Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 27

Questions for the Candidates: What We'd Like to See Asked at Tonight's GOP Debate

This is a gem; thanks to People for the American Way for permission to publish this roundup. Do you think any of the GOP candidates at tonight's New Hampshire debate on CNN will face well-thought-out questions like these?

To: Interested parties

From: Randy Borntrager, Political Director, People For the American Way

Subject:  Questions for the candidates: what we'd like to see asked at tonight's GOP debate

Date: June 13, 2011

Tonight, seven prominent candidates for the Republican presidential nomination will take part in a debate in New Hampshire. As these candidates introduce themselves to Republican primary voters, it's important for them to speak honestly about their visions for the future of the country. The following are some questions to which we think the American people deserve to hear these candidates' answers:

Michele Bachmann

At this year's Faith and Freedom Conference, youpromised a repeal of the president's healthcare reform law. Yet you didn't suggest an alternative. Does Paul Ryan's plan to ration Medicare and Medicaid by issuing vouchers and block grants adequately represent your vision for the American healthcare system?

You have called the minimum wage "superfluous," and have on multiple occasions voted against increasing it. Would you support abolishing the minimum wage?

You have associated yourself with and even publicly prayed for the "You Can Run But You Can't Hide" ministries and its leader, Bradlee Dean. Do you think it's appropriate, as a public official, to associate yourself with a man who claims that Congressman Keith Ellison, a Muslim, is using gay rights to topple the Constitution and introduce Sharia law ,and that executing gays is "moral," and who recently was booed off the Minnesota House floor for giving a prayer that insulted President Obama?

Herman Cain

When asked whether you would appoint Muslims to posts within your administration, you unequivocally said you would not. Backtracking, you later said that you would, as long as they "put the Constitution of the United States of America first." The real question is, Mr. Cain, would you put the Constitution first? As you know, the Constitution prohibits a religious test for office, and discrimination based on religion is illegal. As president, you are charged with upholding the Constitution and enforcing federal law - how can the American people know that you will uphold these principles?

You have also said that you would be willing to appoint openly gay people to your administration. If you did so, would you allow their spouses or domestic partners to be on the federal health plan?

Newt Gingrich

You have promised, if elected President, to "get the whole country to resemble Texas." As you know, Texas ranks 50th in the percentage of the population without health insurance, 50th in percentage of insured children, and 50th in percentage of women receiving prenatal care. Compared to other states, Texas also rates poorly in measures of poverty and education. Which Texas policies in these areas would you like to see adopted for the entire nation?

You have repeatedly worked with and praised celebrity historian David Barton, who promotes a discredited "Christian nation" view of the country's founding, claims that the Founding Fathers were against teaching evolution almost a century before Darwin's path-breaking writings on this subject, and insists that Jesus opposed the minimum wage. As president, would you seek Barton's guidance and counsel?

You made your career by being an intensely partisan figure who encouraged Republican unity over getting things done. If elected president, how would you be sure to govern for all people-not just those who voted for you?

More below the fold.

Ron Paul

As a libertarian, your core principles reflect the notion that the government should have as little involvement in people's lives as possible. Why, then, do you frequently align with the Religious Right when they decide it is acceptable to legislate to restrict individual freedom? Are your positions on freedom of choice and marriage equality truly libertarian? As a presidential candidate, is it fair for Americans to assume that your libertarianism does not extend to social policies that affect individual Americans in their daily lives?

You've said you're willing to let the U.S. default on its debt in order to prove a point. How would you explain the economic havoc caused by a default to working families who are hurt by it?

Tim Pawlenty

You've stated that if you're elected president, you would reinstate the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Repeal of this policy is supported by a majority of service members, Congress and the American people. If elected president, how would you implement such plan? What would you tell gay men and women who have joined the armed forces with the belief that they will be able to serve their country openly? How will a return to DADT affect recruitment, retention and overall military readiness?

The 5% growth that your economic plan hinges upon was never achieved when you were governor of Minnesota. How do you plan on implementing 5% growth nationwide when that goal was never reached during your governorship?

Mitt Romney

Among many about-faces on social and economic policy, you have renounced your previous support for abortion rights. Do you support "personhood" bills, such as the one currently being considered by the Alabama legislature, that grant zygotes and fetuses the full rights of "persons," thus banning all abortions and common forms of birth control"?

As governor of Massachusetts, you implemented a healthcare plan that bears many similarities to President Obama's signature reform plan - and to much success. On the campaign trail, you have completely renounced that plan, and have gone so far as to apologize for it. As president, will you backtrack from effective policies should they become politically controversial? How will the American people recognize which of your principles are permanent, and which bend with the prevailing political winds?

Rick Santorum

In a recent interview with Rush Limbaugh, you reiterated your denial of the man-made causes of climate change, calling climate change science "patently absurd" and a "beautifully concocted scheme" to allow the "government to come in and regulate your life some more." Do you believe that 90 percent of climate scientists have colluded to warn the world of a problem that doesn't exist? If so, are there any matters on which you trust the scientific community?

You have said that you "would sign a bill tomorrow to eliminate the 9th Circuit [Court of Appeals]." Do you believe that Congress and the president should have the power to eliminate courts whose decisions they disagree with? How does this affect the core Constitution principle of separation of powers.

You have criticized President John F. Kennedy for his strict adherence to the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. What is your interpretation of the First Amendment's establishment clause? Does it allow for government endorsement of Christian theology? Of Muslim theology?

Tracy Morgan Talks to Russell Simmons About "The Incident"

Tracy Morgan spoke to hip-hop record producer and strong LGBT ally Russel Simmons in this interview here.

Russell:  Having fought for decades for the gay community in their struggle to be treated fairly and with dignity, I think you know you crossed the line.  However, I know you...I know you very well.  And I know that deep down inside there is no hate in your heart.

Tracy:  Of all the sicknesses, there is probably none more abusive than homophobia. My heart is committed to giving everyone the same rights that I deserve for myself. I don't care if you love the same sex as long as you have the ability to love someone. Also, you should have the right no matter who you are to protect and serve our country. I am deeply sorry for the comments I made. What I am most sad about is the comments I made about kids and bullying.  I would never want any young person to think that I wasn't on their side and if any young person thinks they can bully a young gay kid, come see me at 30 Rock.  On the corner, I would be happy to meet you.  Or Brooklyn if you can't make it into Manhattan.

Morgan says sometimes he says "some really stupid shit." Simmons references the initiative to pass marriage equality in New York state, which is looking optimistic, lots of good news at AmericaBlog. Morgan responses:

Thanks Russ for the support. I believe everyone deserves the right to be happy and marry who they want too; gay, white, black, male or female. Let me know where the rally's at Russ. I'm there!…GO KNICKS!

Honestly, I can read this interview without cynicism and consider that Morgan may have learned a valuable lesson from this experience, and may feel he made a terrible mistake.

CNN's Roland Martin? Apparently not. He's still stuck on defending Morgan, and has a second piece up doing so. Some people don't know when to put the shovel down.

But, there are rumors circulating that Morgan will respond to the gay orgs call that he do more than just say he's sorry.

We are fast winning allies over, like Louis J. Marinelli, Ken Mehlman, and even Harold Ford just cut a marriage equality support video. I more than anyone can understand the skepticism to think their motives are suspect and they are not to be trusted. Believe me, I do. It's a valid way to feel.

But I also think, it would behoove us to endeavor to be gracious, and afford them the benefit of the doubt. It is very hard to say "I'm sorry." We don't want people to think our community greets mea culpas with venom.

Under these circumstance, I do hope we provide face that says, "Come on, join the equality party! Glad to have you! We're not all hateful like those crazy fundies!" Besides forgiveness is one of the foundations of Christianity. Wouldn't it just be something if we were better at it than the "real Christians?"

Such an attitude is more than spiritually uplifting, it's strategic politics. It will make it easier for more people to change their minds if they know they'll be greeted warmly.

UPDATE: GLAAD has announce Tracy Morgan will be taking steps to learn from this experience.

Tracy will be taking us up on our offer to sit down with people who have been hurt by anti-gay rejection and violence, to meet them face-to-face, and to learn their stories. He committed to meet in New York City later this week with LGBT youth who have been hurt or left homeless by parental rejection, as well as families who have lost children to anti-gay violence. Included will be Elke Kennedy, the founder of Sean’s Last Wish. Elke’s son Sean was killed by anti-gay violence in 2007 at the age of 20 in South Carolina, when another man called him a f*ggot and punched him so hard it broke his facial bones and separated his brain from his brain stem.

Good for Tracy. Listen to Russell, listen to Tina, listen to Chris Rock and Wanda Sykes. You're surrounded by some good people with good heads on their shoulders. Learn from them.

Update To The Pam's House Blend's Terms and Conditions/Terms of Service

Back in June of 2009, we at Pam's House Blend found ourselves in the midst of a loss of civility within the The Blend's comment threads. We declared July 10, 2009 "Civility Day at The Blend. Posts for the day included How To Be Civil- In A Gazillion Easy Lessons!, The Art And Craft Of Disagreeing Without Being Disagreeable, Revisiting The Difficult Conversations That People Don't Want To Have, and a reposting of Transgender? Transsexual? Trans-Ghettoized?.

Civility Day was also the day we rolled out Section A of the Terms and Conditions/Terms of Service of Pam's House Blend, or TOS. The key line items towards moderating the comment threads were found in line items 8. and 9.

We're again at a point where ad hominem attacks between blenders seems to have become a common tool for discussion in the comment threads, and many of the same issues we at The Blend attempted to address in Transgender? Transsexual? Trans-Ghettoized? are again the subject of arguments in the comment threads as well.

We've created moderation icons, but many of the icons were for activities -- such as ad hominem commenting, racism, sexism, transphobia, religious creed, and ableism -- that weren't clearly enumerated in the TOS as prohibited behaviors.

So, we've changed Section A., line items 8. and 9. to clearly enumerate what already had been prohibited behavior in the comment threads. The line items were changed to read as follows:

8. You may not post or transmit any message which is harmful, threatening, abusive, hateful, or defamatory (defamatory anti-lesbian, anti-gay, anti-bisexual, and anti-transgender language will include, but not be limited to, the language identified as defamatory within the current online version of the GLAAD Media Reference Guide). Broad brush language that derides or denies the existence the entirety of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) community or its individual subcommunities, and/or LGBT identities (also as spelled out in the GLAAD Media Reference Guide), to include queer (Q) and intersex (I) identities, is also prohibited.

Examples of prohibited hateful speech include, but are not limited to, racism, sexism (to include sexism directed at trans men and trans women), ableism, antigay sentiments (to include antibisexual sentiments), antitrans sentiments, homophobia, , transphobia, and broad brush attacks on religious creed [to include atheism, as well as open and affirming/welcome and affirming faith].

Moderator Action: A single public warning in the comment thread is considered fair notice prior to a suspension or ban. The offending comment(s) may also be left intact as proof of the violation, or deleted at the moderator's discretion.

9. Activities such as (but not limited to) flaming, trolling, comment-spamming, threadjacking and ad hominem commenting between blenders* is prohibited. You are responsible for familiarizing yourself with these terms using the provided links.

It is not the Service's intent to discourage you from taking controversial positions or expressing vigorously what may be unpopular views; however, PHB Media, LLC and the Baristas reserve the right to take such action as it deems appropriate in cases where the Service is used to disseminate statements which are deeply and widely offensive and/or harmful.

* Ad hominem commenting to exclude comments made about baristas or public figures, or made about blender writers of diaries within the comment threads of diaries they write.

Moderator Action: A single public warning in the comment thread is considered fair notice prior to a suspension or ban. The offending comment(s) may also be left intact as proof of the violation, or deleted at the moderator's discretion.

Please note that in prohibiting ad hominem behavior, one is allowed to use such language regarding baristas and public figures, but not against peer blenders -- unless it's of a blender posts a diary. Within the diaries a blender posts, peer blenders may use ad hominem arguing within the comment threads of the diaries. Ad hominem arguing is discouraged even in these cases, but we're allowing it specifically because there is a power differential between those who post diaries -- especially diaries that make it to the front page -- and those who comment on those diaries.

The links for the enumerated terms are the definitions/explanations we'll be using for prohibited commenting at The Blend.

We're posting the update to the TOS because we want to encourage civility between blenders, and we want to clarify speech that within the forums of the Pam's House Blend comment threads isn't acceptable. This is the stick part of the process.

The carrot for this is reasonable, intelligent discussion. Pam's House Blend was designed to be a virtual LGBT coffee house with discussions of the sort we'd have at a table discussing issues over coffee and tea. We may disagree with each other, but even in disagreeing we want to be able to come back to the same table in following weeks and have fresh, civil discussions.

We love vigorous and difficult discussion at The Blend, but we don't love uncivil and hateful discussion.

So if you take a seat at a virtual table at The Blend, please sip your virtual coffee or tea and enjoy the company. We hope your stay is an interesting one.

Roland Martin Spews Bullsh*t Defense of Tracy Morgan

On Friday, CNN news correspondent Roland Martin posted an essay that defended Tracy Morgan. It was posted at 7:55 pm, hours after the comic had repudiated his own hateful words by saying,

"...even in a comedy club this clearly went too far and was not funny in any context."

Roland Martin took exception to Morgan's decision to apologize, asking why he did it? The title of the article "WTF? Comic Tracy Morgan Has Offensive Material?" goes a long way to giving Roland Martin's dismissive and superficial take on the topic.

 

Martin starts by acknowledging that people will find a disconnect between his condemnation of Michael Richards in 2006 and his current position of support of Morgan. He provides a pre-emptive strike at the inevitable hypocrisy accusation by saying:

Oh yes, you’ll say, “But Roland, you criticized Michael Richards for using the N-word.” Sure did. What’s the difference? I said then and now that Richards directly attacked an audience member and his use of the N-word had nothing to do with his routine. If it was in the context of a routine, it would not have been received the same.

I will leave it to the reader to decide if Michael Richards using the N-word in the context of a routine would have been received without complaint. Also consider if the context was perhaps a joke about burning down black churches in the south. Please also consider the likelihood that Roland Martin might have felt the impetus to write an essay defending and excusing Michael Richards under such hypothetical circumstances.

Martin includes an odd statement:

Yet whether we want to admit to it or not, it is the DNA of those in the chosen profession of comedy to say stuff that no one could get away with if they weren’t on a stage.

I think we can agree that comics are a unique lot. But chalking it up to DNA seems a little dubious. No, Mr. Martin, I don't think there's anything hard-wired into the genes of comics that renders them incapable of participating in a civilized society that respects boundaries of what is acceptable and not acceptable discourse. Trotting out DNA is a clever pseudo-science hook though to make your point sound smart. 

Martin goes on to list a litany of offensive jokes he dug up, some of which do truly push the boundaries of good taste, but it's all just his attempt to distract from this particular incident. 

It is a massive effort of obfuscation for Martin to try write off Morgan's remarks as a just another, run-of-the-mill comic offense. Martin even throws in the phrase "par for course." But, such a framing does serve well to play into a homophobic stereotype that those noisy gays are just always getting hysterical and just have their panties in a bunch over nothing. It's a dog whistle to bigots that will surely draw some to enjoy Martin's take on it.

His basic defense seems to be that no one should be surprised that Morgan was offensive and comedians are always offending people. This might be valid if you believe there is no basic difference between doing a limp-wristed, lispy-voice routine and making a joke about stabbing your own gay son in the face. Same thing, right? 

No. Not really. The first is offensive to many in the LGBT community, but also a staple of comedy clubs every night (go out tonight, I'm sure you'll find evidence). The second example, I can't think of anything so extreme outside of a Westboro Baptist/Fred Phelps protest or a National Organization for Marriage sponsored rally.

Does Martin honestly believe that June 4, 2011, was the very first time in 2011 a comic told a joke that offended a gay person at a comedy club? I certainly don't recall any other dustups this year between Human Rights Campaign, Gay And Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, the grassroots LGBT community and the stand-up comedy community. So, this must have been the first time a comic told an joke that the gay community found offensive, right?

Or perhaps the circumstances were indeed, extraordinary?

Comedian Chris Rock can discern the difference between extraordinary and "par for course" offenses. After initially defending Morgan's right to say "foul inappropriate shit" he says he looked back on what was said and concluded, "i get it that shit wasn't called for and i don't support it at all."

Perhaps the most telling detail into the mind of CNN's Roland Martin is how he chooses to end his defense of Morgan with a quote from Bernie Mac in Kings of Comedy:

“It ain’t what you say it’s how you say it. It’s jokes. It’s fun. But it’s the truth. In the back of your mind, you be wanting to say this shit sometimes.”

"But it's the truth," and "you be wanting to say this shit sometimes."

This was Roland's parting message he placed at the end of the essay where every good writer knows it will be the final takeaway for the reader. "It's the truth."

I really think it falls into full-disclosure territory for Roland Martin to remind folks what he wrote in 2006 in response to Reverend Al Sharpton's appeal to Black Churches to be more accepting of gays. In January 2006 Reverend Sharpton delivered a challenge to Church leaders at the National Black Justice Coalition:

“The black church must not be refuge for those who want to scapegoat and use violence on any community, including the gay and lesbian community.”

But Martin disagreed. He said Sharpton's message would "fall on deaf ears" because rejecting Sharpton's call to denounce violence towards gays,

"isn't being homophobic. It's being a Christian. And no one should have to apologize for that."

Viewed through this context, it begs the question, does Martin believe that substance of Morgan's rant was also not homophobic, but "Christian?" 

Is it Martin's belief that homophobic views are "nothing to apologize for" that led him to ask: 

"Why is comedian and “30 Rock” star Tracy Morgan issuing a mea culpa?"

Was Martin moved to express his disagreement to Morgan's decision to apologize because—from the CNN correspondent's perspective—Morgan betrayed "Christian" values by doing so? 

It can certainly be deduced that Martin would have no quarrel with Morgan's assertion that gay is a choice and "something kids learn from the media and programming." Martin himself espouses the idea that gay is a choice that can be untaught. Another full-disclosure detail might be that Martin has a vested interest in reinforcing the idea that gay reparative therapy is effective. After all, his wife has been in the business of offering it.

Martin has tried to deny his association with the practice of gay reparative therapy. When I mentioned it on Twitter, he called me a liar.

@Clarknt67 @CNN Nice try, dude. My wife runs no such program. Never has. But you sure don't mind spreading lies!

Martin was responding to my calling attention to a disclosure he made himself in his own column on February 3, 2006, still online, where he said:

My wife, an ordained Baptist minister for 20 years, has counseled many men and women to walk away from the gay lifestyle, and to live a chaste life.

Emphasis mine.

Max Blumenthal at The Uptake managed to question Martin in 2008 on whether his wife was running a gay reparative therapy program. At first, Martin repeatedly and emphatically denies having anything to do with such practices. 

But challenged with evidence of his own column, he admits his wife helped "a man." And he continues to present it as a singular incident.

(Martin also continues on to say there should a place in the Democratic party for homophobic politicians, just as he has made it his cause celeb to defend homophobia in black churches and, now comedy clubs. Do we see a pattern here?)

Was Martin fibbing in 2006 when he said "many men and women?" Or was he fibbing to Bluementhal and the Uptake camera crew that it was only one man? The facts as relayed by his own statements are contradictory. Perhaps Martin's wife can be persuaded to provide some clarity on behalf of her husband. It certainly seems to be placing him in a position of fielding some uncomfortable questions. How extensive is her work in helping people "walk away from the gay lifestyle?" Was it "one?" Or was it "many?"

How ironic that this same week Martin's colleague at CNN, Anderson Cooper has been doing some excellent investigative reporting on the horrible and debilitating lifetime effect gay reparative therapy can have on kids who are subjected to it.

I hope that Martin and his wife got a chance to watch Ryan Kendall's testimony on his experience at a Christian-based, gay reparative therapy still being run by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Kendall told CNN this week:

[7:10] "What they did hurt me. It tore apart my family, it lead me to periods of homelessness, to drug abuse, to spending a decade of my life wanting to kill myself. It lead to so much pain and struggle and I want them to know, what they do, hurts people, hurts children, has no basis in fact, and they need to stop."

This on the the heels of Jim Burroway of BoxTurtleBulletin's excellent investigation that the star success story of the movement actually didn't become heterosexual, but did live a troubled life. He killed himself at 38 and his family blames the "therapy."

Such practices do need to stop. 

There is no evidence they are "effective."

There is much evidence they are harmful.

Whatever methods Martin's wife is using to help people "pray away the gay," at the end of the day, all such practitioners are selling scared and vulnerable people snake oil. At least, Martin doesn't claim in his column the "many men and women" became heterosexual. No, his wife appears to only offer the promise of a "chaste life." A lifetime of celibacy. Terrific. The American Dream for the country's Second Class Citizens. Ah, how many of us have dreamed of the day we can grow old and die alone?

Frankly, I wish that Martin, rather than dress his defense up as some sort of principled stance or a facile understanding of the stand-up comedy world, would tell us directly—and not obliquely through quotes—"Tracy Morgan spoke the truth." I wish he would clarify for us if he disagrees with the substance of what Morgan is alleged to have said. Would he tell us if he considers Morgan's views out of the mainstream, or if Morgan was presenting a valid side to the public discussion of LGBT issues that deserves to be heard by a wide audience of people?

If this is truly what is "in Martin's heart," why be coy about saying so?

I think if Martin found in himself the courage to say it, we'd find in substance, Martin actually agrees with Morgan's rant far more than he disagrees, and he would have been one of the people in the audience slapping his knee and yelling "Go Tracy!" And this is exactly what provided him with the impetus to write a post defending Morgan; he would like to see more of this type of "comedy." But unlike out and proud gay and lesbian Americans, Martin doesn't have the courage to speak his own "truth," so he dressing it up in rhetorical trickery. "Come on, it's what people say!" Martin says. Yes, I'm certain it is what people around Martin say.

Roland concludes:

Maybe none of us want to accept that as a comedian, Morgan is keenly aware of what society actually thinks, and he simply said it onstage.

And, I personally cannot offer disagreement that the rant Morgan said is indeed what many people do think.

As Martin fancies himself as a man of God, I would invite him to do some internal soul-searching. Because the important question in this debate is not so much "Was it wrong for one man to SAY these things?"

No. The key question in this debate is, "Is it right that people should BELIEVE these things?"

Unfortunately, it seems Martin thinks it is right. 

I am not the first to call "bullshit" on Martin. Comic Wanda Sykes piped in on Twitter. She said:

They went on to have a robust and entertaining debate which was chronicled at this AmerciaBlog post. It included references to black face and picnicking at public hangings. And Sykes aptly demonstrated how a talented comic can touch on potentially explosive topics and still be funny, informative and stay out of the national crosshairs.

Martin challenged Sykes on this:

We can do better.

Who is "we," Martin asked?

It should be noted, Sykes has a foot in a many of the communities that are involved in this debate. 

She is a very successful comic, and has a lifetime of experience in the club circuit.

She is an African-American. 

She is a lesbian. 

She is a parent. 

She is a human being.

Regardless which hat she was wearing when she said "we," she was right. And I think unlike Martin, she's got the cred to speak with authority to this topic.

By contrast, Roland Martin is both a hack journalist and a hack "Christian" and he wasn't defending Tracy Morgan. He was doing exactly what he's always done: defending animus, hostility and hatred toward gay people and he dressed it up with 100% bullshit.

Today's Prop 8 hearing on relevance of Judge Walker's orientation & trial video release

UPDATE: Just bumping up since the hearing is under way. Via Zack Ford at ThinkProgress LGBT:

The first of two motions in today's Proposition 8 proceedings has already been decided against those attempting to maintain inequality. Defendants of Prop 8 argued that all the videos of the trial from last year should be kept from public consumption, a concern they raised after now-retired Judge Vaughn Walker used one of the videos in a lecture he gave a few months ago. Though Walker returned all the videos, attorney Charles Cooper argued that all the videos should not only be recollected, but destroyed.

The new judge presiding over the trial, Judge James Ware, pointed out that he was the one who gave Judge Walker the tapes at Walker's retirement ceremony. Perhaps foreshadowing how he will rule in the other motion - about whether Judge Walker should have recused himself because he is in a same-sex relationship - Ware asked Cooper if he, too, should consider recusing himself because of his connection to the videos. When Cooper did not respond (perhaps because of the laughter in the gallery), Ware added, "I don't need an answer now."

Today there is a hearing regarding the most preposterous of circumstances - the anti-marriage equality forces have a motion questioning Judge Walker's ability to fairly render a decision based on the fact that he is gay.

On a call last Friday with Ted Olsen and others from the American Foundation for Equal Rights, they made it clear that the Prop 8 proponents are over-reaching with this motion, in essence saying that any personal attributes could render a jurist unable to rule fairly on cases. After all, does that mean a Catholic cannot rule on abortion, or a person of color cannot render a case on civil rights? What about a woman on the bench considering a case involving discrimination based on sexual harassment. The possibilities are endless. It's ludicrous.

But you don't have to be there to take in coverage. From Prop8Trial Tracker:

The hearing will commence this Monday, June 13th at 9 AM PST in San Francisco at the Philip Burton courthouse. A ruling is not expected on the same day. Courage's founder and chair Rick Jacobs, who blogged from the trial in January 2010, will be sending in dispatches from the courthouse, as will Arisha Michelle Hatch, our lawyer-cum-national field director. Courage's new communications manager Ana Beatriz Cholo will also be in attendance, so we'll have a lot of dispatches coming in. I know a lot of you will also be there - if you have photos and video to send in, send it to prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org and I'll look forward to getting it up. And of course, comment away!Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the lead attorney on the original In re marriage cases of 2008 that led to equal marriage for same-sex couples before Prop 8, will be blogging here on the hearing, legal observations and what happens next. NCLR's Chris Stoll, who along with Shannon did us the courtesy of answering lots of questions not once, but twice, will also be stopping by to provide his legal expertise. If you're new or want to re-read the transcript full of legal Q's and A's, here's the first one from August 23rd and the second from January 4th.I also invited Roland Palencia, incoming Executive Director of Equality California, to stop by and provide his observations. As has been extensively covered and debated by many here on the blog and in the comments, EQCA is considering going back to the ballot to repeal Prop 8 in 2012.Brian Leubitz of Calitics.com, who along with his husband have provided legal interpretation of the Prop 8 rulings, briefs, motions and other important legal movements, will also be providing his take on what happened and what's next.

We have a handy widget that has live Tweeting from John Bare and the Courage Campaign's Adam Bink and Ana Beatriz Cholo. Hashtag: #prop8. Twitter handles: @JBinSFO @equalityontrial @couragecampaign

Video: Rick Santorum tells CNN's Don Lemon he loves his gay peeps

Here's yet another 'phobe in the clown car who claims to have "gay friends" to offset perception that he's a bigot. Well Little Ricky, if your friends are content not to have the same rights as you and your family, then they are the ones with a serious problem. Watch Don Lemon's reaction:

Who are these (imaginary?) gay friends? We never see them show up on camera with the homobigot in question.

Hat tip, Rod 2.0

***

UPDATE: Can you believe smarmy Santorum went on MTP and David Gregory failed to drill him in any depth about his long-standing homophobic positions. Mainstream media FAIL.

Family Research Council sneaking misleading studies back onto its webpage

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

 

Back in late 2008, I noticed the following studies missing from the Family Research Council's webpage: Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse,
The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality, and Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk 

I emailed the organization and received the following response in early 2009:

Thank you for contacting Family Research Council.

The papers that you inquired about have been removed from our website indefinitely due to the fact that they have outdated sources. However, we have other resources on our website that contain similar information, such as the
following:

Getting It Straight
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BK04A01

What's wrong with letting same-sex couples legally "marry?"
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01

Why Marriage Should Be Privileged in Public Policy
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS03D1

Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex 'Marriage'
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01

Alvin, we appreciate your interest in these important issues. Please let us know if you have any further questions or concerns.

Sincerely,
Kathy Athearn
FRC Correspondence

At the time, I was disturbed by the fact Ms. Athearn did not indicate which sources were outdated because the resources she gave me contained, not similar information as the removed studies, but the same information.

That is a moot point now because the studies in question have returned to the FRC webpage, albeit secretly.

f you were to look up the studies through FRC's webpage search engine, you would come up with the titles and other FRC work which referred to the studies. However, but if you clicked on the titles of the specific studies, you wouldn't be able to pull them up.

You would only be able to retrieve the studies if you knew the specific link to the page which contained them, like so:

Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse

The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality

Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk

What's more, FRC is aware that the information contained in these studies are outdated not only because of the email sent to me in 2009, but also because of the fact that archived versions of two of the studies, Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse and Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk , say the following:

Please note: this article is an archived item on Family Research Council's website; the information contained therein may be outdated.

However, this proviso is gone when one pulls up the reposted studies, even though the information is the same, word-for-word.

But more to the point, all three studies which FRC removed and then placed back on its webpage contain  propaganda and distortions which led the Southern Poverty Law Center to declare FRC as a hate group including the following inaccuracies:

Homosexuals molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.Same-sex parents harm children.Homosexuals don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals.
One particular study, Homosexual Parenting - Placing Children at Risk, stands out because it cites the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron (endnote 60), to make the case that same-sex household are not simply bad places to raise children, but actually places them in danger (by making them susceptible to incest) - an assertion refuted by more credible researchers and medical bodies.

Cameron leads the Family Research Institute, which is considered to be another anti-gay hate group by SPLC. As many lgbts know, Cameron has made a name for himself creating a bogus studies which accuse lgbts of all sorts of nasty behaviors. According to SPLC, one of Cameron's studies, What Homosexuals Do, claim that 17 percent of lgbts consume human feces.

Indiscretions like this are what led Cameron to be either censured or dismissed from several groups including the American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association and the Canadian Psychological Association.

Maybe FRC didn't get the memo.

Another study from FRC, Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse, stands out because it furthers the belief that if a man molests a boy, that automatically means the man is gay. Not only is this notion disputed by reputable sources (American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America) but it was also put forth by the discredited researcher Paul Cameron in another one of his bogus studies.

In 1984, A. Nicholas Groth complained that Cameron was distorting his work to push this theory:

“(Cameron) misrepresents my findings and distorts them to advance his homophobic views. I make a very clear distinction in my writing between pedophilia and homosexuality, noting that adult males who sexually victimize young boys are either pedophilic or heterosexual, and that in my research I have not found homosexual men turning away from adult partners to children . . . I consider this totally unprofessional behavior on the part of Dr. Cameron and I want to bring this to your attention. He disgraces his profession.” -  Letter written to the Nebraska Board of Examiners of Psychologists on August 21, 1984

That point is important to remember because in 1992,  Dr. Groth wrote FRC a letter demanding that his work be removed from its study on homosexuality and pedophilia for the same reason he complained about Cameron:

If you are, in fact, familiar with my research, you must realize that my studies have indicated that homosexual males pose less risk of sexual harm to children (both male and female)--from both an absolute and a percentage incidence rate--than heterosexual males. Your statement that "the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners" appears to come from the assumption that if an adult male is attracted to a male child, this adult male's sexual orientation is ipso facto homosexual.

Since your report, in my view, misrepresents the facts of what we know about this matter from scientific investigation, and does not indicate that my studies on this topic reach conclusions diametrically opposed to yours, I would appreciate your removing any reference to my work in your paper lest it appear to the reader that my research supports your views.

FRC claims that it wants to debate the issue of whether or not it deserves to be named a hate group.

I agree. And let's start with why the organization is knowingly placing bad studies on its webpage.

For more in-depth detail on just what exact distortions are contained in the three FRC studies, read Religious right can lie about gay community without George Rekers.  Just about every distortion contained in FRC's outdated studies are refuted in this piece.

Amina Arraf, the kidnapped Lesbian blogger in Syria, never existed.

From The Washington Post:

In recent days, the world has followed closely the saga of Amina Arraf, the blogger who presented herself online as "A Gay Girl in Damascus" and who drew attention with her passionate writings about the Syrian government's crackdown on Arab Spring protesters. Those writings stopped last Tuesday, and a posting to the blog, ostensibly written by a cousin, said she had been hauled away by government security agents.

News of her disappearance became an Internet and media sensation. The U.S. State Department started an investigation. But almost immediately skeptics began asking: Has anyone ever actually met Amina? Two days after her disappearance, images presented on her blog as being of Amina were revealed to have been taken from the Facebook page of a London woman.

And on Sunday, the truth spilled out: The gay girl in Damascus confessed to being a 40-year-old American man from Georgia.

The story is also available from CNN and The Guardian, among many others.

Tom MacMaster is a Middle East peace activist who created Amina six years ago to be a voice for his report of human rights abuses in Syria. For some years, "she" has been blogging as "A Gay Girl in Damascus", which has been carried by a number of sites including Lez Get Real, none of them apparently aware that they were being had by a straight white male masquerading as a gay half-Syrian woman. In his apology on Sunday, MacMaster wrote:

I never expected this level of attention. While the narrative voice may have been fictional, the facts on this blog are true and not misleading as to the situation on the ground. I do not believe that I have harmed anyone -- I feel that I have created an important voice for issues that I feel strongly about.

Womb control continues: Alabama passes 'Fetal Pain' bill - no exceptions for rape and incest

The Republicans continue their incessant steamrolling over a woman's legal right to control her womb. This time it's Alabama (not exactly the hotbed of protecting constitutional rights):

The Alabama GOP marked a successful week in regressive legislation. Gov. Robert Bentley (R) signed the nation's toughest immigration bill into law yesterday, requiring local police to detain suspected undocumented immigrants and Alabama schools to collect student citizenship information. The GOP-led state Senate then rounded out the day by passing a radical anti-abortion bill that bans anyone from performing abortion after 20 weeks - an act that would punish the doctor with "one to 10 years in prison."

This is the work of State Sen. Scott Beason (R); who declared (sans any medical science to prove it):

"It's clear that a baby at 20 weeks experiences pain. There's no doubt about that. We're trying to get it back to the point where once a baby feels pain, there can be no abortions."

...Those with an actual medical degree, however, have expressed significant doubt that a fetus' pain perception functions at 20 weeks. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, "The fetus's higher pain pathways are not yet fully developed and functional" before the third trimester. Even a fellow Republican lawmaker in Kansas noted assertions like Beason's are "based on false research" and "untruths."

So how come the woman who procures the abortion isn't tossed in the slammer, along with, say, the person who is the accessory to the "crime" by driving her to the clinic? If you're going to treat reproductive freedom as any other crime, take it to its logical conclusion because the argument assumes 1) the woman is somehow not responsible for said "crime" or 2) the woman is somehow mentally unstable by mere fact of preganancy and incapable of medical decisionmaking. Either way, it says a lot about how these "pro-life" Republicans view women in the first place.

Out lesbian NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn mayoral frontrunner as Weiner's future goes flaccid

I couldn't resist the headline; the scandals just write themselves. In any case, the prospect of New York City electing the first out (sorry Ed Koch, you blew your chance) and first woman as mayor is exciting. NY Daily News:

More than half of city voters saying in a recent poll that Weiner shouldn't make a City Hall bid, leaving up for grabs the broad swath of votes that seemed destined for the Queens congressman.

..."The money race is the key indicator now," said Baruch College politics professor Doug Muzzio, although he cautioned it is still very early and the race likely won't head into full swing until after the 2012 federal elections.

By that standard, Quinn is now the front-runner. The historic nature of her as-yet-undeclared campaign - if elected, she would be the first openly gay and the first female mayor - could further help her as she raises more. Roughly one-third of her campaign donations have come from outside of the city.

Still, Quinn is faced with walking a tricky line. Political insiders say she must retain the mayor's support - the two often appear together at events, and Bloomberg praises her work - yet distance herself from the Republican-turned-Democrat-turned-independent as he weathers what several analysts have termed third-term fatigue among dissatisfied voters.