This anti-gay video clip will leave you COLD

I hope everyone enjoyed their Thanksgiving. I had a nice quiet time, but back into the breach, as they say.

I saw this video clip on youtube merely minutes ago and I just have to share it with you. It's from the documentary Stonewall Uprising.  It is from the 1960s when a Dade County, FL police detective was lecturing an auditorium full of children about the so-called dangers of being gay.

And it speaks for itself in regards to our history, our heritage, where the lgbtq community has come from and where we are now:




Just think. There are people who, right now at this present age, want us to go back to that nightmare.

Maggie Gallagher's paper trail refutes her lies

Former NOM head Maggie Gallagher (and now it seems a member of a new group, American Principles Project's Culture War Victory Fund) is out with a video on supposedly how to "handle the same-sex debate at Thanksgiving."

It should be called How Maggie Gallagher continues to lie about the motivations of those on her side.

Watch the entire video if you have the stomach for it. But for my money, the most telling part comes at .44

Gallagher:

"Most of us who believe that marriage is the union between a husband and a wife have no interest in shaming those who disagree with us. We understand that most people can disagree on extremely important moral issues."

Then she proceeds to claim that the gay community is unfairly labeling folks on her side of the argument as bigots. It's the same one-note argument she has continued to push:

"If you don't think two men in a union isn't a marriage, you are a bigot, like people who wanted to hold back African-Americans . . ."

But again, Maggie, you continue to demonstrate why you were a piss poor spokesperson for NOM.

In other words, your claims of victimhood don't mean a thing when there is such a huge paper trail of hateful comments, mailings, and flyers which NOM distributed about not just same-sex couples, but the gay community in general.

Such as the following flyers:

And let's not forget the slanderous comments and posts made about the gay community by NOM - all taking place when Gallagher was chairperson:

NOM Still Promoting Bogus Link Between Pedophilia And Homosexuality


NOM Promotes Calling “Sodomy” The “Cancer Version” Of Heterosexuality


NOM Newsletter: Gays Are Engaged In “Jihad,” Want To “Take Away Your Rights”


NOM Links Homosexuality To Pedophilia (Again)


NOM President Claims Marriage Equality Will “Normalize Pedophilia”

One of the most annoying things about Gallagher is the absolute nerve of how she tries to make folks believe that NOM is only interested in reasonable discussions about marriage equality when the organization has been guilty of labeling the gay community as sick, diseased perverts out to harm children and cause general mayhem. And a lot of this labeling took place when she was chairperson of the group. I'm hard pressed to believe that she didn't know about this.

So Maggie, spare me talks about reasonable discussion. And please stop saying that folk like yourself aren't interested in shame those of us who support marriage equality.

And most of all, please stop whining that folks on your side of the spectrum are unfairly being labeled as bigots.

Basically your words mean nothing because we have the paper trail to refute you.

Hat tip to Equality Matters.

'Tap water makes you gay?' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

A Message from a Moderator at Ruthblog - More about the Ruth Institute debacle I blogged about this morning.

Should Truth Wins Out Sue PFOX and Greg Quinlan for Defamation? - The lie is UGLY and Besen should press Quinlan on it.

Social Workers See Gay Parents As Important In Adoptions - Well we KNEW this.

Mayor Warns that Tap Water is Turning His Town Gay - Speechless. I still say if this were true, then the mayor is a dummy. MARKET the tap water!

Fire Kills 15 Transgender Indians in Delhi - We need to pray for all those caught in this tragedy.

A blogger too obnoxious for NOM?

From Equality Matters comes a shocker - blogger too obnoxious for even the National Organization for Marriage:

Over the past two weeks, Equality Matters has told you about a number of outrageous comments made by Ari Mendelson, a blogger for the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) Ruth Institute.

On November 14, Mendelson ranted against LGBT-inclusive curricula in California public schools, writing that the “ENTIRE STATE has had its public schools ruined” by “LGBT propaganda.”

On November 17, Mendelson  promoted a column calling gay activists “more loathsome” than “jihadi terrorists” and warning that gay activists “should not be able to go out in the streets for fear of being spat upon by decent people.”

Today, the Ruth Institute announced that it would “no longer allow Ari to have posting privileges” on its blog, adding:

His sarcasm has gone over the line and we don’t care to be associated with it...  We will stick to reporting on all aspects of the marriage issue in a civil way.

The Ruth Institute taken away Mendelson's posting privileges and has eliminated several of his past posts, totally disassociating themselves from him.

I'm of the personal opinion that whatever reason Mendelson was dismissed, it had nothing to do with civility or any idea that the folks behind the Ruth Institute has developed a conscience. I'm sure that a personal argument fueled this.

And if you do think that a new found idea of civility is behind this controversy, Equality Matters wants you to think again:

Unfortunately for NOM, however, Mendelson’s hate-filled blog posts are just the tip of the iceberg.

Here’s just a sampling of less-than-"civil" anti-gay rhetoric being promoted at NOM’s Ruth Institute on a daily basis, none of it written by Mendelson:

• “It Gets Better” Project “Aggressively Promotes Deviant Sex ”
• “Anal Sex Is Icky”
• “Evil” ACLU Is Trying To Expose Kids To Gay Porn, Is the “Devil’s Law Firm”
• Normalizing Homosexuality Is “Sexual Anarchy”
• "All Laws” That Allow Gay Couples To Raise Children Are “Wrong”
• Pedophilia Being Normalized Because “They’ve Seen Homosexuals Get Away With It”
• Homosexuality Is Unhealthy, It Doesn’t Get Better
• Gay-Friendly Shows Are A “Destructive” Influence On Society
• Same-Sex Couples Are Taking Children Away The From African-American Community
• Homosexuality Is Responsible For Penn State Scandal
• Lawrence v. Texas Caused The Penn State Scandal

U.S. Supreme Court hands NOM a huge loss

No, the Supreme Court didn't give the National Organization for Marriage the BIG slapdown - hopefully that comes later. But the court do the following:

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a request by Protect Marriage Washington that the state be blocked from releasing further copies of Referendum 71 petitions while PMW appeals an earlier Federal District Court decision that ordered their release.

The request had been made to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy who apparently referred it to the entire Court. Justice Alito alone would have granted an injunction and Justice Kagan “took no part in the consideration or decision”, making this a 7-1 decision.

“This means that we can once again release these public records,” said Katie Blinn, the state elections co-director.

In 2010 the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against Protect Marriage Washington in an earlier phase of the same case, Doe v. Reed. At that time, PMW was trying to strike down all public records laws across the country that give the public access to initiative or referendum petitions once those petitions are submitted to the state. In the current phase of the case, PMW is asking for a special exception to keep only R-71 petitions secret.

Referendum 71 was the 2009 ballot measure that PMW used to try to repeal Washington’s domestic partnership law. In November, 2009 over 53% of the Washington electorate voted to approve Referendum 71, making Washington the first state in the nation to vote affirmatively in support of comprehensive relationship recognition for LGBT families.

Hat tip to Pam's House Blend.

'Gay parents = serial killers?' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

BYU newspaper letter compares gay parents to serial killers - As vile as this is, a community response and a public pushback is necessary. There are some folks who have a hateful opinion of our families. We need to make clear that while respect somone's freedom of speech, if that person calls us out with lies and smears, we will answer back with truth and dignity.

New FRC Pamphlet Obsesses Over ‘Homosexual Conduct’, Ignores Gay People - Kudos for Zach Ford regarding his takedown of the Family Research Council newest junk science pamphlet. He doesn't get as clinical as I do, but he more than adequately does the job in exposing the distortions.

Teen in gay-student slaying case agrees to 21-year prison term - This sad case is finally over at least for the public. This is a tragedy which shows the extent of hate and homophobia. My heart goes out to EVERYONE caught up in this.

Audio: If you show up with your same-sex spouse, you're victimizing Maggie Gallagher and Jen Roback Morse - They attack us, disrespect our families and our relationships, but yet WE are the bad guys? Okay.

TWO Special Report: The Call Detroit – A Slick Political Rally Disguised As a Religious Revival - A sad case of how the religious right tries to rope in the black community.

Liberty Counsel: Aggressive Gay Agenda Seeks To Push Children Into Gay Relationships - Okay folks, this is not offensive. It's so ridiculous that it becomes comical.

Family Research Council whines that no one wants to debate 'homosexual' issues

Peter Sprigg

In dealing with the fact that it is an officially declared hate group, the Family Research Council pulls the shuck-and-jive argument that it is being attacked by people who don't want to debate gay issues. This following missive came in a recent email

The harms associated with homosexuality include serious physical and mental health problems. Pro-homosexual activists have begun to demand that no debate on the issue of homosexuality be permitted.

Of course we all know that this is a lie. The fact of the matter is that aside from appearing on friendly locations such as Fox News, neither FRC's president, Tony Perkins, nor its spokesperson, Peter Sprigg, will put themselves in a situation to clearly debate FRC's stance on the gay community.

Of course we all remember what happened the last time Perkins went on a head-to-head debate on the issue. It was last year on Hardball against the Southern Poverty Law Center's Mark Potok.

Close to the end of the show, Perkins cited research  from a group which supposedly proved a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. On a later show, Hardball's host, Chris Matthews, acknowledged that Perkins' citation wasn't exactly unbiased.

Since that time, it has been increasingly obvious that Perkins and Sprigg have avoided in depth discussions on FRC's claims about the gay community or the methods FRC uses to reach its conclusion about the gay community.

All the group has done was to whine that it is "being silenced" from the so-called intolerant gay community because it is merely standing up for traditional values.

Who knew that "traditional values" meant avoiding debate while whining about not being to have one?

The bottom line is that a lot of us want this debate. In fact, we look forward to it. I personally would like an answer to several of these questions:

1. What makes Peter Sprigg a policy expert when he clearly has no expertise in the issues he is talking about?

2. Why does the Family Research Council continue to pursue the false homosexuality/pedophilia connection even at the point of distorting legitimate studies to make the claim?

3. Why did the Family Research Council remove several anti-gay studies from its webpage claiming that the studies contained "outdated" material and then sneak them back on years later?

4. Why does the Family Research Council continue to distort legitimate studies to attack the gay community such as the 1997 Oxford study on the supposed gay lifespan and the study done by Robert Garofalo on gay youth and negative behavior?

5. Why does Peter Sprigg cherry-pick work from pro-gay sources to demonize the lgbtq entire community?

6. Why didn't the Family Research Council acknowledge that it pushed a fraudulent video on GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network) and was forced to walk it back?

7. Why does the Family Research Council continue to cite the work of the discredited Paul Cameron, a junk scientist who claims, amongst other things, that gays stuff gerbils up their rectums ? (FRC used Cameron's work in Homosexual Parenting - Placing Children at Risk - endnote 60  - one of the studies it removed from its webpage and then surreptitiously placed back - see question 3.)

Of course none of these questions will be answered because FRC really doesn't want a debate. If we were to have a debate, then the truth about FRC would come out.

And that plain truth is that the Family Research Council is a group deliberately exploiting people's values and fears in order to bear false witness against the gay community for political gain.

In other words, contrary to the organization's whine, the debate on gay issues is a debate FRC can't afford to have.

Related post:

16 reasons why the Family Research Council is a hate group

A religious right lesson in fear and entitlement

No message can go through without an eager audience and when it comes to religious right lies, the audience sometimes tends to bend over backwards to be receptive.

Witness the firsthand account by Ana Beatriz Cholo of a meeting of folks seeking to overturn SB48, the newly passed California law which mandates that classrooms teach about the contributions and roles of lgbtq figures in age-appropriate classes.

I will showcase the comments made by several folks at the meeting, making sure to include some explanation behind what they really mean:

 I drove an hour and a half to hear Karen England, Stop SB 48's main proponent, discuss their failed campaign and what their next steps are in stopping "the homosexual agenda." England is the executive director of a "pro-family" organization called the Capitol Resource Institute. As England put it that night, it's one thing to live with same-sex marriage. After all, even some hardcore conservatives might say with resignation, "Well, that's in their home. Live and let live."


"But now you're talking about bringing it into our schools; you're messing with our kids," England continued indignantly. "Kids need to learn their ABCs, not about transgendered people."

Please notice how England omits the fact that same-sex families have children attending these schools. She also omits the fact that lgbtq children are attending these schools. Her words are exploiting the notion that gays are "recruiting" children because apparently we don't have any of our own (a huge lie).  Also notice how she intentionally pushes the notion of "transgenders corrupting children."

Another woman identified herself as a school employee. She works in her school's print shop and said she had a conversation with the assistant principal about the new law in recent weeks.


"I won't print that stuff for the children," she said she'd informed the administrator, referring to LGBT-related materials that might end up coming her way. "I will walk," she'd told him. The administrator had tried to dismiss her concerns, but she made it pretty clear that she would rather quit her job than allow gay people to be humanized.

She will quit her job and walk right into a new gig with the National Organization for Marriage as their latest phony defamation victim, even though her rights would not be violated by simply doing her job. She doesn't know what the materials will be but yet has made it up in her mind that she will not print them, as if she is entitled to do so.

An elderly man said his worse fears were medically motivated. "The gay community has a lot of health issues that straight people don't have."

We've all heard this before. One wonders if the man brought up the "gay bowel syndrome" lie.

So what do you do when you're up against such nonsense. Engage those you can, waste no time getting into useless arguments with those who won't listen, but above all, put the truth out there consistently.

Satan, pedophilia, the gay community, and other Monday midday news briefs

DeMint Accuses El Salvadorian Ambassador Of ‘Promoting The Homosexual Lifestyle’ - Ah yes Sen. Jim DeMint from my state of South Carolina. The man who is afraid of the possibility of a gay president. The man who attacks the idea of unmarried female and gay teachers. The man who is the single reason why I laugh when I am encouraged to call my Senators to get their support for pro-gay legislation. Seriously though, who uses the phrase "promoting the homosexual lifestyle" anymore?

Audio: NOM's 'marriage defamation' star spent weekend conflating homosexuality and pedophilia - Don't listen unless wanting to "purge."

NOM: Decriminalizing Gay Sex Helped Cause Penn State Scandal - Yep. THAT'S the ticket.

Whitemarsh passes human relations ordinance with ease - Some good news for a change.


Liberty Counsel: Satan Plants The Seed Of Homosexuality - Here we go again.

Petty lawsuit + lots of money, religious right spin = big problems

From the American Family Association's One News Now:

A pro-family attorney says officials of one California school district were biased when they wouldn't allow a parent to be involved in her child's education.

The Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) filed legal briefs with the California Court of Appeal, arguing that San Jose Unified School District officials broke the law by refusing to acknowledge Norina Mooney's request to make changes to a pro-LGBT event at her daughter's school.

The lawsuit stems from a "Rainbow Day" event at Castillero Middle School that addressed the issue of lesbian, "gay," bisexual, and transgender bullying. Mooney asked the school district to place a request on the agenda that would recognize other minorities who are affected by bullying, but the superintendent and board president refused. PJI filed suit in June to protect parents' rights to participate in such decisions, but a Santa Clara County judge rejected the case without comment, prompting appeal.

And of course as you can read, and will probably read more, this is not the end of the story. I'm guessing that this faux controversy will continue and, as with other cases in the past, we will be bombarded with religious right spin portraying this woman as a so- called innocent parent stymied by the so-called gay agenda.

The fact that the lawsuit was dismissed without comment because it was petty means absolutely nothing.  Nor does the comment from San Jose Unified School District that the the school district doesn't have the ability to ask schools to change school-wide events mean anything also.

This isn't about bullying or parents. This is yet another attempt to undermine the gay community under the guise of morality. As long as there are religious right groups with unfettered finances to pursue such petty lawsuits, as long as there are enough right-wing publications eager enough to publicize the one-sided drivel of these groups, and as long as there are enough ignorant morons out there whose homophobic bias outweighs their common sense and who will comment about the evils of the so-called gay agenda even when they know that the situation they are commenting about is false, we should expect more phony moral panics like this.

2011 Transgender Day of Remembrance

May the day come soon that commemorations like this are never again needed:

Is NOM's newest fake victim hiding something?

The National Organization for Marriage has a new phony victim of the so-called gay plot to "silence Christians." And like their past other fake martyrs, his story is highly suspect.

If we are to believe the video, which I refuse to post to my blog (you can see it here if you like), Damian Goodard is a freelance sportscaster who was fired from Rogers Sportsnet (a Canadian company) earlier this year for allegedly tweeting against marriage equality.

Now some folks have been quick to point out that this has nothing to do with marriage equality in America. Of course the religious right combats that with the "slippery slope" argument. Others have said that this situation is a free speech issue. And that could be.

But then there is a third argument which needs to be explored.

According to Jeremy Hooper from Goodasyou.org, Sportstnet is saying that Goodard was fired for "a number of well-documented reasons" which the company will reveal should Goodard seek legal action. A representative of Sportsnet also said that Goodard is aware of those reasons.

As it is known, Goodard has not sought legal action.

And that leads me to ask, just what is he hiding?

Know Your LGBT History - Car Wash

The motion picture Car Wash (1976), which tells the story of a day at a car wash populated with oddball characters, is memorable for two reasons.

One is because of its slamming, Grammy-award winning soundtrack.

And the other is because of the gay character, Lindy.

Now Lindy was apparently meant to be cheap comic relief, but he ends up being much more.

The actor who portrayed him, Antonio Fargas, created a three-dimensional character who holds up as a gay role model decades later.

At first, one could see Lindy as a stereotypical effeminate gay man. He is first seen doing his hair and then heading towards the ladies room.

And throughout the movie, he is the victim of various snide comments.

However, Lindy takes it all in stride because he knows who he is and is not ashamed of it.

This is evident in the scene in which everyone remembers - him confronting another employee of the car wash, Abdullah (Bill Duke), for his surly attitude:



There was a part of me which thought this scene was awesome. But then another part of me thought that the scene was terrible.

Duke's character is cast as the heavy, i.e. the villain, but he really isn't. If anything, he and Lindy are similar in that they are both men which society looks down upon.

Where they should be recognizing this and teaming together, they are at each other's throats.

The thing is that Lindy doesn't care about what people thing. Abdullah, on the other hand, is the conscience of the movie. He feels trapped with no other place to go, but has no way of getting.

Lindy will survive what the world throws his way because he is used to the slings which come from being an openly gay black man.

Abdullah's character is like a babe in the woods. Without proper guidance - which he gets at the end of the movie - he will end up either dead or in prison.

Still though, Lindy's character can teach us all about self-love and not giving a damn about what petty people think.

Incidentally, when Car Wash premiered on television, Lindy's character was conveniently excised out. On some cable showings, you will never see him.

Past Know Your LGBT Posts:
 

'NOM loses ANOTHER court case' and other Friday midday news briefs

Protect Marriage Washington and NOM Lose Last Ditch Effort To Hide Ref 71 Names - In what is becoming a common occurrence, NOM loses in the courts AGAIN.

Pastor: "Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities" - No doubt you have already heard about this incident. Now comes confirmation from The New Civil Rights Movement that the pastor was making a highly misleading statement.

The loving face of Prop 8 - Oh look. A potential pro-Prop 8 witness who will actually work to make the case against Prop 8.

Another Attempt To Repeal SB48 - Hateful people have too much time on their hands.

Anti-Gay Activists Turn Penn State Scandal Into Horror Story About Homosexuality - They are sneaky about it, but more and more of them are steadily doing it.

AFA - Stay out of the 'culture wars' unless you are taking our side

This morning, the American Family Association's phony publication, One News Now, is railing on the corporations who filed briefs asking for the elimination of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).

With the headline Businesses have no business in culture war blaring in bold letters, One News Now doesn't make any bones as to the direction it is going in the article. And this point is further made by the one person the author's article, Charlie Butts, chooses to quote in the article - longtime homophobe Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel:

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel Action finds it unfortunate to see the firms "alienate a large percentage of their customer base" by choosing sides in a very polarized culture war, and he is especially disappointed to see CBS advocating for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act "when CBS purports to be an objective news agency." But he decides the network's part in the lawsuit "kind of reveals them and really underscores and supports what we all know -- that in the mainstream media ... liberal bias runs amok."

Barber also extends a special bit of venom to Starbucks:

You know, there was a scandal a while back where they were putting pro-homosexual propaganda on some of their Starbucks coffee cups," he recalls. "There was an uproar, but now we see that Starbucks is again emboldened and again carrying the water for radical homosexual activist organizations."

Barber contends that Starbucks needs to "get out of the business of pushing radical San Francisco-style social policies, and instead get about the business of making good coffee."

So with the help of Barber, One News Now seems to be making the point that companies should stay out of the fight for gay equality.

Too bad One News Now doesn't have the same frame of mind when it comes to companies fighting against gay equality. Remember this jewel in January:

A pro-family organization that works to equip churches to transform the culture is defending a privately held, family-owned chicken restaurant that is under fire for providing lunches for a recent marriage seminar.

In addition to closing on Sundays to allow worship and family time for its employees, Chick-fil-A and many of its franchise owners across the U.S. have pledged to contribute to everything from marriage seminars to retreats and counseling for the employees of its 1,200 locations. The perk has gone largely unnoticed until recently.

"A local Pennsylvania Chick-fil-A decided to donate some box-lunches to a seminar called 'The Art of Marriage: Getting to the Heart of God's Design,'" reports Family Research Council (FRC) president Tony Perkins. "Since then, the fast-food chain has come under attack from liberals, who say these sandwiches are somehow a political statement against homosexuality."

Of course that's not the entire story. The marriage seminar was sponsored by the Pennsylvania Family Institute, a conservative research and education organization associated with Focus on the Family. And both of these groups are vehemently opposed to marriage equality.

Furthermore, it was discovered by an investigation via Equality Matters that Chick-Fil-A has a long history of donating to anti-gay groups and causes to the tune of $1.1 million. Futhermore, the company has not only partnered with some of these groups but on some occasions have sponsored them.

So the question here is does One News Now hold Chick-Fil-A to the same standard that it does with business who are pushing for gay equality? Does One News Now think that Chick-Fil-A should stay out of the so-called culture war and concentrate on making "good chicken?"

Who are we kidding? We all know the answer to that question.

CA court rules that Prop 8 supporters have a right to humiliate themselves again

No doubt we have all heard the ruling by the California Supreme Court today that the defenders of Prop 8 have a right to defend the law in court.

Prop 8, for the uninitiated, is the ballot initiative which outlawed marriage equality in CA. It passed via a referendum in 2008 and was struck down in 2010.

And now those who are for it, after trying to make California government officials appeal this decision, are trying to defend Prop 8 themselves.

Today's decision said that they can appeal the 2010 decision which overturned Prop 8.

And I am all for today's decision.  After all, we all remember why they lost last year.

Let me remind you.

They had no case. At the very best, their case was weak. Many of those pushing for the law demurred when it came to testifying as to why the law was needed. They only could get two witness. One, David Blankenhorn, under cross examination made the case against Prop 8. Also, during closing arguments, proponents of Prop 8 said that they didn't need any evidence to prove their case.

So to me, all of the religious right folks rejoicing over today's ruling is the equivalent of a football team celebrating their only touchdown in the closing seconds of a game in which the other team has already scored 20 touchdowns.

We all know how this is going to end. The final decision on Prop 8, and thus the final decision on marriage equality, is headed towards the Supreme Court.

I know it. You know it. And most of all, those defending Prop 8 knows it. The following comment was lodged by Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, an organization heavily involved in the passage of Prop 8:

“With this victory in hand, it is time for the Ninth Circuit to move the Prop 8 litigation forward to its eventual decision by the US Supreme Court,” Brown said. “We fully expect the Ninth Circuit, the most overturned court in America, to invalidate Prop 8, finding some phony right to same-sex marriage in the US constitution. However, once this case gets out of San Francisco and reaches the US Supreme Court, we fully expect to be victorious.”

Victorious you say, Brian? Not with the sorry defense your side has lodged thus far.

We are all anxious to see if you can do any better. And we doubt that you can.

'Nurse removed after alleged anti-gay charges' and other Thursday midday news briefs

Farah Blames Penn State Scandal On Growing Acceptance Of Homosexuality - As perverse as it is to say this, the fact that these morons have been dancing around in their attempts to connect the gay community to the Penn State tragedy is an indication of how far the society has come. It used to be that they would have made the connection in no uncertain terms and right out of the box.

After Antigay Charges, VA Nurse Removed from Patients - Sounds like a phony victim who NOM won't be canonizing any time soon.

116: Number Of Transgender People Murdered In 2011 - Folks, this ain't good.

Tell a lie long enough and it…no, it's actually still bullcrap - Geez, NOM. Are we really wearing you down so much that you can no longer lie with any finesse?

When Conan O'Brien Married Us on Live TV - Awesome post from a happy couple. Hope they have a long future together with much happiness.

People of the Year: The Out 100 Picks - The Advocate picks its 100 people of the year and guess what little black blogger from Columbia, SC didn't make it? The meanies! Seriously though, congratulations to those who did.

The religious right never wants to talk about same-sex families

You want an idea of what's wrong with some folks when it comes to gay issues, check out this tantrum by minister Matthew Hagee:

Transcript:

Hagee - We are at a tipping point when the Church can watch the homosexual agenda be advanced in public schools and we sit back and whine about it. Recently the California legislature decided that homosexual history in America will be taught to kindergarteners; that will be happen next year in California. And the Church goes, ‘Oh, that’s so sad.’ No, it’s shameful. It’s shameful that the homosexuals can get a curriculum in the public schools and the children of God cannot. It’s shameful when they will work tirelessly, when they will act relentlessly, when they will not stop until their will is pressed upon the majority, and we the children of God who are called to be salt and called to be light will whine but we won’t overcome. You need to know the Church was not put on this planet to whine, we were placed here to win.

It's so easy to inflame people by implying that children "being taught how to be gay." Of course the bill, SB48, isn't as dire as Hagee makes it out to be. But why explain things in a truthful manner when you can get a better reaction by appealing to their ignorance, fear, and sense of entitlement all at the same time?

Mostly though, it's all about entitlement. When those in the religious right whine about the so-called gay agenda corrupting children, particularly in public schools, they always omit the fact that gay children attend public schools and that same-sex families have children attending public schools. They always omit that both of these groups deserve lesson plans which speak to them and their family situation.

And let's not be naive. That omission is intentional.

To Hagee and the audience which applauded his drivel, it will never be about us. To folks like Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, and Rick Santorum, the idea of family never includes us. And to organizations like NOM and the Family Research Council, ideas about improving marriage and family has nothing to do with our needs because to them, we are "pretend families."

When they rail against us, they are merely throwing tantrums because we aren't buying into their idea of  entitlement. And we should never. 

One more thing. The last time I checked, lgbtqs are also children of God. Apparently Hagee not only wants to excise the gay community from our rightful place in society, but also our rightful place in God's eyes.

Hat tip to  Right Wing Watch.

Maggie Gallagher continues to mistake bigotry for victimhood

Maggie, Maggie, Maggie!

Even though she is no longer chairwoman of the National Organization for Marriage, Maggie Gallagher continues with this same whiny line:

"It's becoming increasingly clear that the gay rights movement, the gay marriage movement, really does believe you're like a racist if you think marriage is the union of husband and wife."

I've done this so many times and it warrants repeating yet again. I apologize to folks who have read this piece in other forms but don't blame me. Madame Gallagher is playing the Scarlett O'Hara game of thinking that if she places her fingers in her ears and ignores past events which have transpired in which NOM has been caught in unscrupulous behavior, she can plead victimhood.

The comical thing that this argument got literally laughed out of courts.

But Gallagher's argument has power amongst the very gullible, so as long as she plays that game, I will run the following reminder.

To whit, no one considers Gallagher or NOM bigoted for believing that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Gallagher and NOM are bigoted because of their unscrupulous tactics. Let me repeat the history complete with new instances:

May 10, 2011 - NOM exploiting children to stop gay marriage in New York - NOM puts out a commercial in New York repeating the variation of the "kindergartners are being taught about gay marriage" lie which was exposed by Politifact in February.


May 14, 2011 - Politifact gives NOM 'Pants on Fire' rating for lying - Politifact catches NOM lying yet again. This time it is about marriage equality in Rhode Island. 

May 15, 2011 - Brian Brown reveals NOM's anti-gay game of divide and conquer - At a march against marriage equality in New York, NOM president Brian Brown repeats the lie that  " . . . 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."

NOM exploits Penn State tragedy against gay community in completion of vile circle

Since the awful situation concerning Penn State and the molestation of children broke, various religious right spokespeople and groups have been tiptoeing around connecting the situation with homosexuality.

And now the National Organization for Marriage is doing some tiptoeing of its own via the organization it sponsors, the Ruth Institute.

From Equality Matters:

In a November 15 blog post, NOM’s Ruth Institute posted an excerpt from an article by anti-gay activist Michael Brown titled “What could end Rush Limbaugh’s career?” The article focused on a recent incident on Limbaugh’s radio show during which the conservative commentator toyed with the idea of saying what “nobody’s got the guts to say” about the Penn State scandal, but then backed away out of fear that voicing his thoughts would “end” his career.

Brown, of course, had his own theory for what Limbaugh was referring to:

He takes on the president, the Congress, and the media (not to mention his derisive attacks on foreign leaders and even radical Muslims), but there's one group he won't take on, one subject he won't touch.

What is it that, in his words, could end his career? What is it about the Penn State scandal that is "glaring; it's right in front of everybody," and yet "Nobody has the guts to actually give the explanation for what was going on and why there was trepidation in reporting it"?

Could it be that the sex abuse scandal involved a man allegedly abusing boys, meaning that the acts were homosexual in nature? And could it be that even Rush Limbaugh didn't have the guts to address this? (Contrary to the protestations of some, a man who is sexually involved with boys is a homosexual pedophile; a man who is sexually involved with girls is a heterosexual pedophile.)

The implication is absolutely tasteless and even more so when one takes into account that the Ruth Institute earlier this week attacked gay adoption by implying that gays are stealing children from the African-American community.

Now in all honesty, it would be a cheap shot for me to bring to attention the irony of the Catholic-affiliated groups NOM and the Ruth Institute trying to pin the acts of a pedophile on the gay community in light of numerous scandals involving the Catholic Church and priests who have been called out for molesting children.

I am not trying to paint the entire Catholic Church with a broad brush.

I just want it noted that it's simply highly ironic.

'Huffington Post honors queer youth with awesome photo spread' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Sometimes we forget that this is what it's all about. Our time on this Earth is short so we must make sure that we do the right things while here. And one of the best things we can do is equip the next generation with mentoring and role models. These things are crucial in getting them to see the need to never give up on themselves and as well as convincing them to make the right decisions about their lives.

Chaz Bono's appearance on Dancing with the Stars may seem trite to some folks, but to others, it was the light at the end of the tunnel.

And in other news

Queer Kids (PHOTOS) - Speaking of which, check out this awesome photo display on the Huffington Post about the next generation of lgbtqs. I applaud and salute these kids on their bravery and fierceness.
  
HUD Secretary Becomes Highest Administration Official To Support Same-Sex Marriage - Not bad. Not bad at all.

Noebel Blames Gay Rights Advocates For Penn State Abuse Scandal - Another day, another fool.

Gay-bashing 'Prophetess' Can't Stay Out of Jail - Can it be? A family crazier than the Phelps clan.

So Marcus Bachmann Called Yesterday… - Guess who wants to be paid for nothing?

Ad brings home the sad message about bullying

If you haven't seen this anti-bullying video from The Netherlands, then you should.

NOM's evidence of 'gay intimidation' found to be laughably pathetic

In seven states (California, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island and Washington), The National Organization for Marriage have tried to conceal its donors by claiming that said donors would be threatened and intimidated by gays.

And in those seven states, four federal judges and three state boards have declared NOM's claims to be highly vapid.

That's the subject of a very thorough and very pleasing Huffington Post article which examines how NOM has been unsuccessful in pushing the "gays are trying to intimidate us because we believe in traditional marriage" card.

The article points out that the main reason for NOM's losses is the simple fact that neither the judges nor the state boards have been swayed by the evidence it provides of so-called intimidation by the gay community.

In fact, some of the evidence NOM provided is downright laughable. One stand out in particular because it underscores just how empty and pathetic NOM's argument of so-called "gay intimidation is:

 . . . in Washington state, an opponent of marriage equality was collecting petition signatures to challenge a law granting legal protections to same-sex couples, when two ladies "glared at him and one said 'we have feelings too.'" He did not report the incident to the police.

When you are done laughing and maybe mopping up your keyboard, check out Amanda Terkel's article and above all, spread it - particularly that "glaring" example of so-called gay intimidation - to your friends and neighbors.

Let them see just how NOM is faking it.

'Religious rightie - DOMA needed to keep children from catching AIDS' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Barber: DOMA Needed To Keep Kids From Becoming Gay & Getting AIDS - Matt Barber is a moron who lucked into a high position with the right-wing Liberty Counsel. But the luck is for the lgbtq community. He, like Linda (there are no gay people) Harvey are the true faces of the religious right and thus the faces we must make America see. BTW please notice that Barber cites some incredible stuff but doesn't say WHERE he got his figures. Like accurate figures actually mean anything to folks like Barber.

Catholic Charities Groups End Ill. Suit - It wasn't right for them to use tax dollars to discriminate. Of course neither they nor NOM sees it that way. Apparently they are the only ones who pay taxes.

Catholic Bishops Losing Voice on Economic Justice, Hunker Down for Culture War Battles - Speaking of which, did you ever see such a group of folks so behind the times that they refuse to recognize desertion by their followers.

MICHIGAN: Religious Exemption Stripped From GOP's Anti-Bullying Bill - Even the religious right can't handle a negative press backlash.

Bell, Book & Candelabra - A hilarious but necessary view of the Catholic bishops' conference.

NOM's nasty attack on gay adoption includes race-baiting

Jennifer R. Morse doesn't like the idea of gay adoption.

I saw this monstrosity via Jeremy Hooper this morning. I think he understands why I am repeating it. It needs to be repeated.

The NOM affiliated Ruth Institute had some ugly, pointed words to say about the subject of gay adoption. Granted, the organization didn't come out and say that it was wrong. It just played around the issue in the snide way we have become accustomed to.

Via its head, Jennifer Roback Morse:

A friend sent me photos of street light posters he saw lining the streets of Hollywood. These posters were recruiting foster and adoptive parents in honor of National Adoption Month. What could be better than trying to recruit more foster and adoptive parents?

But my friend noticed something odd: there were absolutely no mothers in any of these posters. All posters featured pairs of men, smiling with their adoptive African American children.
...
What I want to know is this: Why aren’t we recruiting stable heterosexual married couples to be foster parents? After all, we know for sure that children do best in married couple low-conflict households. Same sex parenting is an untried social experiment. Parenting by male couples is especially unstudied, since it is exceedingly uncommon. Even the very pro-gay researchers Judith Stacey, could find only one study comparing gay male parenting with heterosexual couples that qualified for inclusion in her comprehensive survey of gay parenting studies.

Morse was speaking of  www.RaiseaChild.us, which is an organization which specifically encourages gay and lesbians to adopt.

Other than getting the name and the goal of the organization right, Morse gets everything else wrong. The idea that "gay adoption" is an untried social experiment is a talking point. And a bad one.

According to the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute:

. . . 6,477 same-sex couples had adopted children in 2000, but in 2009 the number swelled to 21,740, according to The Associated Press.

The analysis also showed that only 8,310 adopted children were living with same-sex couples in 2000, but the number grew to about 32,571 in 2009. The study suggests that almost half of adoptive gay families had adopted children from foster care as that provides for healthcare and higher education.

Furthermore, various studies - the most recent came last year - all say that children do rather well in same-sex households.

 And that point Morse made about Judith Stacey is a different turn. In the past, those supporting Morse's position have distorted Stacey's research verbatim to attack same-sex households. Morse sidesteps Stacey's research in general in a poor attempt to cast attention on numbers. She also omits the fact that Stacey's research actually supports same-sex households.

The grand irony is while Morse points out that Stacey could only find one study comparing same-sex couples with heterosexual couples, NOM was once caught citing a study having nothing to do with same-sex couples to make the comparison.

Hooper also pointed out a very offensive portion of Morse's words:

And look at the children in these posters. I wonder what the African-American community thinks about recruiting gay men to become foster parents for the children of their community who have been taken from their parents. Do the African-American pastors have any thoughts and opinions about this? I imagine they do. But I will let them speak for themselves.

Hooper takes Morse to task rather nicely. However, as someone in the black community, let me just say one thing. I sincerely HOPE that any black pastors commenting would focus on folks having children without any visible means to take care of these children. No one is stealing black children away to hand them off to white gay men. And anyone pushing this implication is cynically relying on hatred and fear to make their point rather than logic.

The irony of Morse's piece is that while she is accusing gays of using children as a prop, that is exactly what she is doing. Her piece does not talk about how difficult it is for foster children to be adopted. Nor does she offer any ideas regarding the recruitment of what she thinks are good homes.

All she offers is race-baiting with a hint of that "gays want to harm children" message that NOM seems to constantly rely on.

Why I get a nagging feeling every time I hear the phrase 'religious liberty'

Those who are my friends know that I am a serious fan of the 1970s detective drama Columbo. The thing I really loved about this show was the fact of how the character of police detective Columbo never considered a murder case completely simple. He never bought into the idea of an "open-and-shut" case if he had a nagging feeling, no matter how insignificant it was.

That nagging feeling is what I get when I hear about  marriage clerks, hotel owners, Catholic adoption agencies, and recently - cake bakers who refuse to serve gay couples. No doubt you have heard about them and will probably hear a lot more as religious right groups trying to hinder marriage equality will canonize these folks as "saints and martyrs" besieged by so-called radical gay activists supposedly trying to force them choose between their livelihood and religious freedom.

In fact they have a term for this sort of thing. They call it "religious liberty."

There is a certain simplicity to these cases which garners them a degree of support. Some of these folks (excluding Catholic charities who have no right to taxpayer money to discriminate and marriage clerks who should put the needs of constituents over their own desires) seems to have a right to serve whomever they wish. And one could even make the case that they are in fact forced to choose between their livelihoods and their "religious liberty."

But then there goes that nagging feeling again. These cases aren't as simple as they are made out. What about the rights of couples refused service? No matter how you attempt to soften the blow, the idea that someone will  not serve you because of how they inaccurately view you still hurts. It's dehumanizing, it's cruel, and it's embarrassing.

In a recent situation in Iowa, a cake baker scheduled an appointment with a lesbian couple who desired her services only to use that time to not only tell them no, but also to criticize their sexual orientation.

Then that same cake baker made several news appearances to decry about how she was victim, backed by several religious right groups spinning the same talking points.

And I haven't even talked about what message of "I will not serve you" would send to a child in a same-sex family who may be present at the time. Nor have I mentioned the unnecessary inconvenience same-sex couples will have to endure if they live in an area where the so-called religious martyr is the only one who can address their needs.

Then you have to consider just how will gay couples tell just who will or won't serve them. How would they be able to tell without the courtesy of signs saying "we don't serve gays." Of course if such signs did exist, I'm sure those who put them up wouldn't think that they were being cruel. Just like folks who put up "No Irish Need Apply" signs didn't think they were being cruel.

And then you have to ask yourself just far will those the argument of "religious liberty" go? Today it's hotels and cake shops. Tomorrow it may be restaurants or apartment rentals.

So I almost understand the argument of "religious liberty."  But then comes that nagging feeling in the back of my mind that just won't go away - the feeling that "religious liberty" is just another way of saying "allowed discrimination" and that some folks will use the phrase of "religious liberty" to deflect attention from the victims of this "allowed discrimination."

 Lastly, the thing that bothers me the most is the sad fact that the phrase "religious liberty"  has less to do with religion or liberty and more to do with telling gay couples that they are inferior.

'Catholic Bishops attacking marriage equality' and other Monday midday news briefs

U.S. Catholic Bishops Ignore Pressing Issues, Decide to Focus on Marriage Discrimination - Well we saw this coming for a long time but mark my words - this will be a MAJOR mistake for the bishops.

I’m a Christian, and the Catholic church doesn’t speak for me - And on that same subject, a very appropriate piece by John Aravosis.

Iowa Baker Refuses Same-Sex Couple Wedding Cake Because Of Their ‘Lifestyle’ - NOM's newest "gay agenda victim" no doubt. But read the story to see who folks - including other bakers - are rallying around.

Out Washington state lawmakers to push marriage bill - Good for them!

60 Percent Of Americans Live In Places That Don’t Offer Protections For Gay Couples - We will change this.

Religious rightie says DeGeneres not a good choice for raising AIDS awareness

Sometimes, mess coming from the religious right doesn't need an explanation. It just needs a spotlight to underscore how clueless and homophobic they are.

Recently, openly gay actress and talk show host Ellen DeGeneres was named as special envoy to raise awareness about AIDS.

This decision was hailed in many circles. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said DeGeneres will “bring her sharp wit and big heart, and her impressive TV audience and 8 million followers on Twitter” to support U.S. efforts to save the lives of those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

However to the folks on the right, particularly Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America, the only thing that matters is that DeGeneres is a lesbian:

"She is openly lesbian and obviously is an activist on the issue of homosexual rights and has taken a very active role in pushing the homosexual agenda. So for her to be the person who's out front and the face of the Obama administration in the whole fight against AIDS I think is inappropriate," Crouse decides.

Does that even make any sense? Of course not. The only thing that matters to Crouse is that DeGeneres is a so-called "dirty lesbian" and will somehow taint the fight against AIDS.

The only thing that has tainted the fight against AIDS thus is ignorance and stigmatization - which is what Crouse is showing in spades. 

But more than that, it amazes me how some in the religious right will push sexual orientation as a reason for people not being able to do their jobs. It wasn't that long ago when anti-gay activist Linda Harvey was telling parents to not allow their children to be treated by gay physicians.

It's fascinating when one looks at both cases and realizes the one thing that Crouse and Harvey vehemently opposes is the fact that these folks  - i.e. DeGeneres and gay physicians - are openly gay and unashamed.

I think that says more about the mindset of Crouse and Harvey than anything else.

Know Your LGBT History - The 37th anniversary of 'Flowers of Evil'

Posts like this are the reason why I do this Know Your LGBT History. Once upon a time, it wasn't all Glee and Gaga on television for the lgbtq community.

I was just informed by a favorite site of mine, Box Turtle Bulletin, that this week marked the 37th anniversary of "Flowers of Evil," a controversial episode of the 1970s hit show Police Woman. I had already done a segment on this particular episode, but it warrants a repeat. From Box Turtle Bulletin:

When NBC’s hour-long action drama Police Woman starring Angie Dickinson began airing in 1974, was so popular that even its reruns in the spring and summer of 1975 ranked number one in the Nielsen ratings, making it the first successful police drama to feature a woman in the starring role. Dickinson’s unabashed sex appeal, undoubtedly, played a far greater role in its success than the plot lines themselves. One particularly odious episode, “Flowers of Evil,” had Dickinson’s character, Sgt. Pepper Anderson, investigating a trio of lesbians who run a retirement home where they murdered and robbed their elderly residents. Positive portrayals — indeed, any portrayal — of gays and lesbians were extraordinarily rare, which made this episode particularly egregious. To add insult to injury, the Police Woman aired one month to the day after a similarly negative plot line appeared on ABC’s Marcus Welby, M.D., in which a child molester was portrayed as gay. Police Woman’s “Flowers of Evil” was originally scheduled to air on October 25, but after the National Gay Rights Task Force organized national protests which led some advertisers to pull their commercials, NBC pulled the episode for re-editing. But with the filming wrapped up, the edits were mostly cosmetic. After the episode aired on November 8, TV Guide called it “the single most homophobic show to date.” A week later, a group known as Lesbian Feminist Liberation occupied NBC’s Standards and Practices office overnight, unfurled a banner from an office window reading “Lesbians Protest NBC.” Advocates continued to negotiate with NBC for several more months, and NBC finally agreed in 1975 to not rebroadcast the episode and withhold it from syndication. The “Flowers of Evil” episode re-appeared again, but this time in the Season 1 DVD box set after more than thirty years had passed, where in today’s context it can be safely viewed as a historic and cultural artifact.

I just happen to have a copy of that DVD box. However, for your edification, you can view the minisode of the episode above. And yes, it's ain't pretty.

 Past Know Your LGBT Posts: .
 

Minnesotans for Marriage soft peddling its message of bigotry

Via a series of youtube videos - which I refuse to post - the group Minnesotans for Marriage is pushing a false image in its fight to keep marriage equality out of the state.

The group has gotten some folks - couples and individuals - to appear on film and talk about what marriage means to them. Of course the points they make undercut their argument because it begs the question that if marriage means so much to them, then why are they trying to keep it from others? Why are they trying to keep the stability of marriage from families simply because these particular families are comprised of couples of the same sex?

More importantly, the group Minnesotans for Marriage is intentionally soft peddling its message. Minnesotans for Marriage seems to want folks to forget that the organizations which comprise it - National Organization for Marriage and the Minnesota Family Council - operate to attack and demonize same-sex families through their various tactics.

Let's not forget that amongst other things, the National Organization for Marriage routinely pulls the "they want your children" card to stop marriage equality.

Nor should we forget that the Minnesota Family Council has a long, ugly history of smearing the gay community.

And as the video below (which should be referred to every time these "we have to protect marriage" folks pull out their lying videos) demonstrates, the Minnesota Catholic Clergy - which is advocating that Catholics team up with the MFC - is fastly gaining dirty hands in the effort to make same-sex couples inferior:



No matter how subtle these entities try to peddle their message, we are still talking about exploiting hate, fear, and ideas of religious supremacy. And exploitation is not a Christian concept.

Related link:

Minnesotans United for All Families

Thank you, lgbt veterans

While we honor ALL of those who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in preserving our freedoms, let us not forget those who gave their lives even while they had to hide the details of their lives: