Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Monday, February 08, 2010

In honor of 200,000, a reason to oppose interracial dating

Yesterday, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters celebrated its 200,000th hit. Not bad for a part-time blog, huh. In celebration of this, I want to republish one of my most popular posts. It is especially poignant today when one takes into account the increasingly amount of venom recently against the lgbt community from the religious right:

I've been having a very interesting email exchange with Peter LaBarbera regarding his stigmatization of the lgbt community.

For LaBarbera, every lie he tells is justifiable because of his belief that gay men have "health risks" greater than that of heterosexuals. In fact, it's something he likes to highlight every chance he gets:

“Barack Obama’s homosexual agenda is beginning to take shape – but he has no election mandate to impose GLSEN’s radical vision of celebrating homosexuality, bisexuality and gender confusion (transsexuality) in U.S. schools,” LaBarbera said. “Anti-religious bigots should not be setting policy for schools — and promoting dangerous sex and gender identities to youth is the antithesis of ‘safety.’ (Men who have sex with other men (MSM) suffer from much higher rates of sexual diseases – including anal cancer, HIV, syphilis, and gonorrhea — than non-MSMs.)

Also:

LaBarbera also argues that many liberal school districts teach false facts about AIDS. He says they imply that everyone is at equal risk for contracting the disease -- even though in 2005 71 percent of U.S. male AIDS cases involved homosexuals. He contends that many American young people are not being informed about other health risks associated with homosexuality either -- such as increased infections of the Hepatitis B or C virus and the herpes virus. "We have all this evidence out there that homosexual behavior is dangerous," the activist point out, "and yet our politically correct elites are promoting gay identity" to teens and children.

And he is not the only one to assert this "gays are dangerous because of their behavior" claim:

If there was ever a clarion call for our entire society to say with one united voice that homosexual behavior is a danger to health and should be discouraged at all costs, this is it. We've found one voice as a society with regard to drug use and drunk driving; it's time we find it with regard to homosexual behavior. - Bryan Fischer

In fact, multiple studies have established that homosexual conduct, especially among males, is considerably more hazardous to one’s health than a lifetime of chain smoking. - Matt Barber

The "homosexuality is a health risk" factoid is a popular talking point in religious right circles. It stems from manipulating legitimate medical information regarding disease and the lgbt community. Rather than go into detail about just how this information is manipulated, I'm going to take another route.

I found this video on youtube. I dare anyone to tell me the difference between it and the nonsense about the supposed "health risks of homosexuality" factoid pushed by the religious right:

Sunday, February 07, 2010

Fox News' DADT coverage gets nailed by Saturday Night Live

Sometimes a lot of truth comes out through comedy.

Black History Month lgbts of color - Sylvester

One who needs no introduction. From www.gmad.org, Sylvester:

Imagine him. Spry brown-skinned little gay boy. Voice and spirit of equal and magnanimous proportions.

Standing, with the assistance of an apple box, tall and proud before the congregation of Palm Lane Church of God and Christ and wailing Aretha Franklin's "Never Grow Old" just like the Queen herself. Tearing up the church and causing the Holy Ghost to break out all over the Tabernacle. It was only a foretelling sign of things to come.

He was a force of nature even then, barely six and singing like he held some secret that world knew nothing of, just yet. Somehow, he was a rare breed of young manchild, nubile Black being, who was born perfectly comfortable in his skin. He knew who he was and operated as though it was the world's mission to catch up and catch on to his fabulousness.

He was Sylvester.

James was his last name, but Diva was a title he wore as readily and easily as the opulent attire (never drag) that he adorned. But Sylvester James-performance artist, recording star, Disco icon, advocate, activist, soul singer-was more than just a Tall Man In Drag. Sylvester was a revolution! Before RuPaul took over the radio and television airwaves, there was Sylvester. Before Harvey brought his fabulous brand of Fier(stein) to Broadway, there was Sylvester. Even before the real benefits of music videos (though he did have a few) and national Black Gay Prides, he made an impact that is still felt almost two decades after his untimely death.

Born September 6, 1947, he was a strong-willed Virgo, who had an opinion about everything and wasn't afraid or ashamed to share it. Sylvester knew at an early age that there was a creative force within that had to come out. After the church couldn't contain his fiery behavior and his parents could not tolerate his wild ways, he ran away from the "quiet streets" of his Los Angeles suburbs and found himself, literally and figuratively, in San Francisco.

He started as many would have expected, performing drag, as "Ruby Blue," in clubs where he was an innovator, singing live and evoking Bille Holliday and the blues icons his grandmother had poured into his musical ear. He would still sing in church and felt completely comfortable doing both, unlike Marvin Gaye, Prince and other artists who struggled with the polarity of their Spirituality and their Musicality. Sylvester was alright with God and truly believed that God was alright with him. He felt like he could express himself any way he pleased and he was pleased when The Cockettes, a performance arts group that dabbled in drag and drugs, made him a part of their act and later got him to teach them to sing, instead of just pantomiming to other people's songs. He made them believe that they could do more.

That unwavering belief and talent would take Sylvester and the troop from sold-out shows to New York and back. But he couldn't stay there long. He wanted and needed much more. But he didn't really find his voice, his authentic voice, until he started to record. After a few failed attempts at recording, he found his niche, when in 1975, he went against the grain again and instead of trying to find thin, cute singers for the audience's eye, he enlisted Two Tons of Fun and gave the people something for their ears! Martha Wash and Izora Armstead were two women, who though not traditional beauties, were the kind of performers that the Gay-infused Disco era adored. They could wail and didn't mind doing it.

Isn't it a shame when the kidnappers of children get no respect?

Poor Lisa Miller.

What is this world coming to when a woman who breaks the law and kidnaps her child to keep her away from the other parent (who has never done anything to harm the child) can't get a fair shake from the media?

At least that's what our "friend" Peter LaBarbera and Lifesite News thinks about the Janet Jenkins/Lisa Miller custody case:

Janet Jenkins, a practicing lesbian who was once in a “civil union” with ex-lesbian Lisa Miller, is conducting a media campaign to locate Miller’s seven-year-old daughter in an attempt to gain custody of the child.

Miller’s daughter, Isabella, was conceived via artificial insemination during the pair’s relationship, and has no biological relationship with Jenkins. Miller disappeared with Isabella in December, apparently in an effort to prevent a Vermont judge from transferring custody of her child to Jenkins.

But Jenkins is doing numerous interviews with mainstream media outlets, ostensibly in an effort to locate Isabella (described by Jenkins in one interview as “my child”), which are uncritically repeating her charges against Miller, while failing to mention Miller’s charges against Jenkins – -including that her relationship with Jenkins was abusive.

This ridiculous post recounts an interview that Miller gave to Lifesite News accusing Jenkins of abusive behavior. Of course the post omits the fact that the allegations were investigated by Virginia's Child Protective Services and deemed as "unfounded."

But the main sticking point here is that both LaBarbera and Lifesite News is trying to garner sympathy for Miller. To them, she is the "victim of a media campaign out to demonize her."

But hasn't Miller demonized herself in the eyes of the public by kidnapping Isabella?

I'm sure the media would love to get her side of the story but seeing that she has gone into hiding instead of following the law, speaking to her would be difficult, wouldn't it?

Related posts:

FRC's Peter Sprigg voices support for kidnapping of child in custody case

Liberty Counsel attacking lgbt parenting again but won't comment on Jenkins/Miller case

Washington Post columnist: Lisa Miller needs to come out of hiding and face her chaos

Janet Jenkins pleads for help in finding her daughter

Black History Month lgbts of color - Paul Winfield

Congratulations to Mary O'Grady, who guessed the identity of today's LGBT Black History Month hero and the first gay black man to receive an Oscar nomination - Paul Winfield.

From www.glbtq.com:

The theater always had a special place in the heart of actor Paul Winfield, but his career included numerous film and television roles. He was nominated for several acting awards and won an Emmy in 1995.

Paul Edward Winfield was born in Los Angeles on May 22, 1941 to Lois Beatrice Edwards, a garment-industry worker and union organizer. When Winfield was eight, his mother married Clarence Winfield, a construction worker.

One of Winfield's vivid memories from those years was seeing Mark Robson's 1949 film Home of the Brave, in which African-American actor James Edwards played a leading part rather than the role of servant to which actors of color were typically confined.

When the family returned to Los Angeles, Winfield attended Manual Arts High School, where he excelled in both music and acting. He was named best actor in the Speech and Drama Teachers Association Drama Festival for three consecutive years.

Because of these achievements he was offered a scholarship to Yale but, apprehensive about fitting in there, chose to accept a two-year scholarship at the University of Portland. He subsequently attended other colleges on the West Coast, including UCLA, which he left in 1964 six credits short of a degree when professional opportunities beckoned.

In addition to appearing on stage he served as artist in residence at Stanford University during the 1964-1965 academic year.

Winfield became a contract player for Columbia Pictures in 1966. Initially he continued his stage work and played minor parts on television, but in 1969 Sidney Poitier chose him for a role in Robert Alan Arthur's film The Lost Man.

Winfield also became familiar to viewers of the small screen with a regular role as Diahann Carroll's boyfriend on the situation comedy Julia (1968-1970), a groundbreaking series that many consider to have been influential in increasing opportunities for African-American actors on television.

Winfield turned in a memorable performance in Martin Ritt's 1972 film Sounder, which earned him a nomination for an Academy Award as best actor.

Know Your LGBT History - Paris Is Burning

In celebration of Black History Month, I wanted to focus on a positive movie featuring lgbts of color.

Unfortunately there aren't many out there but one which should be on the top of everyone's list is Paris Is Burning.

Paris Is Burning (1990) is a documentary which centers on the ball scene in New York City during the late 1980s. It tells the story of how various young African-American gays and transgenders unite themselves in "houses" and compete for trophies during that they call "balls." Balls are competitions in which they showcase their style, fashion, and dance movies.

The documentary gives a window into the world of people seemingly deserted by both the black and gay communities. It shows how they love and support each other, giving each other what both the gay and black communities are failing to deliver - appreciation and empowerment.

I love this movie and the personalities in it from Pepper LaBeija to Angela Xtravaganza to Dorian Corey; especially Dorian Corey.

And there is an interesting story regarding Corey. When she died, folks went through her apartment looking for old costumes and the like and found a mummified body with a note which said:

"This poor soul broke into my apartment and I was forced to shoot him."

As morbid as this story is, it emphasizes what I liked about the gays and transgenders in Paris Is Burning. Faced with a double negative of criticism from black community and unintentional omission from the gay community, they learned to take care of themselves and do it well.

The following is a clip from Paris Is Burning:

Florida 'pro-family' group offers 'apology' for picture and other Friday midday news briefs

Stemberger: Wrong pics of gay couple was ‘mistake’ - Organization responsible for posting a rude picture of lesbian couple (see earlier post) issues an "apology." Scott Maxwell of the Orlando Sentinel sees it for the distortion that it is. This column is almost better than the first one.

Iowa Republicans Want To Exclude LGBTQ Students From Safe Schools Law - South Carolina, meet your twin.

Bronze Star recipient Benjamin Ford, accused in West Side gay bashing, is stripped of rank - A gay basher gets what he deserves.

RedState's Erickson brings conservatives' witch hunt to HRC's Knox - HRC's Harry Knox being jumped for his comments about the Pope.

Religious right group push phony photo to make the case against gay adoption

The picture above symbolize how religious right groups demonize the lgbt community. According to the Orlando Sentinel's Scott Mawell:

On the left is the picture that the Florida Family Policy Council of Orlando, used to illustrate the gay couple that was awarded custody of a relative. It appeared under the headline: "FL judge violates law, places child in homosexual adoption" (on the right) is the actual couple.

Maxwell writes an excellent piece on the recent situation involving a lesbian couple being awarded custody of one-year-old boy.

I wrote about the situation, focusing on how the right-wing Florida group the Liberty Counsel was attacking the ruling. But Maxwell includes some important details about the case which even I wasn't aware of:

Florida is the last state in the U.S. with an outright ban on gay adoption. And three court rulings in recent months suggest the archaic law may be on its last legs.

The rationale for preventing balanced, loving parents from adopting children — when the state has a backlog of needy children, no less — is hard to justify in concept.

And when you actually look at the specifics of human lives involved in real cases — the way Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Maria Sampedro-Iglesia did last month — it's darn near impossible.

In considering the case, Judge Sampedro-Iglesia heard from family members, a child psychologist, the boy's preschool administrator, a social worker and the state-appointed Guardian ad Litem.

All of them, the judge wrote in her order, "testified in support of the adoption as being in the best interest of the child."

The state did not offer a single witness to rebut that claim.

"The only testimony elicited today," the judge said at the end of the hearing, "was that [the 1-year-old] is loved by these parents more than they even thought that someone could be loved."

So the judge ruled that he could stay with the two women — one of whom is related to the boy. (Child-welfare workers had taken him shortly after he was born. Alenier and Leon stepped up, offering to raise him — much to the delight of their extended family.)

I could say a lot about what the Florida Family Policy Council tried to do but Maxwell says it much better than I ever could:

These are the dirty tactics of Christianity's far-right warriors.

Not the majority of mainstream Christians, mind you. Not those who are focused on caring for their own families and practicing their own faith — but those who are obsessed with homosexuality.

These extremists wage their campaigns of intolerance based on deception and misrepresentation.

And they have the gall to do it in God's name.

On some twisted level, you can see why they have been reduced to misleading histrionics.

Because they are losing the fight.

Amen, Maxwell.

Thursday, February 04, 2010

Religious right showing hostile new militancy against the lgbt community

In the span of less than a week, we have witnessed a meltdown of religious right talking heads against the lgbt community.

First there was the Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg who said on Hardball earlier this week that he supports "criminalizing homosexual behavior."

Around the same time came the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer who published an ugly screed saying that homosexuality should be against the law. He compounded this nastiness when he tried to backtrack explaining that he "merely" said that "homosexual behavior" should be treated the same as intravenous drug abuse

After the People for the American Way destroyed his argument, he seemed to say "to hell with pretending to clarify" when he voiced the following opinion:

Think for a moment of the current social controversies that could potentially be avoided if homosexual conduct was still against the law.

Gays in the military: problem solved. We shouldn't make a place for habitual felons in the armed forces. End of discussion, end of controversy. If someone objects, ask them which other felonies the military ought to overlook in screening recruits.

Gay marriage: problem solved. We should never legalize unions between any two people when the union is forged specifically to engage in felony behavior. Would we sanction, for instance, the formation of a corporation whose stated purpose was to import illegal drugs?

Gay indoctrination in the schools: problem solved. We don't want to raise a generation of schoolchildren to believe that felony behavior is perfectly appropriate. That's why we spend so much money warning students about the danger of drugs.

Hate crimes laws: problem solved. We wouldn't throw a pastor in jail for saying that illegal behavior is not only illegal but also immoral. For instance, he's free to say that murder is not only contrary to man's law but also to God's law. End of the threat to freedom of religion and speech.

Special rights for homosexuals in the workplace: problem solved. No employer should be forced to hire admitted felons to work for him. End of the threat to freedom of religion and freedom of association in the marketplace.

FRC's Peter Sprigg voices support for kidnapping of child in custody case

Adding to his odious comments about "criminalizing gay behavior," Family Research Council board member and spokesperson Peter Sprigg is now speaking out on the Janet Jenkins/Lisa Miller custody case.

Sprigg seems to be voicing support for Miller's kidnapping of Isabella, the child in the center of the case.

In his piece, A Parent's Nightmare, Sprigg says.

Imagine that you are a mother (perhaps you are). You have only one child -- your own flesh and blood, conceived with your egg, borne in your body, pushed out into the world by your own exertions.

She is seven and a half years old, and for the last six years you have been her sole caretaker. Single parenthood is tough, but your parents help, and it seems your daughter is doing well. She is happy and well-adjusted. You have worked hard to support her and transmit your values to her. She goes to church with you every week.

Now, someone wants to take her away from you. Her father? No -- another woman wants to be her mother. This woman lives in a different state hundreds of miles away. Your daughter once knew the woman, but so long ago that she has no memory of her. The woman has no biological relationship to your child. She has no adoptive relationship to your child. But she wants to take your daughter away from you and be her mother now.

No court has ever found you to be an unfit mother. And yet -- unbelievably -- the courts of two states have ordered you to transfer custody of your child to this other woman.

According to a December 2008 Newsweek magazine, the case is more complicated than how Sprigg laid it out. From the article, we learn the following :

Miller and Jenkins agreed to raise Isabella together.

Jenkins said the reason why she did not file for adoption was because she was told she didn't need to because they had the civil union (the two had married in a Vermont civil union before Isabella was born).

When the two broke up, Miller agreed to allow Jenkins to have visitation rights. Jenkins even paid child support. Miller allegedly began keeping Isabella away from Jenkins, ultimately by moving from Vermont to Virginia a state which does not recognize gay marriage or civil unions.

Furthermore, the only reason why custody was transferred to Jenkins was because Miller continued to defy court orders by not allowing Jenkins to have visitation with Isabella.

In his defense of Miller's illegal actions, Sprigg makes a huge error on what the courts actually said when transferring custody:

No court has ever found Lisa to be an unfit parent. Indeed, the courts do not even claim that it is in Isabella’s “best interest” to be given to Janet. They are simply punishing Lisa for not complying with earlier orders to allow Janet visitation. (Lisa claims that Isabella had severe negative emotional reactions after earlier visits with Janet).

That statement is false. According to the Rutland Herald, Judge William Cohen said:

"The court concludes that it is in the best interest of (Isabella) that Ms. Jenkins exercise parental rights and responsibilities. This court stated that continued interference by Ms. Miller with the relationship between (Isabella) and Ms. Jenkins could lead to a change of circumstances and outweigh the disruption that would occur if a change of custody were ordered."

But Sprigg is right about one thing. The entire case is a parent's nightmare. But there is more than one parent involved. It all boils down to two points for me:

1. Jenkins is Isabella's legally recognized parent.

2. Why couldn't Miller have just abided by the court orders and allowed Jenkins to have visitation with Isabella like she originally agreed to?

Jenkins simply wanted time with her daughter. That's all. No plots, no plans to "indoctrinate" Isabella into the United Sisterhood of the Knit Flannel or whatever ridiculous notion there is emanating from the right.

The fact that Sprigg and Miller's other supporters (who all claim to stand up for truth and values) seem to be encouraging Miller to continue her law breaking just underscores their hypocrisy. Truth and having values also encompasses a respect for the law.

I find the entire case disturbing but what also bother me are the consistent attempts by Sprigg and others on his side of the spectrum to dehumanize Jenkins as an outsider, an interloper, and evil vagabond witch out to steal Isabella away from Miller as a part of some sort of agenda-driven plan.

The only persons who have an agenda-driven plan here are Sprigg and the rest who are throwing out feeble defenses for Miller to continue to evade the law and expose Isabella to danger.

Colin Powell now supports gays serving openly in the military

How's this for a reversal:

Retired Army Gen. Colin L. Powell, whose opposition to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military helped lead to adoption of the "don't ask, don't tell" legislation 17 years ago, said Wednesday that he now thinks the restrictive law should be repealed.

"Attitudes and circumstances have changed," Powell said. "It's been a whole generation" since the legislation was adopted, and there is increased "acceptance of gays and lesbians in society," he said. "Society is always reflected in the military. It's where we get our soldiers from."

At the same time, he said, "we've had a lot of experience watching what other nations have done." Of 28 NATO member countries, a small minority prohibit or restrict service based on sexual orientation.

Powell spoke in an interview the day after Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress that it is his "personal belief" that lifting the ban is "the right thing to do." Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the Pentagon is preparing to repeal the law, despite significant opposition in Congress.

"If the chiefs and commanders are comfortable with moving to change the policy," Powell said, "then I support it." Public opinion polls since 2005 have consistently shown significantly more than half of all Americans supporting a repeal.

You will remember that Powell opposed gays serving in the military and his opposition was partly the reason why President Clinton settled on Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Black History Month lgbts of color - Barbara Jordan

As many of you know, February is Black History Month, where we remember and celebrate the contributions that African-Americans have made to this country.

In recent years, it has always bugged me that there doesn't seem to be appropriate attention to the contributions of lgbts of color during this month - that is to say there needs to be attention directed to the fact that some of the people whose lives we celebrate during Black History Month were and are lgbts.

Therefore from time to time during this month (preferably the weekend but today is an exception), I am going to spotlight the lives and contributions of lgbts of color.

And I want to start with Barbara Jordan:

From www.glbtq.com:

Barbara Jordan gained national attention for her intelligence, acumen, and oratorical skill as a member of the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee during hearings on the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon over the Watergate scandal. In her career as a legislator and educator she was a vigorous proponent of equal rights, especially for African Americans and women. A deeply closeted lesbian, she did not, however, speak out for the cause of glbtq rights.

Jordan attended Houston public schools, where she excelled academically. During her senior year her speaking skills were recognized when she won a national oratory contest sponsored by the Baptist church.

Following her graduation in 1952 Jordan enrolled at Houston's all-black Texas Southern University, where she became a stand-out on the extremely successful debate team.

After graduating magna cum laude from Texas Southern in 1956 with a degree in political science and history, Jordan entered law school at Boston University. Throughout her youth Jordan had had first-hand experience of racism, but at Boston she encountered sexism. She recalled that the law school professors "just tolerated" the "ladies." Jordan persevered, however, earning her degree in 1959, after which she returned to Houston to practice law.

As the 1960 presidential election approached, Jordan became a volunteer with John F. Kennedy's campaign. She quickly became engrossed in the effort and moved from doing routine clerical tasks to working on a drive to turn out the city's African-American voters.

Buoyed by the success of the undertaking, Jordan decided to run for office herself. Her campaigns for the state House of Representatives in 1962 and 1964 ended in defeat, but they helped her establish a solid following. She was elected to the state Senate in her third run for office in 1966.

As a senator, Jordan championed the causes of fair housing and employment, minimum wage laws, and protection of the voting rights of minorities. Her political astuteness and effectiveness led her fellow Texan President Lyndon B. Johnson to seek her advice on fair housing legislation. Because of her record of accomplishment Jordan was chosen as the outstanding freshman senator in her first year in the legislature.

After six years of service in the state Senate, Jordan mounted a campaign for the United States House of Representatives in 1972. She won in a landslide. At the recommendation of former President Johnson, she was appointed to the Judiciary Committee.

It was as a member of this committee that Jordan came to nationwide attention during the hearings on the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon in 1974. Her intelligence and eloquence during the long and difficult proceedings brought her widespread respect and made her a rising political star.

Chosen to deliver a keynote address at the 1976 Democratic National Convention, Jordan gave a typically stirring speech. During the campaign she worked diligently to bring out the vote for Jimmy Carter, who had considered her as a possible running mate. After his election Carter offered Jordan the post of ambassador to the United Nations, which she declined.

Jordan stunned her constituents and colleagues by announcing in late 1977 that she would not run for a fourth term in the House of Representatives. The reason for her decision, which she did not reveal publicly, was that she had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.

Among the few privy to Jordan's medical condition was Nancy Earl. Jordan and Earl had met on a camping trip in the late 1960s and had quickly become close. In 1976 they bought property near Austin together and built a house.

Shortly after Jordan's announcement that she would not seek reelection, Earl joined her in Washington as a "special assistant" during her final year in office.

Once back in Austin in 1979, Jordan was appointed to the Lyndon Johnson Chair in National Policy at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas. Earl, an educational psychologist, also worked at the university in its testing and evaluation center.

Jordan remained largely out of the public eye for several years, but in 1987 she appeared before Congress to oppose the nomination of conservative homophobe Robert Bork to the United States Supreme Court. She addressed the Democratic National Convention the following year, seconding the vice-presidential nomination of fellow Texan Lloyd Bentsen.

In July 1988 Jordan suffered a heart attack while exercising in her swimming pool. Earl--described in the press as Jordan's "housemate"--saved her by calling for emergency medical assistance and working to revive her. After the incident doctors, describing Jordan's medical condition, revealed that she had multiple sclerosis.

Jordan quickly recovered from the heart attack and resumed a vigorous schedule, determined to overcome her physical challenges. Even after being diagnosed with leukemia in 1994, she continued to teach and travel to speaking engagements. At last, however, she contracted pneumonia as a complication of the leukemia and died on January 17, 1996 in Austin.

Now some people may think that Jordan should not be considered as an lgbt hero because she was closeted and did not speak on behalf on lgbt rights.

I submit that her reluctance to speak out was merely a result of her having to deal with the era in which she lived - just as Bayard Rustin's (another hero who will be celebrated at a later date) arrest on a "morals charge" was the result of how he had to deal with homophobia back then.

Let's not get so high and mighty in our empowerment that we turn our backs on those who made choices based on the options they had in front of them.

For those who are interested, the following is a clip of the first part of her speech during the Watergate hearings:

AT&T does the right thing and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Because we've done our own 'Family Research' - The Family Research Council digs that anti-gay pit a little deeper.

Press Release: GLAD Wins Case vs. IRS on Sex Reassignment Deductions - Good news for our transgendered brothers and sisters.

AT&T changes stance allowing gay employee leave of absence to care for partner - More good news.

Sciortino introduces bill to support transgender rights - Mass Resistance set to plotz

Maddow interviews another servicemember in danger of losing job because of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

That great silence you hear right now is the fallout from the Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg's comments on Hardball yesterday. You will remember he said he supports criminalizing "gay behavior."

It amazes me that the media can focus on a ridiculous story about President Obama bowing to foreign leaders or another phony narrative about school children being supposedly indoctrinated to pay tribute to him during Black History Month, but can't muster up enough outrage over Sprigg's comments.

Oh well.

Anyway, last night, Rachel Maddow interviewed Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach. He is another member of the Armed Forces whose position is in danger because of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

The next time you hear the lie that gays will endanger heterosexuals if we are allowed to serve openly in the military, remember Fehrenbach:

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Confirmed: FRC's Peter Sprigg supports 'criminal sanctions' against the lgbt community

On today's episode of Hardball, Family Research Council spokesperson and board member Peter Sprigg said that he believes that Lawrence vs. Texas (the Supreme Court decision that struck down the sodomy laws) was "wrongly decided" and that "gay behavior" should be criminalized.

His comments were in the middle of a debate with Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's Aubrey Sarvis.

Freudian slips about the lgbt community are nothing new to Sprigg. Two years ago, he said that he would prefer that the United States "export" gays and lesbians.

The entire video is below and Sprigg's comments about "criminalizing gay behavior" are at the end (the exchange begins at 7:40), but I would suggest that you watch the entire thing. Sarvis totally destroys him.

And it proves the point that in a head-to-head debate with facts on hand, religious right groups can't get away with their nonsense.

Transcript (courtesy of Firedoglake.com):

MATTHEWS: What should a young woman or man, 22 years old, out of college, officer material, they want to serve their country. But they’re gay. What should they do? They want to serve their country?

SPRIGG: Well, they should serve it in some civilian capacity, and not join the military.

MATTHEWS: Why not?

SPRIGG: Because the presence of homosexuals in the military is incompatible with good order, morale, discipline and unit cohesion. That’s exactly what Congress found in 1993 and that’s what the law states!

[snip]

SPRIGG: Don’t ask don’t tell is the Clinton compromise policy which is actually incompatible with the law that was passed by Congress. There’s almost universal misunderstanding about that. I’d like to see us do away with this don’t ask don’t tell, and simply enforce the law that was passed by Congress.

[snip]

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you Peter, do you think people choose to be gay?

SPRIGG: Uh, people do not choose to have same-sex attractions, but they do choose to have homosexual conduct [...]

MATTHEWS: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?

SPRIGG: Well, I think certainly-

MATTHEWS: I’m just asking you, should we outlaw gay behavior?

SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.

MATTHEWS: So we should outlaw gay behavior.

SPRIGG: Yes.

And lest we forget, the rest of Sprigg's comments are extremely offensive. His implication that gays and lesbians shouldn't openly serve in the military because we may subject heterosexuals to sexual harassment is akin to saying that integration should not exist because black men will force themselves on white women.

It's insane and if FRC had any personal integrity, it would make a statement distancing itself from Sprigg's statements. In light of all the attention about the Ugandan anti-gay bill, his comments about "criminalizing gay behavior" are just ugly. Of course even if there were no Ugandan anti-gay bill, Sprigg's comments should still be viewed as uncalled for.

But I doubt that FRC will say or do anything distancing itself from Sprigg. His comments are totally on point with religious right dogma, not only about gays in the military but also other facets of our lives.

Religious right groups don't see us as people and they have been exploiting the fears and ignorance of people of faith in order to get others to share their view of the lgbt community.

The only reason why Sprigg got caught today is because he couldn't muster up enough shiftiness.

We need to spread this clip and remind everyone what Sprigg said. Whether he realizes it or not, he is the true face of religious right groups.

Behind their phony veneer of "traditional morality" and "loving the sinner but hating the scene" is a corrupt working of lies, distortions and yes, hate.

Does FRC's Peter Sprigg support 'criminal sanctions' against the lgbt community?

UPDATE - It's been confirmed.

Did Peter Sprigg, one of the spokespeople of the Family Research Council make a huge verbal boo-boo on a today's episode of Hardball with Chris Matthews.

Reports are coming in that he actually admitted that he supports "criminal sanctions" against the lgbt community.

If this story is true, it's not the first time Sprigg has made a "Freudian slip" in regards to his feelings about the lgbt community.

Two years ago, he said that he would prefer that the United States "export" gays and lesbians:

I am waiting on video confirmation which will hopefully come later tonight. Stay tuned.

Lee Daniels - first gay black man to receive Best Director Oscar nomination and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Lee Daniels ‘Stoked’ Over Oscar Love - Congratulations to Lee Daniels, the first gay black man to receive an Oscar for Best Director. Take that, DONNIE MCCLURKIN!! Editor's note - while the preceeding article does not talk about Daniels's orientation, this one does.

Live: 'Don't ask', you shall receive anyway (12PM EST) - For those who want to see the hearing.

A harassment-free school opens in L.A. - Regardless of what they say, schools like this are needed.

This Vanderbilt Muslim Chaplain Says He Supports Executing Gays. Why Is the University Keeping Him? - Talk about your hot messes.

Religious Right Sues Over Hate Crimes Law - Unbelievable. Or maybe not. Like the post says, what took the right so long. LOL

Maggie Gallagher commits 'sin of omission' to make case against marriage equality - You saw this piece yesterday but check out the Huffington Post version and also pay attention to the comments section. There is a young man who claims to be a gay man of color and (conveniently enough), he is trying to hijack the conversation and talk about "racism in the lgbt community.)

Peter LaBarbera mad at Fox News over gays in the military

Will wonders ever cease?

Our favorite anti-lgbt spokesperson, Porno Petey (I mean Peter LaBarbera) is mad at Fox News over a recent episode of the O'Reilly Factor where guests said that it's time to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell and allow gays to serve openly in the military:

. . . on Thursday, January 28th, FOX business anchor Cheryl Casone (who stepped in for Carlson) and FOX News analyst Margaret Hoover both agreed America was ready to have homosexuals openly serve in defense of our nation [Transcript available HERE]. It was a shocker for me to hear this on FOX News–the “fair and balanced” network. Even O’Reilly fed into the liberal line which suggested it was time for this social experiment to take place. It has become all too evident the network seems to be leaning to the left, in order to appease and attract more liberal viewers. FOX would not want to offend this new demographic which has helped the FOX News Channel’s ratings go through the roof.

Mr. O’Reilly, the purpose of the United States Armed Forces is to defend America. It is not a place for social experiments or political correctness. Indeed, the Constitution does not apply in many cases to the U.S. military and FOX News should not be advocating Barack Obama’s far-left policies.

I don't know what's funnier - the claim that Fox News is trying to "attract liberal viewers," (I especially love how the network "attracts liberals" with its continued ugly attacks on our president.) or the fact that LaBarbera calls allowing gays to serve in the military a "social experiment."

LaBarbera's pathetic screed is laughable, but that phrase "social experiment" stays with me because I've heard it used before - it's when folks like LaBarbera are talking about same-sex couples raising children.

In both cases (gays serving in the military, same-sex couples raising children), the religious right willfully ignores the fact that both concepts have existed for a long time. But yet these so-called defenders of morality feel the need to not only speak against them (and create ridiculous and distorted reasonings as to their position) but also deny lgbts our basic humanity.

To them, when gays and lesbians want to openly defend our country, we are doing it for selfish reasons and to allow us to do it is a "social experiment."

When gays and lesbians want to adhere to the natural urge to have, raise, and nurture the next generation, to allow us to do so is a "social experiment."

And why do the religious right believe this? Because to them, lgbts aren't real people; only cogs in some ignorant fantasy they have about "values" and "traditional morality."

Monday, February 01, 2010

Liberty Counsel attacking lgbt parenting again but won't comment on Jenkins/Miller case

One would think that the Liberty Counsel's exploitative behavior in the Janet Jenkins/Lisa Miller custody case would induce a degree of shame in the organization. And one would think that this shame would prevent the Liberty Counsel from butting into another case regarding lgbt parenting.

Think again.

In a huge show of audacity, Liberty Counsel head Mat Staver has the unmitigated gall to comment on a recent case in Florida where a judge awarded the custody of a child to a lesbian couple:

According to Mat Staver of Florida-based Liberty Counsel, the action is one of judicial activism; and the role of a judge, he argues, is not that of writing laws but of interpreting them. The attorney makes note of a 1977 Florida law that bans adoption by homosexual men and women.

"This law has a lot of good commonsense reasons [behind it]," he comments. "Not only the fact that children do best when they are raised in a home with a mother and a father, but certainly sociological research bears that out as well."

. . . "This is renegade judicial activism that ought to be stopped because it weakens the judiciary, it weakens the rule of law, and it undermines the trust of the people in justice and in law," contends Staver. "Once that begins to take place, [it] unravels the entire system."

For those of us familiar with religious right terminology and code words, phrases like "renegade judicial activism" means a judge who doesn't prescribe to their narrow-minded and inaccurate view of the law and the concept of "family."

And just like I pointed out in an earlier post regarding NOM head Maggie Gallagher, Staver is another religious right talking head who distorts research to claim that heterosexual households are better than same-sex households when it comes to the raising of children.

But Staver's other comments should give everyone pause for alarm:

Staver says the Florida judge decided on her own to grant a same-gender adoption when she wrote an opinion that has no basis in law -- and her ruling, he adds, should not be respected as though it does.

Seems to me that Staver is encouraging folks not to follow the judge's ruling. One has to wonder if Staver and the Liberty Counsel also advised Miller to ignore the court when it said that she should allow Jenkins visitation with the two's daughter, Isabella.

We don't know because ever since Miller kidnapped Isabella, the Liberty Counsel hasn't commented on its conduct during the case.

But we do know that the Liberty Counsel dragged the case out, no doubt filling Miller's head with impossible expectations which led her to kidnap Isabella when those expectations didn't come to fruition.
To this day, no one knows where Miller and Isabella are.
It's too bad that the Liberty Counsel doesn't seem to know the location of either its values and integrity.

On second thought, I take that back.

I'm sure the Liberty Counsel's values and integrity are probably in a jar somewhere in the deepest darkest area of the organization's headquarters where they can bother no one, especially Staver and the rest of his Liberty Counsel colleagues.

AFA radio host supports forced reparative therapy and other Monday midday news briefs

AFA Radio Calls for Criminalizing LGBT People - You read this right. It's not a mistake but a bit of brazen nastiness.

The Pray In Jesus Name Project: 'defending our troops against open homosexual aggression' - Hot mess and a half. Apparently repealing DADT would allow lgbt hands to "roam."

Facebook Suppresses Key Group Opposing Genocide in Uganda - Facebook is tripping.

Conservative Action Project: A New Name For the Same Old Right-Wing Agenda - Not another one of those groups!

Stephen Baldwin Praises 'Ex-Gays', Condemns Gay Marriage - Stephen Baldwin was more relevant when he would show his bare ass in bad movies.

Maggie Gallagher commits 'sin of omission' to make case against marriage equality

Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage seems to always be the first to complain that her organization's zeal to stop same-sex marriage is mislabeled and she is unfairly targeted as a "bigot" or a "liar."

However, how she distorts a recent study of abused children does make the case that Gallagher and NOM tends to play loose with facts.

The study reported findings from the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS–4), which was conducted by Westat, Inc., with the assistance of its subcontractor Walter R. McDonald and Associates, Inc. (WRMA).

Gallagher, however, uses the study to attack the concept of same sex parenting and gay marriage.

In a recent piece on the National Organization for Marriage blog, she cited it in an effort to criticize the ongoing Proposition 8 trial and the lawyers speaking against the Proposition 8 - Ted Olson and David Boise :

Here’s my question for Ted and David as they strive to prove that Science Says same-sex unions are just like opposite-sex ones, when it comes to children.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps alone of all the family structures science has ever studied, children living with same-sex couples do just as well as children in intact married families. (Perhaps that is true even though your own expert witness admits there is no research on gay male families and child outcomes, and there is no nationally representative study that follows children raised from birth to adulthood by same-sex outcomes and compares how they do to children in other family forms ).

Perhaps.

But does this study, which is one of hundreds with similar results favoring the natural family give Ted Olson and David Boies pause late at night as they assert the scientific irrationality of respect for the natural family at all I wonder? Ted and David, I’m wondering: not even a little bit?

Here is the thing that Gallagher is intentionally overlooking - the study NEVER LOOKED specifically at same-sex households. Same sex households wasn't even a category.

Gallagher even admits this when talking about the study:

All the other family structures studied (which does not include same-sex parent families probably because these are such a small part of the population), but does include solo parents, other married parents (remarried primarily), single parents living with a partner, cohabiting parents, and no parents.

Through her distorted usage of the child abuse study, Gallagher is exploiting a common religious right talking point which goes like this: "same-sex marriage/same-sex parenting is not a good idea because studies show that the best place to raise a child is in a home with a mother and a father."

However when the religious right groups and talking heads (such as Gallagher) make this point, they always seem to commit an egregious "sin of omission" by not revealing that:

usually these studies are talking about children in the homes of their biological parents,
and none of these studies ever factor in same-sex households.

Also strangely (or maybe not so strangely) when these two facts are brought to their attention, they never want to address them. On several occasions, I posted a variation of the question - how can a study which never even looked at same sex marriage or parenting be used to criticize these concepts - on the NOM blog. I have yet to see my question appear.

However, Gallagher gets points for audacity. Her acknowledging the fact that the study she cited never even looked at same-sex households (and by extension, marriage equality) while at the same time using it to decry both concepts shows that she has a lot of chutzpah.

Too bad chutzpah in this case isn't the same as accuracy or respect for truth.

Friday, January 29, 2010

Know Your LGBT History - The Women

What can be said about this movie - one of the greatest of all time and one of my top favorites.

So many gay men of my generation and the one before can repeat the majority of lines in it by heart.

The Women (1939) needs no introduction but I will try anyway. It amazes me that the back story behind this movie (a film about relationships in New York high society that featured no men but women dealing with their relationships with men) didn't garner either a book or a movie.

In some ways, the back story is more interesting than the movie. In one corner, you have Norma Shearer, the queen of the movie lot who was the star of the movie guarding her territory and status. She portrays Mary Haines, a woman who suddenly finds out that her husband has been stepping out on her.

In the other is Joan Crawford who needed this movie to be a hit because she was recently labeled as "box office poison." She took the role of man-stealing Crystal Allen on a hunch that it would revitalize her career. And it did.

Then there is Rosalind Russell who, after it was all over, was believed to have been the actual winner. In the middle of the battle between Shearer and Crawford, her character, Sylvia Fowler (the comically evil instigator of the entire situation), stole the show. And it gave her a reputation as a comic actress - one which she rode into screen history.

Those of us who are movie buffs know the story behind The Women - the fights, the petty battle for position between Shearer and Crawford, and how gay director ~~Michael~~ George Cukor held it all together.

But in the middle of all of this, one story has been omitted.

The movie contained what could be seen as a thinly veiled lesbian character. Her name was Nancy and she was portrayed by actress Florence Nash.

It being 1939, the movie couldn't come out and designate Nancy as a lesbian, so a lot of hints were thrown around. She was an "old maid," a "liberated woman who had her own career," etc. etc.

To me, the most telling comes in an exchange she has with Russell's character in the first scene. The exchange starts at 7:40:

Transcript:

Nancy: You just can't bear Mary's happiness, can you? It gets you down.

Sylvia: How ridiculous. Why should it?

Nancy: She's contented to be what she is.

Sylvia: Which is what?

Nancy: A woman.

Sylvia: And what are we?

Nancy: Females.

Sylvia: Really? And what are you, pet?

Nancy: What nature abhors. An old maid. A frozen asset.

And for the benefit of the brothers and others who love this movie (and those who have never seen it), the following clip features some of the funniest lines:

Janet Jenkins/Lisa Miller case gets Nightline treatment and other Friday midday news briefs

Janet Jenkins/Lisa Miller case featured on ABC's Nightline

Youth Radio: Young, gay and homeless - Let's not forget our lgbt children in our rush for marriage equality and the repeal of DADT

Union school board backs book - Some good news for Friday.

Republican U.S. Rep Mike Pence: marriage equality will result in societal collapse - Mercy!

It's time for the lgbt and black communities to start listening to lgbts of color

I want to do something different today.

Monday is February and the beginning of Black History Month, so I'm starting early on it.

It occurs to me that in both the lgbt community and the black community, lgbts of color never seem to be able to get in the conversation. We are boggarted because it seems that both communities don't see us as people, but as commodities.

So I am posting clips from an old episode of In Focus, news magazine show in Atlanta, GA.

The episode is talking about homosexuality in the black church. And what makes this episode excellent is that it is doing something that neither the black or gay community can never seem to do - letting lgbts of color get a word in edgewise.

I would ask those who claim to be for lgbt or African-American equality to view the clips and ponder one point - how in the hell are you working to secure my rights if you won't listen to what I have to say?: