I'm beginning to think that Bryan Fischer doesn't like gays

It's often said that the first to call the other a Nazi has lost the argument. - Matt Barber of the right-wing Liberty Counsel.

Why thank you Matt for calling Bryan Fischer a loser. But the lgbt community always knew that:



By the way, the following is Fischer's idea of "criticizing gay people:"

This is the same Bryan Fischer who's said "Homosexuals in the military gave us...six million dead Jews". The guy who's said "homosexuals should be disqualified from public office," has called on Christian conservatives to breed gays and progressives out of existence, has called gay sex a "form of domestic terrorism," who's said only gays were savage enough for Hitler, has compared gays to heroin abusers, has directly compared laws against gay soldiers to those that apply to bank robbers, who once invoked a Biblical story about stabbing "sexually immoral" people with spears, saying we need this kind of action in modern day, who has spoken out against gays serving as public school teachers, has questioned why Medals of Honor are given to people who save lives (rather than take lives), who says that open service will "assign the United States to the scrap heap of history," who recently commiserated with Bradlee 'Executing homosexuals is moral' Dean, and who has blamed gay activists for dead gay kids, saying that: "If we want to see fewer students commit suicide, we want fewer homosexual students". 

Oh we are such bullies. I mean how dare us lgbts get angry when attacked like this.

The next thing you know, we will get angry when called the "f-word."

I mean that's just uppity.

SC county disses lgbt group and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Spartanburg County: No to LGBT Day - Dirt off of your shoulders, my friends. Who needs their proclamation anyway. Keep doing the work that you do ;p

Video: NOM's carefully edited Bronx rally - NOM's rally without all of the naughty bits cut out. Then with all of the naughty bits added.

Arkansas Group Says California's Harvey Milk Day Will Force Students To Cross-Dress - As students needed Harvey Milk Day for that. Hasn't this group ever heard of Spirit Week?

Missionary Indicted in “Ex-Gay” Child-Abduction Case - Sweet!

Md. governor pledges to work on greater protection for transgender people after assault case - Let's keep our fingers crossed on this one.

NOM's Maggie Gallagher the subject of blistering article

Politicususa recently published an absolutely brutal, take-no-prisoners article on National Organization for Marriage head Maggie Gallagher. The article dissects of Gallagher's history homophobia and questionable ethics (going on way before her founding of NOM)  in a manner worthy of Truman Capote in his most caustic, but truthful prose:

Among the juicy bits:

In inciting others to discrimination against gay Americans, Gallagher has no scruples.  The fact of inciting to discrimination, obviously, is in itself a signifier of Gallagher’s repugnant character.  Compounding her ethical repulsiveness, however, is Gallagher’s fast-and-loose handling of the financing of her campaigns to perpetuate sexual-orientation apartheid.

  The administration of George W. Bush, the shameful president who supported a constitutional amendment reinforcing sexual-orientation apartheid in the United States, paid Maggie Gallagher various large sums of money to serve as one of its anti-gay propaganda mouthpieces.  Using Republican, small-government tax payer money, Gallagher commenced to inflict pain on LGBT Americans by serving as one of the Bush administration’s faces of state-sponsored hate.  Gallagher, fraudulently presenting herself to the public as a “journalist,” got vicious anti-gay articles published, promoting Bush’s sexual-orientation apartheid, yet did not disclose that she was on Bush’s payroll.  Paid advertorials must be clearly labeled as paid advertorials.  Maggie Gallagher, in cahoots with Bush to perpetuate sexual-orientation apartheid in the United States, however, published paid advertorials for hate without disclosing that they were paid advertorials.  To call Gallagher a shill for hate is perhaps expressing the case too mildly.  Gallagher eventually got apprehended, in a scandal that would have stopped most other imposter “journalists” from continuing in the field professionally.  However, she had a flippant, obnoxious reaction when called out on her unethical behavior, and certain editors who support sexual-orientation apartheid have published her since.

 . . .  All such defamatory anti-gay propaganda is of course asinine and does not bear any level of intellectual scrutiny.  Gallagher and her followers deploy the classic bully strategy of painting themselves as the victims of the people against whom they are perpetuating institutionalized discrimination.  Gallagher says that if gay Americans are allowed to marry, all heterosexual marriages “are diminished.”  She should tell that one to The Horse Marines.  A strong measure of just how untenable Gallagher’s revolting hate speech is can be seen in some of the events of the challenge to Proposition 8 in the courts in California.  Whereas Gallagher presents herself to the public as though she were the nation’s leading expert on matters of marriage and the law, and appears regularly on television as a supposed expert on marriage, she did not participate in the Proposition 8 case as an expert witness.  As attorney David Boies said; “A witness stand is a lonely place to lie.  And when you come into court, you cannot do that.”

No doubt Gallagher and NOM will exploit portions of the article  to whine about the "evil homosexual activists" picking on her, even though the lgbt community had nothing to do with this very awesome take down.

But it's what we have come to expect from them.

In this case, I say the article is worth whatever flack NOM will try to raise from it. Give it a serious read.

Don Lemon - Can an lgbt of color FINALLY get a word in edgewise?

As you all have heard, CNN anchor Don Lemon came out on Sunday. That in itself is a good thing.

The fact that he is high profile African-American is icing on the cake.

His visibility underlines a problem that I don't think many ever mention when it comes to talking about lgbts in the African-American community. You see, I don't hold to the idea that black people are more homophobic than whites or Latinos or Asians.

The problem with being an lgbt in the black community is that you never get heard. By anyone.

Heterosexual African-Americans (especially preachers) either ignore you, talk over you, or gingerly talk about you.

Some leaders in the black community will intentionally boggart the conversation.

Trust me on this one. I have been on many situations, be they panel discussions, online discussions, or radio programs, where the focus isn't on trying to exchange points of view on the issue, but rather to shut me up and not let me - or any other lgbt of color who happen to be with me at the time - talk.

It's as if these folks are scared of us. It's as if they think acknowledging who we are would lead God to come down from heaven and strike everyone down.

And even on television news programs, you hardly ever hear the perspective of lgbts of color because there is this need to pit the lgbt and African-American communities against one another as if we are two separate entities never to unite.

That's why I am happy that Lemon publicly came out. Finally, there is a voice to bring perspective to the issue of lgbts in the black community.

This interview with Lemon, conducted by Joey Behar, speaks to my point:

Gays and Muslims teaming up to wreck @$!? and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Turek: Gays And Radical Muslims Have United To Destroy Western Civilization - I missed the memo from National Headquarters on this partnership.

(*UPDATED) Sen. Ruben Diaz, Sr. divorces Facebook: Was it something we said? - Jeremy Hooper has homophobe Ruben Diaz on the run. Pluck that turkey, Jeremy!

Lady Gaga and the Gospel of Judas - An excellent piece written by a good Facebook friend of mine.

Scott Walker: Wisconsin Domestic Partner Law Unconstitutional - Not surprising. Scott Walker has pissed off almost everyone in Wisconsin. Why should the lgbt community feel left out?

Jury charges teens with hate crimes in McDonald's beating attack - Throw the book at 'em!

'Homosexuals want your children' - the lie that keeps on giving

The National Organization for Marriage's lying flyer about the repercussions of allowing gay marriage in New York put a perspective on this entire so-called cultural battle for me.

And it's a point that the lgbt community needs to emphasize.

When they - be they NOM, the Family Research Council, etc - cannot stand against lgbt equality by logic, they manipulate the fears about children being harmed.

It's a highly effective scare tactic. And an old one. Check out snippets of this 1986 comic which was endorsed by the Concerned Women for America and former Congressman William E. Dannemeyer:

Now take another gander at NOM's flyer:

NOM Mail Piece

While NOM's flyer isn't as crude as the Hafer cartoon, the implications are the same - "the homosexuals are after the children of America."

It's sad in a way that after over 20 years, the architects of hatred and homophobia haven't changed their fear mongering, isn't it?

But it's also typical. We've seen this story before on so many occasions, so the lgbt community should know the ending.

Eventually we win.

Just something to keep in mind just in case some of us choose to immerse ourselves in the seductive pool of discouragement and self-pity.

No matter how much money NOM has. No matter how lies the organization tell. No matter how many legislators allow their egos to be stoked by this group, the fact of matter is that there is nothing pure or moral about NOM.

When push comes to shove, NOM exploits the fears about gays and children to stop lgbt equality in the same manner that racists exploited fears about black men raping white women in the sad effort to stop integration.

I guess that does make them bigots, huh?

Maggie Gallagher would be so disappointed.

Hate group coming to 'save marriage' in North Carolina

After last weekend's New York rally to "save marriage," the National Organization for Marriage should  drop the false argument of "they call us bigots because we merely want to protect marriage."

No one is buying it any longer.

But just in case the organization will continue this dodge, it may have to become more truthful after May 17.

On NOM's blog is the following event promotion:

From the Family Research Council:

Consequently, we are asking all pastors and church leaders from across the state to bring as many people as possible to Raleigh, NC on May 17, 2011 at 10:30 AM. The Marriage Rally will be held at Halifax Mall located directly behind the Legislative Building.

More info at ReturnAmerica.

Jeremy Hooper already covered the homophobic statements of Pastor Ron Baity, including the one about gays not being normal and gays supposedly promoting perversion in schools.

But what strikes me is the involvement of the Family Research Council.

We are familiar with them, aren't we? That's the group whose member Peter Sprigg expressed the desire for lgbts to be deported out of the United States. He is the same man who wants there to be laws against "homosexual behavior."

Of course Sprigg makes statements like these when he isn't creating distorted studies to denigrate the lgbt community.

Then there is FRC's constant stream of propaganda against the lgbt community. Recently FRC President Tony Perkins compared the lgbt community to terrorists:

This has moved from cultural terrorism to corporate terrorism. That's what this is. Now, back in the 80's and early 90's I worked with the state department in anti-terrorism and we trained about fifty different countries in defending against terrorism, and it's, at its base, what terrorism is, it's a strike against the general populace simply to spread fear and intimidation so that they can disrupt and destabilize the system of government. That's what the homosexuals are doing here to the legal system.

Actions like these was a main reason why the Southern Poverty Law Center named FRC an official anti-gay hate group. Granted, NOM didn't make SPLC's list but it was called out for the tactics of its members.

I have a feeling that if NOM keeps on the same road it has been traveling, SPLC will give it "hate group status'' in no time.

I can't wait to see how Maggie Gallagher will spin that one.

Lgbts show love while homophobes show hate and other Monday midday news briefs

I would venture to say that last weekend was probably one of the most interesting for the lgbt community.

We had two high profile coming outs:

Welcome Out, Don Lemon - African-American CNN Anchor Don Lemon

Welcome Out, Rick Welts - President of the NBA’s Phoenix Suns.

Not to mention the National Organization for Marriage's odious march to "protect marriage" in New York. Although I think the group did more for our cause than theirs with their rhetoric. Posts by Jeremy Hooper from Goodasyou:

Photos from the rally

Presiding pastor says "Those who practice such things are worthy to death"

Preacher says 'breaking traditional marriage' will bring 'judgement and wrath of God'

Sen. Ruben Diaz' wife, Leslie Diaz, calls gays an 'abomination' and bases all opposition in her faith

NOM's Brian Brown gives skewed, wholly religious speech

About that other group with a huge on-site presence, TFP

NOM-financed flyer supporting the event

And in other news:

Early treatment for HIV 'makes virus 96% less infectious' - a good sign.

Is Liberty Law School Teaching Students to Break The Law? - I want to say something about this. You just KNOW that I do. But I will be silent and allow you to read the link.

NOM - Homosexuals wants to destroy children's innocence through gay marriage

This is sad. The National Organization for Marriage is constantly talking about how marriage is sacred and its "traditional definition" of being between a man and a woman needs to be saved.

If this the case, why is the organization channeling Anita Bryant's "gays want to recruit children" lie through the following nasty flyer. It's being sent out to New Yorkers as that state grapples with the concept of allowing gay marriage.

NOM Mail Piece

For the record, I've already talked about the lies posted in this flyer

The only truthful point is the part about gay history in school curriculum. But that has nothing to do with marriage equality, but with building up the self-esteem of lgbt students.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

BUT there is a lot wrong with this flyer.

Incredible. How is it that NOM's Maggie Gallagher praises the lgbt community in front of Congressional committees because of our parenting skill while her subordinates send out little portents of doom implying that the push for marriage equality is really a ruse for lgbts to "recruit" children?

NOM is definitely speaking with a forked tongue.

Brian Brown reveals NOM's anti-gay game of divide and conquer

Several of my blogging compadres were on the scene as the National Organization for Marriage teamed up with NY legislator Ruben Diaz in a march to supposedly "save marriage" from us "evil lgbts."

But based on what NOM president, Brian Brown, said at the rally, folks need to ask just who is evil - Lgbts wanting to be able to declare love for each other legally and protect the interest of said loved ones by marriage or someone (Brian Brown) who will tell lies in the name of God, like in the video clip below:




Starting at 2:55, he said the following:

" . . . kids as young as kindergarten are taught in Massachusetts that their parents are bigots because they believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman."

Brown is referring to NOM's lie, which has been refuted time and time again (most completely by Politifact), that "learning about gay marriage" is a part of kindergarten school curriculum in Massachusetts - a state that legalized gay marriage.

But with his statement, Brian took the lie to a level lower than the belly of a snake. 

Brown's statement is not only a lie but a blatantly ugly lie. But this lie perfectly captures NOM's game plan - intentionally playing a nasty zero sum game by creating a fictional competition between same-sex households and heterosexual households.

I have to wonder why an organization who is supposedly standing up for a "moral issue" such as marriage does so by pitting people against one another.

In Maryland, NOM played the African-American and lgbt communities against one another.

At this rally in New York, it played the Hispanic and lgbt community against one another.

Generally, it's playing every other state against Massachusetts as it seeks to paint that state as an example of the so-called "rabid gay agenda" taking over.

And now we see NOM playing same-sex couples against heterosexual couples.

Is setting people against one another a tenet of morality?

Is the exploitation of ethnic, cultural, and religious differences a tenet of being "pro-family?" 

Is repeating ludicrously outrageous lies designed to scare people about the well-being of their children a way to properly preserve tradition?

Whatever the case may be, Brown has proven something that I have always known:


In the history of the world, more harm has been done by people claiming to act in God's best interest than any supposed "homosexual agenda" conjured up from the most fevered of imaginations.


Don't like what Brown said? Complain to Politifact at truthometer@politifact.com

Hat tip to Joe.My.God. 

NOM knows that it lied in the New York ad and does not care

As far as I know, NOM has YET to respond to the charges that it made inaccurate claims with its commercial against marriage equality in New York.

Instead NOM is attempting a cynical ploy of shifting the argument.

A columnist from the site Queerty made a good point in a piece (although the title raises eyebrows and the piece itself is a bit more graphic I would have liked) when he called out NOM for lying about Massachusetts school curriculum but brought up the fact that children should know about being lgbt:

I for one certainly want tons of school children to learn that it’s OK to be gay, that people of the same sex should be allowed to legally marry each other, and that anyone can kiss a person of the same sex without feeling like a freak.

As I said before, the Queerty piece got graphic on several occasions. And this caught the eye of NOM's blog:

NOM’s TV ad in New York on the consequences of gay marriage produced this response from a well-known Queerty.com blogger, who boasts openly that the NOM ad’s claim that gay marriage will be taught in public schools is clearly true.

“In response [to NOM’s ad] we say, 'NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.' But let’s face it—that’s a lie.”

He goes on to say “We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.”

His very future?

The NOM blog goes on to highlight some of the most graphic parts of the Queerty piece as a way to incite its supporters.

This sort of thing is typical of the entire organization. Allow me to break it down:

1. NOM puts out an ad which feature an already debunked claim about gay marriage and school curriculum in Massachusetts, amongst other lies

2. Several people point these lies out in various manners.

3. Rather than address the accusations that it lied in the ad, NOM instead highlights the most graphic thing written about the ad as a way to generalize about marriage equality and by extension, those support marriage equality.

While the Queerty piece made good points, I don't necessarily share its need to get graphic nor do I share the outright way the piece seems to go appeal to the jugular rather than to sound judgement. Furthermore, those things the piece criticizes, i.e. breaking down the argument of marriage equality to that of simple love and fairness, are some of the very things marriage equality is about.

But having said my piece about that,  NOM's ad is still a distortion. And the organization has still yet to respond to these charges - which has not only been brought out by me, but various other sources.

And furthermore, the way NOM responded - choosing to highlight one not necessarily polite response to the ad, rather than address the accusations that the ad itself is wrong -  proves that not only NOM knows that the ad is a lie, but also it doesn't care.

As long as the ad scares enough people to be against marriage equality, then the ends justify the means.

Politifact gives NOM 'Pants on Fire' rating for lying

My request for information on NOM's lies has yielded results. A reader sent me the following information.

On April 29th, the Pulitzer Prize-winning site Politifact bestowed the lowest prize for lying on Christopher Plante, NOM's Rhode Island Executive Director - the "Pants on Fire" rating.  The "Pants on Fire" rating is given when a public figure not only lies but makes a ridiculous claim in addition to the lie.

This is why Plante and NOM was given the "Pants on Fire" rating":

Opponents and proponents of same-sex marriage are retooling after Rhode Island House Speaker Gordon Fox announced April 27 that there was not enough support to pass same-sex marriage legislation in 2011.

A few days after that announcement, Christopher Plante, executive director of National Organization for Marriage - Rhode Island, which opposes gay marriage, was part of a panel on WPRI's "Newsmakers" program, which aired May 1.

"I don't believe Gordon Fox had the votes. Our head count showed pretty clearly that they didn't have the votes and he had to make the decision he did," he said. "Similarly, the people of Rhode Island don't want same-sex marriage."

NOM-RI has been quick to cite the polls it has commissioned as part of its campaign to press the governor and General Assembly to put the question of gay marriage to a statewide referendum. So we wondered whether any polls show that Rhode Islanders, in fact, don't want same-sex marriage.

We called Plante to see if he had any updated numbers. He didn't. He said he was basing his assertion on the belief that a majority of residents had contacted their legislators to object to same-sex marriage, which is why Fox said there weren't enough votes in the House to pass a bill.

Politifact went on to say that this is problematic because people who call their legislators doesn't provide a good view of the general public's opinion.

The site also looked poll done by NOM and those supporting same-sex marriage, finding questionable ways how both posed the question to potential voters which may have influenced the outcome of said polls.

Politifact then reported the results of a third poll - an independent poll - which found the following:

The only independent Rhode Island poll we found was released by Brown University in May 2009, before the NOM-RI and RI-GLAD polls. Its survey of 593 registered voters found that 60 percent of registered Rhode Islanders expressed support when asked, "Would you support or oppose a law that would allow same-sex couples to get married?" Thirty one percent said they would oppose it. About half of the opposition was hard core - 17 percent said they would even oppose civil unions for gay couples.

When informed of this, Plante said the following:

"Would I repeat that I believe the majority of Rhode Islanders don't want gay marriage? Yeah, I'll repeat that," he said when we spoke with him. "Can I give you a definitive poll that shows that? No."

But he also said that his claim is justified because House Speaker Fox couldn't get enough votes for gay marriage in his own chamber. That, he asserted, is because people were "calling their representatives and saying 'We don't want this.' . . . I wasn't making a statistical claim."

But Politifact disagreed:

We disagree. Of course it’s a statistical claim. When you say "the people of Rhode Island don't want same-sex marriage" you're saying that more than 50 percent would oppose such legislation.

The most recent polls from Brown, RI-GLAD and even NOM-RI -- Plante’s organization -- show the opposite.

Not only did the trends in the NOM-RI and RI-GLAD polls show opposition to same-sex marriage evaporating, the Brown and RI-GLAD polls showed that the public wants gay couples to have the right to marry, even if you assume that every voter who didn't express an opinion was opposed to gay marriage.

Plante's assertion isn't just false. It's ridiculous. We rate it Pants On Fire!

It's not surprising that Plante takes this point of view. He is merely following the path of NOM founder, Maggie Gallagher, i.e. make a ridiculously inaccurate statement and when called on it, duck and dodge.

This is the second time Politifact has called out NOM for inaccurate statements. In February, the site called out NOM for lying about gay marriage and school curriculum for kindergartners in Massachusetts.

Gallagher unsuccessfully tried to refute the claim during an interview. She finally told the interviewer to ask NOM's president Brian Brown about the claim.

And speaking of Plante, he has said some crude things about about same-sex households, comparing them to "tragic situations such as divorce or dead parents. He also said that gay marriage turns children into "tea cup dogs"

One wonders what Gallagher thinks of those statements, seeing that in a Congressional hearing, she said that she thinks some gays make "wonderful parents."

Keep those tips coming, folks!

WSJ: Lawyer signed contract to defend DOMA before firm vetted the case

This is the post I was going to publish Friday morning here. I posted on it Alternet instead because Blogger crashed.

One thing I despise about the religious right is how they swoop down on an issue in order to exploit it before all of the facts come in.

They act like a bunch of vultures with crosses stitched in their wings.

A perfect example of this is the recent controversy involving King & Spalding, the law firm which decided not to defend DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) in the courts.

We have heard the constant whining from the religious right about how King & Spalding are cowards for refusing to take the case. We have heard junk from the religious right regarding the supposedly bullying tactics of the Human Rights Campaign in this controversy. However, the following is something we won't hear from the religious right.

According to The Wall Street Journal and The Fulton County Daily Reporter, the lawyer in the center of the controversy, Paul Clement, may have overstepped his bounds in taking the case. He allegedly signed the contract to defend the case before going through proper channels:

Clement has stated that he felt that he had the backing of the firm before he took on the DOMA case. But the Daily Report spoke to two firm lawyers and a third source anonymously who said that the DOMA matter was not fully submitted to King & Spalding's business review committee, a firm requirement, before Clement signed a contract obligating the firm. They said the committee immediately began reviewing the case the day after the firm learned of the contract—and rejected it the next day, according to the Daily Report.

The sources said the firm’s partners were taken by surprise when news broke that Clement had taken the case. “Any matter that is controversial in any way or where there is a discounted rate goes through the business review committee,” one of the sources told the Daily Report, noting that the DOMA engagement was both controversial and had a discounted rate.

The article also said that there was widespread opposition to the case from inside the law firm and that the case didn't fit the law firm's mission.

These facts something to keep in mind as the folks at the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, etc. will continue to put their own spin on this controversy.

My guess is that the organizations will conveniently ignore these new revelations. I wonder how many times NOM and the Family Research Council will mention this incident as an example of how "homosexuals are trying to silence people" instead of letting everyone of the real story.

After all, why let truth stand in the way of a good fundraising tool?

UPDATE - And now from the Huffington Post comes even more details about the GOP in this matter. Apparently no one knows where the House of Representatives is going to get the money to pay for the DOMA defense. And laws could have been broken because of it:

The House of Representatives has signed a contract to pay a law firm up to $500,000 (and possibly more) to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court. But there's a problem with this arrangement: No one seems to know where that money is going to come from, and at least one lawmaker believes House Republicans may be violating federal law.

 . . .  Rep. Michael Honda (D-Calif.) pressed House General Counsel Kerry Kircher on the matter. Although the contract states that "the General Counsel agrees to pay the Contractor for all contractual services," Kircher said he was told by the House Republican leadership that no funds would come out of the Office of General Counsel's budget for this purpose.

 . . . Dan Strodel, the House's chief administrative officer, is the man who, according to Honda's office, would ultimately write the checks to Brancroft PLLC. But at the hearing, he also said he had no knowledge of where the money would come from.

 . . .Honda believes that Boehner's agreement could be violating the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits "involving the government in any obligation to pay money before funds have been appropriated for that purpose." Knowingly violating the law could lead to being fined or imprisoned. 

 Why doesn't the House of Representatives ask the National Organization for Marriage for the money? I'm sure than an organization which mysteriously goes from having  $500,000 to $10 million in a three-year span has money just laying around.

Hat tip to AmericablogGay for the update.

Know Your LGBT History - MadTV

What a week!

If you all don't know by now, I didn't post anything for 24 hours due to Blogger crashing. I'm glad that at the very least, it happened close to the weekend. Anyhow, I am - and millions of others - are back online.

So without futher ado, here is my regularly scheduled Know Your LGBT History post.

I miss MadTV. At times it was funnier than Saturday Night Live. Then there are times when MadTV just tried too damn hard. Watch these clips and judge for yourself which is funny and which is just plain stupid. Tune in tomorrow for some of the stuff that I wasn't able to post about earlier.









Past Know Your LGBT History Posts:

50 Black lesbians you should know Part 1

I saw this video and I was speechless because it was so good. It's not fancy nor does it involve theatrics. It just presents faces - faces which need to be seen often:

NOM supporting vicious homophobe in NC and other Thursday midday news briefs

Rev. Baity wants to 'Return America'; NOM now helping him find receipt - NOM is now supporting Rev. Ron Baity's "protect marriage" rally in NC and is linking to his "Return America" site. As the link shows, Baity has said that lgbts aren't normal and is promoting homosexuality in schools. Now wouldn't those comments contradict the following comments by NOM's Maggie Gallagher during a recent Congressional hearing when she said she thinks its unfortunate that people misinterpret things she says as a condemnation of "gay people" and their parenting skills." I guess the actions of her group aren't included in that sadness about "misinterpretation."

Poll: 75% of New Yorkers support either full marriage or civil unions (i.e. oppose typical 'protect marriage' mindset) - Meanwhile a so-called morality group in New York blatantly lie about a poll.


Newt Gingrich And The Dominionists - I wouldn't vote for Newt Gingrich for President even if it would keep the world from catching on fire. All I would is pass out the s'mores.


Delaware governor signs civil unions bill into law for gay, lesbian couples beginning in 2012 - Not bad. It's a start.

Let's all join together to keep tabs on NOM's lies

Maggie Gallagher of NOM

The National Organization for Marriage consistently talks about how the organization is working to "protect marriage" and how to "traditional marriage" isn't bigotry.

One wonders if Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown of NOM took classes from political pollster and consultant Frank Luntz in terms of how they stay on that message even the face of the fact that the message is a complete dodge.

You have to give them props for that.

However, that's all you can give them props for. In terms of integrity and truth, one almost wishes that there was a grade lower than "F" to give the organization.

So I have decided to do something as a way to remind folks of the emptiness of NOM's message.

I am keeping tabs on just how often the group and its members contradicts its claim of simply "protecting marriage."

To me, NOM's actions are bigotry, but it goes farther than that.  If you took a look at NOM's past actions, you would find that the organization  has been engaging in extremely un-Christian tactics in order to gain success for its endeavors. Granted, nothing illegal has been going on (at least as far as I know) but NOM's actions belie the organization's claim that it's simply an innocent group protecting marriage:

• The latest questionable action comes courtesy of Jeremy Hooper. On it's blog, NOM is implying that a random reader of the Minnesota's Star Tribune wrote a letter to the editor the state's marriage amendment. However, as Hooper details, the man - William LeMire - isn't necessarily random.

• Then there are the recent developments in New York with NOM's anti-gay marriage commercial using refuted information.

• NOM's supporting of a poll in the very homophobic World Net Daily, a publication which also pushes birther claims regarding President Obama.

• Then there is Maggie Gallagher's awful appearance at a Congressional hearing on "protecting marriage" where she contradicted her past statements against the lgbt community and same-sex households.

• How NOM pushed the propaganda of a known Massachusetts hate group in Maryland.

• And last but least, the organization's attempts to ignore state disclosure laws, resulting in several investigations into its finances.

The list isn't complete yet. But like that old saying goes - "it ain't, but it's gonna be."

After all, NOM gives us so much to work with.

Got tips? Send them to charlekenghis@aol.com

Defending traditional marriage certainly isn't bigotry but demonizing the lgbt community to defend traditional marriage IS bigotry. And lying to defend traditional marriage is even worse.


Some information for this post is taken from NOM Exposed and Equality Matters 

You can become fans of their facebook pages here and here.

Religious right raising money for alleged lawbreaker and other Wednesday midday news briefs

$30K Raised For Man Charged With Assisting Lisa Miller - Really not a surprise. I have no doubt $30,000 is there and I have no doubt that more is forthcoming. But I do doubt the notion that a lot of this money, if not all of it, was sent it by folks concerned about this man's well-being. My guess is that the same folks involved with keeping Janet Jenkins away from her daughter are the same folks footing the bill here.

Former MI Asst. AG: I'm A Victim Of A 'Homosexual Activist Agenda' - Right. It has nothing to do with how you stalked the young man in question.

Presbyterian Church votes to allow gay ordination - This is good news indeed!

Navy revokes guidance on same-sex marriages - Ugh. For one brief shining moment, it was Camelot. This is why voting is important folks. The religious right still has enough sway in Congress to buffalo stuff like this.

West Bend School Board refuses to sanction Gay-Straight Alliance - Sue, sue, sue!

I feel sorry for NOM and the 'defenders of marriage'

Make no mistake about it. The National Organization for Marriage knows that its New York ad against gay marriage is peddling the distortion that:

Massachusetts schools teach second graders that boys can marry other boys.

This of course is an alteration of NOM's original claim that learning about gay marriage is a part of kindergarten curriculum in Massachusetts.

We know this is a lie because:

1. The site Politifact exposed it as untrue,

2. Maggie Gallagher of NOM unsuccessfully tried to refute the claim during an interview. She finally asked the interviewer to ask NOM's president Brian Brown about the claim.

A third reason doesn't necessarily come from NOM but someone they worked with in defeating the progression of gay marriage in Maine.

Marc Mutty, chairman of Yes on 1, said the following about the usage of hyperbole about school curriculum in an upcoming documentary on the vote:



Transcript:

We use a lot of hyperbole and I think that's always dangerous," says Mutty during a Yes on 1 strategy session, at the time on leave from his job as public affairs director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine.

"You know, we say things like 'Teachers will be forced to (teach same-sex marriage in schools)!' " he continues. "Well, that's not a completely accurate statement and we all know it isn't, you know?"

"No," interjects a woman off-camera. "We don't say that."

"Let's look back at our ads and see what we say," Mutty persists. "And I think we use hyperbole to the point where, you know, it's like 'Geez!' "

Later, Mutty tried to recant his statement, but he danced around what he originally said about hyperbole.

No matter how angry I get when the lgbt community is slandered by people like Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, and NOM; no matter how many lies are told on us by organizations like the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, no matter how many times elected officials who are supposed to look after our best interests kick us aside, I wouldn't trade places with these folks for anything in the world.

I sometimes feel sorry for them for so many reasons.

One reason is that they delude themselves into thinking that their efforts can somehow stop marriage equality permanently. The reality is that every victory they get is a mere postponement of the inevitabilty of marriage equality. The polls are on our side, the momentum is on our side, and most importantly, the youth of America (who will make up the next voting generation) are on our side. And you can only postpone the inevitable, but you can never stop it from happening.

The second reason is their ability to turn their backs on their own integrity. Mutty is a prime example of that. His admittance that he knew what they were lyng in Maine is sad. It probably wouldn't be if Mutty and his ilk could find a verse in the Bible which condones lying and bearing false witness in the name of God. Unfortunately for them, such a verse doesn't exist.

The third reason is that these folks have to look at themselves in the mirror after knowing what they have done.

And if when they look in the mirror, they fail to realize just how much their behavior and their lies trivializes their religious beliefs, morals, and values - well that would be reason number four that I pity them.

Related posts: 

NOM exploiting children to stop gay marriage in New York

NOM brags about NY finances, but omits questionable history of bad ethics

NOM's passive/aggressive exploitation of its supporters

NOM exploiting children to stop gay marriage in New York

According to Jeremy Hooper from the blog Goodasyou.org, the National Organization for Marriage is fighting against the possibility of same-sex marriage in the state of New York by running a commercial ad it used in 2009.

The commercial claims of "dire consequences" if same-sex marriage is approved in New York.

However, one of those "dire consequences" was proven to be a lie. Starting at .07 is the following claim:

 Massachusetts schools teach second graders that boys can marry other boys.

That claim is an alteration of an original claim NOM made that kindergartners were "being taught about gay marriage in Massachusetts."

In February of this year, the Pulitzer Prize winning site PolitiFact called out the National Organization for Marriage for pushing that misleading statement.

At the time, NOM was fighting the passage of same-sex marriage in Rhode Island. The organization sent out brochures claiming:

"Massachusetts’ public schools teach kids as young as kindergartners about gay marriage. Parents have no legal right to object!"

During the investigation of this claim, PolitiFact talked to:

• Christopher C. Plante, executive director of the Rhode Island Chapter of NOM,
• Kris Mineau, executive director of the Massachusetts Family Institute,
• Jonathan Considine of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education,
• the Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Curriculum,
• the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and
• Thomas Gosnell, president of the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts.

PolitiFact concluded that NOM's claim was inaccurate:

Bottom line: The National Organization for Marriage mailing says that Massachusetts public schools teach kindergartners about gay marriage. The wording, including the present tense verb, gives the impression this is happening now, in many schools.

But the group’s only evidence is two incidents five years ago. It’s possible that somewhere, in one of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts, other kindergartners have been taught about same-sex marriage. But NOM couldn’t cite any other examples. We find its statement False.

So other than changing the grades of the children, NOM is still pushing a misleading implication that "being taught about gay marriage" is part of the Massachusetts school curriculum.

In the commercial aimed at New York, NOM also cites the story of children in California attending the gay wedding of their teacher as yet "another danger" of gay marriage. However, NOM conveniently omitted the fact that parents gave their children permission to attend this wedding.

The irony of NOM's commercial is that earlier today, the organization announced a $500,000 ad campaign geared to stopping the passage of gay marriage in New York.

NOM's tactics are more sophisticated, but they still add up to the lie told by Anita Bryant  regarding children and "gay recruitment" when she led opposition against a Florida pro-gay ordinance in the 70s

No doubt the organization figures if pushing the implication of  "gays recruiting children" worked for Bryant, then why can't it work for them.

Especially in light of the fact that NOM has more money to finance this lie.

NOM brags about NY finances, but omits questionable history of bad ethics

This just came in from NOM's blog:

The National Organization of Marriage today announced that it is spending $500,000 on a new ad and lobbying campaign to oppose same-sex marriage in New York and will spend $1 million to support Democratic State Legislators who cast their votes to defend the traditional definition of marriage and oppose any Republican Legislators who vote to redefine marriage.

“It’s become quite clear in recent days in New York that Governor Cuomo and same-sex marriage advocates are targeting a select number of Democrat state Senators, as well as some Republicans in their desperate attempt to coerce legislators to support their agenda,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM. “We want to be sure those courageous Democrats and Republicans who cast their vote of conscience in favor of traditional marriage will have a strong supporter if the radical gay activists come after them in their next election.”

I found the following part of the press release to be very interesting in light of how NOM called HRC "bullies" for its role in keeping the law firm King & Spalding from defending DOMA.

NOM pledged to vigorously oppose in their primaries any Republicans who support gay marriage. NOM previously played a leading role in defeating former Representative Dede Scozzafava in her Congressional primary bid. NOM has a long history of defeating Republicans who support same-sex marriage. They led the campaign to defeat Bill Binnie in New Hampshire and Tom Campbell in California US Senate primaries last year, and defeated legislators in Minnesota and New Hampshire who supported same-sex marriage there.

I guess things are different from when you are "bullying for Jesus."

NOM should be advised of the Biblical verse about how "pride goeth before a fall." To wit, this bragging by Brown of NOM's dedication in New York will no doubt raise questions regarding NOM's not-so clean, very questionable history regarding its ethics and its history of trying to sidestep state disclosure laws, which has gone hand-in-hand with NOM's "victories" against marriage equality. It's already happened six times.

A Christian organization fighting for the sanctity of a "noble entity" like marriage shouldn't have such a spotty history. I would like to know just what is NOM hiding.

According to the Minnesota Independent:

When the National Organization for Marriage and the Minnesota Family Council spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on ads promoting a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions last fall, the groups should have reported those expenditures, according to a complaint filed with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board earlier this month. The complaint, which focuses on ads launched throughout the 2010 campaign cycle in support of gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, asks for financial penalties as well as an audit of NOM’s spending in Minnesota.

The filing by Common Cause Minnesota alleges that the Minnesota Family Council — and in particular its lobbyist, Tom Prichard — failed to report lobbying expenses related to several ads. Since the ad urged the public and legislators to act on legislation, in this case a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, it constitutes lobbying, the group argues in the complaint. The ads in question include references to an actual bill, SF120, and were created and distributed in partnership with NOM.

NOM's passive/aggressive exploitation of its supporters

Brian Brown of NOM

Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage claims that the organization has no animus against the lgbt community. They claim that the organization is only interested in "protecting marriage."

Gallagher herself has asserted on more than one occasion (usually in mainstream interviews or in public hearings but hardly ever when being interviewed by members of the religious right) that she has no problems with same-sex couples.

It's passive/aggressive nonsense. And that is NOM's game plan. Unlike other organizations such as the Family Research Council or the Traditional Values Coalition, NOM tries to make itself seem like a "kindler, gentler" opponent of marriage equality, i.e. lgbt equality in general.

But it's like what I have said when talking about Mike Huckabee - sometimes the most dangerous form of homophobia is wrapped in a soft glove.

A perfect example is the following on NOM's blog:

AG Eric Holder Refuses to Enforce Federal Immigration Rules on Marriage, Invites NJ to Redefine "Spouse"

In what's being called an "extraordinary" intervention, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder vacated a Board of Immigration Appeals decision last week and asked the Board to reconsider a case concerning a foreign-born man facing deportation who acquired a New Jersey civil union with another man, who is an American citizen:

[AG Holder] inquires if, DOMA Section 3 not withstanding, there is any New Jersey state law that would grant the men the right to be considered spouses. He goes on to ask whether, absent of DOMA, the couple fulfills all other criteria that would grant the foreign-born partner the term spouse under the Immigration and Nationality Act... --Care2

The case NOM is talking about is a recent one involving a married gay couple in which one is not a United States citizen and therefore is facing deportation:

The couple, Josh Vandiver of Colorado and Henry Velandia of Venezuela, were married in Connecticut and live in New. Jersey. On April 20, Soloway received a notice from the chief counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that "termination of [Velandia's] removal proceedings would not be appropriate at this time because "the Attorney General released a statement in which he indicated that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) 'will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch'" -- despite Holder's decision in that same statement that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.

Soloway and others have argued, however, that the discretion given to the executive branch in its enforcement of immigration law allows it to exercise the discretion to put those cases on hold while challenges to the constitutionality of DOMA can be resolved.

Had the couple been heterosexual, the marriage would have been enough to keep deportation from taking place.

Notice what the NOM did. It just put out a tad bit of information. No making judgements. No comments about how this hurts marriage. No mean words.

Like a stereotypical mafia chief, NOM leaves all of that dirty work to those who support it by way of the comments section below the post. A few comments are as follows:

Wow. Is there really that much money flowing in from homosexuals to waste taxpayer money on this? Keep it up, Holder; November 2012 is coming soon.

This administration has less respect for democracy and law than any administration in history. If you don't like a law personally, simply ignore it.

Heh. I thought SSM activists keep saying that gays will uphold and strengthen the tradition of marriage by Only Getting Married For The Sake Of Love And Faithfulness and not, say, marrying for wealth, fame, or U.S. Citizenship.

. . . Now another reason why SSM hurts is becasue they can marry in a state like CT, and use that marriage to violate the laws of another state, and to violate the US immigration laws.

Holder should resign.

And there you go. NOM's hands are clean. Why should it be blamed for the words of those who support the organization's efforts?

Uganda 'kill the gays' bill may soon be law and other Tuesday midday news briefs

UGANDA PARLIAMENT MAY VOTE ON ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY BILL TOMORROW! - Yes, we are THERE in Uganda - homophobia at it's deadliest form.

House Defense Committee will vote on anti-gay amendments on Wed - Dumb, dumb, dumb. Let it go guys. DADT was repealed.

Audio: The excessively condemnatory voice of North Carolina's 'protect marriage' movement - It's not just about "protecting marriage" as this post proves. It's about demonizing lgbts.

Adoption issue strikes home for new state rep - I don't care what religion you are. You take state monies, you follow state rules.

Putting an African-American face on gay marriage

I got this from Jonathan Capehart of  The Washington Post:

A new documentary looks at the black-gay civil rights divide by centering on Massachusetts Rep. Byron Rushing (D) during the commonwealth’s push to legalize same-sex marriage. The African American legislator eloquently weaves the two movements together in the 15-minute film. Following a screening of the movie last month, I moderated a panel discussion at Aaron Davis Hall in New York City that looked at the marriage equality push in New York state from a black perspective. The panel was filled with luminaries, including media and fashion mogul Russell Simmons. But the star of the event was a soft-spoken man named David Wilson.

In the film, Wilson tells the heartbreaking story about the death of his then-partner. The trauma of finding him lying in the driveway. The terror of being arrested by the police on suspicion of breaking and entering or assault and battery before neighbors convinced police otherwise. The indignity of being denied information by the hospital because he was a legal stranger to his partner. Only after his partner’s 75-year-old mother told the hospital who Wilson was did they inform him that his partner of 13 years was dead on arrival.

Wilson swore he’d never go through that again. And he would find love again. In 2003, he and Rob Compton became one of the seven same-sex couples to sue for and win the right to marry in the 2003 landmark Goodridge vs. the Department of Health case.

In the panel discussion, Wilson gives a powerful reason “to put a black face on the Marriage Equality movement," including this heartbreaking passage of what happened at his church when he came out at age 37:

I was married to a woman, had three beautiful children and finally came to terms with being gay at the age of 37. My ex-wife and three teen age children supported my coming out process as did my Mother and Father. My mother met with her pastor to ask for his support and to also ask that he stop preaching hatred from his pulpit. My mother and father had been a member of their Black church for over 40 years but the pastor said he could not support her or me. My mother was forced to leave her church because she could not bear the hurtful messages delivered every Sunday. When my mother had a heart attack 15 years later with five subsequent congestive heart failures, she came to my house for her final 11 weeks under hospice care. She asked me to call her home church Pastor to ask him to come and [have] prayer with her. He refused and sent his associate pastor. When my mother passed away, she wanted to be buried from her home church but her pastor agreed to the funeral but refused to allow me to deliver my mother’s eulogy. After an all-out effort by my mother’s flower club, deaconess board and ladies club, he reluctantly agreed that I could deliver the eulogy from the lowest of the three pulpits, which I was willing to do for my mother.

After my mother’s funeral, my dad never went back to his or any church with the exception of the day that he attended my legal wedding to my husband, Rob Compton. Dad was 89 and could not have been more proud of our role as plaintiffs in the Massachusetts marriage law suit which resulted in the right for us to marry.