Maggie Gallagher should be championing religious expression ruling. But instead…

If there’s anyone who should be defending the Snyder v. Phelps ruling, it’s Maggie Gallagher. All the time, we hear her talk about the need for more and greater defense of religious freedom, even if those freedoms come at the expense of LGBT people’s desire to feel welcome. While “protecting marriage” is her stated cause, defending religious expression is at least in the sidecar.

Yet Maggie is not only standing in opposition — she is actually outraged by the majority 8-1 opinion, as authored by Chief Justice John Roberts:

Burials happen in public (we don’t actually let people bury their dead on their own property any more). But they are not public events.

These regulations designed to circumvent Fred Phelps’ evil and irrational plans, are not directed at the content of speech, they are reasonable time and place restrictions that any decent society should respect.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

The Supreme Court Just Went Off the Deep End [NOM Blog]

Some facts:

(A) The Phelps family was 1000+ feet away, on a public sidewalk. They were not at the burial.

(B) They did abide by all time and space restrictions placed upon them, as they always do. They actually worked with law enforcement, again, as they’re wont to do.

(C) Mr. Snyder didn’t even know of their messaging until after the fact — he learned about it from TV and WBC’s own website writings.

(D) While most all of us with their views, it’s undeniable that they were coming from their belief in God. Everything WBC says comes from their view of God. The fair public expression of that view is exactly what Maggie should be defending! This is what Maggie does defend, rhetorically, as it applies to other religious expression.

(E) No, the constitution is not a suicide pact. That is why we are protecting its most crucial and cherished demands, even when we are the most targeted by it (Westboro has directly targeted this site on a number of occasions).

(D) It’s pretty rich being educated on the Constitution by someone who was at the forefront of amending our nation’s most precious federal document so that it specifically targets gay citizens’ right to marry under civil law.

***

*SEE ALSO: A great piece from Jim Burroway: The First Amendment Lives [BTB]




Good As You

—  admin

Family Research Council asks for money instead of answering charges of unethical behavior

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

The Family Research Council has yet to give a "detailed response" to charges lodged by the Southern Poverty Law Center that it spreads untrue propaganda about the lgbt community by means of either junk science or distorted science.

However, the group did take time out of its day to send out the following email requesting money. I took the liberty of zeroing in on the most pertinent part:

As you may have heard, the ultra-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) recently declared Family Research Council and a few of our allies as "hate groups."

How do you feel about you and FRC being lumped in with neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, racist skinheads, and other radical organizations?

I am outraged. But more than that, I am concerned. Never before has FRC been slapped with such a false and malicious accusation by an organization claiming to be mainstream.

Thankfully, we have hundreds of good friends who have stepped forward to denounce the SPLC in the strongest possible terms and to declare their support of FRC. The list includes national leaders who signed a Statement of Support.

Now I urge you to show you won't be intimidated into silence. Please follow this link to take your place alongside these leaders and others in defense of FRC by making a tax-deductible donation to support our work.

The SPLC is pressuring major news networks, magazines, newspapers, and online news and opinion outlets to not invite us on their programs, run our opinion pieces, or quote our views. It even hosted an event aimed solely at smearing FRC.

Astonishing, isn't it?

The SPLC is now attacking FRC and other groups that uphold Judeo-Christian moral views, including marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

By labeling its opponents "hate groups," the SPLC is saying: No discussion. No consideration of the issues. No engagement. No debate!

As usual FRC is playing the victim while evading the true story. SPLC said the following about FRC and several other so-called pro-family groups:

. . . a hard core of smaller groups, most of them religiously motivated, have continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities. These groups’ influence reaches far beyond what their size would suggest, because the “facts” they disseminate about homosexuality are often amplified by certain politicians, other groups and even news organizations. . . Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.

The falsehoods in question include the beliefs that:

  • Homosexuals molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals,
  • Same-sex parents harm children, and
  • Homosexuals don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals.

For its part, SPLC has listed detailed reasons as to the inaccuracies of these claims.

 

FRC, on the hand, has yet to fully answer SPLC's charges even though it said two months ago that it would give a "detailed response."

FRC's entire campaign  of  "they are trying to silence us" has been a clever dodge, or a non-sequitir which only serves to cover up that SPLC is in fact pushing for the debate while FRC is avoiding it.

Conveniently absent from FRC’s email – and its other statements – is suitable refutation to SPLC’s charges or any type of refutation at all.

At the times in which FRC did try to address the charges head on, such as when FRC head Tony Perkins went on the news program Hardball or when an FRC employee recommended a piece written by Perkins,  the organization was called out for engaging in exactly the same tactics SPLC accused them of – distorting science to denigrate the lgbt community.

No one wants to silence FRC.

Not SPLC, nor do I, nor does any other person who sent emails to the organization asking for the "detailed response" to SPLC's charges, which FRC promised to give.

All we want are answers. And we have yet to receive those answers.

In the long run, FRC's plea for donations may be successful in terms of monetary benefits.

But what about personal integrity?

If the FRC considers itself a Christian organization, then it needs to act like one.

And somehow I don't think that spreading untrue stories about the lgbt community and then playing the evasion game when called out on this behavior is a Christian virtue.

Stating that you are a moral, Christian group doesn't necessarily make you one. Especially when your actions have been most un-Christian.

Related posts:

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council just can't stop engaging in duplicitious tacticsPay attention to this post. In an interview last week, FRC spokesperson Peter Sprigg criticized studies looking at same-sex households in part because the studies in question doesn't compare same-sex households to heterosexual households. However Sprigg's objection is ironic seeing that he freely cites studies that don't compare the two dynamics when he denigrates heterosexual households.

Family Research Council's Tony Perkins pushes George Rekers flavored falsehoods on Hardball

Write Chris Matthews and Hardball to complain about Tony Perkins's lies

SUCCESS! Chris Matthews addresses distortion of Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council

Peter Sprigg won't address hate group charges but will lie about same-sex households

Family Research Council has yet to come out with 'detailed response' against SPLC charges

Will the Family Research Council ever fulfill its promise and address SPLC's charges?
Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

—  David Taffet

Someone please buy them a G.I. Joe to fiddle with instead: Rep. Duncan Hunter edition

Of course he is:

GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter To Introduce Bill To Blockade DADT Repeal Certification [J.M.G.]

would require the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps chiefs to submit to the congressional defense committees “written certification that repeal … will not degrade the readiness, effectiveness, cohesion and morale of combat arms units and personnel of the armed force under [each] officer’s jurisdiction engaged in combat, deployed to a combat theater, or preparing for deployment to a combat theater,” according to a copy obtained by The Hill.

If that doesn’t work, keep an eye out For Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s followup attempt, The Tie Gay Solders’ Shoe Laces Together In Hopes That They Trip Act of 2011.




Good As You

—  admin

Instead of Helping The Poor, Southern Poverty Law Center Is Being Mean To NOM

Joining the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins in refudiating its addition to the Southern Poverty Law Center's updated list of hate groups, the National Organization for Marriage's Brian Brown calls his group's inclusion "an absurd distraction emanating from a once-great organization’s real mission." Wait, is he talking about SPLC's attack on NOM, or the Human Rights Campaign's? (NB: SPLC has some of its own questions to answer about its "real mission.")


Permalink | Post a comment | Add to del.icio.us


Tagged: , , , , , ,

Queerty

—  admin

USC staffer praying over LGBT tomes; and no, not because she thinks they should be in e-book form instead

Even if you disagree with the cause, it’s usually easy to see why social conservatives involve themselves in certain LGBT issues. Typically it’s because they think that marriage, the army, their own church, their talking point machines, fundraising efforts, smug heterosexism, etc., are under some sort of direct threat, and therefore they see a need to step in and run defense. It can be annoying, frustrating, *facepalm*-inducing, and oftentimes even deeply offensive. But at least the “why” is generally apparent, as far as that goes.

But other times, the involvement constitutes undeniable meddling in matters that are of absolutely no concern to the “pro-family” life. As is the case over at the the University of Southern California, where the school’s library is receiving a large shipment of archival books, films, and magazines all about LGBT history. Now, even for those who don’t have a need in their heart (or country) for LGBT lives and loves, the history of the people and the movement is obviously a concrete thing. And in fact, LGBT history also includes anti-LGBT history, something that has come to define the religious right over the past few decades. So it’s no surprise that an educational library, the place where a plethora of information is something that is kinda, sorta valued, would see it in their interest to collate and house these resources. No controversy warranted.

At least it shouldn’t be a surprise or a controversy:

Sarah Dean, a Christian who is on staff at USC, is encouraging students and parents to pray rather than react to the donation with hatred against homosexuals.

“I would hope parents would react in prayer and students would react in prayer, and just that they would be aware of it,” she notes.

As a member of Campus Crusade for Christ at USC, Dean shares that she has seen the issue of homosexuality become more prevalent on campus. She believes Christians should care for and understand the pain that many homosexuals have experienced in their lives.

“The way that we’re going to get at the heart of the matter is through love and discussing it…that way,” she contends.

Dean feels that Christians should offer hope through Jesus to homosexuals who are looking for freedom.

LGBT donation more reason to pray, love [One News Now]

Hey, here’s an idea: Why not react in intellectual respect, or at the very least, tolerance? Don’t care to read the materials? Then don’t visit the LGBT archives, the same way many evangelicals 201010151415surely eschew the works of Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris, ore that one-off edition of Curious George where the title monkey starts asking too many questions about evolution. Why must every little thing be seen as opportunity to pray for the socio-political adversary?! Especially on a college, where knowledge and the quest thereof deserves an even more heightened premium?

It’s situations like this that have alienated so many people from the evangelical church, as well as opened so many others’ eyes about the true goals of the organized “pro-family” movement. It’s a generalization to say that theirs is an anti-”live and let live” force. But generalizations are formed based on demonstrated efforts — and far too many “pro-family” efforts seek to save the soul of anyone who so much as laughs at Cam’s “Modern Family” antics without following it up with a “…sinner!” protestation.




Good As You

—  John Wright

NY: 17-month-old baby killed by man ‘trying to make him act like a boy instead of a girl’

This kind of BS makes me sick. This is the lowest form of scum. If you haven’t reconciled your own masculinity issues, don’t work them out on a f*cking baby.

This violence occurred on the Shinnecock Indian Reservation (my people, btw; those involved in this incident are not Shinnecock) on Long Island, NY. (WPIX):

The suspect has been identified as Pedro Jones, 20, of South Hampton. He has been charged with first-degree manslaughter after allegedly hitting the boy “several times throughout his body with close fists” and grabbed him by the neck, according to the felony complaint filed by police.

Authorities say Jones also told them, “I was trying to make him act like a boy instead of a little girl. I never struck that kid that hard before.”

“He infiltrated my family through our trust, through the heart of my daughter and then stole the life of her child,” said the baby’s grandfather Daniel Collins. “I hope the justice system turns around and steals his.”

In the WCAX coverage of this murder, look at this:

As Jones was led away from the state police barracks, he told reporters that he loved the little boy.

Apparently for some people it’s never too early to “man up.” Our culture of rigid gender roles, as we see here, goes beyond the toxic to the tragic.
Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

—  John Wright