There is nothing wrong with teaching gay history

According to Equality Matters, Fox News seems to be waging a war of misinformation against a recently passed California bill which will require public schools to teach students about the contributions of gay, lesbian, and transgender Americans.

I personally don't see anything wrong with mentioning the contributions of lgbtqs throughout history, especially in this environment when our gay youth don't have the sense of their own history. Lgbtq history goes way beyond the Stonewall riots. We built up kingdoms, we organized marches, and we saved the world on many occasions through our ingenuity. What's wrong with learning about these things?

But leave it to Fox News to basically lie about this bill:

Since April, Fox has had a field day misinforming viewers about California’s SB 48 -- also known as the FAIR Education Act -- a bill that would require public schools to teach students about the contributions of gay, lesbian, and transgender Americans. The bill is aimed at reducing anti-LGBT bullying and promoting respect for members of the LGBT community. Fox consistently misinformed viewers about the bill, calling it a “shocking lesson plan” that would present students with “propaganda” and force them to learn that people “can have more than one gender or no gender at all.” Brian Kilmeade, co-host of Fox News’ Fox & Friends, spoke volumes about Fox’s view of LGBT people when he wondered “should public school teachers be ordered to tell their students why it’s okay to be gay?

Typical Fox News crap. It's bad enough when folks think that your life consists of only empty sexual encounters, shame, and basic unhappiness. But it's even worse when they try to prevent education which would dispel these false notions.

Here is the real story about the bill, according to MSNBC:

Video issues nasty attack on same-sex parenting and other Thursday midday news briefs

The religious right constantly whines that the gay community doesn't show "tolerance" for their views. But I ask you, could you tolerate this madness:



In other news:

Is Bradlee Dean Michele Bachmann’s Rev. Wright? - Look who is sharing the stage with Michele Bachmann.

All the views are fit to print? Not in the marriage debate. Not in the MSM. Not yet. - A PERFECT example of why us lgbtq bloggers need to step up when the mainstream media won't do their job.

Gay marriage, bishops and the crisis of leadership - FINALLY! An article which takes the Catholic Church leadership to task over their fight to harm marriage equality.

Anti-gay groups still trying to salvage victory over Kevin Jennings

Two anti-gay hate groups claimed victory recently with the elimination of the Education Department's The Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. That office was led by Obama appointee Kevin Jennings.

Those on the right waged a huge, unsuccessful war to get Jennings removed over a year and a half ago by smearing him as a pedophilia-enabling, Christian-hating, monster who likes to teach children about bizarre sexual practices.  None of these charges stuck, however and Jennings stayed employed until finally resigning early this year to become president and CEO of  Be the Change, a nonprofit organization.

Because he left on his own, no one on the right could take credit for Jennings's resignation. However, it would seem that they are trying to salvage a victory out of the embarrassment they endured over Jennings by claiming victory because the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools is being eliminated.

From the Family Research Council (with a cute, but highly immature graphic):

It took 18 months of protest, but FRC can finally celebrate a major victory at the Office of Safe and Drug-free Schools. The agency, which (until two weeks ago), was headed by radical homosexual activist Kevin Jennings, has been eliminated. In a statement, the Deputy Secretary for Education announced that Congress had cut the Office's funding by almost $80 million, and it could no longer operate at the level which the Department had grown accustomed. Starting this summer, its duties will be absorbed by another program--knocking the Office's LGBT indoctrination campaign down several rungs on the Department's ladder. For more than a year, FRC had fought the administration on Jennings's appointment, which seemed to be a front for advancing the homosexual agenda in American classrooms. With the help of 53 Congressmen, FRC battled for Jennings's removal, even launching a special website to inform parents about his real motives. Now, a year and a half after his appointment, the Office of Safe and Drug-free Schools is finally where it belongs: on the cutting room floor.

And from Mass Resistance, the group behind many of the smears lodged against Jennings:

Although it's difficult to pinpoint the exact amounts, it's estimated nearly three-quarters of the funding to [Kevin] Jennings' "Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools" is being cut by Congress in the upcoming 2012 budget!
...
This follows nearly over eighteen months of pressure from Mass Resistance and media outrage (using our research and reports) about Jennings' horrible history as a homosexual activist and his use of his Federal office to push the homosexual agenda in schools across the country, and our demand that his office be de-funded.

In actuality, neither group had anything to do with the elimination of the "Safe Schools" office. It would seem that the office became the victim of budget cuts - the thing that everyone seems to be talking about in Washington these days.

So in short, neither FRC nor Mass Resistance had anything to do with Jennings's leaving his office or the elimination of the "Safe Schools" office.

But like the old saying goes - "If that's the story they want to tell . . ."

NOM pushing junk science about gays, cigar smoking

It appears that the loss in New York has affected the National Organization for Marriage intensely.

Is it just me or is the organization seemingly more vindictive on its blog. Yesterday, it took a cheap shot at NY governor Andrew Cuomo's mother. And today comes this bit:

From a Catholic Culture summary:

In a powerful editorial for The Anchor, the official newspaper for the Diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts, Father Roger Landry calls attention to the pastoral damage done by priests who refuse to convey the Church’s teaching on human sexuality, fearful of opposition from gay-rights activists.

A sample:

If doctors and nurses at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute were aware that a patient was chain-smoking cigars and out of a desire not to displease him said nothing, they would be guilty of unconscionable neglect. If the patient was flaunting his cigar-smoking and attempting to persuade others that, rather than harmful, cigar-smoking was a great practice deserving of celebration instead of censure, the destructive consequences of their reticence would be magnified. Similarly, pastors and parishes who are aware that parishioners are unabashedly engaging in practices contrary to the practice of the faith and who do not strive, with patient, tender and firm preaching and accompaniment, to help them eliminate whatever in them is leading them to sin, are culpable of the worst type of pastoral malpractice.

You mean NOM is citing the work of a Catholic priest after all of the rumors and speculation involving the Catholic church in NOM's activities? I'm shocked, really I am.

But that part about cigar smoking is nothing new. NOM and its affiliate organizations in New York encouraged supporters to make the same sort of claims in letters to the editor.

The idea of comparing homosexuality to cigar smoking is rooted in junk science. The first person who made this comparison (even though he was talking about cigarettes) was Paul Cameron, the infamous discredited researcher who, amongst other things, was either dismissed or censured by several medical professional groups.

What's next, NOM? Citing Cameron's work on gay men and gerbils?

Bachmann endorsed 'ex-gay' group and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Bachmann Endorsed ‘Ex-Gay’ Group In 2004, Said They ‘Will Present The Truth About Homosexuality’ - Surely Bachmann had to know that this would come up when she decided to run for president, as well questions about her husband's sexuality. That's the weirdest thing about ambition. It will blind to you to the presence of fully loaded freight train headed in your direction.

Why is NOM so into hiding Thomas Peters' role? - NOM caught hiding allegiances again.

Brenda 'Sue' Fulton, Openly Gay Veteran, Named To West Point Advisory Board - Not a bad achievement at all!

California lawmakers pass bill to teach gay history - Good for California! It's something which is needed nationwide.

Introducing The NOM Files

Brian Brown of NOM

The National Organization for Marriage thinks of itself as the preeminent organization to stop marriage equality.

However under its so-called Christian exterior is a vast forest of secrets, lies and blatantly dirty tactics.

NOM has quickly become a controversial group not only because its anti-marriage equality zeal, but also because of the lengths it has gone to in hiding its donors from public view.

Unfortunately a lot of folks, particularly folks in the gay community, aren't aware of this group. There are various resources out there about NOM if one took the time to search for them.

However, wouldn't it be nice if there was a place where one could find information regarding all of NOM's underhanded tactics (particularly inferring that gays want to either recruit or confuse children through marriage equality), chronicles its attempts to hide its donors, and provides resources to other sites and folks fighting NOM?

That's what I hope to accomplish with the NOM Files.

The NOM Files is a new facebook group dedicated to shedding a light on NOM's activities. Every distortion of the group will be trotted out, every lie will be remembered, and every time NOM tries to hide its donors, it will be given front page coverage.

The rules for The NOM Files are simple. Anyone can join and anyone can post. But I reserve the right to edit posts - which I will only do if the posts don't fit the mission of the facebook group.

NOM has a lot to answer for. But until the lgbtq community and our allies make it a point to demand these answers, then we're aren't going to get them.

Click here to join.

Linda Harvey and Gary Glenn - the sad meeting of two homophobic people

Linda Harvey

According to People for the American Way's Right-Wing Watch, a very nauseating but interesting incident recently took place.

Two homophobes conducted a radio interview and agreed the gay community is full of disease-ridden folks who should be discriminated against:

Linda Harvey of Mission America interviewed Gary Glenn, the head of the American Family Association’s Michigan chapter, during her radio show on how the Religious Right should respond to gay rights victories. Glenn, a prominent activist that Mike Huckabee calls his “very special friend,” warned that companies should be wary of hiring lesbian and gay employees because of what Glenn calls the “severe medical consequences” of being gay. Approvingly, Harvey argued that employers should take note that gays lives unstable lives and added, “I would not think of a homosexual person as a good employment risk”.

People for the American Way has the audio, but I won't pollute this blog with that mess. I will just post the pertinent part of the transcript:

Gary Glenn

Glenn: What ridiculous folly to suggest that only those individuals who engage in homosexual behavior given all of its severe medical consequences constitute the best and the brightest. It’s not really bright to engage in behavior that puts you at dramatically higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse and AIDS and cancer and hepatitis, and according to various sources, premature death. So to suggest that engaging in that type of behavior defines someone as the best and brightest, which seems to be the line coming out of corporate America, is just ridiculous.

Harvey: You’re right. And higher rates of domestic violence and unstable relationships. I would not think of a homosexual person as a good employment risk, I just wouldn’t.

First of all, let's get Harvey out of the way. She is a woman masking her ignorance behind a religious identity. She is merely a former ad executive who "found Jesus." Of course in her supposed "discovery of Jesus," Harvey seems to have intentionally forgotten his comments about love and truth.

NOM takes silly cheap shot at Gov. Cuomo's mother

Some may disagree but I think this recent bit on NOM's blog is simply stupid:

Gov. Cuomo's Mom: Don't Redefine Lasagna

We love how Andrew Cuomo's Italian mom loves him no matter what, even for passing gay marriage. But we could not help noticing Mrs. Cuomo's firm belief that some things just cannot be redefined.

... no, not marriage, lasanga:

"I did not criticize her lasagna," [Matilda] Cuomo said. "All I said is it's not Italian. Cottage cheese and tomato soup might be low on calories, but it's not Italian lasagna."

The original article in question consisted of Gov. Cuomo's mother praising her son's persistence in getting marriage equality passed in New York, so maybe some folks would consider her "fair game."

But I still say that NOM's little cheap shot was dumb and unnecessary.

First NOM's president acts like a spoiled child when marriage equality is passed. And now the organization has taken to immature shots at Gov. Cuomo's mother.

What's next? Shooting spitballs at Governor Cuomo during his next public speech?

How the 'ex-gay' lie led a young man to embrace his homosexuality

Recently, an ugly incident - which I didn't cover at the time - took place. A preacher by the name of Damon Thompson had this hideous revival which he talked about "deliverance from homosexuality"



It's an awful thing to watch when one considers just how many young lgbtqs are lured by a charlatan like Thompson to hate themselves.

But in the case of one in attendance, Thompson's madness backfired. A young man by the name Ashton Elijah Pittman attended the services and learned, because of it, to embrace his God-given sexual orientation. He wrote an excellent piece about it here.

And later on The David Pakman Show, he went into detail about Thompson's lies:



No matter how homophobes dress up their lies in religion, the things they say are pure hatred. And hatred always has a way of backfiring against the one who slings it.

Rick Santorum hates same-sex families and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Santorum: Marriage Equality And Civil Unions Would Destabilize Society, Men, Women, And Families - Oh sure. Rick Santorum isn't a homophobic bully. He simply likes to pick on same sex families.

In an unrelated but very appropriate aside: Rick Santorum’s Math Fail: Blasts Obama For Creating ‘Only 240 Million Jobs’ - Who knew being a "God warrior" involved so much stupidity?

Social conservs still denying Cuomo's religious freedom, still missing the irony - So gays are the bullies even though some folks on the other side are slyly implying to some Catholics that they should intimidate NY Governor Cuomo. Okay.
  
Tehachapi schools to revise policies after gay student's suicide - Good, yes. But still a child had to die before they got off of their behinds and did something.

Barber: "GLSEN Tacitly Advocates Child Sexual Abuse" - It's always good to clean one's eyes with holy water before and after reading something coming from the mouth of the Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber.

Young, gay, and excommunicated from your church

This is a video of a friend of mine, Justine Wise, telling how he was excommunicated from his church and ostracized from his community for simply being a gay man. His story is taken from I'm From Driftwood - true stories from gay people around the world:




Hat tip to Matt Algren

Picture of NOM's Brian Brown crying over NY loss is simply pitiful

It's been said that when marriage equality passed in the New York Senate, National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown openly cried with sadness in the galley.

Thanks to Rich Murray, an activist with Queer Rising, we now have proof of this:

Now some may think that I am simply gloating over this but my reason for posting this picture is a bit more complicated. I have a few questions

Just why in the hell is Brian Brown crying? His marriage isn't affected by what happened in NY. His money situation hasn't been hurt. If anything - based on the ridiculous "we may be down but we aren't licked yet" tone he and the rest who are against marriage equality have taken in a recent New York Times article, one can easily predict some financial raises in Brown's future.

And don't give me that existential, hypothetical crap that "marriage has been redefined for the worse." It's a cute boardroom argument which has absolutely no basis in the real world - and the Prop 8 ruling last year (in which neither Brown nor any of the other "traditional marriage defenders" from NOM bothered to testify) backs me up on that point.
 
There is no getting around the fact that Brown's weeping - an action comparable to that of a spoiled, petulant child throwing a tantrum because he simply can't get his way -  epitomizes the entire movement against marriage equality so far. 

To prove the supposed "dangers" of  marriage equality, (there are no dangers by the way), the opposition  has had to rely on either ridiculous arguments with no basis in concrete fact (same-sex couples will taint the "truthiness" of marriage), lies bordering on vicious group slander (marriage equality is a way to recruit children), or horror stories about religious exemptions (churches will be "forced" to marry gay couples).

Their lack of a true argument says a lot about their position. And the tears of their leaders when they don't win says a lot about their maturity - or lack thereof.

How can one weep in sadness over the fact that NY same-sex couples will be able to legally declare their love for one another and protect their families?

In life, there are moments we should weep about with sadness. Your fellow American gaining a measure of equality is NOT one of those moments.

Hat tip to Pam's House Blend.

NOM sinks into 'Porno Pete' territory

How desperate is the National Organization for Marriage to put up some of defense after its loss in New York?

This desperate.

 On its blog, NOM features a video from Jon Stewart's The Daily Show showing scenes from a New York gay pride parade.

The point of the clip is to laugh at stereotypes, but NOM tries desperately to wring some serious negative social commentary from the clip:

We warn you that you may not want your kids to see this gay pride parade. But of course Jon Stewart has a huge audience of young people:

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The irony is that NOM is now heading directly into the crazy territory of long-time homophobe and anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera, or as he is affectionately known by many of us in the community - Porno Pete.

LaBarbera got his nickname for his penchant of going to subcultural events, such as leather conventions, and going into detail about the alleged acts of gay men there while pretty much ignoring the behaviors of heterosexuals attending the same events.

If NOM keeps doing stuff like this, then nicknames may be order for its leaders.

How about "Brown-Eye Brian Brown" for starters?

Know Your LGBT History - urban African-American movies

Tyler Perry gets much hell from some folks because his movies seem too formulaic.

But when one considers what USED to pass for the urban African-American movie, one gets a great appreciation for what Perry is doing.

I will never forget the one summer in which I saw several urban African-American  movies. I don't remember the year, but I remember that they were all awful.

Pitiful.

Pathetic.

And the worse was how the lgbtq community were portrayed in these movies. It was embarrassing enough how African-Americans in general were portrayed, but the makers of a few of these pictures seemed to go out of their way to portray lgbtqs of color as freaks.

Take for example the motion picture, Woo.  

Woo starred Jada Pinkett (before she married Will Smith, got more successful and obviously gained more sense) as a woman looking for romance. That's the plot. The movie didn't make a lick of sense. And the following scene which disrespects the transgender community was enough alone for Woo to be a bomb - which I am glad to say that it was. In spite of its title, this is NOT a funny scene:



And then there was Sprung, which was extremely disappointing because it was actually hilarious in some scenes and starred several of my favorite actors and actresses (who REALLY should have known better). The scene here is of bad quality and it shows how one of the characters gets revenge on another by making him humiliate himself in a police line-up by stripping half naked and saying some sexually suggestive comments.

It's not funny and what makes the scene even worse is the fact that the makers of Sprung just HAD to add a flamboyant gay man (in panties no less) to the scene.

Seeing stuff like this makes you want to fight somebody. It starts at 2:25 and if you to see a better quality of the scene, go here:



Just a reminder to folks. We won a huge victory last week, but we still have a HELL of a way to go.

I'm still trying to find out where the hell was GLAAD when all of this stuff went down.

Past Know Your LGBT History Posts:

Family Research Council accidentally honors LGBT Pride Month and other Friday midday news briefs

I love it when anti-gay groups get so caught up in their homophobia that they accidentally do things which benefit the lgbtq community. This graphic is from the Family Research Council as it complains (yet again) that the Obama White House is too lgbtq-friendly. Is this graphic supposed to be scary? Eat your heart out, Batman. Our symbol is cooler than yours.

Hat tip to Jeremy Hooper

And in other news:


Audio: NOM"s Jennifer Roback Morse is 'hopping mad'; hops right around inconvenient truths - I am loving the fact that NOM still can't get over its loss in New York.

NC: Repub. House Speaker promotes amendment, says same-sex marriages not as 'stable and nurturing' - This is what happens when folks are reduced to mean-spirited lies.

Same-Sex Couples Raising Children At Consistent Rates Across 12 States - An appropriate news flash in response to the drivel of the above post.

New York Republican Dismisses NOM’s Threats: ‘Go Ahead And Do What You’ve Got To Do’ - The man is bold. I like him even more.

Eddie Long scandal underscores failure of the black church

The pictures which may have cost Eddie Long millions.

My friend Rod McCollum from Rod 2.0 Beta has written an incredible piece on the recent controversy regarding disgraced Georgia pastor Eddie Long. Long, head of the megachurch New Birth Missionary Baptist Church and a critic of homosexuality and marriage equality, has recently settled a lawsuit with four young men who claimed that he coerced them into sexual relationships.

McCollum's piece the controversy and reveals the sad fact that while it may have seemed tantalizing, neither the black church nor the black community used it as a chance to have crucial dialogues on the subjects of lgbtqs of color, HIV/AIDS, or even sexual abuse in the church.

Some of the best parts of McCollum's piece:

“This could have been a beautifully brilliant opportunity for the Black Church to talk about molestation, our youth and young adults and how they must be protected,” says the Rev. Kevin E. Taylor, the openly gay New Jersey-based senior pastor of Unity Fellowship Church of New Brusnwick, a predominately black LGBT denomination. “It could have been a galvanizing moment to separate the wolves from the lions. All of those opportunities were missed.”

“The church has been pummeled by fondling, fear and secrets for generations,” says Taylor, who is also an author, activist and a veteran BET producer. “And now with Eddie Long, the Black Church is doing what it’s always done: ‘Don’t Ask and Don’t Tell.’ “

It’s an apt comparison. But at the same time the military is dismantling DADT and moving toward open service, the informal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policies of many black congregations remain more entrenched than ever.

 . . .  In the weeks and months after the Long case broke, denial became the standard operating procedure for many leaders within the church community. The disgraced pastor even covered the November/December 2010 issue of “Gospel Today.” A number of subscribers complained, and critics slammed the magazine for not reporting that Long is the chairman of its board of advisers, reported the Belief Blog of Time.com.

The Catholic Church has attracted global scrutiny for the many cases of sexual predators within its ranks. But it’s also a problem within many traditional black churches. One example: The Church of God in Christ. COGIC is the largest Pentecostal denomination in the U.S. and the second largest African-American denomination. COGIC has become embroiled in numerous criminal investigations around clergy sexual abuse. There is even a clergy abuse micro-site on the Church website.

  . . . As news began leaking in May that Long settled the four lawsuits, few, if any, high profile black pastors were willing to publicly criticize the pastor. Instead, Long was defended or even praised. Creflo Dollar, another Atlanta-based mega-church pastor who preaches so-called “prosperity gospel,” criticized the new members of his congregation who had left Long’s church.

“I can’t believe people would leave their preacher because he had a wreck instead of praying for him,” Dollar told his congregation.

 . . . Others also found the hypocrisy unsettling. Twitter became a venting outlet for frustration over the way mega-church leaders rallied around Long. In early June, Afro-Austro actor Boris Kodjoe sent a fantastic series of pro-LGBT tweets, slamming Eddie Long and his defenders’ hypocrisy on gays. “Too bad that the real Eddie Long issue was covered up again,” tweeted the actor. “Missed opportunity to address, grow and heal ourselves.”

Kodjoe’s tweets kick started a larger conversation on sexuality among straight allies and some homophobic black youth. The actor also engaged in a Twitter debate with CNN’s Roland Martin, who had previously defended homophobic pastors. “Being gay is NOT a choice,” Kodjoe told Martin, who suggested that people “chose” the gay “lifestyle.”

Related post:

Eddie Long scandal - Chronology of what has happened and where we are now

NOM loses attempt to hide its funders in Minnesota

NOM president Brian Brown

How sweet it is.

Fresh from its crushing inability to stop marriage equality in New York, the National Organization for Marriage has been knocked on it ass again - this time in Minnesota.

According to Andy Birkey of the Minnesota Independent:

The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board ruled today that corporate donations to groups advocating for or against a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage must be disclosed. The Minnesota Family Council (MFC) and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) argued that supporters of marriage equality would commit violence against their donors if they were made public. On Thursday, the board disagreed.

The campaign finance board met in mid-June to vote on how to implement new independent expenditure rules and how they would apply to the 2012 ballot initiative campaign to ban same-sex marriage in the Minnesota Constitution. NOM and MFC argued that no disclosures should have to be made for fear of reprisal from supporters of marriage equality.

NOM and its allies tried to claim that alleged threats of violence from marriage equality proponents, particularly after the Prop 8 vote in California, made it imperative that they be able to hide their donors.

But the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board ruled against them thanks in part to a coalition of groups demanding full disclosure:

 . . . a coalition of groups advocated just the opposite, that full disclosure is essential to a healthy democracy. Common Cause Minnesota, the League of Women Voters and the Brennen Center for Justice sent a letter to the board on Thursday morning criticizing the statements of NOM and MFC and urging the board to make the ballot process more transparent.

“Much like the boy who cries ‘wolf,’ it has become routine for groups like the National Organization for Marriage to complain that disclosure will leave them vulnerable to threats and harassment,” the letter stated. “The evidence shows otherwise. In reality, groups like NOM are largely complaining about the ordinary rough and tumble of political debate, particularly on an issue that touches people as personally and deeply as same-sex marriage.”

At press time, it is not known what NOM will do, but according to the article:

NOM has attempted to shield its donors from disclosure requirements in many states including Maine, California, New York, Rhode Island, Minnesota and Iowa, and been the subject of campaign finance complaints or has sued to prevent the disclosure of its donors in those states.

Let's recap, courtesy of the site  nomexposed.org:

Maine:

NOM remains under investigation by the Maine Ethics Commission for failing to register with the state as a ballot question committee and refusing to disclose the donors to its campaign to overturn Maine’s marriage equality law in 2009.

NOM provided more than $1.8 million of the $3 million spent by opponents of marriage equality to pass Question 1 – but it illegally failed to disclose where the money came from. Public disclosure laws create transparency by informing voters who is behind a campaign effort. Maine’s law does this by requiring that any funds raised to support or oppose a ballot question be made public.

NOM flouted this law, first by soliciting funds from donors to overturn marriage equality in Maine, and then by refusing to disclose the contributions. As a result, NOM deliberately hid from the public almost two-thirds of the total money the Yes on 1 campaign spent to run its deceptive campaign to overturn marriage equality.

Based on an initial complaint filed by Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate, the Maine Ethics Commission launched a formal investigation into NOM’s fundraising tactics in late 2009. NOM has refused to cooperate with the state inquiry each step of the way, stonewalling requests to turn over documents to the Ethics Commission. The Commission’s executive director defended the inquiry in February 2010: “NOM donated almost $2 million in support of the referendum. The Commission needs to understand how NOM solicited the funds in order to determine whether campaign finance reporting was required.” In June 2010, the Ethics Commission unanimously denied NOM’s latest request to dismiss the state investigation into the organization’s finances.

Rhodes Island:

In September 2010, NOM filed suit in Rhode Island seeking to spend thousands of dollars on TV and radio ads for and against gubernatorial and General Assembly candidates – all free from the state’s reporting requirements. NOM is framing the issue as a matter of free speech. In its court filing, NOM says it intends to “engage in multiple forms of speech in Rhode Island” in advance of the November 2 elections, “including radio ads, television ads, direct mail and publicly accessible Internet postings.”

. . . Shortly after NOM filed the suit, a federal judge gave the organization one week to refile – calling the lawsuit “disorganized, vague and poorly constructed.” According to the Boston Globe, the judge said the relevant allegations were “buried” in the lawsuit.

California:

In January 2009, NOM and ProtectMarriage sued the California Secretary of State in federal court to avoid disclosing Prop. 8 donors. California law requires campaign committees to report information for any contributors of $100 or more, which is then made publicly available. Donor disclosure is uniformly required across the country for federal, state and local campaigns and is widely accepted as a vital means to ensure that elections are conducted transparently and fairly.

Rather than follow the decades-old California Public Records Act, NOM suggested that it was entitled to a blanket exemption. NOM falsely claimed that its contributors had been subject to threats, reprisals and harassment. Serious scrutiny of these claims has revealed only isolated incidents, questionable reports and, more often than not, legitimate acts of public criticism typical of any hard-fought campaign.

Iowa:

In Iowa, NOM’s pattern of evading campaign laws prompted a strong written warning from the state ethics agency.

NOM spent a staggering $86,000 in 2009 in a single legislative special election, part of its effort to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would reverse the state Supreme Court’s unanimous decision recognizing marriage equality. NOM asked its supporters to contribute to the Iowa campaign in a nationwide email by saying that “…best of all, NOM has the ability to protect donor identities.”

The email and subsequent complaints prompted a letter from the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Finance Board stating that state law requires disclosure of political contributions solicited for the Iowa campaign. The board’s director and counsel wrote to NOM that he wished to “avoid potential problems in light of questions the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board has received concerning a solicitation statement made by your organization” and warned that the “independent expenditure process in Iowa is not a vehicle to shield political contributors.”

Washington State:

In Washington State, NOM and its allies waged a coordinated legal battle to hide the names of those who signed the petition to qualify Referendum 71, and those who donated to the campaign to eliminate Washington’s domestic partnership benefits. In doing so, NOM lawyers attempted to dismantle the nation’s public disclosure system as it currently exists until the U.S. Supreme Court rejected their claims.

On the same day that NOM’s lawyers sued to overturn Maine’s campaign finance laws, a mysterious group called “Family PAC,” represented by the same lawyers, sought to circumvent Washington’s campaign contribution limits and keep secret the names of donors to the campaign. The lawyers cited false claims of harassment directed at supporters of Prop. 8 in California as justification for hiding their donors.

The judge rejected the NOM lawyers’ claims, stating that, “The State has a real and vital interest in showing the money trail… I do not believe it is in the public interest for the court to intervene and change the rules of the game at the last minute.”

Folks, this is a HUGE story in the making and it needs more digging. Just what is the real reason why NOM has practically bent over backwards to hide its funders?

Tea party leader calls anti-gay bullying healthy and other Thursday midday news briefs

Tea Party leader says anti-gay bullying is ‘healthy peer pressure’ - I and many other BEG to differ.

A President, Not A Governor - Read and memorize, especially this part: "A civil rights movement does not get its legitimacy from any president. I repeat: he does not legitimize us; we legitimize him. As gays and lesbians, we should stop looking for saviors at the top and start looking for them within."

HRC store vandalized; radical queer group claims responsibility - There's nothing like good old fashioned self-sabotage to screw the lgbtq community up.

Bachmann’s Husband Calls Homosexuals ‘Barbarians’ Who ‘Need To Be Educated’ And ‘Disciplined’ - No he doesn't mean that in a fun way. LOL

New Poll Says 48% in Oregon Support Gay Marriage, 42% Opposed - Just a little item to make the religious right's head to spin.

How NOM lost in New York - 'race-baiting' and 'gay recruiting'

The site Equality Matters took a good look at just how the National Organization for Marriage lost its fight against marriage equality in New York.

Basically it comes down to this - the organization got lazy, cocky, and used the same deceptive tactics which helped it gain a victory in Maryland and a partial victory in Rhode Island (I say partial because Rhode Island just passed civil unions), including:

Promoting Anti-Gay Propaganda

Spreading propaganda and misinformation has always been a centerpiece of NOM’s anti-equality strategy, and things were no different in New York. In early May, NOM announced that it would be spending $500,000 on an “ad and lobbying campaign to oppose same-sex marriage in New York.”

Public Schools

Unsurprisingly, NOM relied heavily on the myth that allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry would result in children being forced to learn about homosexuality and same-sex relationships in school. In one thirty-second television spot, NOM warns “legalizing gay marriage has consequences for kids.

NOM also flooded New York homes with mailer ads claiming that supporters of marriage equality were looking to “poison young minds” and “forever change the innocence of
our kids:"

   

Working With Anti-Gay Hate Groups

NOM wasn’t working alone in New York; the organization partnered with New Yorker’s for Constitutional Freedom (NYCF) and its affiliated ministry, New Yorker’s Family Research Foundation (NYFRF), both of which have histories of relying on vile and hateful misinformation to smear the LGBT community.

NOM proudly worked with these groups to co-sponsor the “Summer for Marriage RV Tour,” which culminated in the “Mayday for Marriage” rally in Albany on May 24th (which both NOM and NYCF also co-sponsored). NYFRF provided its supporters with a number of different resources for use during the “Mayday for Marriage” Sunday, including “sermon starters” which claimed that homosexuality is “perverted and twisted” and will cause “the destruction of your immortal soul.”

The group has also likened marriage equality to child abuse, claimed to be attempting to save people like State Sen. Tom Duane, who is gay, from “an eternity in Hell,” and has asserted that the real “enemy” in the fight over marriage equality is Satan.

During the final days of the Senate’s session, NYCF began pushing widely discredited “ex-gay” therapy, even inviting “ex-gay activist” Anthony Falzarano to speak in Albany about how he was able to leave “the gay lifestyle.”

The “Mayday for Marriage” rally itself served as a platform from which religious and community leaders could spread their anti-gay messages. Speakers at the rally argued that those who practice homosexuality are worthy of “death” and claimed that gay people are “enchained and enslaved by homosexuality,” all while NOM’s Brown was in attendance.

The group American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP) also played a large role in the rally, heading the professional march to the rally location and leading the crowd in song throughout the event. TFP has also actively promoted the idea that gays can “change” their sexual orientation and called marriage equality “morally wrong, sinful, and offensive to God.”

And then comes my personal favorite: 

Playing The “Race Card”

NOM is no stranger to using race as a wedge issue to gin up opposition to marriage equality. In fact, depicting marriage equality as a whites vs. non-whites issues has become a key part of the organization’s “public relations strategy.” 

In Maryland, the group frequently played the “race card” in order to motivate members of the black religious community to oppose a marriage equality bill earlier this year. This tactic ended up playing a crucial role in eventually killing the bill, with a number of delegates clearly bristling at attempts to compare the struggle for marriage equality to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s.

In New York, NOM’s strategy was no different. Racial minorities were quickly pushed to the forefront of NOM’s anti-equality efforts. The organization even produced a video asking “Will the Black Church Rise Up in New York for Marriage?”:

Does this video piss you off? I hope it does. It pisses me off. That's why I watch it at least twice a week.  Those who read this blog probably noticed a while back that my focus on NOM intensified. It's because of NOM's tactic of playing the lgbt and African-American community against one another - most specifically how they did it in Maryland to defeat marriage equality. It has to do with the words of one black Maryland delegate:

Del. Emmett C. Burns -  "Those who want to ride on our coattails are historically incorrect; gay people had not endured the struggles of blacks, had not had crosses burned on their lawns or been thrown in a police wagon."

Burns later demanded that the gay community show him its Selma, AL (alluding one of the battlegrounds of he 1960s civil rights movement as a way to again claim that lgbtqs have not suffered enough to gain equality).

I was at McDonalds reading the tweets when he said this and, God help for because I hate to admit this, but I cried.There were so many reasons why I became upset at Burns's words that I can't begin to break them down to you. Sometimes there is a certain hurt someone can put on you that can never be described by words.

I don't like being put into a situation like that.

Needless to say, NOM gained a very crucial enemy that day - me.



you and I have only begun to dance.

But consider the following link to be the first salvo:

LISTEN: Alvin McEwen on Social Media to Discredit Religious Bigotry

Sample comment - "The black church is one of the greatest institutions in the world but it is also one of the most hypocritical, lying institutions in the world."

When homophobes are reduced to picking on families they see on the subway

FOF's Glenn T. Stanton

To say the NY vote for marriage equality has thrown conservatives for a loop is an understatement.

All of the high-brow bullshit and self-righteous verbiage about traditional morality seems to have gone out of the window and is replaced by just basic meanness.

Take Focus on the Family's pseudo expert Glenn T. Stanton for example.

In an online issue of the conservative National Review, he told of an incident of a mother on a subway - who he probably thought was lesbian even though it makes no difference - playing an innocent game with her child:

My daughter and I were in Manhattan over this weekend so I could do some research at the Met. Waves of people were coming into the city for Sunday’s big gay-pride march, where they could celebrate the Empire State’s new same-sex-marriage law. We sat behind some of them on the train, three young women with a precious, excited toddler girl in tow. The very evident leader of the clan was the patriarch. Adorned as if she might be an actor portraying a hip-hop teen from Cleveland, she had her meticulous corn-rows tucked under a backwards navy-blue flat-billed ballcap, a matching wife beater revealing a mural of tats on her arms, shoulders, and back. Baggy jeans rode low, leading to her construction boots with untied laces dangling free.

She was the only one of the adult threesome that interacted with the child, mindlessly uttering reassuring words like “Daddy will be right back” or “Sit over here by Daddy.”

You see, this is one of the things that most concerns me about the legal institutionalization of genderless marriage and parenting. We are told that nothing will really change with such laws; people who really love each other will just be able to enter really meaningful, legally protected relationships.

My God, that was stupid.

I know I should be more mature here in my criticism of Stanton's absolutely ridiculous tirade on this subway incident and the subject of marriage equality, but I can't.

In the first place, Stanton didn't even know a thing about the child or the parent.

Secondly I don't recall anywhere in his piece did Stanton identify himself as the father of the child nor any indication that he was kicking in child support for this family.

To put it mildly,  it really wasn't his business what the two were doing.

It's just the basic essence of right-wing self-righteous idiocy which is channeled throughout Stanton's piece. And for that matter, almost all of their arguments against marriage equality.

The cynic in me suspects that Stanton wrote the piece to get some easy money. After all,  it is extremely lucrative to be a conservative "critic" or "senior analyst," or  "expert" on morality.  There are plethoras of organizations, magazines, and radio shows just begging to dole the money to any Tom, Dick, or Glenn out to wave the banner of morality, even if that banner is tattered and moth-eaten.

But between you and me, Glenn, I hope you spend whatever money you made on that piece of garbage on something good for your own family.

Why bother denigrating other families if yours can't benefit?

'It Gets Better' because members of Congress told me so

TELL me this is not progress. I dare you. This is just too awesome when members of the United States Senate comes together for our lgbtq children:



Members of the Senate participating:

Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

I wish there was something like this around when I was young. But that doesn't matter. The video exists now for our children and that's all that matters.

Religious right should denounce Barber's attacks on same-sex families, children

Matt Barber

The Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber is the lgbtq community's best ally in our fight for equality.

Forget the pseudo piss- elegance of Maggie Gallagher and the National Organization for Marriage because Barber simply won't play that game.

He is from the old school where the David Dukeish turn of a phrase "we aren't anti-gay, but pro-family" won't apply.

Barber is simply homophobia defined. Pure, unadulterated, and very vindictive. He never misses a chance to demonize the lgbtq families, including our children.

Witness this monstrosity of a statement courtesy of People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch:

Matt Barber and Deryl Edwards of Liberty Counsel dedicated Faith and Freedom to discussing the dangers of allowing gay and lesbian couples adopt children. Barber, who previous said that the high suicide rate among LGBT youth is due to the fact that they intuitively know that being gay is wrong, said that his “heart breaks” for children adopted by same-sex couples who are using them as “propaganda photographs” and “props on their lap.” He elaborated that same-sex couples don’t actually care about the welfare of children but only want to further “post-modern sexual anarchy.”

Barber's heart doesn't break. If anything I would suspect that his heart skipped at yet another moment to demonize the lgbtq community. He certainly has a twitter history of doing so.

Like his tweet about the death of Osama Bin Laden:

Let's play the National Organization for Marriage drinking game

We all must recognize just how the National Organization for Marriage uses empty and repetitive talking points against marriage equality.

But let's also have a little fun with it. From various press conferences and interviews, I have gleaned a little drinking game which can be played whenever an interview is conducted NOM's Maggie Gallagher or Brian Brown, or when the organization holds a press conference. It's a minor drinking game - goodness knows that NOM has probably caused enough lgbtqs to drink as it is - so bear with me and feel free to add more categories (but no being mean).

Enjoy

1 Drink

When Maggie Gallagher interrupts the interviewer or the person she is debating

When either Gallagher or Brian Brown claim that marriage has meant the same things to all civilizations throughout history.

When Maggie Gallagher wears red.

When the phrase "marriage is unique and special" is used. Or when the statement "only marriage can connect parents with children" is used.

When the phrases or words  "redefine marriage, "profound consequences," or "Massachusetts" are mentioned.

When either Gallagher or Brown introduces the word "bigot" into the conversation.

When there is one African-American or Hispanic participant at a NOM press conference.



2 Drinks

Gallagher uses "jazz hands" to illustrate her point

Brown or Gallagher talks about children being "taught" homosexuality

When Brown or Gallagher sidesteps any questions asking them about same-sex households, particularly same-sex households with children.

When there are two or more African-American or Hispanic participants at a NOM press conference

When an anecdote about "religious persecution" because of marriage equality is brought up by Gallagher or Brown without any other information as to the truth of said anecdote.

When Gallagher refers to the work of "legal scholars" without mentioning that said "legal scholars" are affiliated with either NOM or the Catholic Church.

When it is mentioned that the "overwhelming majority of Americans in over 30 states voted against marriage equality." Editor's note - you do not have to take a drink if it is acknowledged that many of these votes took place in 2004 or 2006 when people did not full understand marriage equality or that propaganda was used to scare parents about gays "recruiting" children during these votes.


Related posts:
 
NOM's Brian Brown vs. Rev. Al Sharpton - it's not even a contest

NOM astroturfed 'legal scholars' in New York

NOM's Brian Brown vs. Rev. Al Sharpton - it's not even a contest

The National Organization for Marriage's loss in New York is making the organization look for new avenues to spin its talking points.

A few months ago, when NOM was riding high with "victories" in Maryland and Rhode Island, I doubt the group would have agreed to appear on MSNBC news.

But after New York, NOM president Brian Brown appeared on the news channel in a debate with the Rev. Al Sharpton while anchor Thomas Roberts directed traffic.

Maybe the word "massacre" is too extreme a word to use, but it's safe to say that Sharpton took Brown's antiquated talking points and played him like a yo-yo. Brown seemed edgy and uncomfortable throughout the entire segment, as if he didn't want to be there. In other words, I highly enjoyed it.

NOM astroturfed 'legal scholars' in New York

In a press conference held by the National Organization for Marriage and its allies days before the NY Senate voted for marriage equality, NOM head Maggie Gallagher brought up the so-called negative religious impacts of marriage equality by citing the work of "leading legal scholars."

Skip to 16:29 of the video where Gallagher makes these comments

Gallagher: It's not just pastors who are talking about it. My understanding is that there was a letter from a Stanford law professor who is an expert on religious liberty, a Harvard law school professor; Mary Ann Glendon, and one of the editors of a book called Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberties. The leading legal scholars are acknowledging . . . that the foundational idea that equality requires gay marriage . . . is going to impact people who disagree . . . "

According to Equality Matters, these scholars Gallagher spoke of are not objective, but have a very strong personal disregard to not only marriage equality but to the gay community in general. For example, take Mary Ann Glendon:

She has called marriage equality a "radical social experiment," warning that "children will have to be taught about homosexual sex" and fear mongering about the threat posed by "alternative family forms":

But, believe it or not, Gallagher's biggest deception at the press conference is a name she chose omit.

A man by the name of Robert George  was one of the so-called legal scholars who signed the letter and my guess is that Gallagher chose to omit his name for following reason (brought to you by Equality Matters):

George is the Chairman Emeritus of the board for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and has a long history of anti-gay activism. George has argued that marriage equality will pave the way for polygamy and claims same-sex marriage will lead to "disastrous effects" on children.

Allow me to break it down: in a high intense press conference, Gallagher nonchalantly snuck in a notion that "leading legal scholars" have an objective concern over the plight of religious liberties should marriage equality be passed in New York.

However, she omitted - and probably not by accident - the simple fact that these so-called "leading legal scholars" have negative views on marriage equality in general.

Also, Gallagher omitted - and again probably not by accident - that one of these  so-called "leading legal scholars" (Robert George) is on NOM's Board of Directors - the very same board on which she also serves.

Of course Gallagher pulled a big deception and as sure I am sitting here, count on her doing it again and again.

And frankly, neither Gallagher nor NOM really care about getting caught because very few have made an effort in calling them out on their questionable tactics.

THE GAYS ARE COMING - a short history of homophobic documentaries

Batten down the hatches (and keep down your breakfast) because the anti-gay hate group Family Research Council is coming out with a documentary about the so-called dangers of marriage equality:



FRC's documentary is, in reality, one-sided trash will feature such phony horror stories as:

• The British couple whose Christianity supposedly barred them from becoming foster parents - omitting the fact of course that it wasn't their religious beliefs which caused problems, but their ineffective answers as to how they would treat the bullying of lgbtq foster children who may be placed in their care,

• Julea Ward, who not only felt that her personal beliefs that homosexuality is a sin should take precedent over the needs of the patients she will be paid to counsel, but also that Eastern Michigan University should accommodate this madness,

• and other various lies about children being "recruited,"  HIV/AIDS,  interviews with those who want to deport gays or put them jail for sexual behavior (that's you, Peter Sprigg), and junk science from the discredited National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (betcha they won't mention former NARTH associate George Rekers).

I should be upset but instead, I am exasperated. Is this the thousandth "homosexuals are evil space aliens who are plotting to take over the world if we don't stop them" documentary coming from the religious right?

I'm exaggerating but religious right groups do have a history of anti-gay "documentaries."

Let's look at some of the past junk: