decided together to have a child, and that we would use alternative reproductive technology to do so. We picked out a donor together. I was there with Lisa when she gave birth to Isabella. We gave her both our last names, since we were both her parents. After Isabella was born, Lisa and I cared for her together. We both fed her, played with her, changed her diapers, and loved her.
Eventually, the courts ruled that I was Isabella's parent, but in my heart I've always known that. It was devastating to me, as I'm sure it was to Isabella, when Lisa withheld contact between me and my daughter.
My goal has never been to separate Isabella from Lisa. I just want Isabella to know and love both of her parents. I just want to be with her, like any parent.
Please help me find my child."
Anyone with information regarding Isabella’s and Lisa’s whereabouts should call the Center for Missing and Exploited Children at 1-800-843-5678 or the Bedford County Sheriff’s Office at 540-586-4800.
On the other end of spectrum, and showing no class whatsoever is Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage. Gallagher offers up her opinion regarding the case but if you ask me, she really should have kept quiet:
"I have sympathy for the pre-eminent claims of natural parents versus legal parents, when the natural mother is a fit parent (which nobody has denied in this case). But we have to be a nation ruled by laws, even when those laws may be unjust.
“Let this act as a warning call: Don't enter civil unions with people if you do not want to give them legal rights over your children. And do not give much faith in the ‘best interest of the child’ standard to protect your child. If the best interest of the child conflicts with fashionable legal norms, courts will not care what is in your child's best interest.
“It cannot be in Lisa's daughter's interest to be forcibly moved to Vermont away from the only mother she has ever known. This case is a tragedy all around. I cannot endorse what Lisa Miller has done, but I understand it, and pity both women and most of all this child. I wish Lisa's partner had the wisdom of Solomon, but I cannot blame her either.
Gallagher totally misrepresents the entire case, perhaps intentionally. Miller and Jenkins agreed to have a child and raise it together after entering the civil union in Vermont. Also, Jenkins was given visitation rights after she and Miller broke up. The only reason why Jenkins got custody of Isabella is because Miller kept denying her access to their daughter despite court orders.
And this constant need by Gallagher and other members of the religious right to inaccurately term Jenkins as a "stranger" to Isabella is mean spirted. There is no reason for it. Jenkins is Isabella's legal mother.
Lastly, that part about the "wisdom of Solomon" is confusing.
For those not familiar with the original Biblical story, King Solomon had to decide just who was the mother of a child which two women were claiming. He ordered the child to be cut in half. The real mother, who had concern for the child, begged Solomon to give it to the other woman. The other woman, who was not the mother, could care less for the child and agreed with the plan to cut it in half.
By these reactions, Solomon knew who the real mother was and gave the child to her.
In his wisdom, Solomon knew that the real mother of the child would do anything to keep her baby from being harmed.
So what did Gallagher mean by her coin of phrase? Is she admitting that Jenkins is Isabella's real mother? Is she saying that Jenkins should give up all claims to the child if she truly loves her?
But why should Jenkins have to make such a decision? No parent should have to make such a decision.
Or does Gallagher feel there should be special circumstances which would force lgbt parents to make such a decision?
Gallagher wonders why some people call her a bigot. Seems to me that her remarks in this case make the reason pretty obvious.
When Cliff Kincaid claimed that the "controversy" over Kevin Jennings was growing, he was definitely out of his depth.
If you want to see how a controversy is really growing, check out the situation regarding the Ugandan anti-gay bill. On the heels of a recent New York Times article is an editorial which kicks serious ass:
Uganda’s government, which has a shameful record of discrimination against gay men and lesbians, is now considering legislation that would impose the death sentence for homosexual behavior. The United States and others need to make clear to the Ugandan government that such barbarism is intolerable and will make it an international pariah.
Corruption and repression — including violence against women and children and abuse of prisoners — are rife in Uganda. According to The Times’s Jeffrey Gettleman, officially sanctioned homophobia is particularly acute. Gay Ugandans are tormented with beatings, blackmail, death threats and what has been described as “correctional rape.”
The government’s venom is chilling: “Homosexuals can forget about human rights,” James Nsaba Buturo, who holds the cynically titled position of minister of ethics and integrity, said recently.
What makes this even worse is that three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about “curing” gays and lesbians have been widely discredited in the United States, helped feed this hatred. Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge and Don Schmierer gave a series of talks in Uganda last March to thousands of police officers, teachers and politicians in which, according to participants and audio recordings, they claimed that gays and lesbians are a threat to Bible-based family values.
Now the three Americans are saying they had no intention of provoking the anger that, just one month later, led to the introduction of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009. You can’t preach hate and not accept responsibility for the way that hate is manifested.
We don’t have much hope that they will atone for their acts. But right now the American government, and others, should make clear to Uganda that if this legislation becomes law, it will lose millions of dollars in foreign aid and be shunned globally.
And now I hear that Rachel Maddow is not going to let the situation rest:
. . . the controversy over Jennings, which had been growing since his appointment in May, has been skillfully deflected by some journalists and commentators who have been attacking the government of Uganda for considering a law that would toughen laws against homosexual behavior that threatens public health and children. "Uganda wants to execute people for being gay," lesbian commentator Rachel Maddow asserted on her MSNBC program on December 2. She called it the "kill-the-gays bill" and demanded that Christians in the U.S. denounce it.
Jumping on the story, the New York Times has claimed the bill would "impose a death sentence for homosexual behavior."
These claims are flat-out disinformation.
Dr. Scott Lively, who visited Uganda in March of 2009 to encourage efforts to protect traditional family values, says the proposed death penalty in the bill, just one of many provisions, is for "aggravated homosexuality," which is actually pederasty, pedophilia, homosexual parent/child incest, homosexual abuse of a disabled ward, and knowingly spreading AIDS. Dr. Lively is the author of The Pink Swastika and the president of Abiding Truth Ministries.
So "aggravated homosexuality" is actually pederasty, pedophilia, and knowingly spreading AIDS? Thanks for the clarification.
I don't know if Kincaid and Lively realize it or not, but their attempts to explain the bill gives us more insight into the blatant homophobia which led to its creation.
Thanks to an ugly seasonal thing and a small bout with depression (my early mid-life crisis is approaching along with my 39th birthday), I am now presenting the 2009 Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters Misinformers of the Year Awards a bit later than usual.
And to me, it's not necessarily a bad thing. It seems that everyone else has already brought out their best (and worst) lgbt moments of the year so my lateness gives me an opportunity to talk about incidents occurring this year which may have been obscured via all the attention hogged by other situations (i.e. the Maine vote and other battlegrounds over marriage equality.)
Don't get me wrong. Marriage equality is an important issue but it is not THE issue in regards to the lgbt community or lgbt equality in general.
So let me get on with it:
In this crop of awards, I followed the spirit of the Grammys and pre-announced at least one award before the official Year End Awards post.
And of course that award for Anti-Gay Video of the Year went to the National Organization for Marriage for that lovely "Gathering Storm" hot mess commercial.
The "Enjoyable Train Wreck" Award - All of those lovely individuals who testified futilely against the passage of marriage equality in Washington, D.C. You have to give it to these folks who let their zaniness out for the whole world to see.
There was Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, former legislator Walter Fauntroy, and my two favorite:
But she doesn't get the prize. That special bobby belongs to activist Ruth Jacobs, who spends too much time talking about "the anus:"
The "Laying of Hands" Award - Remember Manifested Gloried Ministries? That's the African-American church which tried to exorcise a "homosexual demon" from the 16-year-old young man? Words aren't necessary when one views the clip.
Except for maybe why couldn't that have been me and Phillip Seymour Hoffman. I'm all for laying of hands on him:
"I Don't Care How Much He Smiles, He Still Creeps Me Out" Award - Richard Cohen. I immensely enjoyed how Rachel Maddow just tore Cohen apart in assessing his role in Uganda's pushing an anti-gay bill. But one thing stays with me. Throughout the entire thing, Cohen had that same eerie smile. In fact, I have rarely seen a photo of him without that same eerie smile. It looks as if he is an infant with a pleasant case of gas:
Forget Peter LaBarbera, Matt Barber, and the rest. Cohen is the spookiest member of the religious right.
"Why Don't They Just Be Quiet" Award - tie - Perez Hilton and Carrie Prejean
Perez Hilton - Come on guys, we simply must be honest. This entire mess with Carrie Prejean started because Perez Hilton couldn't keep his mouth shut. So what if Prejean gave that answer (which I certainly didn't agree with it). Did Hilton have to exacerbate the situation by going on video and calling her foul names?
The only reason why Prejean lost control of the situation was because of her blatant hypocrisy and inability to comprehend the forces using her.
And of course that brings me to Carrie Prejean, the flawed beauty queen, co-winner of this award, and a female who knows a good opportunity when it comes to her by way of a media blogger with a big mouth.
At first, Prejean elicited a lot of sympathy because it did seem that Hilton was picking on her and (let's face reality), she's blond and seemingly perky. Perky blond women seem to be, for some reason, highly popular in America.
The religious right also knew a golden opportunity when they saw one too.
They compared her to Esther, which really should have offended Christians.
Esther was a Jewish queen who saved her people from genocide by the Persians.
All Prejean did was answer a question.
I fail to see the similarities.
But then came her alliance with the National Organization for Marriage in violation of Miss California duties,
the news about her church's appreciation for Paul Cameron's discredited work,
the dirty pictures(which for some reason has caused a recent explosion of hits on my site),
Miss Prejean's popularity descended so fast that I hear the homeless won't read her book in the public library.
"Don't Cry for Me Argentina" Award - Mark Sanford for his diligence in making marriage safe for a man, his wife, and his Argentinian mistress. How dare lgbts want to get in on the action. Seriously though folks, seeing that Sanford is my state's governor, you just know that I was going to mention him.
By the way, Sanford also receives the "You Are So Lucky that Jenny didn't have a friend who told her to cut you" Award as well as the "You Were Smart Not To Bring Your Ass Home"Award.
And speaking of South Carolina legislators, state representatives Greg Delleney and Joan Brady get the "Good Idea Marred by Homophobia" Award.
In May of last year, a bill was introduced in the SC Legislature that that required schools to create teen dating violence prevention policies. Brady sponsored the bill. Delleney created an amendment requiring the bill to pertain to only heterosexual relationships.
Delleney said that he was afraid that the bill without the amendment would "force" schools to teach about same-sex relationships.
Oh we couldn't have that. Anyway, because of this ridiculous amendment, a bunch of us raised hell, held a press conference at the State House, and the bill was defeated.
Granted, not to many people nationwide really gave a damn or cared to remember this incident because apparently us Southerners are naturally ignorant and homophobic so who cares what we think anyway.
But hey, like country singer Kacey Jones, I'm not bitter.
And now the big award, the mega award - The 2009 Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters Misinformer of the Year.
First a little history.
In 1978 when the album Saturday Night Fever won the Grammy for Best Album, almost 40 people took to the stage to claim the trophy because so many people worked on the album
In that same spirit, the 2009 Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters Misinformer of the Year goes to a group effort.
The award goes to the folks at BigGovernment, Gateway Pundit, Mass Resistance, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, the Washington Times, Accuracy in Media, and the rest of the insane right-wing for their past and continued attacks on Obama appointee Kevin Jennings.
All of them had something to do with the slurring, smearing, and the near destruction of this man's reputation.
Mercy, where do I start with this one? Who knew that the words "Fistgate" would become so repeated when Mass Resistance drudged it out of its fevered anti-lgbt imagination in 2000?
Just what exactly did Jennings do to these people? Spread rumors about their mothers.
They have accused him of supporting pedophiles. That wasn't true.
They have accused him of teaching children to "fist." That wasn't true.
They have accused him and GLSEN of trying to get children to read explicit material. That wasn't true.
They have accused him and GLSEN of encouraging children to go to leather bars. That wasn't true.
They have accused him and GLSEN of encouraging children to have public sex in parks with strangers. That wasn't true.
They have accused him of allowing the abuse of an underaged child. That wasn't true.
They even accused him of advocating murder. And that wasn't true.
I don't think people realized just how vital it was that these lies did not cause Jennings to lose his position. If it had, it would have been yet another scalp for folks eager to undermine President Obama after the Van Jones resignation.
It would have driven an even bigger wedge between Obama and some members of the lgbt community (yes even bigger than the one he supposedly has now - when one eliminates the opinions of lgbts of color).
Most of all, it would have created a potential Sword of Damocles over the head of every future lgbt Presidential appointee.
The fact that Jennings has survived is not a miracle, but a product of good work via organizations like Media Matters and Think Progress who beat down every lie before it had to time gain power.
Well that's that. May we all have an excellent 2010.
Time for my seasonal thing medication. This dose is wearing off.
Because there's still some homo-hostile fight left in the old gal - James Dobson - a regular Scarlett O'Hara. But just how long can we buy the "our nation is facing a crisis that threatens its very existence" line before the realization comes that it's JUST a line. Exodus Board Members Plays The “Dupe” In Uganda - And speaking of more religious right silence . . . More fallout from that excellent New York Times piece about the Ugandan anti-gay bill.
(The 2009 Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters Misinformers of the Year awards are coming later today - provided I can shake this ugly seasonal thing I've got.)
Yesterday, the New York Times came out with a sensational article about the Ugandan anti-gay bill. It was short, precise and linked Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge, and Don Schmierer to the bill, making sure to note that their "teachings" that homosexuality can be cured has been discredited in this country and also noting how the bill came to pass because of a conference the three took part in earlier last year in Uganda.
And in the article, they come across exactly as they are -anti-gay charlatans who are now cowardly backtracking after the world sees what they have done.
For three days, according to participants and audio recordings, thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were presented as experts on homosexuality. The visitors discussed how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how “the gay movement is an evil institution” whose goal is “to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.”
Now the three Americans are finding themselves on the defensive, saying they had no intention of helping stoke the kind of anger that could lead to what came next: a bill to impose a death sentence for homosexual behavior.
One month after the conference, a previously unknown Ugandan politician, who boasts of having evangelical friends in the American government, introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, which threatens to hang homosexuals, and, as a result, has put Uganda on a collision course with Western nations.
Personally I don't buy their huge mea culpa. When you demonize lgbts as predators, just what do you think would happen? Was there some belief that folks would welcome lgbts with open arms after being told that they want to rape children (and bear in mind, I said "rape," which is bad enough. The fact that Lively and company actually took the time to spin exact details on how gays supposedly rape children - via sodomy - is even worse.)
I never liked Barney Miller, the ensemble sitcom about a police precinct. I always felt it was stilted and claustrophobic.
But despite my objections, it was a very successful show, running for seven years and winning a bunch of awards, including an Emmy for Outstanding Comedy Series.
And it was one of the first shows to feature semi-regular gay character.
Actor Jack DeLeon portrayed Marty Morrison, a gay purse snatcher who was seen on several episodes.
I don't know how to feel about Marty. It's not that I had a problem with how DeLeon portrayed him as a stereotypically flighty "queen."
I just had a problem with DeLeon.
I am not familiar with the actor but on two other occasions, he portrayed a gay man and both times I found his characterization to be crude and one-dimensional.
One portrayal was featured in a past posting of Know Your LGBT History (The Choirboys). In it, DeLeon is playing a gay man walking a poodle.And he has the "fortune" to encounter a naked man in the park.
The other portrayal (which I have not talked about yet) was on the Rated X episode of Sanford and Son. DeLeon portrayed the director of a pornographic film. It's bad enough that his sexual orientation was featured as a joke, but then the script called for him to make a crude advance to actor Redd Foxx.
I'm sorry but even if I were the most homophobic homophobe, I would never buy the fact that any gay man would ever make a play for Redd Foxx or his character Fred Sanford.
But I digress.
Believe it or not though, this episode of Barney Miller featuring DeLeon is actually a good one. It's called Discovery and in it, he and Miller are helping a friend who has been harassed and extorted by a policeman. Between you and me, I found the portrayal of Marty's friend (the victim of the shakedown) to more enjoyable:
President Obama's "safe schools czar," Kevin Jennings, is a former schoolteacher who advocated promoting homosexuality in schools and was forced to admit he had poorly handled an incident in which a student told him he was having sex with older men. Jennings has since been tied to a pornographic suggested reading list for 7th graders that was designed by the organization he founded and directed for over a decade, and dozens of members of Congress have called for his ouster.
And that, my friends, is a clever lie.
Fox News is referring to the recent psuedo controversies put together by the webpage Big Government, the anti-gay hate group Mass Resistance, and several other "entities" (I'm being nice) to smear Jennings.
Bear in mind, I said "recent."
You see the media did cover Jennings earlier last year, although I doubt Fox News would want anyone to remember this coverage. It was when the network and other entities were falsely claiming that Jennings contributed to the statutory rape of a child.
I am referring to the so-called Brewster incident in which a student confided in Jennings about an encounter he had with an older male. Fox News and its cohorts, hungry for more Obama appointee blood after the resignation of Van Jones, went after this tip with a huge amount of fervor, claiming that Jennings broke the law by not reporting what the student told him.
And their claims blew up in their faces.
The young man, Brewster, was of legal age at the time of the incident.
He provided a statement to Media Matters praising Jennings for his advice during that time of his life. He also providedMedia Matters with his I.D. proving that he was 16 at the time of the incident. Sixteen is the legal age of consent in Massachusetts, the state where the incident took place.
By the way, Brewster also said that he did not have sex with the older male; a statement that everyone seems to forget.
Brewster's statement proved that Jennings did not contribute to any statutory rape of any form or type.
And the media did cover the entire brouhaha, including CNN:
and (wait for it) . . . Fox News.
Fox News even corrected the claim that Brewster was underaged:
So basically when Fox News says that the "mainstream media" missed covering Kevin Jennings, the news organization is lying. The media, including Fox, did cover the lies lodged against Jennings and found them to be lacking.
Just because members of the media (except for Fox News) took later attempts to smear Jennings for the nonsense they were and ignored them is not a bad thing.
2009 was a busy year - busy, tiring, and in some ways annoying. I intend to recap the year with my 2009 Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters Misinformers of the Year awards (coming this weekend).
However for now, I am going to wish you a Happy New Year and leave you with two of my favorite memories of 2009 courtesy of Barney Frank's very satisfying destruction of a someone comparing President Obama to Hitler and Rachel Maddow's even more satisfying destruction of so-called ex-gay Richard Cohen.
Though the noise has faded a bit, members of the right are still attacking Obama appointee Kevin Jennings.
I've been pretty much ignoring the new attacks because they have gotten stupid.
The right-wing site Big Government has continuously attacked Jennings with a series of National Enquirer type articles filled with bad innuendoes and lies.
And the site makes sure to give each attack the clever name of "Fistgate (choose your number here), making reference to the original attack on Jennings, i.e. that he supposedly taught children how to "fist" - a charge that has been continuously refuted.
Now you will remember the huge ado about the suggested reading list that GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network - the group that Jennings founded) had suggested for students.
That's the reading list which contained some books with mature themes; so much so that GLSEN advised that adults peruse the list of books and make choices regarding reading material for students.
Well the website Big Government isn't letting the pseudo controversy over the list go without putting it to good use. The website seems to be intent on taking every book from the reading list, outlining some of the most graphic material, and then presenting what it found as a "new controversy."
Choices from the suggested reading list have been the basis for several recent "Fistgate" "articles."
We are up to "Fistgate 13," the most pathetic of them all.
Racial slur spray painted on side of City Hall - First Columbia pass gender-inclusive non-discrimination laws and now black folks think that they can run for public office. Just WHAT is this world coming to?
Don Belton Murdered - The black and gay community both loses a leading light thanks to a senseless murder.
We've written a few posts in the past about the custody battle being waged between Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins, a Vermont couple who had a daughter together in 2002 but eventually separated and soon became locked in a custody fight after Miller moved to Virginia, became a Christian active in Jerry Falwell's church, and sought sole custody of their daughter, Isabella, with the representation of the Falwell-founded Liberty Counsel.
When they were a couple, Miller and Jenkins decided to raise Isabella together.
When they split, Miller agreed to let Jenkins have visitation rights. Jenkins was even paying child support.
Miller refused to allow Jenkins to have unsupervised time with Isabella, claiming that Jenkins was harming Isabella. The Virginia Child Protective Services investigated and found the charges to be false.
Since that time, the two have been in and out of court for years (with Miller keeping Isabella away from Jenkins) until the case finally reached its apex in November due to Miller's constant refusal to follow the law:
Homosexual activists have failed in an effort to impose acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle on the world.
The United Nations General Assembly voted to delete language from a proposed resolution that claimed that two new anti-discrimination categories exist: sexual orientation and gender identity.
"What this body is trying to do is to elevate the homosexual agenda to a global right that governments are treaty-bound to accept," explains Austin Ruse, head of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM). "There was an attempt to have this reinterpretation officially accepted by the General Assembly, and it was defeated."
One News Now does not provide details regarding the resolution but another right-wing publication, Lifesite News, does:
The deleted reference was to General Comment 20 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The ICESCR was adopted by the UN on December 16, 1966, and declares that states that are part of the agreement will "undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, color, sex, language, religion ... or other status."
General Comment 20 states that the phrase "other status" includes "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." This means, according to the Comment, that members of the ICESCR "must ... adopt measures, which should include legislation, to ensure that individuals and entities in the private sphere do not discriminate on prohibited grounds."
This state of affair accentuates the problem for lgbts worldwide.
That by merely wanting to conduct our lives in peace, we are trying to "force acceptance,"
And that somehow we aren't deserving of basic human dignity.
Austin Ruse, the man cited in the article further said:
"Most countries have a very traditional view of human sexuality, of marriage, [and] of the family, so when these ideas percolate through from radicals in the United States and the European Union, and they eventually get to the General Assembly where a lot of traditional people are represented, they get defeated," Ruse notes.
Someone should ask Ruse just what is his view of "traditional human sexuality and people."
Does it involve hanging children like they did to those two innocent boys in Iran?
Or how about butchering innocent activists like what was done in Jamaica?
Or what about the laws in 30 Islamic countries that make homosexuality a criminal offense. In most cases punishment range from floggings to life imprisonment. In Mauritania, Bangladesh, Yemen, parts of Nigeria and Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, convicted homosexuals can also be sentenced to death.
Ruse and those who stand with him not only have a warped sense of tradition but also of right and wrong.
And it leads me again to say while I love and fear God, I have a serious concern about those who claim to represent Him.
As we remember major lgbt stories in 2009 like Maine and Carrie Prejean, let's not forget the so-called minor stories.
One in particular I would like to point out because it was a victory for the lgbt blogging community.
Remember Peter Vadala?
He was the former employee of Brookstone (a Massachusetts retailer store) who was fired for supposedly expressing his Christian beliefs.
As we learned more about Vadala, it turned out that him "expressing his Christian beliefs" amounted to telling a lesbian employee that she is a "deviant" for simply talking about her upcoming wedding. Gay marriage, by the way, is perfectly legal in Massachusetts.
At first glance, the incident looked like a perfect cause celebre for the religious right. A young Christian attacked by the supposedly intolerant and invisible homosexual lobby - a perfect fundraising tool if there ever was one.
But it flopped.
What made Vadala's story different than say the story of Repent America when a supposed religious group was arrested at Philly Pride in 2004 or the group of city workers who filed a lawsuit against the city of Oakland when they were told to remove an anti-gay flyer from their workplace?
