UPDATE - Phil Robertson has been put on indefinite filming hiatus by the A&E Network, which produces Duck Dynasty.

Recently, Phil Robertson of the reality television show Duck Dynasty set off a firestorm in a GQ magazine interview with the following homophobic comments:

“It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus,” (Phil) Robertson told GQ. “That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.” “Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine,” he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.

Robertson’s comments were condemned by the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD while those on the right, such as the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer and Fox News reporter Todd Starnes, hailed him as a great American and the lgbt community as intolerant and “anti-Straight.”

Then came Act II.

Robertson proceeded during the same interview to compound his vocal faux pas by implying that black folks were happier in the days before integration:

“Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash,” he said.  ”They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!… Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

I have yet to hear any defense of this comment from Fischer or Starnes.

It’s a testament to the greatness of this country that someone as racially oblivious and as homophobic as Robertson has his own television show. He reminds of a character from the novel The Color Purple who was under the false presumption that the black maid who took care of her family actually felt any sympathy or love for her or her parents. She found out that the woman had been forced to work as a maid for her family as the result of a ridiculous offense.

The fact that Robertson didn’t hear any complaints from the black farmers was a testament to them, but not for the reasons he described. I’m a few generations from those farmers and I can remember always being advised by those who lived back then to be careful as to how I behaved and what I said around white people. It was less about racism on the part of African-Americans and more to do with safety. You see, back then, a word or movement by blacks taken the wrong way by whites was the difference between being safe in your bed and swinging on a tree as a mutilated corpse with your “johnson” as a souvenir in someone’s pocket. And that included any white person – whether it be the owner of a store, a white woman you walk by on the street, or even the so-called “white trash” who worked the field with you and would probably snitch on you in exchange for more privileges or money from the other whites who could dole them out.

Of course, the big question regarding Robertson’s comments is not what will happen to his show. I have never watched it so I don’t care what happens to Duck Dynasty.

The big question has to do with the black and gay communities. Will we take Robertson’s comments to heart the next time we are fooled into playing the futile game of “oppression Olympics?” Or will we forget that more times than not, some people will put us both in the same boat and while drilling holes in the bottom.

Dear  Christians who think they are being persecuted,

I don't expect you to be swayed by my open letter. I don't expect to change your mind with my words. But certain things have to be said.

Now I understand how some of you don't agree with marriage equality (some of you call it gay marriage, I call it marriage equality) and I respect your opinion. I have tolerance for your opinion.  I even have tolerance for your opinion that homosexuality is a sin.

However, please note - and don't take this the wrong way -  that every time you gripe about being persecuted for simply for being ordered to treat gay couples like you would heterosexual couples by the rule of law, you make damn fools of yourself.

I'm serious. I don't say this to be mean or nasty. I mean no malice intended.

But don't you think that automatically seizing the "persecution card"  simply because you have to treat gays the same as heterosexuals in accordance to the law is just a bit too much? Don't you think that you are taking dramatic license a little too far?  Or at least overacting just a little?

Let's talk about this. When I think about "religious persecution," I think about the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witchcraft Trials, how Mary I of England had over 280 people burned at the stake for supposed heresy, the mass slaughter of the Huguenots.

When I think of persecution in general, I think of mutilated corpses littering the streets, screaming victims being dragged away by brutal soldiers to suffer harsher fates.  I think about vandalized places of business, burning homes, mobs throwing rocks at innocent folks, the smell of death, violence, and anarchy in the air.

I fail to see how having your day in court and losing your case fairly as a result of due process and then being interviewed on  the most watched news programs in the country by a leggy - if slightly scatterbrained - blonde in a tight dress fits amongst the images of violence, death, and the general mayhem which comes with religious persecution.

I fail to see how being the cause celebre of various multi-million dollared morality groups (and getting a decent income with a speaking gig if you can get a good "Christian" agent) ranks up there with being slaughtered.

Come on guys. In the early days of your faith, the Romans fed you to lions. They crucified several of you. They dipped you in tar and set you on fire. They even distorted the words of the Holy Communion to claim that you practiced cannibalism (which kinda reminds me to mention how some of you distort science to demonize gays, but that's for another time.)

Do you think God will punish you for simply making a cake for a gay wedding or even marrying a gay couple if you are elected to do such a job?

After all, it is gay tax dollars who is paying the police force to keep your business safe or the fire department to save your business if it should catch on fire.

And it is gay dollars which is paying your salary as an elected official who oversees weddings.

So it seems to me that you are already deep with us as it is. Do you hear any voices above asking you to cease?  Have you been struck by lightning yet?

Well then that should tell you something.

Lgbts aren't out to persecute you. We aren't asking that you like us or that you "endorse" us. All we ask is fairness in accordance to the law.  After all, this is our country too. And when we appear in public with partners or families or when we talk about issues that affect us, we certainly aren't shoving anything in your faces. We are merely acting like normal human beings going through the regular process of existing on this Earth. You know that process, don't you? It's called having a life.

I hope I haven't bored you or gotten you so upset that you don't consider what I'm saying.

Because next time, I want to talk to you about this "War on Christmas" thing.

Yours truly,

Alvin McEwen

Simple question. If the Family Research Council’s opposition to lgbt equality is rooted in Biblical foundation rather than animus, why does the organization distort scientific data to attack the lgbt community.

On the FRC webpage is an original “study” entitled Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse. This piece of “work” was published by former FRC employee Timothy Dailey.

It puts forth the theory that:

Pedophiles are invariably males: Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.

Significant numbers of victims are males: Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).

The 10 percent fallacy: Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.

Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.

Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: Such activists consider the defense of “boy-lovers” to be a legitimate gay rights issue.

Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote “intergenerational intimacy.”

These points are junk.  More credible sources, i.e. the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America, all say that gay men are not more likely to molest children than heterosexual men.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because “he often finds adults of either sex repulsive” and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may “regress” to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.

My mention of Groth’s work was deliberate for a reason. In Dailey’s piece mentions Groth’s work:

According to the Journal of Child Psychiatry: “It was commonly believed fifteen years ago that girls were abused in excess of boys in a ratio of about 9 to 1, but contemporary studies now indicate that the ratio of girls to boys abused has narrowed remarkably. . . . The majority of community studies suggest a . . . ratio . . . in the order of 2 to 4 girls to 1 boy.”[5] Another study found that “some authors now believe that boys may be sexually abused as commonly as girls (Groth, 1978; O’Brien, 1980).”

And the fact that Dailey cited Groth is significant, not only because Groth’s work refutes one of the premises of  Dailey’s study, but also because in 2002, Groth wrote a letter demanding that his work be removed from Dailey’s paper:

June 10, 2002
Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D.
FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL
801 G Street N.W.
Washington, DC 2001

Dear Dr. Dailey:

On the web site www.frc.org you reference my work in your article on “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse”. I am writing you to object to my name and research being associated in any way, shape, or form to lend legitimacy to the views proposed in your paper.

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

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

Yours truly,
A. Nicholas Groth, Ph.D.

What does it say about FRC’s credibility when it continues to inaccurately use a researcher’s work even after he demands a retraction? More than that, what does it say about the Family Research Council’s supposed Christian ethics?

It's bizarre how certain things happen.

I was just looking on the Family Research Council webpage and I found the following study listed as "trending:

Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples

So apparently on the FRC webpage, this study seems to be popular and that's not necessarily a good thing because it is flawed on so many levels. The headline should give you an indication of one flaw, i.e. the comparison of  homosexual couples to married heterosexual couples.The study ignores the simple fact that lgbts can now marry in 15 states.    Another flaw is that the study is highly out-of-date. Its author, Timothy Dailey, hasn't been employed by FRC for a number of years now. As a matter of fact, I pointed out several flaws in Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples as far back as 2009.
Allow me to do a recap. Amongst the errors, Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples contains:


- A citation of the book Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women by Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg as a correct generalization of lgbt sexual habits despite the fact that it was published in 1978 and was not meant by the authors to be a correct assessment of the lgbt community in general.  A passage from Homosexualities clearly says:



“. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”

- A citation of the book The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop by David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison despite the fact that the book was written 1984 and was not meant to be a correct assessment of the lgbt community in general.  A passage from The Male Couple says:



“We always have been very careful to explain that the very nature of our research sample, its size (156 couples), its narrow geographic location, and the natural selectiveness of the participants prevents the findings from being applicable and generalizable to the entire gay male community.”

In addition to outdated work, the study also distorts the work of researchers Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey to make the case against children being raised in lgbt homes.



Claims regarding the numbers of children being raised in homosexual and lesbian households vary widely and are often unsubstantiated. According to a study on homosexual parenting in the American Sociological Review, researchers have given figures "of uncertain origin, depicting a range of...6 to 14 million children of gay or lesbian parents in the United States." According to the study's authors, Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, the higher estimates are based upon "classifying as a lesbigay [sic] parent anyone who reports that even the idea of homoerotic sex is appealing." Instead, the authors favor a figure of about one million, which "derives from the narrower...definition of a lesbigay parent as one who self-identifies as such."

However, FRC and Dailey conveniently fails to mention that Stacey and Biblarz's study found:



. . . that lesbian and gay parents were as competent as heterosexual parents. The article did note some differences between families with gay and lesbian parents and those with heterosexual parents, but was careful to emphasize that these were differences, not deficits. Many of those opposing parenting rights for lesbian and gay people seized on these differences, using them to assert that gay and lesbian parents were not as effective as heterosexual parents.

Furthermore, during an interview with the organization Soulforce, Stacey complained about the distortion of her work:



"Significant, reliable social scientific evidence indicates that lesbian and gay parents are as fit, effective, and successful as heterosexual parents. The research also shows that children of same-sex couples are as emotionally healthy and socially adjusted and at least as educationally and socially successful as children raised by heterosexual parents." Later in the interview she commented: "There is not a single, respectable social scientist conducting and publishing research in this area today who claims that gay and lesbian parents harm children." She explained that the research does find some differences between families with gay and lesbian parents and those with heterosexual parents, but emphasized that they are differences, not deficits. For example, daughters of lesbian moms tend to be somewhat more career-oriented than other daughters. That anti-gay activists had cited these differences as evidence supporting their efforts to deny partnership and parenting rights to lesbians and gays was for Stacey "a serious misreading and abuse of our work."


To give an exact impression of badly Dailey manipulates credible research in the study, one could take the examples he lists showing the so-called promiscuity of lgbt relationships as opposed to heterosexual marriages and compare them side by side.   

Dailey claims that lgbt relationships are more promiscuous than heterosexual marriages.

 Dailey's examples of married heterosexual couples:

 - A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research in 1997 

 - Another 1997 national survey appearing in the Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. 

  - A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States published in 1994.

 All of the couples listed in the above examples were married. 

The following are the examples Dailey used for lgbt couples: 

 - A Dutch study of partnered gay men in the Netherlands that collected data between the years of 1984-2000 (same-sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands in 2001).  

 - Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, a study of gay men in the city of San Francisco in the early 1970s.

  - A study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research published in 1997. The study included homosexual men in other countries. More than three quarters of men were born in Australia or New Zealand (78.1%), a high number of the men were from United Kingdom or elsewhere in Europe (19.5%) and a small percentage of men surveyed were from other countries (Asia, Africa, Oceania, North, Central or South America—2.3%). 

 - A survey conducted by the gay magazine Genre. Dailey received the results from a web page with an anti-gay bias.(The Lambda Report was a publication founded by anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera in 1993.)

 None of the gay couples were married and lesbian couples were omitted from every example.

I was surprised to see this study take such a prominent place on FRC's webpage. It was my understanding that the organization had kept it shoddy research in the background in lieu of portraying itself and other groups like it as so-called victims of an "aggressive gay agenda."

But with this flawed study taking a prominent place, it gives the lgbt community an opportunity to show what we and the Southern Poverty Law Center have been talking about when we describe FRC as a hate group.

FRC's crap study is pseudo-scientific work not unlike the work which claims that African-Americans or women are inferior. I guess the difference is that neither racists nor misogynists have a Bible to hide their true motives behind.

The passage of the pro-lgbt non-discrimination ordinance in San Antonio on Thursday brings to my mind yet again the urgency of the lgbt community needing to call out the propaganda spread about us via deliberate liars such as Todd Starnes and Fox News and funneled by ignorant folks blinded by their interpretations of Biblical truth.

Before San Antonio voted for the ordinance, members of the lgbt community had to sit through demeaning testimony which cast gays as "abominations" or went into grotesque detail in regards to how we supposedly engage in intercourse. I personally felt nauseated when I read the tweets of testimony. I felt as if I was strapped down into some time machine and transported back to when Anita Bryant was trumpeting the false idea that gays recruit children.

It was such a long time ago since that happened but here we are decades later hearing the same lies. The problem is we don't take this junk seriously until after the fact. We laugh at the outrageous comments uttered by Bryan Fischer and the rest but in doing so, we underestimate these comments. We forget that they do in fact move a significant part of the population either due to their religious beliefs or when Fischer and company can infuse fear of a gay takeover into their minds.

We are under the false belief that addressing this propaganda gives it power, but we have the entire idea backwards. NOT confronting this propaganda is the thing which gives it power.

Until the lgbt community and our leaders declare war against the lies and liars and makes a serious effort in confronting this propaganda head on, America will have serious problems seeing the real lgbt community:

Because the following false image of the gay community put out by the religious right will boggart a lot of the attention:

Make no mistake about it. Those who spread anti-gay propaganda are only part to blame when that propaganda successfully hinders gay equality. The other part of the blame has to go to the powers-that-be in the lgbt community with the power to educate  about this propaganda beforehand but will do nothing but gripe and groan after it does its work.

To hell with being reactive. We need to be proactive.

Related post: How They See Us: Unmasking the Religious Right War on Gay America - a short, but definitive guide in calling out and refuting homophobic propaganda.

Liberty Counsel member and anti-gay activist Matt Barber is one who never lets the truth keep him from spinning a tale of evil gays plotting to take over America.

I think he really outdoes himself in his latest spin in both the depths he stoops to and the nausea he creates.

In the piece 'Gay' lawmaker to Christians: 'We'll take your children,' Barber is attacking New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for signing a state bill outlawing "ex-gay" therapy for minors.  Like he tends to do, Barber creates a fictional connection between homosexuality and pedophilia and cherry-picks CDC statistics to create the false image of homosexuality being a supposed negative lifestyle:

But what about the title of the post, which no doubt reels potential readers in. Did a gay lawmaker tell Christians that gays will be taking their children because of the law? Of course not.

The title of Barber's post is as fictional as the post itself :
 

Things get more sinister yet. On Wednesday, New Jersey Assemblyman Tim Eustace, who sponsored the bill and is openly homosexual, bombastically compared change therapy to “beating a child” and suggested that the government take children seeking change away from their parents. He told Talk Radio 1210 WPHT, “What this does is prevent things that are harmful to people. If a parent were beating their child on a regular basis we would step in and remove that child from the house. If you pay somebody to beat your child or abuse your child, what’s the difference?” Mat Staver responded on the same program: “It is shocking to hear the law’s sponsor threaten parents that the state will remove their children from them if they provide the counsel they need and which helps them. This is the ultimate nanny state,” he said. 


So no. A gay lawmaker never made the statement or implied in any way or form that gays will be snatching the children of Christian parents.  Eustace was making a hypothetical comparison in which he made no threats nor even mention Christians at all.

Barber's group, the Liberty Counsel, will be suing New Jersey over the "ex-gay" therapy ban. If Barber's bad lie an example of their defense, then the state has nothing to worry about.

And the Donnie McClurkin game of lying continues.

The "ex-gay" gospel singer has been steadily making the rounds of the radio shows and Christian media after being unceremoniously dumped from Saturday's concert celebrating the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington.

McClurkin was uninvited due to past comments he made regarding homosexuality, including implying that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia.

On Tuesday morning, he was on the Tom Joyner Morning Show explaining his side of the story. It was a very sad interview because it was one-sided and totally inaccurate in a big respect. Joyner and co-interviewer Roland Martin pretty much did everything but reach into their pocket and hand McClurkin money for his troubles.

I found the interview extremely nauseating. But one exchange between Martin and McClurkin caught my attention. According to the transcript:
 

ROLAND MARTIN:  Do you believe it’s fair, Donnie?  I mean the comments that gays and lesbians are upset about you made more than a decade ago about formerly being gay, talking about it as being a sin.  You made those comments more than a decade ago.  Is it fair for an activist to, you know, a decade later to say, oh, because he made those comments in that period he shouldn’t do something today here in 2013?

DONNIE MCCLURKIN:  Well, it’s not fair, and it’s been an ongoing battle. It’s been an ongoing political battle.  But in fairness we’re talking about a peace rally.  And we’re talking about a group of people who have been lobbying for a long time for equality and tolerance.  But now to have none concerning anybody else who said anything that is against, or not through their agenda.  I don’t have a problem. 

But Martin is inaccurate. McClurkin's anti-gay rhetoric is more recent than a decade ago. According to Rod McCollum from his blog, Rod2.0 Beta:
 

In November 2009, McClurkin preached an incendiary attack against LGBT youth and newly out gospel singer Tonex at the Church of God in Christ's Holy Convocation Youth Service in Memphis. McClurkin's hateful sermon went viral across the internet. McClurkin compared LGBT youth to "vampires" and added: "I see feminine men, feminine boys, everywhere I go.


Now in all fairness, Martin - being the interviewer - is allowed to get some facts wrong. But wasn't it up to McClurkin to correct him?

As a matter of fact, I noticed that in the interview, McClurkin made no attempt to address specifically his comments about gays, except for to say the following:
 

 You can’t call me a homophobic if I’ve been a homosexual. That’s quite a stretch.  But for them to think that it’s fair, or okay, or tolerant, to uninvite someone simply because they have opposing views, but have never said anything derogatory about them, just simply gave my testimony about what happened with myself.

He also said:
 

I believe that (the Mayor) owes the City of D.C., an apology. He’s done a disservice to the faith based community. And I can take the blow, but he needs to be more concerned about his constituency.  And to do something like this at a Martin Luther King peace rally is totally against what Martin Luther King stood for.


McClurkin should be aware that King also stood for honesty and before he continues to cling to his cross of martyrdom, he should practice a little himself.

And the Donnie McClurkin game of lying continues.

The "ex-gay" gospel singer has been steadily making the rounds of the radio shows and Christian media after being unceremoniously dumped from Saturday's concert celebrating the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington.

McClurkin was uninvited due to past comments he made regarding homosexuality, including implying that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia.

On Tuesday morning, he was on the Tom Joyner Morning Show explaining his side of the story. It was a very sad interview because it was one-sided and totally inaccurate in a big respect. Joyner and co-interviewer Roland Martin pretty much did everything but reach into their pocket and hand McClurkin money for his troubles.

I found the interview extremely nauseating. But one exchange between Martin and McClurkin caught my attention. According to the transcript:
 

ROLAND MARTIN:  Do you believe it’s fair, Donnie?  I mean the comments that gays and lesbians are upset about you made more than a decade ago about formerly being gay, talking about it as being a sin.  You made those comments more than a decade ago.  Is it fair for an activist to, you know, a decade later to say, oh, because he made those comments in that period he shouldn’t do something today here in 2013?

DONNIE MCCLURKIN:  Well, it’s not fair, and it’s been an ongoing battle. It’s been an ongoing political battle.  But in fairness we’re talking about a peace rally.  And we’re talking about a group of people who have been lobbying for a long time for equality and tolerance.  But now to have none concerning anybody else who said anything that is against, or not through their agenda.  I don’t have a problem. 

But Martin is inaccurate. McClurkin's anti-gay rhetoric is more recent than a decade ago. According to Rod McCollum from his blog, Rod2.0 Beta:
 

In November 2009, McClurkin preached an incendiary attack against LGBT youth and newly out gospel singer Tonex at the Church of God in Christ's Holy Convocation Youth Service in Memphis. McClurkin's hateful sermon went viral across the internet. McClurkin compared LGBT youth to "vampires" and added: "I see feminine men, feminine boys, everywhere I go.


Now in all fairness, Martin - being the interviewer - is allowed to get some facts wrong. But wasn't it up to McClurkin to correct him?

As a matter of fact, I noticed that in the interview, McClurkin made no attempt to address specifically his comments about gays, except for to say the following:
 

 You can’t call me a homophobic if I’ve been a homosexual. That’s quite a stretch.  But for them to think that it’s fair, or okay, or tolerant, to uninvite someone simply because they have opposing views, but have never said anything derogatory about them, just simply gave my testimony about what happened with myself.

He also said:
 

I believe that (the Mayor) owes the City of D.C., an apology. He’s done a disservice to the faith based community. And I can take the blow, but he needs to be more concerned about his constituency.  And to do something like this at a Martin Luther King peace rally is totally against what Martin Luther King stood for.


McClurkin should be aware that King also stood for honesty and before he continues to cling to his cross of martyrdom, he should practice a little himself.

“I ask you, does it make sense to honor the 50th anniversary of a march whose coordinator was shoved in the background due to homophobia by inviting someone as a headliner who is committing the same offense against gays in the present? Absolutely not.”

There is going to be a controversy regarding Saturday night’s concert in Washington, DC regarding the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. From the blog of B.Scott:

Gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, who back in 2002 declared God delivered him from “the curse homosexuality,” did not appear in a Saturday evening concert celebrating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, after several gay activists objected to his participation in the event.

McClurkin was scheduled to perform at the D.C. government-sponsored concert with other singers at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial during the “Reflections on Peace From Ghandi to King” event. But at the request of Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D), who fielded concerns from the activists Friday, the Grammy-winning singer decided not to perform. “The commission on human rights and Donnie McClurkin’s management decided that it would be best for him to withdraw because the purpose of the event is to bring people together,” said Gray’s spokeswoman, Doxie McCoy. “Mayor Gray said the purpose of the event is to promote peace and harmony. That is what King was all about.” However, in a statement released on video, McClurkin took issue with how the situation was portrayed. He said the mayor “uninvited me from a concert that I was supposed to headline.” He said “I was asked not to attend.”

The video is here if you want to watch it. Of course McClurkin makes out like he was the victim in this situation. In a comment on his video, McClurkin says the following:

CIVIL RIGHTS ARE FOR EVERYONE…gay, straight, religious, secular, male, female, all cultures and colors. Let’s not mistake that everyone who lives here in america…everyone should have equal rights..whether we believe them to be right or wrong. They’re just BASIC rights for ALL~! My spiritual stance is right…but cannot infringe on anyone’s choice to do as they choose as long as it a basic right. everyone will not follow our christian principles..so what do we do with those who don’t…don’t give them the right to live civilly? This isn’t a theocracy…so even if I, you or we don’t agree…everyone has to be able to live a full life.

But Mr. McClurkin, what about those children you maligned in 2009 at the COGIC youth conference?  In 2009, McClurkin said the following about lgbt children at the conference:

I see feminine men, feminine boys, everywhere I go … No, don’t applaud ‘cuz it ain’t funny. It’s because we failed. I see them everywhere.”

In that same post I linked to (from Rod McCollum – Rod2.0 Beta), McClurkin said the following about lesbians:

“These young girls are just as bad as the boys in homosexuality, you don’t see it. They can hide … but there are some evil young hard butch girls.”

In 2008 while in Barbados, he compared gays to drug dealers and prostitutes:

“The lifestyle began to grow. The girls did not want a broken man . . . . In homosexuality, there’s always someone to abuse you. My lust for man and lust for God was pulling me one way and tearing me apart.” .. “He said Donnie, go and talk to others. I don’t condemn it, so don’t condemn them. God does not hate the homosexual, he hates the sin,” said McClurkin, adding he is now a sincere, compassionate man, who keeps his masculinity, is ready for a wife and who is “transformed by the blood of Jesus”.

But here is the thing. Nowhere in the video did McClurkin address those comments he made; comments which most likely had a lot to do with him being disinvited from the concert. And don’t expect him or anyone defending him to mention those comments. My guess is that they are going to turn the situation around to make him seem like a so-called victim of the alleged homosexual agenda.

And that, my friends, is my problem with this incident – the dishonesty which i am guessing will come from McClurkin and many of his defenders.

My personal opinion is that McClurkin is not the type of person I would have invited in the first place to sing at a concert honoring a march on civil rights, particularly not THIS march.

You see, the 1963 March on Washington was coordinated and successfully accomplished by Bayard Rustin, an openly gay African-American who was an integral part of the African-American civil rights movement.  Rustin also mentored Dr. King on nonviolent resistance.

Rustin had to serve in the background because of the homophobia of the times not only from the white community, but also the African-American community.  Several prominent civil rights leaders did not want him involved and one, Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, was going to start a rumor that he and Dr. King were lovers.

So Rustin never got his due for what he did in the Civil Rights Movement. Now I ask you, does it make sense to honor the 50th anniversary of a march whose coordinator was shoved in the background due to homophobia by inviting someone as a headliner who is committing the same offense against gays in the present?

Absolutely not.

The irony of it all would most likely escape McClurkin. Instead of trying to create an aura of victimhood for himself, perhaps he should think about those whom his rhetoric victimized.

Had today’s technology been around back then, I doubt Rustin would have exploited it to address the attacks on his sexual orientation. I somehow don’t see Rustin posting videos of himself complaining about how he was treated. Rustin didn’t care about such things. He only cared about the cause of social justice.

Maybe McClurkin should take the hint.

I was so angry at CNN's Don Lemon last weekend because of the ignorant way he chose to voice a few comments.

Lemon took it upon himself to underline ways that the black community can improve itself. His suggestions were that we should stop wearing baggy pants, using the n-word, dropping out of school and having children out of wedlock.

They were good points, but the way he phrased them came across as a patronizing lecture which talked down to African-Americans because the majority of us don't act in those manners.

 I felt he could have used the power of his pulpit to have a nuanced discussion about the problems in the black community, rather than sounding as ignorant as Fox host Bill O'Reilly, who pretty much repeated the same stereotypes about African-Americans.

However in the midst of my raging anger,  an inner thought kept running throughout my mind.

For all of the arguments and discussions asking is the struggle for lgbt equality comparable to that of the African-American civil rights movement, there are times when very few notice the similarities.

And this is one of those times

 Lemon's condescending lecture does nothing for the African-American community. Sagging pants and bad English are not indigenous to the African-American community. And children out of wedlock and the drop-out rates are not problems that's not centered solely based in the African-American community.

If there are going to be serious discussions about problems facing the black community, then they don't need to start with a pundit wagging his finger while sequestered behind a desk. There needs to be discussions as to why things such as out of wedlock births are happening. The discussions should have more context by mentioning socioeconomic factors such as unemployment, not having access to good education and healthcare, and systematic racism so ingrained that it practically works by itself. And there needs to be viable solutions voiced.

All Lemon (O'Reilly for that matter) actually did was to exacerbate racism against African-Americans by allowing those with biases against black folks to flood the comment boards with vulgar displays of gloating.

And they both reminded me of how the religious right exacerbates homophobia against the lgbt community.

So many religious right groups and leaders, from Tony Perkins and Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council to Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel, are quick to point out Centers for Disease Control statistics which talk about health risk factors in the lgbt community as proof that homosexuality is a supposed dangerous lifestyle.

However, these so-called defenders of truth and morality always seem to deliberately omit that the CDC says that homophobia and its negative effects on the lgbt community are clearly to blame for the health risk factors, and not the so-called gay lifestyle. I've always believed that they omit this simple fact because it destroys their argument. They don't seek to have a nuanced discussion on being gay because they want to dehumanize the lgbt orientation.

Certainly this is not what Lemon was trying to do to the African-American community,  but that is in fact what he did. Lemon dehumanized the African-American community into stereotypes, much like the religious right does to the lgbt community.

It's something which strikes at the heart of my soul because of my dual identity as a black gay man. It was something that Mr. Lemon maybe should have thought of seeing that he is also a black gay man. That tidbit hurt me the most because I once looked up to Lemon as a role model. With O'Reilly, such nonsense is to be expected. He is nothing more than a high maintenance Morton Downey, Jr. whose  rage and bluster conceals the fact that he just that - rage and bluster without a semblance of nuance or integrity.  And thus, his analyses of the arguments of the day are as soggy and weak as a bag of cotton candy caught in a rain storm. 

Instead of agreeing with O'Reilly, Lemon should have aspired to give his audience something more intelligent.

Lemon's patronizing sermon is definitely something both the lgbt and African-American community should keep in mind instead of being tricked into playing another bout of the "oppression Olympics." Let's not allow ourselves to be fooled by segments of society who sees both of our communities as either children needing to be lectured or undesirables. And let's not allow ourselves to be pawns of pundits who see us as commodities to increase their ratings.

There is an unfortunate dichotomy in America which looks at both the black and gay communities as entities to be talked about rather than talked to and commodities to be used and abused like tissue paper. To defeat this dichotomy, both communities must do all they can to not only solve their problems  but also wrest control of the conversation from those who would seek to define us in ugly and simplistic terms.

Because they simply don't have our best interests at heart.