alvinmcewen
Log in to comment or register to create your own blog
Here we go again. We've seen this so many times. A national figure disrespects the gay community. That's the first act and today, it features nationally known pastor Rick Warren. Recently, he said the following to Piers Morgan on CNN
WARREN: Here’s what we know about life. I have all kinds of natural feelings in my life and it doesn’t necessarily mean that I should act on every feeling. Sometimes I get angry and I feel like punching a guy in the nose. It doesn’t mean I act on it. Sometimes I feel attracted to women who are not my wife. I don’t act on it. Just because I have a feeling doesn’t make it right. Not everything natural is good for me. Arsenic is natural.
Now allow me to predict what will probably happen next:
Act II - The gay community, justifiably insulted by the comments, will make our displeasure known.
Act III - Rick Warren will play the victim by either whining about how the gay community is intolerant of his opinion of them as arsenic. Groups like the Family Research Council will hail him as "standing on Biblical principles," and the entire situation will be looked at as us gay folks not being accepting of "someone else's point of view."
What always gets my goat is how when public figures attack the gay community, they are always quick to be technically dishonest and plead ennui. They refuse to acknowledge that they are attacking an actual group of people. Not a lifestyle, not state of being, but real people with real families.
Gays are not puppy dogs who should be "tolerated" or "condoned."
Gays are not hypothetical entities.
Gays are not streams of arguments in a philosophy class.
It's insulting enough when folks like Warren make such awful statements about our lives. It's even worse when after their attacks, they dismiss our basic and normal reaction of righteous indignation as "intolerance."
It's as if they don't think we are human beings and should instead take their insults with a good natured smile.
In regards to the recent election when voters approved marriage equality measures in Maryland, Washington state, and Maine and defeated an anti-marriage equality constitutional amendment in Minnesota, the one thing that will not be talked about but needs to be discussed is the utter failure of the National Organization for Marriage's attempt to play the black and gay communities against each other.
We've witnessed the organization garnering much success with this tactic in the past, most recently in North Carolina. However on election day, the tactic failed miserably. The following are three reasons why NOM's strategy failed:
1. The wedge strategy becomes public - Ironically enough, the seeds of yesterday's embarrassment were sowed in March of this year when lgbt bloggers (myself included) published a secret memo from the National Organization of Marriage detailing how the organization plotted to specifically divide the gay and black communities by seeking out black spokespeople to publicly speak out against marriage equality in hopes of using these spokespeople as targets for the ire of gays:
The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks - two key democratic constituencies. We aim to find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; to develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; and to provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party.
Marriage equality supporters long suspected that the partnership between NOM and the black leaders who supported their cause was less noble than suspected (at least on NOM's part) and this memo confirmed it. While the revelation was too late to save NC from falling to an anti-marriage equality vote, the constant mention of this memo in later articles and interviews every time NOM trotted out a black leader to speak against marriage equality could have proved ultimately devastating because it was a constant reminder to the African-American community that NOM was using them.
2. NOM overestimated its power - Though the National Organization for Marriage never publicly declared it to be so, the organization had a lot to do with the plan of asking African-Americans to withhold their votes. While the front organization for this plot was the Coalition of African-American Pastors, it wasn't too difficult to discover that the leader of CAAP, Bill Owens, was NOM's religious liasion and that he was on salary with NOM. It was a plot that was doomed to failure from the start and it gave an indication of what NOM truly thought about the black community and the civil rights movement. NOM seems to have thought that they could trot out several black pastors who would tell African-Americans what to do and that the community would follow lockstep. One of the biggest misconceptions about black people is that we are ruled by what pastors say. While we see pastors as spiritual advisors, we are not monolithic. And we are also not stupid to note simple irony. Or more specifically, allow me to reveal a few questions that ran through the mind of black Americans - What's more insulting to the legacy of the civil rights movement? Marriage equality or refusing to vote even though a hallmark of the civil rights movement was to receive the right to vote in the first place? What's more of an insult to Fannie Lou Hamer, Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner and the thousands of people beaten or killed for American-Americans to be able to vote? Marriage equality or refusing to vote at all. These were two questions which NOM conveniently did not address, but trust me when I say that they ran through the minds of millions of African-Americans.
3. The Obama factor - Let's be honest. There was no way in the world that black people were going to miss this election. People can gripe about black people voting for Obama simply because he is black but you know what? Big deal. So what. That was only a small portion of it. The fact of the matter is that Obama is a very popular person in the black community. He has passed legislation that many African-Americans considered important. In my church, when the Supreme Court declared Obamacare to be legal, several folks called that decision an "act of God." He has been personalized as a brother, son, or comrade by millions of African-Americans, which means many African-Americans took what they felt disrespect given to him very personally. When AZ governor Jan Brewer had that argument with him on the tarmac, all I heard in my community, particularly from old black women, was how dare she stick her finger in his face. To us, Obama became the personification of the trials and tribulations that African-Americans face in this country, i.e. no matter how intelligent we are or how successful we become, there will be always folks who will look at us as if we are second-class citizens and will treat us accordingly. Every time Fox News came out with something ugly about Obama or the tea party marched with their signs, it sent a message to black folks; messages that while we didn't make any noise about, we quietly noted. And we didn't forget. To those not supporting marriage equality, standing against it played second fiddle to supporting "our president." And when he announced his support of marriage equality, it wasn't a strong enough factor for him to lose support in the black community. We either rationalized his support away or began to take a second look at the issue. In other words, Obama is so strong of a hero in the black community, NOM's plans to make him a pariah was doomed from the start.
Check out this nauseating tweet from the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins:
What Perkins is referring to is the Ugandan anti-gay bill which would give persecute people in that country simply for being gay. This awful bill may pass the Ugandan Parliament very soon. When it initially introduced, the bill contained a provision for the death penalty. According to Think Progress:
Many news outlets — notably the BBC, among others — reported last week that lawmakers had dropped the death penalty provision, but without confirmation of a language change, it’s impossible to conclude whether this is another bait-and-switch that basically isn’t true.
According to the BBC, “substantial amendments” were made, but MP Medard Segona could provide no further details. It is just such a proposed amendment that has repeatedly caused confusion about the fate of the death penalty in the bill, replacing the word “death” with a reference to a preexisting Penal Code Act that does allow for the death penalty. Homosexuality is already illegal in Uganda; the sole purpose of this bill is to enhance the extent of the punishment and number of ways offenses can be prosecuted. It is irresponsible to suggest that the death penalty has been removed without a thorough investigation of the bill’s new language.
Think Progress also points out that the site Box Turtle Bulletin "dissected the bill" and found some alarming facts, including:
- Clauses 1 and 2: Anybody Can Be Gay Under the Law. The definition of what constitutes “homosexual act” is so broad that just about anyone can be convicted.
- Clause 3: Anyone Can Be “Liable To Suffer Death”. And you don’t even have to be gay to be sent to the gallows.
- Clause 4: Anyone Can “Attempt to Commit Homosexuality”. All you have to do is “attempt” to “touch” “any part of of the body” “with anything else” “through anything” in an act that does “not necessarily culminate in intercourse.”
- Clauses 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10: How To Get Out Of Jail Free. The bill is written to openly encourage — and even pay — one partner to turn state’s evidence against another.
- Clauses 7, 11, and 14: Straight People In The Crosshairs. Did you think they only wanted to jail gay people? They’re also targeting family members, doctors, lawyers, and even landlords.
- Clause 12: Till Life Imprisonment Do You Part. And if you officiate a same-sex wedding, you’ll be imprisoned for up to three years. So much for religious freedom.
- Clause 13: The Silencing of the Lambs. All advocacy — including suggesting that the law might be repealed — will land you in jail. With this clause, there will be no one left to defend anyone.
- Clause 14: The Requirement Isn’t To Report Just Gay People To Police. It’s To Report Everyone. Look closely: the requirement is to report anyone who has violated any the bill’s clauses.
But apparently Perkins and FRC doesn't see this as persecution. That's bad enough.
However, we get into seriously ugly territory when we see the following on FRC's homepage:
If, while on FRC's homepage, you clicked on that graphic, you would be taken to a page entitled The Cry of the Martyrs: The Threat to Religious Liberty Around the World.
The page includes a webcast and information and links regarding the worldwide persecution of Christians worldwide. One link, Voice of the Martyrs, includes stories of Christians being persecuted in other countries. The page is also called A Global Perspective on the Persecution of God's Children.
That confuses me. I thought we were all God's children.
Let me be clear. No one should be attacked or persecuted because of their religious beliefs. And by that same token, no one should be attacked or persecuted because of their sexual orientation.
Hate is hate and violence fueled by that hate is just as wrong when it is aimed at a Christian, a gay or lesbian, or a gay or lesbian Christian.
There is no difference between the two. And any true Christian person or organization would recognize this.
So perhaps Perkins and FRC would be best advised to hush up before they drown out the voices of the true Christians.
Hypocrisy on its own is bad enough. Brazen hypocrisy, particularly on the part of people calling themselves Christians, leaves an especially pungent stench.
“We are proud to endorse Mitt Romney for president,” (NOM President Brian) Brown said. “Gov. Romney was an early signer of NOM’s presidential pledge which represents his commitment to the nation to take specific actions as president to preserve and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” In August, Romney was among the candidates who signed a pledge from NOM committing himself to back a Federal Marriage Amendment, defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court and establish a commission on “religious liberty” to investigate the alleged harassment of same-sex marriage supporters. “Now is the time for all people who recognize the importance of marriage to come together to support a true champion, Mitt Romney, against an incumbent who has done virtually everything in his power to undermine the institution of marriage,” Brown continued.The goal of the CAAP protest (which NOM has so generously proven) is not to take a stand against marriage equality. Nor is it to get President Obama to rescind his support of marriage equality. The point of the CAAP protest is to generate a hostile division between gays and blacks which would help Romney get elected. And don't be fooled by Owens and other pastors in the video. Odds that they are in on the con. So as it becomes clear that this protest is yet another attempt by NOM to divide the black and gay communities, we must insist that the media not approach this story half-assed. We must state and insist with every chance we get that the media take the time to tell the ENTIRE story. Granted, I don't see this strategy working because black folks aren't monolithic. We don't buck every time a pastor says "jump." But educating people on what's going on with this astroturfed protest would go a long way to prove that while the black and gay communities may have different struggles to reach our goals of equality, we generally have the same enemies with the same mindsets. They see us as either pawns or less than nothing. It's time that African-Americans and gays stop fighting each other over the subject of marriage equality and recognize when these enemies are trying to exploit us. Hat tip to Jeremy Hooper.
 |
| William Owens |
The Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP), headed by Rev. William Owens of Memphis, Tenn., said that the NAACP had abandoned its core mission by supporting same-sex marriage. "This is supposed to be an organization for black people who were beaten, who were mistreated and who were enslaved," Owens told The Huffington Post. "You're advocating for something that's not normal, that's not natural. It's still out of line, it's against moral law."Owens and CAAP is asking that African-Americans withhold their votes until supposedly this issue is resolved. Personally I think that asking African-Americans to withhold our votes is a worse insult to the civil rights movement than marriage equality. Many people have been beaten and killed for us to have that simple right to vote so I have a serious problem with anyone attempting to speak for our community in that regard. And I also think that this story needs a bit of levity before it blows up - and it will. Owens and his Coalition of African-American Pastors have a history participating in anti-gay actions. In 2007, he was involved in campaign which falsely claimed that adding gays under present hate crimes legislation would lead to pastors being arrested in their pulpits if they called homosexuality a sin. The following full page ad ran in a DC newspaper:
. . . the Hate Crimes Prevention Act only addresses violent crimes causing “bodily injury” – not speech, not preaching.A larger copy of the ad can be seen here. The Don't Muzzle Our Pulpits campaign was led by Bishop Harry Jackson’s High Impact Leadership Coalition. The People for the American Way published a huge expose on Jackson, accusing him of being a point man for a wedge strategy of dividing the black and gay communities: Apparently Owens is of the same ilk as Jackson. Last year, he partnered with the National Organization for Marriage in its unsuccessful fight to stop marriage equality in New York. He was even the star of a NOM video called “Will the Black Church Rise Up in New York For Marriage?” To make matters worse, he continues to partner with NOM as a liaison to the black church even after documents came out that the group was attempting to sow division between the black and gay communities on the subject of marriage equality. And NOM is supporting Romney. You see, that's what this entire protest is about. It's a sham. Owens knows that President Obama will not meet with his group and that the NAACP will not change its mind on marriage equality. The entire protest by him and CAAP is simply a way to divide the black and gay communities because they are two groups who support President Obama heavily. If these two groups are divided over a hostile war over marriage equality, Obama will have problems. So to folks in both communities who may hear about Owens and his organization's protest, I say this: Folks are attempting to manipulate your emotions. Don't fall for it.
The Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP) is demanding a meeting with President Barack Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder to discuss the president's endorsement of homosexual "marriage." The CAAP is headed by Rev. William Owens, who says the majority of African Americans are on the opposite end of the agenda and "feel betrayed by the president" "We have written him and asked him to reverse his position, and we're going to stay on it until we get some kind of answer," he asserts. "We're asking the African-American community to withhold their support until further notice." Owens had a direct role in the civil rights movement that gained equality for African Americans, so he knows the difference. "[Obama] wants to call [homosexual marriage] a civil right, so he undoubtedly doesn't understand the difference in the 'gay' and lesbian community and the African Americans who fought for civil rights, who put their lives on the line," the coalition leader offers. "To equate them is absolutely wrong, and it's like he has turned his back on the African-American community."I think I speak for the vast majority of the black community when I ask what the heck is the The Coalition of African American Pastors. From what I have read and have heard about this group, it seems to have been in the media recently as a counter group against marriage equality. In May, it came out with a statement saying that it does not agree with the NAACP's support of marriage equality (the statement was naturally highlighted by the right-wing publication The Daily Caller). Since that time, the group has been constantly threatening to not support President Obama during the upcoming November election Of course that would be very weird to me because I don't remember this group giving him support when he won in 2008. With all due respect to Owens and the Coalition of African American Pastors, it sounds like this organization isn't on level. What it sounds like is someone else in the religious right decided to use the National Organization for Marriage's race wedge strategy and a certain person (I won't name names) decide to play the game with his hand out. Owens has absolutely no idea what he is talking about when he claims that the black community feels betrayed by President Obama's support of marriage equality. Some articles have said that the black church has felt conflicted by President Obama's support of marriage equality. Others have noted an increase in support for marriage equality in the black community since Obama's announcement. But nowhere have I ever read that the majority of black folks have voiced a feeling of betrayal. Also, I take a bit of offense to the passage - Owens had a direct role in the civil rights movement that gained equality for African Americans, so he knows the difference. I sincerely doubt this is true and if I am wrong, Mr. Owens can correct me by pointing out his direct role. Was it more direct than the role of Bayard Rustin, Dr. King's aide who coordinated the 1963 March on Washington? Rustin was a black man who put his life on the line for civil rights and he was openly gay. But I don't mean to preach. The article did provide me with a few laughs, particularly this statement by Owens:
"We're asking the African-American community to withhold their support until further notice."Yeah right. If Owens thinks that the black community is so monolithic and one-issue oriented that we will withhold our support from President Obama due to his support of marriage equality while ignoring other issues such as education and healthcare (i.e. Obamacare) then he is sadly mistaken. And his presumptions only prove that Owens and his Coalition of African American Pastors are less concerned about the needs of the black community and more concerned with their own notoriety and press.
 |
| Peter Sprigg |
The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever.Of course that statement is strange, seeing that Regnerus - for all of the faults in his work - clearly said the study does not establish a relationship between same-sex parenting and negative outcomes (see point 2 in the Equality Matters link). Also, according to the online publication The Daily Beast emphasis added:
In his Slate essay, Regnerus preemptively defends himself against . . . criticisms with a limited interpretation of the results. “We didn’t have as many intact lesbian and gay families as we hoped to evaluate, even though they are the face of much public deliberation about marriage equality,” he writes. The results reflect on a previous generation of gay parenting, before the legalization of gay marriage in some states, he writes. “I’m not claiming that sexual orientation is at fault here, or that I know about kids who are presently being raised by gay or lesbian parents. Their parents may be forging more stable relationships in an era that is more accepting and supportive of gay and lesbian couples.” Regnerus says his study’s political implications are unclear and are not intended to undermine the legal parental rights of anyone.But Sprigg has an interesting way of overlooking Regnerus's caveats. This is what he says:
While the Regnerus study is a vast improvement over virtually all the prior research in the field, it still leaves much to study and learn about homosexual parents and their effect on children. Author Mark Regnerus emphasizes the traditional caveat in social science, warning against leaping to conclusions regarding "causality." In other words, just because there are statistical correlations between having a homosexual parent and experiencing negative outcomes does not automatically prove that having a homosexual parent is what caused the negative outcomes--other factors could be at work. This is true in a strict scientific sense--but because Regnerus carefully controlled for so many other factors in the social environment, the study gives a clear indication that it is this parental characteristic which best defines the household environment that produces these troubling outcomes. The large number of significant negative outcomes in this study gives legitimate reason for concern about the consequences of "homosexual parenting."In other words, Sprigg is saying "Hey, the study does not say that same-sex homes causes negative behaviors and I won't say that they do either, but since the large number of significant negative outcomes in this carefully controlled study come from same-sex households, by all means feel free to make that assumption." Herein we see the futility of Regnerus's caveats. Sprigg not only pushes them aside, he does it without apology, as does several other religious right groups and websites who are already claiming that Regnerus's study proves that same-sex households are somehow dangerous towards children. I guess they didn't read Regnerus's caveats regarding causation. Or maybe, like Sprigg, they just don't care because they now have something which they can use against the gay community, caveats be damned. Therein lies the immediate danger of Regnerus's work. It's not about science nor the slow process of coming to the conclusion about a social issue through research. It's about the impact of shock headlines and the assumptions that people like Sprigg and organizations like FRC will invite others to make; assumptions designed to denigrate same-sex households and distort images of the gay community before anyone has a chance to delve deeper into the issue. I seriously wonder if Regnerus knows what he has gotten himself into with this. I also would suggest that Regnerus, if he is truly to be believed about the objectivity of his study, should step in and forcefully speak against the use of it to demonize same-sex households and the lgbtq community in general. If he speaks out, we will know where he stands regarding the assumptions the religious right is making about his work. If he is silent then I guess that will still let us know where he stands, won't it?
 |
| NOM's Robert George |
 |
| Jim Hoft |
Me: Mr. Hoft, I loved your work on Kevin Jennings. Hoft: Well thank you Me: I would have loved it more if it was accurate. Come on man, you know that stuff wasn't true. Hoft: (nervous laugh) Me: I mean come on, seriously, where did you get that stuff. Hoft: Well I'd have to look over it. Me: But you wrote it and you were wrong. Hoft: Well I don't remember . . . Me: Well I could send you the information. Are you going to correct any of what you said. Hoft: Well I'd have to look over it (Hoft begins to move away from me.) Me: Wait a minute, where are you going? Let's continue to talk. I haven't even mentioned the Obama speech stuff. That was when you said Obama's people was ordering audience members to applaud but it was really the Jumbotron for the hearing impaired. Hoft: Well . . like I said, I would have to look at it. Me: Well I got your twitter, I can send you where you got it wrong if you send me your address. (Hoft was already gone)
 |
| Dana Loesch |
"Sen. Brown, do you have time for a question?" - me"Not from you I don't." - Sen. Sherrod Brown #nn12
