NOM's Minnesota partner: Gays engage in bestiality, pedophilia, and other nasty stuff

From my online buddy Jeremy Hooper comes a key to who the National Organization for Marriage is associating with  in its game plan to get gay marriage banned in Minnesota.

On the heels of last night's vote to get gay marriage on the 2012 ballot comes the announcing of a webpage done by NOM in coalition with the Minnesota Family Council:

But when looking at the Minnesota Family Council's webpage, one gets the impression that that organization's stance against gay marriage is less to do with "preserving marriage," but rather adhering to the monstrous stereotypes which lgbts have had to endure for years.

The following inaccurate statistics connecting the lgbt community with bestiality, pedophilia, urine, and feces come from Answers to Gay Rights Arguments, which is included Minnesota Family Council's webpage:

 

 That's right. NOM is partnering with an organization which  pushes discredited Paul Cameronesque lies about the lgbt community. And just so you know, the organization does cite Paul Cameron's group - the Family Research Institute - specifically in the section  of its webpage called Gay Rights:

You will remember, of course, that the Family Research Institute has been called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for pushing ugly propaganda against the lgbt community.

The irony of the entire thing is that one of the main complaints/talking points of NOM is that it has been unfairly labeled as a bigoted organization for its stance against gay marriage.

The question here is how can NOM continue to voice this complaint/talking point if it does not disavow the anti-gay lies of its coalition partner?

And we all know that NOM will not disavow these lies.

Folks wishing to donate in order to defeat these lies can go here.
 

Related post: 

Time for NOM to work it's 'gays recruit children' lies in Minnesota

Time for NOM to work it's 'gays recruit children' lies in Minnesota

During a late night session last night, the Minnesota legislature pushed a through a vote that would put the subject of gay marriage on the ballot for 2012.

And of course the National Organization for Marriage calls it a victory.

If it is, it is a costly victory.

Polls show that a majority of Minnesotans don't favor the amendment, the business community in the state doesn't favor the vote, and the only reason why the legislation voted on it in a nightly session was to keep as much attention away from it as possible.

And to top it all of, the vote barely squeaked through; 70-62 is not a big mandate.

But of course NOM isn't worried about this. Nor is the organization worried about the latest Gallup poll which says a majority of Americans favor gay marriage.

And that's because NOM has an ace in the hole. Granted Maggie Gallagher of NOM asserts that figures supporting aren't accurate because people don't tell pollsters what they "actually feel" about gay marriage. And others involved with NOM are always pointing out that when gay marriage is put up for a public vote, it usually loses.

But they always leave a crucial piece out. In fact we all do and those of us who favor gay marriage would do well to mention it:

For all the organization's talking about "marriage is the bringing together of two halves" and "marriage is a sacred institution," it all come down to the fact that NOM has to always reach down in the gutter of fear in order to persuade people to vote against gay marriage.

Equality Matters said it best:

NOM has used this “let voters decide” approach in Rhode Island, Maryland, California, Iowa, and other states, as well as in Washington, D.C. The group has also used this mantra to oppose pro-equality candidates in Minnesota’s 2010 gubernatorial race. 

Much has already been said about the moral and legal problems with putting the rights of a disempowered minority group up for a public vote. 

By framing the debate around the importance of direct democracy, however, NOM has been able to work toward restricting LGBT rights without having to appear explicitly anti-gay.

In reality, these referendums very rarely end up actually reflecting the will of the voters.

Instead, they tend to be co-opted by well-financed special interest groups like NOM that flood voters with misleading and outright false information in order to inflate public opinion against minority groups (in this case, the LGBT community).

In other words, while Maggie Gallagher - or anyone else from NOM - appear on local Minnesota talk shows and news programs talking about "protecting the sanctity of marriage"  nameless, faceless subordinates of NOM will blanket Minnesota with flyers and commercials subtly claiming that gays "want to recruit children."

It's an ugly game with a dual purpose of reaching NOM's goals while exasperating the lgbt community with thoughts of "when oh when will people pick up on this game and fight it."

Not to worry, my lgbt brothers and sisters. People are starting to pick up on it and knowing about lies is the best way to fight them.

And we have seen in Maine with Marc Mutty, who with NOM led the fight to stop gay marriage in that state but voiced disappointment with the "gay recruitment lie (as seen on the following video clip),  conscience is a bitch:




Related posts: 

NOM exploiting children to stop gay marriage in New York

NOM knows that it lied in the New York ad and does not care
  
Brian Brown reveals NOM's anti-gay game of divide and conquer

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

Minnesota homophobe becomes the lgbt community's best friend

There is a huge controversy right now in Minnesota which supposedly threatens the future of a vote on gay marriage in the state:

A freshman Republican House member apologized Friday for inviting a pastor who has frequently spoken out against homosexuality to deliver an opening prayer — an appearance legislators of both parties denounced.

Rep. Ernie Leidiger, R-Mayer, confirmed that he invited Bradlee Dean to give a prayer on the House floor, which Leidiger said just happened to be scheduled on the same day House leaders considered voting on whether to put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the 2012 ballot.

Apparently during his prayer, Dean made a reference to President Obama not being Christian:

"I know this is a non-denominational prayer in this chamber, it's not about the Baptists, it's not about the Catholics alone, or the Lutherans or the Wesleyans or the Presbyterians or Evangelicals but rather the head of the denomination, and his name is Jesus — as every president up until 2008 has acknowledged, and we pray it in Jesus' name,"

This caused a controversy on the legislative floor that was so bitter that they actually re-did the opening prayer with another chaplain and the entire opening session. Also, legislators scrambled to either denounce Dean or absolve themselves from blame because of his appearance. Not only that, but now the idea of putting gay marriage to a public vote may not be a certainty:

As DFL and GOP House members expressed outrage over Dean's appearance, a vote in the House over the amendment appears to be less certain, especially given that some Republicans had already said lawmakers should focus on the budget before taking up the issue. The Senate already approved the measure, so the House vote is the last step toward putting it before Minnesota voters. 

And like with all political controversies, it's not always just the initial incident, but also what the incident reveals about the parties involved.

Dean's history of bashing the lgbt community, including support of the sodomy laws, are now more publicly known. Through his ministry, You Can Run But You Can't Hide, Dean has called lgbts sexual predators and has advocated for jailing members of the lgbt community.

Know Your LGBT History - Masters of Horror - Sick Girl

How much of a commentary is it in Hollywood that a graphically violent horror television show features a more normal view of an lgbt relationships than most shows on network television?

Masters of Horror was a show on the Showtime cable network which featured stories directed by various directors. The stories featured various things such as the Iraq War, Native-American legends, serial killers, and cannibals.

To say the least, Masters of Horror was very well-done, but I cannot watch some of those episodes (such as the episode Pelts). They were too violent for even me.

But one of my favorites is called Sick Girl.

Sick Girl, directed by Lucky McKee, told the story of a shy entomologist, i.e. a studier of bugs, Ida Teeter (Angela Bettis) who has absolutely no social life, mainly because of her pet bugs which fill her apartment.

That changes when she meets Misty Falls (Erin Brown), an interesting character who sits in the lobby of her building drawing pictures of fairies all day.

The two hit it off and start dating. However, at the same this relationship starts, Ida receives a mysterious large bug in the mail. The bug escapes and infects Misty, causing a bizarre change of behavior.

Don't worry. At the end of the episode, it will all make sense.

What I liked about this episode is the casual way it presents Ida and Misty's sexual orientation. And the scenes when the two are together in the restaurant are just awesome. Nothing big or spectacular; just normal behavior between two people who like each other but unsure of how to express it.

In the long run, this is what all lgbts want our sexual orientation to be - no big deal and a normal passage of life.

Granted, there is a conflict with Ida's landlady, who, in an ugly scene, accuses the two of looking at her six-year-old grand daughter as fresh meat. She evicts the two, setting up a scene which, in all honesty, despite its graphically violent nature, is most likely what some of us would want to do with homophobes.

A bit of comic relief is provided by Jesse Hlubik, Teeter's oversexed but surprisingly tolerant colleague.

Unfortunately seeing that this is an episode of a horror series, he - like the landlady - is doomed.

Believe it or not, Sick Girl actually has somewhat of a happy ending. And make that heavy on the "somewhat."

The following clips are the trailer and then a little of the initial meeting between Ida and Misty:





The entire episode of Sick Girl is available online. Go here if you want to view it.

Past Know Your LGBT History Posts:

Lgbts have momentum in marriage equality fight and other Friday midday news briefs

Poll: Majority back gay marriage - Time for more "gays are after your children" commercials and flyers, right NOM? The momentum is our side in this. The question is what are we going to do with?

NOM’s Catholic Problem - Another angle from NOM Exposed.

Kevin Jennings Leaving Education Department to Head "Be The Change" - The religious right tried to get him fired but Kevin Jennings had a successful tenure at the Department of Education.

Illinois Defense of Marriage Initiative: More bad PR for the 'protect marriage' movement - Two hate groups in Philadelphia team up to supposedly "protect marriage." The big question is will NOM team up with Porno Pete LaBarbera? I've got blog posts just waiting in anticipation.

Religious right can't hurt Harvey Milk's name even with kryptonite

It just sticks in the craw of some members of the religious right that the late lgbt politician, Harvey Milk, is recognized as an American icon.

Over the past couple of days, various members of the religious right have attacked Milk's recognition and maligned his name in an effort to make him into a monster and ruin efforts to give him public recognition.

In 2009, Milk's birthday was declared a state holiday in California. Naturally some fools got upset. Recently, Jerry Cox of the Arkansas Family Council made the erroneous charge that the holiday would force students to hold "mock gay weddings" and "cross dress."

This morning Bryan Camenker of the Massachusetts hate group, Mass Resistance, said that Milk was a child molester.

But an effort which takes the proverbial cake is the following video:



All of this nonsense reminds me of how some folks acted when Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday became a national holiday. Some folks said - and still say - that King's birthday shouldn't be a national holiday because he was a "communist" and a "womanizer."

It's all a bunch of tripe.

Harvey Milk was an awesome man. He had fire, spirit, and intelligence.

He taught a generation of lgbts to fight for what should be ours in the first place - our rights as Americans.

Like so many other great figures of American history, he was taken from us too soon (by an assassin's bullet), but his influence continues to reverberate throughout the country.

And no lie or scorning of his reputation will ever take that away.

Hate Crimes Bill announced in South Carolina General Assembly

Good news from my state, South Carolina:

Hate Crimes Bill Introduced in SC General Assembly

Columbia, SC May 19th, 2011- Today, South Carolina Equality, the state's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) education and political advocacy organization, working with representatives and other community leaders, is pleased to announce the introduction of a fully inclusive Hate Crimes bill in the South Carolina General Assembly. When last introduced, the bill failed in the House by only four votes.

Passage of Hate Crimes bill will represent a giant step forward to ensuring that all South Carolinians may live their lives safely and freely without threat of biased-based crime. It also creates assurance that those who commit hate crimes are adequately punished.

Christine Johnson, Executive Director of South Carolina Equality said, "The South Carolina General Assembly has a brilliant opportunity to make a clear and unequivocal statement that people who live in and visit our beautiful state are as protected as they are in 45 other states and the District of Columbia. Rejection of a statewide hate crimes bill, when other similarly conservative states have passed such legislation, would do nothing more than speak an endorsement of bias and hate-based crimes."

South Carolina currently has no statute to protect its citizens against violence brought about because of their real or perceived race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. 45 states, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government all have Hate Crimes statutes similar to the one introduced in South Carolina today.

Hate Crime laws are important tools for law enforcement and the criminal justice system, providing expanded prevention and breadth of prosecution. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Federal Hate Crimes Act applies exclusively to felony crimes, often leaving a gap where lesser hate crimes go unpunished. Having a statewide Hate Crimes bill would close the gap and allow for the first responders, our local law enforcement agencies and solicitors, to support victims adequately and fully investigate and prosecute Hate Crimes that occur in South Carolina.

Recent reports of alleged of Hate Crimes in York County and Spartanburg County are examples of crimes that may not merit Federal prosecution, but would potentially qualify under a state hate crimes law.

South Carolina Equality lauds Representative King and Representative Smith for the introduction of this statewide Hate Crimes bill. South Carolina Equality will work throughout the remainder of the 2011 Legislative Session and into the 2012 session to educate and foster support for this much needed bill.

Concerned Women for America = hate group and other Thursday midday news briefs

In the 80s, the Concerned Women for America endorsed a comic book featuring vile anti-lgbt images such as the following:

Now the organization creates its own images connecting homosexuality and pedophilia:

And they wonder why the Southern Poverty Law Center considers them to be a hate group.

Hat tip to Jeremy Hooper


And in other news . . .

Equality NC's faith leaders press conference challenges anti-gay lawmakers, counters fundie rally - Good for North Carolina!

NOM Freaks Out About Slavery Comparison Two Days After Making It Themselves - The National Organization for Marriage are hypocrites Part 1.

NOM: You’re Only A Bully If You Support Gay Rights - The National Organization for Marriage are hypocrites Part 2.

Nugent ‘repulsed’ by gay sex - Why is it that ugly heterosexual men seem to be more obsessed with gay sex than gay men? Maybe that's why I can't get any.

Family Research Council's whining stinks of blatant hypocrisy

As I have long pointed out, it's not enough to make a few concessions to these extremists. Once they have a foothold, a little bit of acceptance turns into a full-blown demand to co-opt your business. They want corporations to join them in the assault on real tolerance. Unless you cower and give them what they want, these activists will make sure you can't function in society. Over the years, gay activists have perfected this kind of corporate terrorism. And until companies stand their ground and refuse to negotiate, homosexuals will continue to bully businesses.

That was Family Research Council president Tony Perkins yesterday in an email. He was referring to campaign jointly conducted by Media Matters and several national lgbt groups which called on the company Orbitz to stop advertising on Fox News in light of the channel's viciously negative approach to covering lgbt issues.

There is one strange thing about Perkins's statement, however.

It flies in direct opposite to the Family Research Council's actions in several cases, such as when the group supported the boycott against McDonalds because the company gave money to some lgbt organizations:

The Big Mac attack on family values is finally over! After a five-month boycott, Americans finally got what they ordered-McDonald's agreement to stop financing the homosexual agenda. Back in May, the fast food giant joined the Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce to the dismay of millions of customers who did not feel served. At the time, company Vice President Richard Ellis refused to back down, even calling conservatives "haters" in a public statement. The American Family Association launched a national campaign to force McDonald's to eat its words. And eat them, they did!

Or the threatening language it used against the Coca Cola company when it was suspected that the company persuaded the law firm King & Spalding to drop the DOMA case:

 Rumors are flying that one of those companies was Coca Cola. People closest to the story are suggesting that the soda king did most of the arm-twisting. "Sources... confirm that one of King & Spalding's top clients, Coca Cola, also based in Atlanta, directly intervened to press the firm to extricate itself from the case." A spokesman for the company refused to comment. But if the allegations are true, I guarantee that FRC won't hesitate to!

Or even now when FRC is supporting an anti-abortion group giving grief to the Girl Scouts for supposedly supporting Planned Parenthood. Apparently FRC have been picking on the Girl Scouts since 2004.

I guess being an "economic terrorist"  is all dependent on the spin.

Hat tip to People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch.

For 'Christian news service,' homophobia replaces ethics

I would never say that the American Family Association's One News Now practices decent journalism.

The online publication claims to speak for the "Christian perspective," and it probably would if this perspective was  totally devoid of accuracy or integrity.

Two articles point this out clearly.

One, Clinton's cries against pro-family 'hate', attempts to take Secretary of State Hilary Clinton to task for issuing a proclamation for International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.

And the article's only source is "Porno" Pete LaBarbera (so named because of his penchant of taking photos of gay men at "subcultural events" while ignoring the heterosexuals in attendance):

"A day against homophobia and transphobia -- what they're saying is Judeo-Christian morality is the equivalent of bigotry and irrational fear, and that is a false message."

And he points out that Clinton made a statement at the event that decried the cycle of hate.

"What they're saying essentially is if you are a Christian...a Muslim or a Jew, and you oppose sexual perversion or gender confusion, you are a hater; you are a bigot," LaBarbera assesses, adding that "this is the liberal message."

That's not what Clinton's statement said. It doesn't even mention religion. You can read the entire statement here but in part it says:

On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I am proud to reaffirm our support for LGBT communities at home and abroad, and to call for an end to discrimination and mistreatment of LGBT persons wherever it occurs. Whether by supporting LGBT advocates marching in Belgrade, leading the effort at the United Nations to affirm the human rights of LGBT persons, or condemning a vile law under consideration in Uganda, we are committed to our friends and allies in every region of the world who are fighting for equality and justice. These are not Western concepts; these are universal human rights.

Another article in One News Now - 'Gay' lifestyle = higher cancer rates - distorts a recent article in a medical journal which talks about gay men and cancer. On May 9th, I said that some in the religious right would exploit this study:

A study published in the journal Cancer reveals homosexuals are twice as likely to have had cancer than are heterosexual men.

While it is not the first research to come to that conclusion, Dr. Andre Van Mol of the Christian Medical & Dental Association says the one published in Cancer serves as verification.

“The study's main author, a Dr. Boehmer from Boston University, noted in an interview she did on this that the higher rates of cancer are both HIV-related and not,” states Van Mol.

In 1979 the book The Gay Report -- written by two authorities on homosexuality -- pointed to the lifestyle as a heavy contributor to cancer. “What the authors found was that the sexual practices common in the gay and lesbian communities were of a nature that would have unhealthful consequences,” according to Van Mol.

Van Mol, by the way, is the article's only source and it doesn't give a clear indication of his supposed expertise. It does say that he is a member of the Christian Medical & Dental Association.  However, this organization is not legitimate. It is a shell group created to give anti-gay lies a veneer of respectability. 

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: