Tuesday, November 22, 2011

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.

Bookmark and Share

'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.

Bookmark and Share

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

Bookmark and Share