Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 53

DOMA Pullout: Did King & Spalding Fear A Chilled Coke?

An interesting tidbit in the Talking Points Memo article on the decision by King & Spalding to drop out of the DOMA defense case. From Brian Beutler comes this bit of reporting on the role megacorp Coca-Cola may have played:

As public relations debacles go, this was a doozy. But the firm must have calculated that the alternative would have been worse. In the intervening week, a series of public and behind-the-scenes developments made it clear that the firm would suffer recriminations for defending what many of its top clients and future recruits -- not to mention gay rights advocates -- consider to be an anti-gay law.

Sources with knowledge of the backlash confirm that one of King & Spalding's top clients, Coca Cola, also based in Atlanta, directly intervened to press the firm to extricate itself from the case.

A Coca Cola spokesman declined to comment on or off the record for this story, but pointed TPM to the company's long public history of support for equality and diversity.

OK, so I did as the Coke flak said and I dug around into the history and I found something very interesting that might give a little more credence to this rumor. Coke expressing displeasure may well have put a chilling effect on K&S's enthusiasm for the DOMA case and the effect it might have on the objectively-measured diversity rating of the firm and their fiscal bottom line.

Back in September 2009, Law.com (the website of The American Lawyer magazine) ran an article titled, "Coke Awards Longtime Firm, K&S, for Diversity." It reports on the occasion of the annual awards dinner presenting Coke's "Living the Values" award to King & Spalding. It describes the process of qualifying for the award and it appears rather extensive:

The questionnaire covered the firms' values and practices in five areas related to diversity: commitment of senior management to established systems for accountability and progress measurement; representation of minorities and women in the firm and in leadership; success in hiring, developing, promoting and retaining minority and female associates; creative partnering arrangements with minority- and women-owned firms; and rigor in firm-wide diversity programming, ownership and participation. Coke's legal department then evaluated the questionnaires against “best-in-class” practices in each area and scored them on a scale of 1 to 5. The firm with the highest aggregate score was chosen for the award.

Coca-Cola's general counsel and senior vice president Geoffrey J. Kelly shares a quote that indicates they are rather actively involved in pressing for change among their vendors, “We believe we will change fundamentally the behavior of law firms, and that's very important to us.”

Kelly also indicates the benefits of finding yourself in Coca-Cola's good graces relative to the issue of diversity can be very good for the fiscal bottom line:

Asked if Shook, Hardy & Bacon, the Kansas City-based firm that received the award last year, earned a bigger share of Coke's business as a result, Kelly laughed and replied, “Oh, yes. They are doing splendidly.”

Presumably finding yourself in disfavor may not be so "splendid" for the firms they employ.

Relative to this story, the 2009 article notes K&S "ranks relatively low in the number of minority attorneys." However K&S received some bonus points for including:

not just racial minorities but the disabled community and gays and lesbians, as well as mentoring, minority partnering programs and even support systems for new parents.

In other words, the very same LGBT diversity K&S crows proudly about on their website may well have helped compensate in 2009 for their unremarkable racial diversity and deliver this 2009 honor from Coke. The very same diversity demographic that was under serious jeopardy for them to maintain had the firm stayed the course on the DOMA case.

John Davidson of the LGBT organization Lambda Legal was quoted in Huffington Post saying their group would be reconsidering their future partnership with the firm, and that "I think it's going to hurt them in their recruiting of future lawyers."

It's also likely their continued defense would threaten their retention of their current LGBT employees. Also in serious jeopardy were "creative partnerships" credits they might have gotten in the past such as working with Lavender Law Conference, Lambda Legal, ACLU's LGBT and AIDS Project, AIDS Walk Atlanta, Georgia Equality’s Annual “Evening for Equality” Awards, Lambda Legal’s annual civil rights celebration in Atlanta, Stonewall Bar Association of Georgia’s annual awards dinner, “Out on Film” Festival in Atlanta.

It is likely those orgs would have received pressure from the LGBT community to shun the firm in the future and it's also likely they would have complied.

And unless they've significantly stepped up their racial diversity, a collapse of their LGBT diversity represented a real Achilles Heel to K&S's objectively measured claim to being an authentically "diverse" firm.

Just off the top of my head I feel confident that a company the size of Coke represents a whole lot more billing hours than the $500,000 Clement was bringing in for DOMA. If long-time client Coke truly expressed their displeasure at this move, that represented a serious threat to the firm's fiscal bottom line.

Even short of a full-on pullout, there are a lot of discretionary jobs that a corporation like Coke have the opportunity to award during the course of any given year. K&S was on retainer by Coke in 2007, but still there was a minor uproar in the legal community when Coke chose not K&S but another firm to handle the paperwork on $4.1 billion acquisition the company made.

K&S is doubtlessly not anxious to see a repeat of what was surely a painful, costly and embarrassing episode for the firm. Doubtlessly the billing hours sent to Coke on a deal like that could easily dwarf the $500,000 Boehner is delivering for DOMA.

And how about that? Sometimes big corporations can be your friend. It's perfectly understandable Coke may not be anxious to go on the record to confirm their "direct intervention" in this conflict. But if Brian Beutler's reporting is sound, I am grateful, and am glad to say I've been a lifelong Coke drinker. I'll be sure to pop a cold one today and have a smile.

On PBS Newshour: Discussion Of Issues Regarding Possible Return Of ROTC Program To Stanford

On PBS Newshour last night, they ran a segment on the controversy over an ROTC program possibly returning to Stanford.

The transgender & intersex issue -- that transgender and intersex people aren't allowed to serve openly in the U.S. Military services, and thus are also not allowe in ROTC programs -- was covered beginning at approximately the 7:00 minute mark in the video, entitled At Stanford, Debate Brews Over Reviving ROTC Program on Campus.

...SPENCER MICHELS: Like the anti-war students, gay groups on campus also oppose the return of ROTC. They say the repeal of don't ask, don't tell didn't go far enough, since it still allows discrimination against transgender people.

Leanna Keyes is active in Stanford Students for Queer Liberation.

LEANNA KEYES, Stanford Students for Queer Liberation: Because ROTC doesn't admit transgender students, it doesn't admit intersex students, it's perpetuating that discrimination.

SPENCER MICHELS: Student Association president Angelina Cardona thinks the military's exclusion of transgender people will play a surprisingly important role in Stanford's decision on ROTC.

ANGELINA CARDONA, Associated Students of Stanford University: I'm personally pro-military. My stepfather is a veteran. I would be thrilled to see the ROTC return to Stanford University, if they were willing to meet us halfway and to include all of our students in their organization in this unique opportunity.

However, as it is now, they do not...

The transcript of the entire segment is here.  

Mike Signorile tries to have a rational conversation with a birther from Alabama

You have to hear it to believe it. I don't know how he holds it together with these freakshows. Mike:

Winston from Alabama, a birther, called in while we were discussing Donald Trumps birther madness. It was fascinating how, even after all the facts were explained, Winston just couldn't let it go. This call is a perfect example of why the birther conspiracy theory will endure. They want to believe, because they hate the president for other reasons -- some of which they may not want to admit, even to themselves -- and it gives them something to grasp onto.

Republicans 4 Freedom:speaking for the rational wing of the party -- calls out the anti-gays

Republican Ron Hill is sick of the American Taliban agenda, the professional anti-gay set that attempts to set the tone not only in the GOP, but the Tea Party as well. A former writer at Frum Forum, Hill is also a marijuana reform activist.

Ron wrote me to tell me that "rank & file republicans are increasingly supportive of gay equality. The whole purpose of Republicans 4 Freedom is to focus on marginalizing the anti-gay right's influence within the GOP."

This Site is created by Ron Hill, who was deployed as a Captain to Afghanistan when California's anti-gay Proposition 8 was being waged in federal court. Captain Hill realized that, "Here I am fighting religious fundamentalist who seek to impose their will on everyone in society, while back home in my own country religious fundamentalist are also seeking to impose their will on everyone in society."

It was then that he realized how religious fundamentalism is not only the greatest external threat to American freedom, but also the greatest internal threat to freedom that our country faces. Captain Hill found it incredulous that his own party defended the discriminatory outcome of proposition 8 as legitimate because the vote was said to express "the will of the people". Apparently, his fellow republicans had never been schooled in why the United States is a republic rather than a democracy - and that a vote of the majority amounts to the tyranny of the majority if there are no safeguards for minority rights (such as the courts and constitutional protections) - and thus, no one's rights would be truly safe.

Thankfully the republican party never argued for a statewide vote on segregation or "the will of the majority" would have been in favor of Jim Crow.

Well I have to say that R4Freedom is off to a blunt start with the post "Will Anti-Gay Extremist be the 2012 GOP Nominee's Jeremiah Wright?"

It's one thing to personally oppose homosexuality based on religious beliefs - but it's wrong to demand that the government mandate that others abide by your religious beliefs just because you don't like the way they live. Even worse is to lie and attack your fellow Americans with untruths to pursue your so-called religious agenda.

None of the worst anti-gay "leaders" (Bryan Fischer, Tony Perkins or Peter LaBarbera) are considered experts in human behavior or science in any way, shape or form. None of them have any academic or scientific credentials whatsoever. Yet they are often invited by the national media to respond publicly on issues affecting gay Americans as though they are somehow "experts". They are not. All these "gentlemen" are espousing is their personal belief.

...These three men are a classic examples of everything wrong with public discourse in America. They lie, they make up fake statistics, they distort real scientific research ... all with the goal of demonizing their fellow Americans. Claiming that gays in the military caused Adolf Hitler and the death of six million Jews is nothing but extreme demagoguery. Yet a leading candidate for President of the United States went on this man's radio show. No one has held Gov Pawlenty to task on this. Does the Governor agree that gays are responsible for the holocaust? Will he continue to associate with such extremist as Bryan Fisher and the American Family Association and the Family Research Council? If so, then calls from Pawlenty to tone down extremist rhetoric and return to civility would mean nothing.

Ouch. I wonder what the professional anti-gays will say in response?

 

Maggie Gallagher called out for misleading testimony at DOMA hearing

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Religious right figures giving misleading testimony during Congressional hearings isn't a new occurrence, but this one needs to be shouted about from the rooftops.

According to Equality Matters, the witnesses speaking for DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) during the April 15 Congressional hearing gave incorrect testimony on several occasions. I invite everyone to take a look at the section, but the one which stands out for me is a statement made by the National Organization for Marriage's Maggie Gallagher.

She claimed that social science proves that the best place to raise children are in homes with biological, married parents as opposed to same-sex households:
 

Transcript:

GALLAGHER: From what we know from the social science evidence, marriage protects children to the extent that it increases the likelihood they are born to and raised by their own mother and father in a low-conflict, enduring relationship. We know this because, frankly, children do not do better under remarried parents than they do with solo mothers on average, which means that it is not simply a set of legal benefits that we can transform. It is the extent and way to which marriage as a legal and public institution helps to protect a particular kind of family that it helps to protect children or fails to protect children.

However, according to Equality Matters, in her written testimony, Gallagher cited a study on heterosexual single parents:

We know this from the social science evidence showing that children do no better, on average, in remarried families than they do living with single mothers. 1 Marriage protects children to the extent that it helps increase the likelihood that children will be raised by their mother and father. […]1 See Sara McLanahan & Gary Sandefur, Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Harvard U. Press 1994) (“In general, compared with children living with both their parents, young people from disrupted families are more likely to drop out of high school, and young women from one-parent families are more likely to become teen mothers, irrespective of the conditions under which they began to live with single mothers and irrespective of whether their mothers remarry or experience subsequent disruptions.”). [Statement of Maggie Gallagher, Hearing on “Defending Marriage,” 4/15/11]

Equality Matters went on to use the words of Judith Stacey, Professor of Sociology and Professor of Gender and Sexuality at New York University to call out Gallagher and others on the right who inaccurately use studies on the heterosexual family dynamic to demonize same-sex parenting, and by proxy, marriage equality:

Opponents of same-sex marriage draw on a third body of literature in which researchers have achieved an unusual degree of consensus. Most family researchers agree that, all other things being equal (which, of course, is almost never the case), two parents are better than one. Research indicates that children raised in single-parent families are at greater risk of various negative outcomes (e.g., dropping out of school, delinquency, unwed teen pregnancy, substance abuse, etc.) than children raised in comparable two-parent families. All of this research, however, as Maggie Gallagher acknowledged, has been conducted on heterosexual-parent families. Moreover, this research generally compares children in married-couple and single-parent families, thereby confounding the effects of the number and the legal status of parents. None of the research cited to demonstrate the importance of fathers (or mothers) examines the adjustment of children raised by same-sex couples. Moreover, this research does not indicate that it is the gender or the sexual orientation of the absent parent that is responsible for the different outcomes of children raised in single versus two-parent families. Rather, most researchers conclude that the number and economic resources of parents as well as the disruptive effects that parental desertion or divorce can inflict on children's lives account for these differential risks. N12 [University School of Quinnipiac Law Review, via Lexis, emphasis added, 2004]

Gallagher has done this sort of thing before. In in January of last year, she distorted a study on child abuse to make the case that children in married biological homes do better to protect children from abuse than children in same-sex households.

The distortion comes because the study in question - the one she cited - didn't even look at children in same-sex households. We know this because Gallagher even admitted at the time that same-sex households wasn't a category in the study:

All the other family structures studied (which does not include same-sex parent families probably because these are such a small part of the population), but does include solo parents, other married parents (remarried primarily), single parents living with a partner, cohabiting parents, and no parents.

Please bear in mind that at that same April 15 Congressional hearing,  Gallagher said it was unfortunate that people misinterpret things she says as a condemnation of "gay people" and "their parenting skills."

If Gallagher wants people to not think that she is condemning "gay people" and "their parenting skills," then maybe she should stop being so deceptive in her testimony.

 

Delegate Joseline Pena-Melnyk's Letter To Legislative Colleagues On The Attack On MD Trans Woman

In a letter sent to her legislative  colleagues in Maryland, Del. Joseline Pena-Melnyk calls for an antidiscrimination bill based on gender identity for employment, housing, and public accommodation in the next legislative session. From the body of her letter:

I respectfully ask that each of you take the time to view the video at this link, but please be advised that it is disturbing and portrays a horrific hate crime:  

http://tinyurl.com/3roab9m

Incidents such as this illustrate why the transgender community in Maryland and elsewhere needs to be protected through antidiscrimination legislation.  Supporters of House Bill 235 in this past legislative session recognized this need and stood up for the rights of this community. While HB235 did not include protection from discrimination in public accommodations due to the intense pressure opponents placed on the bill's supporters, the bill would have raised public awareness of the issue and paved the way for complete protection for Maryland's transgender population. Contrary to statements made by those who should be leading the fight for civil rights in Maryland, this was not an anti-family bill, but a basic civil rights bill. The failure of this bill goes against Maryland's long history of being in the forefront of civil rights movements.

This attack, which took place in District 8, has been broadcast all over the national news, and the video has gone viral, bringing shame to the State of Maryland for allowing such things to take place. I challenge each of the Senators who voted to recommit HB235 on sine die (see the link at http://mlis.state.md.us/2011rs/votes/senate/1123.htm) to serve as primary sponsors of a stronger version of HB235 in the 2012 legislative session. It is time to rectify the wrong that has been done to transgender citizens of our State.

~~~~~

Related:

* Violence At A Baltimore McDonalds Shows A "Bathroom Bill" Meme Can Have More Than One Meaning

Delegate Joseline Pena-Melnyk's Letter To Legislative Colleges On The Attack On MD Trans Woman

In a letter sent to her legislative  colleagues in Maryland, Del. Joseline Pena-Melnyk calls for an antidiscrimination bill based on gender identity for employment, housing, and public accommodation in the next legislative session. From the body of her letter:

I respectfully ask that each of you take the time to view the video at this link, but please be advised that it is disturbing and portrays a horrific hate crime:  

http://tinyurl.com/3roab9m

Incidents such as this illustrate why the transgender community in Maryland and elsewhere needs to be protected through antidiscrimination legislation.  Supporters of House Bill 235 in this past legislative session recognized this need and stood up for the rights of this community. While HB235 did not include protection from discrimination in public accommodations due to the intense pressure opponents placed on the bill's supporters, the bill would have raised public awareness of the issue and paved the way for complete protection for Maryland's transgender population. Contrary to statements made by those who should be leading the fight for civil rights in Maryland, this was not an anti-family bill, but a basic civil rights bill. The failure of this bill goes against Maryland's long history of being in the forefront of civil rights movements.

This attack, which took place in District 8, has been broadcast all over the national news, and the video has gone viral, bringing shame to the State of Maryland for allowing such things to take place. I challenge each of the Senators who voted to recommit HB235 on sine die (see the link at http://mlis.state.md.us/2011rs/votes/senate/1123.htm) to serve as primary sponsors of a stronger version of HB235 in the 2012 legislative session. It is time to rectify the wrong that has been done to transgender citizens of our State.

~~~~~

Related:

* Violence At A Baltimore McDonalds Shows A "Bathroom Bill" Meme Can Have More Than One Meaning

Breaking: Law firm King & Spalding refuses to defend DOMA in court

UPDATE: Reactions are being added as they come in. UPDATE 2: Paul Clement has resigned from K&S. See Update 2 below.

The law firm hired to defend DOMA, King & Spalding, is backing out of the case according to Huff Post reporter Amanda Terkel in a tweet, stating "the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate."

More from Terkel:

The law firm came under intense criticism from LGBT rights advocates last week after House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced that former Bush solicitor general Paul Clement, a partner in the firm, would be defending the law that defines federal marriage as between one man and one woman. The contract for the deal said that the firm would receive as much as $500,000 for their work on the case.

Boehner's decision to have the House intervene and defend DOMA came after Attorney General Eric Holder announced in February that the administration would no longer argue in support of the law after it concluded that the law is unconstitutional.

Last month, a five-person House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group voted along party lines (3-2) to direct the House General Counsel to initiate a legal defense of DOMA.

Last week, Boehner requested the Justice Department hand over "the funds it would have otherwise expended defending the constitutionality of DOMA."

The Politico's Ben Smith has the public statement from the principals at K&S:

King and Spalding Chairman Robert D. Hays, Jr., whose partner Paul Clement was to lead the defense, said in a statement through a spokesman, Les Zuke:

Today the firm filed a motion to withdraw from its engagement to represent the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives on the constitutional issues regarding Section III of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Last week we worked diligently through the process required for withdrawal.

In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate. Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created.

UPDATE: Reaction from Richard Socarides, who appeared on MSNBC last week to pressure King and Spalding on taking the case.

"We commend the partners of King & Spalding for rightly recognizing that their participation in furthering discrimination against gay Americans was unacceptable. All Americans deserve access to an attorney, but attorneys need to be held accountable for the clients they voluntarily decide to represent. Furthermore, Speaker Boehner has an army of in-house legal talent at the House of Representatives who could ably represent his position in court. If he is serious about cutting the deficit he needs to look to his in-house counsel to represent him in these proceedings, instead of spending taxpayer dollars for a service already provided to his office."

Reaction from HRC:

Upon news that the law firm of King & Spalding has filed a motion to withdraw from defense of the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act - Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, issued the following statement:

"King & Spalding has rightly chosen to put principle above politics in dropping its involvement in the defense of this discriminatory and patently unconstitutional law. We are pleased to see the firm has decided to stand on the right side of history and remain true to its core values.

"Speaker Boehner is likely to pursue continued defense of this odious law. However, law firms that value LGBT equality should remain committed to those values."

UPDATE 2: Clement has resigned saying he thought he had the backing of the firm. Whoops! (AJC):

In a letter to Hays, Clement said he was resigning "out of the firmly-held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client's legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. Defending unpopular positions is what lawyers do. The adversary system of justice depends on it, especially in cases where the passions run high."

Clement said he "would have never undertaken this matter unless I believed I had the full backing of the firm." Clement said he has "immense fondness" for his colleagues and the law firm, "but in this instance, my loyalty to the client and respect for the profession must come first."

More reactions below the fold.
Evan Wolfson, Founder and President of Freedom to Marry:  

"In America, every person deserves a defense, but not every position does.  King & Spaulding has recognized what President Obama, the Department of Justice, and many members of Congress have joined Freedom to Marry in concluding: federal marriage discrimination and the so-called 'Defense of Marriage Act' are indefensible."

"Freedom to Marry commends the many voices within the firm and outside, including the Human Rights Campaign, who spoke up against firm's hasty and wrong-headed decision to take on the defense of discrimination.  DOMA is an odious, oppressive law passed to exclude loving and committed couples from equal respect for their marriages; it cannot be defended without reliance on stereotypes and fears that do not stand up under the Constitution.  The House leaders pushing this abuse of taxpayer money to find a hired gun to defend DOMA should follow King & Spaulding's lead and reconsider whether they really want to be on the side of unfairness and the wrong side of history."

Lambda Legal issued the following statement from Legal Director Jon Davidson:

"Today, we learned once again that it is a bad idea to defend antigay bias and discrimination in court, and fewer and fewer people are willing to do it.  We welcome the news that the law firm, King and Spalding, has decided to withdraw from the engagement to represent House leadership in defending DOMA.  We were very surprised and disappointed when King and Spalding accepted this assignment, because they have been supporters of LGBT equality in the past.  We thought we might have to face them in court as adversaries in our case, Golinski v. OPM  - and we were ready to do that. But I guess their sense of justice got the better of them - and that's good news for all of us.  

"Some attorney will no doubt accept this job and defend DOMA in court on behalf of the House leaders - that's the way the legal system works.  We're just glad it is not a law firm that has shown respect and support for their own LGBT attorneys, for our community and for our fight for equality.  We welcome the firm back to the right side of history."

Ex-gay group, Peter Sprigg trying to cause anti-gay havoc in Maryland schools

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

A situation is brewing in a Maryland school district which demonstrates not only the duplicity of the so-called ex-gay movement, but also the Family Research Council.

From the webpage Teach The Facts:

 . . .  the MCPS Citizens Advisory Committee for Family Life and Human Development voted to make some minor changes to the sex-ed curriculum. These changes were actually recommended by a previous citizens advisory committee and rejected by the district in 2007, and now a new committee has asked the Superintendent again to recommend to the Board that they modify the curriculum.

Last year the Maryland chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics sent a letter to the Montgomery County Public Schools noting that some statements that had been recommended for inclusion in the curriculum were rejected, and urged the Board of Education to consider adding the material. The letter was partly a reaction to an anti-gay fake pediatric group contacting the school district. The statements are:

* Homosexuality is not a disease or a mental illness (teachers currently can only say this in response to a question)

* Sexual orientation is not a choice and the American Medical Association opposes "therapies" that seek to change sexual orienation that are premised on the assumption that people can or should change their sexual orientation

* Children raised by same-sex couples do just as well as those raised by heterosexuals, and are no more likely to be homosexual

* Children who have fleeting same-sex attractions may assume incorrectly that they are gay or lesbian. Mere fleeting attraction does not prove orientation.

* Homosexuals can live happy, successful lives; they can be successful parents

The citizens advisory committee voted 9 to 3  . . .  to add these recommendations to the curriculum, removing the words "can or" from the second item.

Naturally some folks aren't happy about this. An ex-gay group, PFOX (Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays) claims that the statements are bashing ex-gays, even though none of the statements say a word about "ex-gays."

PFOX told the American Family Association's One News Now :

. . .the initiative for the statements appears to come from David Fishback, the advocacy chair of Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). That group, says PFOX, "actively supports hate against the ex-gay community" -- and Fishback, the group adds, "has a long history of ex-gay bashing."

Of course PFOX conveniently didn't go into detail just what PFLAG has done to "support hate against ex-gays."

However on its webpage, PFOX says the following about Fishback:

Fishback is the discredited chairman of an earlier Committee which had drafted controversial lessons on homosexuality and condom use that the School Board threw out after a federal court ruling in a lawsuit brought by PFOX. The School Board’s attorneys at that time had reviewed and rejected the statements. Fishback’s illegal curriculum cost Montgomery County taxpayers over $36,000 in legal fees.

However, according to Teach The Facts, Fishback:

chaired a citizens advisory committee that developed a comprehensive sex-ed curriculum for our county. The school district in the end decided not to adopt the curriculum as part of a legal deal to prevent a lawsuit, and also reformed the committee with all new members, including its chair, in accordance with the same settlement agreement. The curriculum was not "illegal" in any sense whatsoever. PFOX and other nutty groups won a temporary restraining order against implementation of the curriculum, and the school district bargained with them to prevent a lawsuit, so they could move forward improving the curriculum.

The site also says the following about PFOX and the legal fees allegedly caused by Fishback:

. . . it is ludicrous for PFOX to say that Fishback cost the county $36,000 in legal fees, when they themselves were the suers.

But the most interesting part of the story comes with the inclusion of another party. From the same article in One News Now:

Peter Sprigg is senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council and a member of the board of directors of PFOX. He represented PFOX on the advisory committee and tells OneNewsNow he was offended by most of the statements -- especially the one condemning individuals who seek therapy for unwanted same-sex attractions.

. . . according to Sprigg, the other statements praise homosexuals as "successful parents" with children who "do just as well as those raised by heterosexuals," and that "homosexuals can live happy, successful lives."

The other statements, says the PFOX representative, "were basically presenting a rosy picture of life as a homosexual without presenting some of the counter-evidence or counter-facts about this lifestyle."

Sprigg said he plans to voice his disapproval at the next school board meeting.

Of course Sprigg didn't go into detail about said "counter evidence." Nor did he say just how he will voice his disapproval at the next school board meeting.

One has to wonder will he repeat the statements that led his organization (the Family Research Council) to be named as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Statements such as:

Homosexuals molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals,Same-sex parents harm children, orHomosexuals don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals.
It would be interesting if he did, seeing that these statements have been refuted or debunked numerous times, including by the SPLC in this piece.

Or will Sprigg cite distorted pieces he wrote, especially one called The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality.

The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality is rife with numerous errors including:

1. Ten Myths repeats the lie that the Robert Spitzer study proves that homosexuality is changeable, excluding the fact that Spitzer has said on more than one occasion that his research was being distorted.

2. Ten Myths utilizes the work of  the organization National Association for  Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). The website Truth Wins Out calls NARTH  a discredited "ex-gay" fringe organization that peddles fraudulent "cures" for homosexuality.

3. Most importantly, Ten Myths intentionally distorts information to make it seem that negative behaviors, i.e. drug and alcohol abuse, are indicative of the lgbt orientation. The pamphlet accomplishes this by citing data in regards to the lgbt community and such negative behaviors while omitting the fact that much of the data places the blame on homophobia for these negative behaviors.

A more detailed break down of Sprigg's errors and deceptions in The Top Ten Myths of Homosexuality is in this Huffington Post article.

As one can see, religious right groups cause chaos not only on the nationwide scene, but also on local scenes.
Sometimes the lgbt community and our allies tend to miss what can happen on these local scenes and it has the potential of coming back to haunt us.

I hope the folks in Montgomery County who support the new sex-education curriculum will not let this happen.

Video: S.C. Tea Party conference attendees are dumb as rocks

What I said on Facebook earlier today:

Jeezus. These people are dumb as rocks...but you know they will vote. This should tell you why you need to get your *ss out to vote.

It's a terrible thing to say about a group of people, but these folks freely gave their birther/Trump/racist opinions without missing a beat. Via Slate's Dave Weigel:

South Carolina Democratic consultant named Tyler Jones took a camera down to the Columbia, S.C. Tea Party rally that Michele Bachmann and Nikki Haley both spoke at.

"I interviewed around 25 people total and probably 75 percent of them said they were supporting Donald Trump," says Jones, "and just about every single person is a birther. I took two hours of footage and chopped it down to six minutes of mind-blowing stuff."

Watch and weep that one of these brain-dead individuals actually says that the U.S. spends too much money on education .