Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 75

An Opportunity For LGBT Community In Maryland

The one thing one can't credibly say at this point is that trans people had anything to do with Maryland's marriage bill being tabled for the year. The Washington Blade, in their pieces Amateur Hour In Maryland House and 'Strategic Blunder Of Monstrous Proportions', have already spelled out some preliminary takes on what happened regarding the marriage equality bill in Maryland, and those takes don't even talk about transgender community. I've also listened to folk here in DC and from Maryland regarding what folks here consider questionable strategic and tactical decisions being made about that marriage equality bill -- none of the individual assessments called out trans people having anything to do with the failure of marriage equality bill to pass through the Maryland House Of Delegates this year.

With marriage equality tabled in Maryland this year, there is an opportunity for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community to pivot to working with transgender community for the ordinary equality of transgender people in Maryland. Here are some ideas can still be done/should still be done/should've been done, but are possibly too late to do now:

• Keep the field directors on the ground from the HRC and Freedom To Marry that were in Maryland for the marriage equality bill -- Just redirect them to work on the marriage equality bill. This would be a wonderful way for the HRC and Freedom To Marry to show that they are supportive of ordinary equality for transgender people.

• Equality Maryland could contact transgender supporters and their intra-LGBT community allies to run a phone bank to call legislators about the HB 235.

• The HRC, Freedom To Marry, the Gill Foundation, and Equality Maryland -- and representatives from other LGBT organizations -- could call up and firm legislators in support for HB 235, and ask those who commit to also commit to sponsoring and/or voting for a transgender public accommodations bill next year.

• The HRC, Freedom To Marry, and Equality Maryland, the Gill Foundation, representatives from other LGBT organizations, and with transgender community members in Maryland, could use their communications staff to begin developing messaging around how public accommodations is being conflated only with "bathroom bill" arguments about transgender people using public restrooms, and how public accommodations is really about not being turned away at a restaurant or market because one is transgender.

• National organizations, such as the HRC, Freedom To Marry, the Gill Foundation, and the Gay And Lesbian Task Force could publicly commit to having field directors on the ground every year on a Maryland gender identity civil rights bill (or bills) that provide employment, housing, and public accommodations protections based on gender identity.

There's lots of opportunity for LGBT people and LGBT non-profits to take action now; there's lots of opportunity to take action now in laying groundwork for the future of transgender (transgender being a subcommunity of the LGBT community) equality in Maryland.

So when Ruth Jacobs of the Citizens For Responsible Government can put out an email today (March 17, 2011) for folks to call their legislators to quash any legislation that includes civil rights for transgender people, and no other organization that has been on the ground in Maryland for the past few weeks working on marriage equality did same thing for a gender identity civil rights bill today...that speaks to better planning and organization by the opposition -- and it speaks to how the opposition seems to have more focused passion against LGBT community's ordinary equality than we do for ordinary equality on our side.

[M]any have the idea that organizing people is very difficult, but it isn't. It becomes difficult only at the point where you begin to see other things that are easier. But if you are willing to give the time and make the sacrifice, it's not that difficult to organize.

~Cesar Chavez

Happy 99th Birthday Bayard Rustin (1912-2011) - and his social justice torch passes to...

Alvin will have a post up later about Bayard Rustin (his initial version is up at his pad now), so I won't cover the historical ground here, but I wanted to acknowledge that it would have been Bayard's 99th birthday today. The civil rights activist, aide to Dr. Martin Luther King -- and openly gay black man -- is such an unheralded hero of the movement, rendered invisible during his lifetime even though he was the architect of the March on Washington.

I recently attended a local screening of Brother Outsider, an amazing documentary about Rustin's life. He was a man ahead of his time:

It chronicles the complicated role Rustin played within the black civil rights movement and the homophobia that rendered him invisible in this doco. Another segment of Brother Outsider shows a debate between Rustin and Malcolm X; it's a must see.

[image error]Hosting the screening was my friend, fellow Durham resident and long-time social justice activist Mandy Carter.

On Wednesday, Mandy delivered the keynote address at the dedication of Guilford College's Bayard Rustin Center for LGBTQA Activism, Awareness and Reconciliation (BRC) in Greensboro, NC. She was the perfect choice for this event. (QNotes):

Carter's four decade-long career in activism began with her participation in King's 1968 Poor Peoples' Campaign, organized by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), which solidified her lifelong commitment to non-violence. Like Rustin, Carter was influenced by the American Friends Service Committee, a humanitarian organization based on Quaker values.

Carter helped found Southerners On New Ground (SONG), which integrates work against homophobia into freedom and civil rights struggles in the South, and the National Black Justice Coalition (NBJC), currently the only national civil rights organization of concened black LGBT people dedicated to fostering equality by ending racism and homophobia. In 2009, the NBJC partnered with the NAACP on LGBT Equality Task Force.

In 2005, Carter was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. On Feb. 12, she received the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina's 2011 Frank Porter Graham Award during their 42nd Annual Frank Porter Awards Ceremony. Carter served on Senator Hillary Clinton's North Carolina LGBT Steering Committee and later was one of the five national co-chairs of Obama Pride, the LGBT grassroots infrastructure for President Barack Obama's 2008 campaign.

And the kudos keep on coming -- Mandy was recently named one of America's Leading Black Women Advocating Change by The Roor. As attendee Sonja Ebron noted, "Mandy is, more than anyone else, Bayard's heir."

And that's important to note in the here and now. We always ask "who are today's leaders?" Well, here's one who took the torch from Rustin -- living out, proud, and working at the grassroots level of our movement for social justice at many levels, including LGBT.

Mandy is also organizing a centennial celebration of Bayard Rustin's life, something that in an election year, with a DNC here in Charlotte, should be worthy of a spotlight.

As we celebrate the achievements of Bayard Rustin and ponder what could have been if times and attitudes had been different then, who can people like Mandy pass the torch to in the next phase of equality for all? In a society so fragmented, polarized and movements fraught with infighting, who is ready to take the torch for the next generation?

Would We Adopt Again?

By Stephanie Huffman and Wendy Rickman

Starting a family is a big decision for any couple, but being a lesbian couple brings a whole new set of challenges, especially since we live in Arkansas. We were able to build the beginnings of our family before the 2008 passage of Act 1, the discriminatory law that bars unmarried couples from adopting or serving as foster parents. Because same-sex couples cannot marry in Arkansas, we are currently barred from adopting or fostering any other children. Which is why we’ve joined with other families and the ACLU to challenge the ban.

Both of us were born and raised here. Neither of us have a desire to leave the state. We love its beauty, its quiet serenity, and the amazing people who reside here in the Natural State. The socially conservative climate does make it difficult at times, however. Knowing these challenges, we prepared ourselves as well as any hopeful to-be-parent. We never imagined, nor were we prepared, for the journey that lay before us.

How did we build our family? We both had a desire to adopt and for Wendy to pursue pregnancy. We both felt there was a great need in our country for children to be adopted, for someone to care for and to love them. We knew our chances were slim, but continued to pray that things would work out for our family.

On a lovely morning in March 2003, we discovered that after numerous attempts, Wendy was pregnant. I continued completing the adoption process. In late August 2003, we heard about Tyler, a child in foster care. This child had an extremely difficult beginning. He had been exposed to cocaine in the womb, and was born after 32 weeks gestation weighing 3 ½  pounds. He was rushed to Arkansas Children’s Hospital where he was pronounced dead. Yet, he is a fighter. A nurse, checking on him one last time, found a heartbeat. God was with him.

He suffered a major brain hemorrhage. He has bilateral hearing loss. He has hydrocephalous. He was labeled a “failure to thrive” baby and had a gastric feeding tube. These were just some of the issues he faced in his life. We were asked if we would consider him for placement in our home.

When completing the adoption paperwork, we were asked via an inventory list, what disabilities or characteristics we would not consider for adopting a child. After a long discussion about labels, we decided to only check one box, i.e., cruelty to animals. At the time, we had two Shih Tzus we considered as our four-legged children. While we do understand why some choose to check boxes on the list, our decision was based on how each of us might be labeled if we were a child in state care being considered for adoption. Might others see us as a challenge who would be difficult to raise? Our decision was made easier because of our faith that God would not give us more than we could handle.

Tyler, was placed with us in October. Keegan, our youngest, was born a week before Thanksgiving. In two months, we had a newborn and a two-year old, both with their own health issues. The coming year was fraught with ups and downs. Keegan, who had experienced a uneventful nine months in the womb, turned out to have a severe milk protein allergy. We went through multiple types of formula and tests. We had a brief visit to the hospital with Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). He was allergic to most everything and caught most viruses. Tyler, though, began to thrive. Six months after he came to live with us, he was eating solid foods and his gastric tube was removed.

We survived the first year of parenthood like any new parents with the love and support of our family and friends.

Seven years later, Tyler has undergone surgery to insert four cranial shunts to help control his hydrocephalous. While we have achieved major goals academically and with Tyler’s health issues, we have had multiple setbacks with his emotional and cognitive development. He continues to be our little fighter, taking on these hurdles and bravely conquering them when many would accept defeat. Keegan quickly rebounded from his early health struggles and fearlessly makes the world his own domain. We know he faces challenges as he gets older, growing up with two mothers and a brother with disabilities. His strength and character are beyond his years.

Our “village” of family and friends have meant a lot to both of us. As well as our church home. Our boys are healthy and happy, which is really what we all want as parents. We bounce from school to work to soccer for both boys, basketball, baseball, going to the beach, going camping and boating, and going to Disney World. We study for spelling tests, attend parent-teacher conferences, and go to classroom parties. We are the luckiest parents in the world. We have learned more from our children than they will ever learn from us. Their spirit and strength and inner beauty are amazing.

Would we do it again? Yes. But until the adoption ban is lifted, we don’t have that option. After a victory in the Pulaski County Circuit Court, it’s now up to the Arkansas Supreme Court to end this discriminatory ban once and for all. No child should be denied the chance to have a permanent, loving home.

Media ignores lgbt youth in story about Christian foster parents

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

A recent case in Great Britain about foster parenting and lgbts have some of the right practically salivating in terms of how they can exploit the situation. And as it turns out, they got it all wrong. What's worse is how the mainstream media pushed the story.

This the scenario laid out:

Owen and Eunice Johns of Derby, England, were told by judges sitting in the High Court in London that gay equality laws must "take precedence" over the rights of Christians to act in line with their faith.

The couple, who have fostered 15 children, had sought a judicial review of a 2009 decision by the Derby City Council to defer their application to be approved as short-term, respite, foster caregivers because of their views on sexual morality.

The judges were asked to consider the abstract question of whether public authorities should consider applicants' views on sexual ethics when deciding to approve them as foster parents.

The judges stated that Christian beliefs on sexual ethics may be "inimical" to children and implicity upheld a submission by the publicly funded Equality and Human Rights Commission that children risked being "infected" by Christian moral beliefs.

If children are placed with parents who have traditional Christian views, "there may well be a conflict with the local authority's duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children," the judges said.

The "discriminated Christian" angle is taking up all of the attention in the media. The following are the headlines laid out by various news sources:

British court rules couple too Christian to care for kids ‎ - USA Today
Pentecostal couple find no comfort in the High Court ‎ - Church Times

And several other articles feature personal exposes of the couple complete with pictures of the two in either a loving embrace or holding hands.

However it would seem that a lot of folks went for the senationalistic appeal of this story and did not bother to do suitable background work.

 

According to blogger Gavin Drake:

For a start, the couple had not been banned from adopting or fostering – the City Council’s social services and children’s panel hadn’t made a decision about whether or not Eunice and Owen Johns would make suitable foster parents. But, after social workers asked questions about how their Christian views would affect their response to a child who said they were gay; the couple and the council decided to make a joint application to the High Court for guidance.

And according to Robert Pigott, BBC News religious affairs correspondent:

The case is likely to be seen as a landmark decision, as senior judges ruled so decisively against any idea that attitudes might be justified purely because they were Christian in origin.

The court discriminated between kinds of Christianity, saying that Christians in general might well make good foster parents, while people with traditionalist Christian views like Mr and Mrs Johns might well not.

Such views, said the judges, might conflict with the welfare of children.

And why would that be? Well one could easily see when reading the summary of the decision, particularly the part regarding how in 2007, the couple was assessed by Jenny Shaw, an independent social worker:

Referring to the discussion on 23 July 2007, Ms Shaw said:

"both Eunice and Owen expressed strong views on homosexuality, stating that it is "against God's laws and morals". They explained that these views stemmed from their religious convictions and beliefs. Eunice explained at a later interview, that she had always been brought up to believe that having a different sexual orientation was unnatural and wrong, and that these convictions had not come about as a result of being "saved".

In our initial discussion on this issue, when asked if, given their views, they would be able to support a young person who, for example was confused about their sexuality, the answer was in the negative. Eunice at this time also mentioned a visit she had made to San Francisco, in relation to it being a city with many gay inhabitants. She commented that she did not like it and felt uncomfortable while she was there."

They are also recorded as telling Ms Shaw that they would not feel able to take a child to a mosque.

Then there is this discussion:

Referring to a subsequent discussion with Mrs Johns on 7 August 2007 (Mr Johns was not there) Ms Shaw said:

"I expressed my concerns regarding their views on homosexuality and said that I felt that these did not equate with the Fostering Standards where they related to the need to value diversity, address a child's needs in relation to their sexuality, enhance the child's feeling of self-worth and help the child to deal with all forms of discrimination. I emphasised the need for carers to value people regardless of their sexual orientation. Eunice responded by saying that she could not compromise her beliefs, but that she did value people as individuals and would be able to support a young person on that basis. Eunice informed me that her nephew, who lived in the U.S., is gay, and that she has been to stay with him and his partner, and had not treated them any differently from anyone else.

I discussed with Eunice, four possible scenarios, and asked how she might support the young person:

1 Someone who is confused about their sexuality and thinks they may be gay.

2 A young person who is being bullied in school regarding their sexual orientation.

3 A young person who bullies others regarding the above.

4 Someone in their care whose parents are gay.

Eunice's response to the first situation was that she would support any child. She did not offer any explanation as to how she would go about this. On a previous occasion when the question had been put to Owen, he responded by saying that he would "gently turn them round". In the second situation, Eunice said she would give reassurance and tell the child to ignore it.

In response to the third situation, Eunice said she didn't know what she would do. In the case of someone whose parents are gay, Eunice said that it wouldn't matter, and that she would work with any one."

She recorded her judgement as being that "Eunice's response to these hypothetical situations was somewhat superficial, and ignored the impact that her strong beliefs on the issue, could have on her work with young people." However, at a much earlier stage in the process Mrs Johns had assured a social worker that she would never seek to impose her belief system on a child or to denigrate the parents for their lifestyle or sexual orientation.

Mr Johns's response to the first postulated scenario is, it might be thought, particularly revealing. There can be no doubting the meaning and significance of his reference to "turning" such a child round.

My point is that no one did any critical work to get the full story. Of course those on the right - i.e. the National Organization for Marriage, the American Family Association - don't give a damn about lgbt children, so there is some expectancy that these groups will overlook that cruical factor - i.e. what harm could being in this household do to an lgbt child.

But for the mainstream media, such lack of attention to a crucial part of the story is irresponsible. Whether or not these couple is being discriminated against is only part of the story.  What harm could their environment do to an lgbt child is another part of the same story and as far as I'm concerned, it's the important part.

And it's the part which no one seems to care about.

To me, that's sad.

'Bishop' Eddie Long's church attendance is down; brings layoffs, pay cuts

The worm turns. Eddie Long's New Birth Church has laid off two members of its staff and has instituted a "pilot program" of a 10% pay cut for the rest of the staff as well as cutting to a 4-day work week.

Internal church records, obtained by the FOX 5 I-Team show that New Birth Missionary Baptist Church collected nearly $20 million last year with more than a million dedicated specifically for Bishop Long.

The I-Team was first to tell you how Jamal Parris and three other young men filed a sexual misconduct suit against Bishop Long and his New Birth Missionary Baptist church. In all four of the law suits, Bishop Long denied any sexual activity.

I-Team: Pay Cuts at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church: MyFoxATLANTA.com

Then, another scandal rocked the church when the Bishop publicly declared members of his congregation may have lost more than a $1 million to an investment advisor named Ephren Taylor, after Taylor conducted workshops at New Birth. Ephren Taylor says he's done nothing wrong and is working to resolve or refund any issues with New Birth investors.

The remaining flock at this hypocrite's church must be completely brainwashed.

NY bigot eruption - U.S. House candidate: Latinos should be deported; blacks bused in to pick crops

I don't think it will be a surprise to you that Jack Davis is a Republican. But man, the masks these creeps have on drop so fast these days - Haley Barbour's GOP moonshine must have replaced the GOP Kool-Aid.

Congressional candidate Jack Davis shocked local Republican leaders in a recent interview when he suggested that Latino farmworkers be deported -- and that African-Americans from the inner city be bused to farm country to pick the crops.

Several sources who were in the Feb. 20 endorsement interview with Davis confirmed his comments, which echo those he made to the Tonawanda News in 2008, when he said: "We have a huge unemployment problem with black youth in our cities. Put them on buses, take them out there [to the farms] and pay them a decent wage; they will work."

..."I was thunderstruck," said Amherst GOP Chairman Marshall Wood. "Maybe in 1860 that might have been seen by some as an appropriate comment, but not now."

When you shock the state GOP chair, it might be time to rethink running. Then again this is the race to

Lobbying With Transgender Community

From the 13th through the 15th of March in Washington DC, the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) sponsored Transgender Lobby Days. The event has been occurring annually for a number of years, but this is the first year I've attended.

On the 13th and 14th, there were a number of speakers that came to talk to we citizen lobbyists, including the Brian Bond, the Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, Sadie Rayne Vashti of the DC Trans Coalition, Aaron Tax and Elizabeth Shirey of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), Becky Monroe and Kelly Collins-McMurray of the Department of Justice's Community Relations Service, and...well, I could go on for quite awhile with who spoke to the citizen lobbyists gathered.

One speaker -- Kathy Greenlee, Assistant Secretary for Aging at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) -- announced that HHS has a new antidiscrimination policy that includes gender identity. From that we can infer which direction the Obama Administration is heading regarding regulations that include gender identity.

NCTE's Executive Director and Staff -- Mara Keisling, Stephanie White, Justin Tanis, and Harper Jean Tobin -- as well as Sadie Rayne Vashti of the DC Trans Coalition, were all key organizers for the lobbying effort. The actual training for the lobbying effort began on the 14th, and for us west coasties the Transgender Law Center's (TLC's) Masen Davis and Gretchen Lintner were key players involved in training and organizing our state contingents. Our main ask was on the yet to be introduced Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) bills for the 2011/2012 legislative sessions of the House and Senate.

Some of us citizen lobbyists had easier congressmembers and senators to lobby than others -- based on previous years' lobbying efforts, as well as the previous behavior involving previous sponsorship of ENDA, how the individual congressmembers and senators have voted in the past on the bill.

We had a small contingent of seven Californians, and the congressmembers and senators we had to lobby are already our allies. Bren Breithaupt -- one of the seven of us -- and I have as our congressmember Susan Davis. As a sponsor of the bill, here's Rep. Davis speaking on the floor of the house for a fully inclusive ENDA in 2007, telling the personal story of my friend Vicki Estrada -- who besides being a landscape architect and contract city planner is a transgender woman:

Bren and I spoke with Susan Swink, Rep. Davis's  Senior Legislative Assistant. We presented the that their is a transgender employment problem, our personal stories relating to the problem of employment discrimination, and our ask for Rep. Davis -- which wasn't to vote for the bill, or be a sponsor of the bill as those thing she was already going to do. Our ask of Rep. Davis was "Is there anything you need us to do to help this bill pass into law?" Suzanne Swink told us she and Rep. Davis could use more personal stories of discrimination. So, when I get back to San Diego, I'll ask my transgender friends to forward any stories they have regarding employment discrimination.

We also thanked Rep. Davis, though her Senior Legislative assistant, for her continued sponsorship of a fully inclusive ENDA.

Our broader contingent of seven lobbyists also spoke to Counsel Lane Dilg of Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office, and senior Counsel Derrick Brent of Senator Barbara Boxer's office with the talking post and ask. In all cases, they wanted to here more stories of discrimination by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.

So, that's what I'd recommend for y'all to do in your home districts. Make appointments with your congressmember and/or senators -- or one of their staff members -- talking about ENDA, and perhaps ENDA, the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and the Student Non-Discrimination Act, in your congressmembers and/or senators in state offices. Tell them what the problem is, tell them a personal story relating to problem, and then make an ask related to the legislation. And if they're going to vote for the bill, or sponsor the bill, then tell them "Thank you. We appreciate your support."

Even our friends who are all sponsors of ENDA -- such as my congressmember and my two senators --  need to know we still care about LGBT legislation. They also need to hear that we need our friends in Congress to be as proactive as possible on our community issues.

If we don't do the work -- if we don't do the citizen lobbying to lay the ground work for ordinary equality -- then we should in some part blame ourselves for the lack of progress on our national LGBT community issues.

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

~Martin Luther King Jr.

Financially strapped Crystal Cathedral asks choir to sign anti-gay covenant

Ya think an adultery or mixed fiber-wearing covenant's next? Nah.

Choir members at the financially troubled Crystal Cathedral say they are upset by a covenant they have been asked to sign that places a strong emphasis on them being heterosexual and Christian.

The covenant states: "I understand that in an era where images of family relationship and personal sexuality are often confused, Crystal Cathedral Ministries believes that it is important to teach and model the biblical view. I understand that Crystal Cathedral Ministries teaches that sexual intimacy is intended by God to only be within the bonds of marriage, between one man and one woman."

...Sheila Schuller Coleman, daughter of the founder and senior pastor of the Crystal Cathedral, issued a statement Tuesday saying the document is intended to "clarify expectations placed on them as ministry leaders."

Related:

* Op-ed by NC minister blows away the 'one-man, one-woman marriage' bible beaters

Rep. Nadler introduces DOMA repeal bill; 95 GOP bigots back resolution demanding Obama defend it

Today Rep Jerry Nadler (D-NY) reintroduced the Respect for Marriage Act to repeal DOMA.

Now, as we continue the struggle for equality, the question at hand is not IF Congress will repeal DOMA but WHEN. I can imagine the day when my future grandchildren will ask, "so what was the big deal about gay marriage anyway?" But, until we get there, we must continue to fight. Please say "I DO Support the Respect for Marriage Act"; sign my petition, and stay informed about my efforts toward marriage equality for all Americans. Thank you for all that you do to make equality a reality.

On the other side of the political fence, we have a nice list of the 95 homophobes who want the President to defend DOMA. Joe @ Americablog:

The way, way too gay-obsessed freshman Congresswoman from Missouri, Vicky Hartzler, introduced a resolution demanding that the President defend DOMA. She's got all the real whackos on her side, of course, from Steve King to Michele Bachmann. As of this morning there are 94 co-sponsors. This list pretty much comprises the biggest homophobes in the U.S. House of Representatives. They're all Republicans. The list is also an indication that the newly elected teabaggers are not just focused on fiscal issues. A number of the cosponsors are freshmen (for example, Sean Duffy (WI), Kristi Noem (SD), Tim Scott (GA) and many more.) So, yeah, the teabaggers are hard-core right-wingers on social issues, too.

Here's the list - NC Congresscritters below are highlighted - how many of you are represented by the homophobes here ?

Rep Adams, Sandy [FL-24] - 3/11/2011

Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 3/8/2011

Rep Austria, Steve [OH-7] - 3/11/2011

Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] - 3/8/2011

Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] - 3/8/2011

Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 3/8/2011

Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] - 3/11/2011

Rep Benishek, Dan [MI-1] - 3/11/2011

Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 3/8/2011

Rep Black, Diane [TN-6] - 3/11/2011

Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 3/8/2011

Rep Brooks, Mo [AL-5] - 3/8/2011

Rep Buerkle, Ann Marie [NY-25] - 3/8/2011

Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 3/15/2011

Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 3/8/2011

Rep Canseco, Francisco "Quico" [TX-23] - 3/15/2011

Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 3/8/2011

Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] - 3/15/2011

Rep Coffman, Mike [CO-6] - 3/15/2011

Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] - 3/8/2011

Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] - 3/11/2011

Rep Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" [AR-1] - 3/11/2011

Rep Denham, Jeff [CA-19] - 3/8/2011

Rep DesJarlais, Scott [TN-4] - 3/8/2011

Rep Duffy, Sean P. [WI-7] - 3/15/2011

Rep Duncan, Jeff [SC-3] - 3/8/2011

Rep Ellmers, Renee L. [NC-2] - 3/11/2011

Rep Fincher, Stephen Lee [TN-8] - 3/11/2011

Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] - 3/11/2011

Rep Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck" [TN-3] - 3/8/2011

Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] - 3/11/2011

Rep Flores, Bill [TX-17] - 3/8/2011

Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] - 3/15/2011

Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 3/11/2011

Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 3/8/2011

Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 3/15/2011

Rep Gibbs, Bob [OH-18] - 3/8/2011

Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 3/8/2011

Rep Gowdy, Trey [SC-4] - 3/8/2011

Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] - 3/11/2011

Rep Graves, Tom [GA-9] - 3/11/2011

Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] - 3/8/2011

Rep Griffith, H. Morgan [VA-9] - 3/15/2011

Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 3/15/2011

Rep Harris, Andy [MD-1] - 3/11/2011

Rep Huelskamp, Tim [KS-1] - 3/8/2011

Rep Huizenga, Bill [MI-2] - 3/8/2011

Rep Hultgren, Randy [IL-14] - 3/11/2011

Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] - 3/11/2011

Rep Johnson, Bill [OH-6] - 3/11/2011

Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 3/8/2011

Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 3/11/2011

Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] - 3/8/2011

Rep Kelly, Mike [PA-3] - 3/11/2011

Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 3/8/2011

Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 3/11/2011

Rep Labrador, Raul R. [ID-1] - 3/15/2011

Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] - 3/11/2011

Rep Lankford, James [OK-5] - 3/15/2011

Rep Latta, Robert E. [OH-5] - 3/8/2011

Rep Luetkemeyer, Blaine [MO-9] - 3/11/2011

Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] - 3/15/2011

Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 3/11/2011

Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 3/11/2011

Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] - 3/8/2011

Rep McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" [CA-25] - 3/11/2011

Rep McKinley, David B. [WV-1] - 3/11/2011

Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [WA-5] - 3/8/2011

Rep Mulvaney, Mick [SC-5] - 3/8/2011

Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] - 3/11/2011

Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 3/11/2011

Rep Noem, Kristi L. [SD] - 3/11/2011

Rep Nunnelee, Alan [MS-1] - 3/11/2011

Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] - 3/11/2011

Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2] - 3/8/2011

Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 3/11/2011

Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 3/8/2011

Rep Pompeo, Mike [KS-4] - 3/11/2011

Rep Roby, Martha [AL-2] - 3/11/2011

Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] - 3/8/2011

Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 3/8/2011

Rep Rokita, Todd [IN-4] - 3/11/2011

Rep Ross, Dennis [FL-12] - 3/11/2011

Rep Schmidt, Jean [OH-2] - 3/11/2011

Rep Scott, Austin [GA-8] - 3/15/2011

Rep Scott, Tim [SC-1] - 3/11/2011

Rep Southerland, Steve [FL-2] - 3/11/2011

Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 3/8/2011

Rep Stutzman, Marlin A. [IN-3] - 3/11/2011

Rep Walberg, Tim [MI-7] - 3/11/2011

Rep Walsh, Joe [IL-8] - 3/8/2011

Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 3/8/2011

Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 3/11/2011

Rep Woodall, Rob [GA-7] - 3/11/2011

Focus on the Family's love for anti-gay bullies

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Focus on the Family does not like President Obama's focus on preventing bullying. The main reason of course is because the needs of lgbt youth are talked about and as we know, anything which deals with lgbts in a positive manner gives organizations like Focus on the Family "the vapors."

Focus on the Family has spoken out against President Obama's actions.

However, as Jeremy Hooper from Goodasyou points out, it's not just how the organization wants everyone to sidestep the needs of lgbt students when it comes to stopping bullying, it's who the group is calling to assist in it's subterfuge:

The Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber.

Now for those who do not know, Barber isn't just anti-gay. He expresses opposition to the lgbt community sometimes in a manner so vindictive that he can give Fred Phelps pause. Hooper breaks it down a little:

But as for Matt, who doesn't even work for FOtF? Well let's look at some of what he's put on record. There was the time Matt said that gay male relationships constitute "one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love’”; the time Matt called President Barack Obama an anti-american enemy; the time he accused Obama and Barney Frank of being anti-religious bigots; the time he suggested there are "sinister motives" in the Obama White House; the time he agreed with TVC's Andrea Lafferty that homosexuality is "among a litany of...sexual deviances" that include things like sex with an amputee's stump and sexual behavior involving feces and urine; the time he likened pro-equality progressives to Fred "God Hates F*gs" Phelps; the time he referred to marriage equality advocates as "purveyors of evil"; the time he compared gay unions to marrying a house plant; the time he said Ellen Degeneres "guides her many adoring housewife fans into rebellion against God's divine and explicit natural order"; the time he called Google "satanic" for supporting marriage equality; the time he accused gay-friendly media outlets of trying "to make the absurd appear reasonable and normal"; the time he referred to the Muslim faith as "Satanic";etc., etc. More than just about anyone in the "pro-family" world (with the possible exception of Bryan Fisher), Matt has made the choice to go as personal, as negative, as hyperbolic, and as wantonly hurtful as humanly inhumanely possible. He does this on the daily. 

 

And let's not forget the following tweets in which Barber shows his "love" for the lgbt community (Editor's note - you may see a message saying the Barber is "protecting his tweets." Kinda proves my point, doesn't it?):

 January 14, 2011: “Look pal, you won’t be able to ‘ask’ or ‘tell’ if you don’t get your hand off my knee! http://yfrog.com/h4d67zoj

 January 25, 2011: Soldiers, does your foxhole buddy have your back or want to rub it?

 January 29, 2011: Drudge:”Man Subjected To Body Cavity Search At Traffic Stop.” Other News: “Barney Frank Waves Down Police in Traffic.” http://tiny.cc/spo05

 January 30, 2011: DADT repeal implementation underway. “Slap fighting” & “tickle parties” to be added to special forces training. http://tiny.cc/jfcdx

 January 31, 2011: She-male model stirs Brazil fashion show. In other news: Man buys Rolex & discovers it’s a knock-off. http://bit.ly/gxcfVW

January 31, 2011: SNL skit mocking Tranny inanity has homosexual activists fuming (warning: a little crude) http://bit.ly/ewYd0A

 February 1, 2011: Queering the Marines: From morally upright 2 immorally down-low. From semper fidelis 2 limp-wristed fellas http://bit.ly/fBcuqH

 February 23, 2011: Today’s Army: Trannies, drag queens & she-males, oh my! http://tinyurl.com/6kcrssb

 February 25, 2011: The homofascist bullying & brainwashing begins: “Combat troops to get gay sensitivity training:” http://bit.ly/dKqh4b

A little advice to Focus on the Family - if you are going to speak against President Obama's anti-bullying initiative, perhaps its best not to seek aid from a man whose comments sound like they have been uttered from your typical school bully.

Related post - Focus On The Family Dubs Anti-Bullying Programs “Pro-Homosexual Curriculum”

Hat tip to Goodasyou and Asterik.