The Family Research Council has finally sunken to a level that even I can't begin to ponder.
In the current news, there is a huge controversy involving a website called Wikileaks. This site has displayed classified documents of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. In the center of this controversy is Bradley Manning, a 22-year-old gay soldier suspected of leaking documents to Wikileaks. He is currently awaiting court martial.
There is much speculation as to why Manning may have leaked these documents. But not to the Family Research Council. A post on the organization's webpage says the following:
Although the U.S. press is relatively mum on his personal life, the British paper questions how Manning got away with “flaunting” his sexuality when DADT is still in effect.
There are several serious problems with FRCs claims. If you look at the link to the British article so generously provided by the organization, nothing in it connects Don't Ask, Don't Tell to Manning's alleged leaking of documents.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the British article about Manning seeking a sex change. And lastly, there is nothing – not one thing – in the British article which poses any question about Manning allegedly “flaunting his sexuality.”
FRC attributes these speculations to the British article when they actually came from another source – Cliff Kincaid of the right-wing group Accuracy in Media.
Kincaid's speculations came from an original column he wrote on Wikileaks controversy. However, the manner in which FRC wrote its piece makes it seem that Kincaid's claims were included in the British article.
It is worth mentioning that neither Kincaid nor his organization, AIM, are accurate or unbiased sources when it comes to lgbt issues. Earlier this year, AIM had to retract a blog post falsely accusing a gay Obama appointee, Kevin Jennings, of being a pedophile. Kincaid has also made the vile claim that disease-tainted gay blood threatens our troops.
The Family Research Council has been known for distorting legitimate statistics to stigmatize the lgbt community, but in this case it seems that the organization has sunken to a new low – distorting news articles.
Could it be that the group falsely attributed Kincaid's claims to the British article because it's aware of his unsavory reputation for attacking the lgbt community with lies?