NYT: Mormons tipped scale in ban on gay marriage, gave 50% of total Prop 8 budget

BUMP

The NYT confirms it. Mormons gave half of the total $40m donations that the bigots at Yes on 8 received. (Hat tip, Rex.)

First off, we learn that the Mormon involvement in Prop 8 was unusually large, even for them:

“We’ve spoken out on other issues, we’ve spoken out on abortion, we’ve spoken out on those other kinds of things,” said Michael R. Otterson, the managing director of public affairs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Mormons are formally called, in Salt Lake City. “But we don’t get involved to the degree we did on this.”

The California measure, Proposition 8, was to many Mormons a kind of firewall to be held at all costs.

Then we find out that Mormons were 80% to 90% of early volunteers:

Shortly after receiving the invitation from the San Francisco Archdiocese, the Mormon leadership in Salt Lake City issued a four-paragraph decree to be read to congregations, saying “the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan,” and urging members to become involved with the cause.

“And they sure did,” Mr. Schubert said.

Jeff Flint, another strategist with Protect Marriage, estimated that Mormons made up 80 percent to 90 percent of the early volunteers who walked door-to-door in election precincts.

One lead Mormon gave $1m:

On Oct. 28, Mr. Ashton, the grandson of the former Mormon president David O. McKay, donated $1 million. Mr. Ashton, who made his fortune as co-founder of the WordPerfect Corporation, said he was following his personal beliefs and the direction of the church....

In the end, Protect Marriage estimates, as much as half of the nearly $40 million raised on behalf of the measure was contributed by Mormons.

And then to finally throw in a slur, the top Mormon donor, and son of a former Mormon leader, refers to us as "fruit":

[T]he extent of the protests has taken many Mormons by surprise. On Friday, the church’s leadership took the unusual step of issuing a statement calling for “respect” and “civility” in the aftermath of the vote.

“Attacks on churches and intimidation of people of faith have no place in civil discourse over controversial issues,” the statement said. “People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal.”

Mr. Ashton described the protests by same-sex marriage advocates as off-putting. “I think that shows colors,” Mr. Ashton said. “By their fruit, ye shall know them.”

Read the rest of this post...

"FRC's own activities are what brought this down on them"

Classliberal2 writes in the comments to my earlier post about the Family Research Council and the recent shooting at its headquarters in Washington, DC:

The FRC is loudly claiming the "hate group" designation brought on this attempted massacre, and I think it needs to be pointed out, much more loudly and forcefully, that their own activities are, in fact, what brought this down on them.

People shy away from that, because they think it sounds too much like apologism for this would-be terrorist fellow, but there's no way to look at the history of the FRC and come to any other conclusion.

And even after something like this happens, which could have turned into a real horror, it didn't inspire one moment of pause or reflection on behalf of anyone there, no thought that maybe they'd gone too far and should tone it down -- instead, they're off blaming someone else, so they can continue to do what they've always done.

The Family Research Council has decided to treat this tragedy as yet another opportunity to defame its victims. First, they blamed the shooting on the Southern Poverty Law Center for standing up to the Family Research Council's decades of hate and defamation against gay and trans people.  Then they went so far as to blame President Obama for the shooting.

Since the FRC has been shameless in playing the blame game in an attempt to milk this tragedy for political benefit, then so be it. Let's do what they're demanding we do, and talk about whose rhetoric is to blame for the shooting.

First, the shooter is clearly to blame.  And he probably has a screw loose somewhere (I don't care how hateful an organization is, picking up a gun and planning a shooting rampage (which is what I assume he was planning), which is almost certainly going to end up a suicide mission, is more than a bit screw-loose-y)).  It's also interesting to note that it's difficult to remember even one recent act of violence that involved a gay person targeting the religious right - violence on our side simply doesn't happen.  (Though, I'm not sure we even know the shooter's orientation.)

Second, the absurd availability of guns in our country (the shooter reportedly got the gun legally) is also to blame. We can thank conservative groups, the Republican party, and Blue Dog Democrats for making guns so easily available to nuts like this shooter, and the shooters in all the previous mass murders.

Third, since the Family Research Council wants to talk, incessantly, about what motivated the shooter besides insanity - about how, in the FRC's mind, words can absolutely positively push someone to violence - then let's talk about whether words could push someone to violence, including the Family Research Council's own words.

Is it possible, as the commenter wrote above, that the Family Research Council's own decades of hate and defamation against the gay and trans communities, and more generally the religious right's decades of defamation, finally pushed one of its victims, who was already unstable, over the edge?

Yes.

Does that mean that the FRC deserved to be shot at?

No.

But if the Family Research Council wants to make this debate about words inspiring violence, then let's have that conversation, and make it an honest conversation that considers their words in addition to ours.

The Family Research Council says that the SPLC, and the rest of us, called them a hate group and that that caused someone to open fire on the FRC.  The thing is, the SPLC calls lots of groups hate groups, and you don't see people regularly opening fire on any of those groups.  These include the Klan and white supremacists, who are pretty well-hated groups. Yet, there's little violence against them.  Thus, the appellation itself does not historically seem to lead to violence.

Second, the FRC would like you to believe that calling an organization a hate group is enough to push someone to murder; but actually being a hate group, acting like a hate group, talking like a hate group will have no impact whatsoever on some unhinged person's decision to take up violence.

That's a bit naive (and I suspect the FRC is anything but naive).  As I explain in this other blog post, the FRC is essentially blaming the SPLC for exposing the fact that the FRC is hateful.  Are we really to believe that the shooter would have been fine with the FRC's hateful anti-gay words and deeds - would have been fine being repeatedly mislabeled a pedophile - had the Southern Poverty Law Center not also added the moniker "hate group"?  Unlikely.

The thing is, it's not really news to gay people, and our allies, that the FRC is hateful.  As victims of far right hatred for all these years, we knew about the FRC and its brethren long before the SPLC spoke out in 2010.  So it's, again, naive to think that gay people, or our allies, were unaware of the Family Research Council's anti-gay rhetoric until the SPLC decided to call them on it.  If we were motivated to violence by the fact that we thought the FRC was hateful, you'd think the violence would have happened long before the SPLC got involved because all of us thought/knew they were hateful the first time they wrongfully accused us of being pedophiles, oh so many years ago.

Second, the FRC is, in essence, (and pardon the cliché under the circumstances) asking us to shoot the messenger.  FRC would like you to believe that even if someone didn't know about FRC's hate before, the fact that they learned about FRC's hate now via the SPLC, makes the SPLC responsible for any subsequent actions by any unhinged persons.  I explain the logical fallacy:

Isn't it a bit like complaining, "Joe punched me because you told him I slept with his wife." 

But you did sleep with his wife.

That doesn't mean Joe should resort to violence, ever. But you did sleep with his wife. So let's stop pretending that the sinner here is the guy who caught you.

The Family Research Council has made a business out of calling out "sinners," as they lovingly call us.  Yet when they're called out for their sins, their accusers are accused of inciting murder with their words, and told to STFU.  So the FRC is saying that it's okay to intentionally mislabel an entire class of Americans as pedophiles, but it's not okay for the so-called pedophiles to say "stop."

Not only is the Family Research Council's anti-gay rhetoric so hateful that I think it could inspire one of its less-level-headed victims to violence, I also fear, and have said so many times before, that their hateful rhetoric could motivate one of their less-leveled-headed followers to violence as well.  And it wouldn't be the first time "good Christians" took up violence against gays in order to be true to their God.

The Family Research Council has claimed for 20 years that gay men are after America's children - either to convert said children into a Satanic lifestyle of emptiness, disease and death; or we simply want to rape the kids, a lot.

Now, I'm not a parent, but I am an uncle.  And if I met someone who wanted to rape, or kill, my nieces and nephews, God help him.  That's all I'll say on the matter.  The suggestion that such language might not inspire violence in the defense of children is ludicrous.

The Family Research Council, and more generally the anti-gay right, can't have it both ways.  Either words can incite violence or they can't.  Falsely labeling someone a bad person can either provoke violence, or it can't.  The FRC would have us believe that our admonitions incite violence but theirs couldn't.

But if words can incite violence, then it's fair to examine all the words of all the parties to the dispute, not just the words of one side.

And if you examine what the Family Research Council, and really the entire religious right, has said - lied - about gay and trans people for the past two decades, not only is what they've said far worse than what any of their critics have said in response, but their language is so hateful, so damning, so incendiary on its face (and false, which only makes it all the more incendiary), that I believe it's difficult not to consider the possibility that the religious right might share some of the blame for recklessly inciting the violence that finally, and sadly, unfolded this past week. Read the rest of this post...

Why the Family Research Council is a hate group

Because they lie.

And they know they lie.

And they don't care.

And they've been doing it for twenty years.

And when I say "lie," I dont' mean the standard Washington, DC version of a "lie," which is basically calling a lie anything you disagree with (aka, your facts hurt me so I'm simply going to call you a liar).  I mean, an organization that decided early on that "the gay menace" was such a threat to American life that if it had to deceive the American people in order to convince them that gays were the anti-Christ, then so be it.

And for any journalist, like the Washington Post's Dana Milbank, who claims otherwise, suggesting that the Family Research Council is simply a "mainstream conservative" group, I'd ask them to do some original research on the anti-gay literature that the Family Research Council publishes, and the anti-gay pseudo-science that FRC "cites" on TV, before weighing in on a topic about which they know very little.

I happen to like Dana Milbank, but I suspect he hasn't done what I've done.  At one point, I had the Congressional Research Service send me a copy of every single document the Family Research Council had written about gays, and then I had CRS get me every single document listed in the FRC doc's footnotes. I.e., all the "original sources" for the Family Research Council's anti-gay claims.

And there were a lot of them.  At the time, FRC's list of footnotes could be nearly as long as the written part of the document itself.

What did I find when I went through the original sources cited in the footnotes?  I found that nearly every single footnote was a lie.  Not a lie in the conventional sense - meaning, they didn't make up a source that didn't exist.  Rather, they did things like quoting a damning opinion from a judge in a court case without mention that the judge was in the minority, that the gays had actually won the case they were citing.

Or they'd quote a study with a hideous conclusion about gays and lesbians, only for you to realize later that the actual quote in the study was rather benign - instead, FRC "forgot" to put and end-quotation mark on the quote, added an ellipse, and then put their own damning conclusion.  Let me give you a made-up example of a quote about gays to who you how the family research council did this.

"This study looked at 45 gay men, and 35 lesbians.  It was clear from the subjects that gay men and lesbians face greater societal pressures in their day to day lives... which makes gays and lesbians much more likely to rip the heads off small bunnies.

Wow, rip the heads off small bunnies - that's pretty bad.  But hey, it's a real study in a real journal, so it has to be true.  Except of course that the real quote from the actual study ends at the ellipse, while the FRC added its own opinion after the ellipse, while "forgetting" to put the end quote, so it looks like the FRC's opinion is part of the official quote from the reputable study.

Gosh, I wonder how that happened?

It went on and on like this, through hundreds of footnotes.  I went through the original research of the various studies they cited and found that the study reached no such conclusion like the FRC claimed it did.  And on and on and on.

These are not honest people simply expressing a contrarian view of politics, like Democrats and Republicans do every day in Washington.

Tony Perkins, FRC's head, got on TV a few months ago to debate whether gay parents were as good as straight parents.  Perkins said "no," and he had the study to prove it.  Perkins explained how studies have proven that kids need a mom and a dad.  What Perkins didn't bother telling you was that those studies compared kids with a mom and a dad to kids with a single parent.  The studies never looked at the relative merits of gay parents.  Gay parents might have been just as good, or heck, even better than straight parents.  The study didn't even look at it.  But Perkins cited the study as proof that straight parents were better than gay parents, when the study had nothing to do with it.

And again, Dana, if you actually go through the FRC's "research," you will find this kind of "mistake" happening again and again.  It happens so often, it's happened for twenty years now that I've been tracking them, that you come to realize that lying for the Family Research Council isn't a flaw, it's a feature.

Now, folks can debate all they like as to whether conservatives are simply liars at their core, and that all conservative groups lie like this on a regular basis.  As critical as I am of conservatives, and their sometimes embrace of the big lie (death panels comes to mind), they don't consistently lie about politics in general like the religious right does about gay rights in particular.  You can find honest conservative bloggers (Krempasky and Captain Ed come to mind), conservative thinkers (Frum).

But I challenge you to find someone among the religious right who doesn't still cite the research of debunked anti-gay "scientist" Paul Cameron, whose faux research is so evil it's been called "Nazi science."  (Cameron thought that people with AIDS should be branded on their foreheads, quarantined, and possibly exterminated.)  Courts of law have thrown Cameron out on his ass when he tried to show up as an expert witness.  The national scientific associations have kicked him out for his phony science.  But the FRC, the American Family Association of the rest of the religious right has been happy to continue promoting Cameron's hateful fake research years after he was debunked.

I have examples here of how FRC, AFA and the rest continued to promote Cameron long after he was debunked as a nut.

So for Dana Milbank, and anyone else wanting to claim that the Family Research Council is just like every other mainstream conservative lobbying group, and/or that the reason gays don't like the FRC is simply because of their Biblical stances on the issues, I challenge you to do a little research first.  In fact, the Family Research Council is Washington at its worst, and most dishonest.  And rather than focusing their dishonest on tax policy, or the offshore drilling, they've chosen to use their lies to defame and discriminate against an entire class of Americans.

And that is why the Family Research Council has earned the official designation as a hate group.

Now let me walk you through some more of the Family Research Council's hateful lies, and then tell me that they're just like every other mainstream group in DC.

How the FRC misconstrued a study to falsely claim that 86% of all child molesters are gay.

How FRC said, and then never repudiated, that it should be made a crime for gay people to have sex.

How FRC quotes a religious right front group in an effort to pretend that it's an actual, respected pediatric association that's "concluded" that gays are pedophiles. (Oh, and the group FRC cites just "happens" to have a similar name to the real nationally known pediatric group, I'm sure the confusion is unintentional - again.)

More on that here:

Part of the FRC’s recent strategy is to pound home the false claim that gays and lesbians are more likely to sexually abuse children. This is false. The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.” That doesn’t matter to the FRC, though. Perkins defended the “gay men as pedophiles” claim yet again in a debate on the Nov. 30, 2010, edition of MSNBC’s “Hardball With Chris Matthews” with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Mark Potok. As the show ended, Perkins stated, “If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children. So Mark is wrong. He needs to go back and do his own research.”

In fact, the SPLC did. The college, despite its professional-sounding name, is a tiny, explicitly religious-right breakaway group from the similarly named American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the 60,000-member association of the profession. The American College of Pediatrics (ACP) splintered from the AAP because of the AAP’s support of gay and lesbian parents. Publications of the ACP, which has some 200 members, have been roundly attacked by leading scientific authorities who say they are baseless and who also accuse the college of distorting and misrepresenting their work. (Chris Matthews offered a clarification on a follow-up show to describe what the American College of Pediatricians is and separate it from the AAP.)

How FRC lied about local adoption agencies and lied about that parenting study I mentioned above, this one is a two-fer.  (This one really is beautiful done by FRC - the number of lies, and nuanced half-truth, linked to other half-truths, are truly masterful in their deceit - please do read through the link.)

More "studies" from FRC that you shouldn't believe until you read the original "study":

"Since homosexual conduct is associated with higher rates of sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, mental illness, substance abuse, and domestic violence, it too qualifies as a behavior that is harmful to the people who engage in it and to society at large."
— Tony Perkins, “Christian compassion requires the truth about the harms of homosexuality,” Washington Post, 10/25/2010

"We believe the evidence shows … that relative to the size of their population, homosexual men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men."
— Peter Sprigg, "Debating Homosexuality: Understanding Two Views." 2011.

“While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”
— FRC President Tony Perkins, FRC website, 2010

And more:

Other anti-gay propagandists at the FRC include Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies, who joined the organization in 2001. Sprigg authored a 2010 brochure touting “The Top Ten Myths about Homosexuality.” In the brochure, Sprigg claimed that ex-gay therapy works, that sexual orientation can change, that gay people are mentally ill simply because homosexuality makes them that way, and that, “Sexual abuse of boys by adult men is many times more common than consensual sex between adult men, and most of those engaging in such molestation identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual.” He also claimed that “homosexuals are less likely to enter into a committed relationship” and “less likely to be sexually faithful to a partner.” Sprigg’s sources are a mixture of junk science issued by groups that support ex-gay therapy and legitimate science quoted out of context or cherry-picked, a tactic long used by anti-gay groups to bolster their claims about gay people. Several legitimate researchers, like NYU’s Judith Stacey (a source Sprigg uses), have issued public statements condemning the practice and requesting that anti-gay groups stop misrepresenting their work.

In 2004, Sprigg and FRC Senior Research Fellow Timothy Dailey co-authored the 2004 book Getting It Straight: What the Research Shows About Homosexuality. In it, they repeat claims that gay men “commit a disproportionate number of child sex abuse cases,” that homosexuals are promiscuous, and that lesbians exhibit “compulsive behavior.” Much of the book’s content can also be found in separate articles put out by the FRC.

In March 2008, Sprigg responded to a question about uniting gay partners during immigration by saying, “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than import them.” He later apologized, but in February 2009, he told Chris Matthews, “I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior.” “So we should outlaw gay behavior?” Matthews asked. “Yes,” Sprigg replied.

Then there's Robert Knight, who was FRC's chief homo-hater for a good number of years.  Knight raises hate to an art form.  Here's Knight creating a damning anti-gay "fact" out of thin air, which is pretty standard practice.

So, to Dana Milbank, and anyone else in Washington or beyond, who'd like to claim that FRC is simply preaching the Bible, or bending the truth occasionally like everyone else in Washington, DC, imagine that I called you a pedophile every time you disagreed with me about any topic.  Here's an example:

Dana, you wrote a piece defending the Family Research Council the other day - that's because you're more likely to rape children.  And beat your wife.  And I've got studies from the America Medical Association proving you beat your wife, Dana. (What do you mean the American Medical Association has no studies about Dana Milbank beating his wife? When I mentioned the AMA, I was talking about the America Medical Association - not American, but America.  They're a small group of far-right nuts that noone's ever heard of, and who aren't respected by any mainstream medical group.  Your confusion between the two organizations is surely just an unfortunate coincidence, Dana.)

Now, imagine me talking about the definitive studies that show that you beat your wife (when you're not raping small boys, because studies show that Milbanks are responsible for 86% of all incidents of child abuse in America), every single time we discuss any issue, from Romney's taxes to Obama's health care reform.  Then tell me that my arguments against you are just like any other mainstream political organization in Washington.

I hope you don't take offense at me using you as my foil here, Dana.  I have always had nothing but the greatest respect for you.

Now go back to tending to your STDs.

PS Here's an "update" by email from the FRC today.  It's a classic.

First, FRC asks us to please STFU and stop calling them out for systematically labeling us as diseased pedophiles.

I am grateful that over two dozen homosexual activist organizations released a joint statement expressing concern for Leo and condemning the attack, agreeing that such violence is unacceptable. I would ask them to take the next appropriate step and call on the SPLC to end the words and actions which foster the environment that breeds brutality like we saw on Wednesday morning. I also ask any who repeat SPLC's false "hate group" label to stop.

Fat chance, hate group.

Then, after the FRC uses a brutal crime to try to intimidate the FRC's own victims from responding to FRC's defamatory hate, FRC extols the virtues of the First Amendment, but only in so far as it applies to the FRC continuing to lie in order to defame and discriminate against an entire class of American citizens.

Our First Freedoms of religion and speech are the cornerstone of our constitutional republic. If we lose or relinquish these liberties, we lose all others and our future.

Right. That's why you get so upset every time someone tries to call you out on your hate.

Look, I'm sorry that some nut tried to go on a shooting rampage at FRC's headquarters - violence is never the answer, even if you are an officially designated hate group that routinely defames millions of Americans in order to further the discrimination and suffering they face daily.  But one shooter's insanity doesn't change who you are, what you've said, and what you've done for over two decades.

Contrary to what FRC likes to claim, we don't think they're a hate group because they're Christians.  We think they're a hate group because of how un-Christian they really are. Read the rest of this post...

The gay Republican fetish

Log Cabin Republicans is the main gay GOP group - they recently endorsed Paul Ryan as VP, even though Ryan doesn't support any pro-gay policies at all. Well, our own Chris Andoe had something to say about that.

Few fetishes are as odd or as kinky, however, as the increasingly visible "Log Cabin fetish" sweeping the nation.

Until recently "Logging," as those in the lifestyle call it, was a discrete affair. Gay men would quietly develop Fox News addictions, sitting for hours in the privacy of their own homes, whispering to O'Reilly and Hannity: "That's right...tell me I'm a BAD BOY!"

Read the rest of this post...

God is in the nuggets

Note from John: Before we get to the post, I'd like to welcome Chris Andoe to the blog. He'll be writing here and on AMERICAblog Gay. I first met Chris back in 2000 when friends and I were running the boycott of Dr. Laura Schlessinger's new TV show (we eventually won). I saw Chris at a protest in Chicago and he asked if we had anyone organizing St. Louis. I said no, so Chris volunteered, and did a bang up job. I'm happy to welcome him to the blog.

And fyi, would love to have more women bloggers on the blog, but it's been tough finding them - am checking out two right now, but if you know of anyone - for the main or gay sites - please send them my way: john at americablog dot com. Thanks!

Here's Chris' first post about the heterosexual pride event hosted at Chick-fil-A's around the country yesterday. You might recall that the popular fast food joint recently admitted it's undying enmity to all things gay.

___________

God is in the nuggets

The God of Gluttony smiled upon all those waddling through long lines at Chick-fil-a Wednesday to celebrate their pride in being heterosexual, bigoted and obese.

Sitting in their idling cars with the AC running, they waited their turn to take communion in the form of a typical American factory-farmed chicken breast laced with all the natural goodness of antibiotics, Benadryl, and arsenic (sorry, "organic" arsenic), then rolled in white flour, powdered sugar, butter, salt and deep fried.

In a culture that readily accepts highly-processed substances as "food," it was only a matter of time before we found people going to the same trough to meet their other needs, from spirituality to political expression.

In a matter of days, we've seen the meteoric rise of a brand new symbol of moral righteousness: the greasy fast food bag. Long thought of as mere garbage, this former agent of death is now the exulted symbol of a desperate people's moral compass (life imitates art). Politicians like Sarah Palin and Lindsey Graham proudly pose with it (oblivious to how gay their photo opps actually came off). I imagine Republicans will soon be signing pledges of loyalty to their chicken god.

The scenes were repulsive. Supposedly civilized people turning to the drive-through window for a super-sized order of malnutrition, warped spirituality, and bigoted political discourse.  (Obesity and arteriosclerosis all being part of God's plan, praise the Lord.)

Though not a God you or I might be familiar with.  Rather, a cheap fast-faith God who shares their prejudices, along with free refills of hate and intolerance. Read the rest of this post...

Sally Ride, 1st female astronaut in space, dies - partner says she was gay

Gonna be hard not to teach gay history how.

Sally Ride, who died today after a 17-month battle with pancreatic cancer, was the first female U.S. astronaut in space and became friends with Tam O'Shaugnessy at the age of 12. It was not until today, however — nearly 50 years after meeting — that their 27-year romantic relationship was made public.

The pioneering scientist was, a statement from Sally Ride Science announced, survived by "Tam O'Shaughnessy, her partner of 27 years."

With that simple statement — listed alongside her mother, Joyce; her sister, Bear; her niece, Caitlin and nephew, Whitney — Ride came out.

Also this via Wikipedia sheds some light on why she eventually decided not to come out:

Ride was one of 8,000 people to answer an advertisement in a newspaper seeking applicants for the space program. As a result, she joined NASA in 1978. Prior to her first space flight, she was subject to media attention even being asked during a press conference "Do you weep when things go wrong on the job?"

The questions were asked, or at least reported, by People magazine in 1983. Even then, Ride was willing to stand up for women:

No other astronaut was ever asked questions like these: Will the flight affect your reproductive organs? The answer, delivered with some asperity: "There's no evidence of that." Do you weep when things go wrong on the job? Retort: "How come nobody ever asks Rick those questions?" Will you become a mother? First an attempt at evasion, then a firm smile: "You notice I'm not answering." In an hour of interrogation that is by turns intelligent, inane and almost insulting, Ride remains calm, unrattled and as laconic as the lean, tough fighter jockeys who surround her. "It may be too bad that our society isn't further along and that this is such a big deal," she reflects.

Granted, this was thirty years ago, but I'm still amazed that someone would ask a woman these questions.

I remember in 1989, when I was working in the US Senate, and we went on a congressional delegation to West Berlin in early December, in the midst of the fall of the Wall. We'd been picked up at the airport by the number two man in either the US embassy in Bonn or, more likely, the US consulate in West Berlin. Along with the Senators, we staff were hustled onto a bus - Senators in front, staff in back - when I witnessed the following conversation take place with the #2 guy and Senator Dole's Arms Control/Defense staffer, who was a woman (and was, I believe, the only female congressional staffer on the trip).

I paraphrase, because I didn't record the conversation, but I remember it like it was yesterday:

EMBASSY GUY (to female Dole staffer): Excuse me, but you're on the wrong bus.

DOLE STAFF: Really?

EMBASSY: Yes, the spouses' bus is the next one over. This one is for Senators and staff.

DOLE STAFF: I'm not a spouse, I'm Senator Dole's Defense and Arms Control staffer.

EMBASSY: Yes, but we're heading straight to the consulate for meetings and the women are going shopping after freshening up at the hotel, I just thought you might prefer to be with the women.

DOLE STAFF: Uh, no thank you, I think I'll stay here.

EMBASSY: Are you sure?

DOLE STAFF: Yes.

I was blown away.  I'd never witnessed this blatant of a display of sexism (I was only 25).  I was speechless.  I remember we asked the staffer if she was okay, we were all kind of in shock.  She wanted us to ignore it, so we did (which I would not have done today).

So things were, are, different for women.  I can understand in an intensely male environment like the Space Program, and even after, a woman not being totally comfortable acknowledging publicly that she has a lesbian partner. Read the rest of this post...

Worst parents in the world?

It's tempting to call Martha and Norman Bridegroom of Knox, Indiana, the parents of Tom Bridegroom who died last year, the "worst parents in the world."  But their story, sadly, isn't unique.

It's happened before, and still happens.

I have a gay relative whose parents no longer consider him their son because he's gay and has a (wonderful) partner of nearly twenty years now.  Bad parents can be vicious parents (and you are a bad parent if you treat your son, and his family, like this).

There's a viral YouTube video going around about a young gay man and how his parents reportedly mistreated him and his partner after they found out he was gay.  Things only got worse when he died at the age of 29.  The surviving partner made the video, and it's heartbreaking. (Video is below.)

Here's a blog post from a friend of Tom and his partner Shane:

Shane (l) and Tom (r)

Last year Shane lost Tom in an accident. Tom’s mother, Martha Bridegroom, came to California from Knox, Indiana to retrieve Tom’s body. While Shane was at home resting, she left with Tom for Indiana without allowing Shane to say goodbye. Tom’s father, Norman Bridegroom, then threatened violence against Shane if he were to attend the funeral Indiana. Shane was shut out.

Shane says that Tom's mom promised to stay in touch, let him know about the funeral, etc.  She never reached out to him again.

Shane says that Tom's parents did, however, get word to him that if he showed up at the funeral he would be "attacked" by Tom's father and uncle.  This, after Tom reportedly claimed that his father threatened him with a gun, and physically attacked him, when he came home at Christmas after having told his parents he was gay.

Of course, the reaction of the hospital wasn't any better.  They refused to tell Shane anything about what happened to Tom without the mother's permission because - drum roll please - gay relationships aren't real relationships in the eyes of the law.  (I'm curious as to how the hospital got away with doing this since the President supposedly mandated that hospitals treat gay partners as family - that treatment should include medical records.  Does it?)

This video came out two months ago.  I'd never heard of it.  Apparently they've raised a lot of money to do a documentary about the story.  Watch this video.  It's ten minutes long, very well done, and totally worth it.

After Tom cut Shane's hair.

I will say one thing: I hope the Bridegroom's of Indiana are enjoying their 15 minutes of fame.  They're now a YouTube sensation, approaching 3 million views.

They say there's a special place in hell. Well, that place is on the Internet, where bad deeds live forever, especially if your last name is as unique as "Bridegroom." (Google it - on the first results page you'll find links to the story of how they treated their son.)

You wonder if the parents have any concept that they just "Santorumed" their family name forever.

Here's Shane's video:



And here's some local coverage of the story:

Read the rest of this post...

Are gay Republicans self-loathing or just selfish?

Are gay Republicans self-loathing or just selfish?

And is there a difference?

Dan Savage has been taking a gay Republican group to task for endorsing Mitt Romney for President when Romney opposes every single major (and minor) gay civil right being debated today.

The gay group, called GOProud, had already said that they'd endorse whoever the Republican candidate was, leading many to wonder if the group wasn't simply a front for Republicans attempting to co-opt the gay Republican vote, which usually measures in the 25-30% range.

Dan gave a detailed explanation as to why these particular gay Republicans are self-loathing.  But some in the comments to the post argued that it's not self-hatred motivating them, it's simply selfishness - they know they'll probably get yet another tax cut with Romney, so to hell with their civil rights.

I'd argue that in this case self-loathing and selfishness are the same thing.  By not having sufficient respect for yourself, you see no problem in putting your material (monetary) interests above your own humanity.  You've done the balance sheet, you've compared the two interests (money and self), and decided that money is more important expressly because you don't like yourself and therefore devalue its relative importance.

Take a look at my post over at AMERICAblog Gay, and Dan's brilliant (and scathing) analysis, and see what you think. Read the rest of this post...

Four Rules for managing an Effective Progressive Coalition

UPDATE: A follow-up, "Goals of an Effective Progressive Coalition," appears here.
________

One of the changes I've decided to make coming out of Netroots Nation is to start writing more generally from time to time — essays and opinion pieces in addition to news and commentary.

The first of these pieces is this one: Rules for managing an Effective Progressive Coalition (in my opinion, of course).

These rules actually apply to any coalition, but I have a specific goal in mind, so forgive me if I don't make this overly general.

By the way, I'm using capitals in the Coalition itself because I really want a proper name here, not just a description. I also want it to exist — anytime before my death would be fine with me.

Managing an Effective Progressive Coalition

An effective progressive coalition must be all three — progressive, effective, and a coalition — or it won't be worth most people's time to support.

• If it's not progressive, it's of no interest, at least to me.
• If it's not a coalition, it has no strength.
• And if it's not effective — if it can't accomplish anything — it's ultimately worse than a sham; it's a failure.

In practice, it seems to me that all of these goals will be more likely accomplished if every member of the Coalition — at the leadership level at least — adheres strictly to just four rules. These are:

Rules for managing an Effective Progressive Coalition

1. No constituency in the Coalition takes a backward step to advance another's cause. (I call this the Cruickshank Rule; see below.)

2. Members of the Coalition have each others' back. No constituency under attack stands alone.

3. The Coalition serves the Coalition, not the Democratic Party or any other group or goals.

4. The Coalition preferences political action to discussion. (This is the No Dithering Rule.)

Though there one or two tripwires, this really isn't that complicated. You could probably have written these rules yourself, had you put your mind to it (and been forced to write).

Discussion

I'll offer a short gloss on each rule here, then expand my thoughts in the weeks ahead. I'll also respond (and perhaps adapt) to comments and suggestions, so keep those card coming in.

Note through the following the difference between progressive constituencies and progressive groups.

Working people, for example, are a constituency. A particular labor union is a group, an institution. Women are a constituency. An individual anti-abortion, or equal rights, or fair-labor organization is a group.

Sometimes groups represent constituencies, but not always. That said, onward.

Rule 1. No constituency takes a backward step (the Cruickshank Rule).

Here's Robert Cruickshank, of whom I've written before, on this principle. He articulates it this way here. In other places (for example on Sam Seder's show) he uses language like mine.

Cruickshank:

Conservatives simply understand how coalitions work, and progressives don't. Conservative communication discipline is enabled only by the fact that everyone in the coalition knows they will get something for their participation. A right-winger will repeat the same talking points even on an issue he or she doesn't care about or even agree with because he or she knows that their turn will come soon, when the rest of the movement will do the same thing for them.

And:

Progressives do not operate this way. We spend way too much time selling each other out, and way too little time having each other's back.

Does this need discussion? This is true on its face, and speaks squarely to effectiveness. Until the practice of groups trading each other out is ended, we will have no force.

Let me say that differently. Your group can trade us out if it wishes, but it's not in the core of the Coalition if it does. No seat at the table, no decision-making power. You're with us to the extent that you play nice; and no further. We will not be cut from within.

There are two ways to violate this rule:

■ One is the naked way — an immigrant group takes a deal that sells out gays; a labor union takes a deal that sells out veterans; and so on. (No, I won't offer real examples; I will not sell out my brothers and sisters that way.)

■ The second is more insidious: Some progressive constituencies are asked to wait their turn — forever.

This happened in the years after Obama was elected. He had made a set of campaign promises to various progressive constituencies — immigrants were promised the DREAM Act; gays, an end to DADT and DOMA; labor, the enactment of EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act); and so on. There were many of these promises, in exchange for which the national Democrats got much progressive support.

Then came 2009, when Democrats held the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress. As an example of much that happened, let's consider just those three constituencies — gays, immigrants and the labor movement.

What did the national Democrats do? Led by Obama, but not solely by him, they told gays, immigrants and groups representing labor: "Get behind us on health care first; after that we'll enact your items."

Despite the whinging and complaining, Obama's healthcare bill passed, as each progressive group in turn fell into line.

Then what happened? No DREAM Act. No end to DADT and DOMA (at first; see below). No EFCA (even now nothing is on the table). The national Democrats got their "hamburger today"; progressives were left waiting for the Tuesday at the end of the world.

(For the positive changes that gays and immigrants did affect, look no further than Rule 3.)

There's a side benefit to strictly applying the Cruickshank Rule (no backward steps). We use the Rachet Effect to our advantage for a change. At some point, we're playing on their end of the field — for a change.

Rule 2. Members have each other's back. This is almost a Cruickshank Corollary, but it speaks to unity, to coalition itself.

If we don't stand together, we don't stand together, us at the core of this group. We're just a bunch of well-meaning entities, getting some stuff done (maybe) and inadvertently (or worse) undoing each other's accomplishments.

Not what most of us had in mind when we joined this parade.

Rule 3. The Coalition serves the Coalition, not the Democratic Party or any other group or goals.

This is both obvious and difficult. Obvious because examples abound where national Democrats and the party as a whole — dominated as it is by Rubinites and NeoLiberals, Blue Dogs (however rebranded) and conservatives — too often betray progressive values and goals.

Following this rule speaks directly to effectiveness, and applies most directly to the core of this Coalition, to its leadership level.

In essence, this rule means, the Coalition can work with Democrats (or any other group), but it can't be led by them. And when it has to fight its enemies on a given issue, it has to recognize those enemies and deal effectively with them.

Not dealing with your enemies is a recipe for disaster. Cruickshank says, in the same piece quoted above:

[T]oday's Democratic Party has two wings to it. One wing is progressive, anti-corporate, and distrusts the free market. The other wing is neoliberal, pro-corporate, and trusts the free market. ... The only reason these two antithetical groups share a political party is because the Republicans won't have either one.

At the time I printed that quote, I added this:

With Democrats, every advance of the DLC-corporate agenda is automatically a loss for progressives; and every progressive victory on taxes, for example, is always a loss for neoliberals. That baby can't be split.

Cruickshank says that Obama has his own coalition, which isn't quite identical with the Democratic "coalition." In the Obama coalition, progressives are considered always expendable by Team Where Else You Gonna Go? (They're also hated and sneered at, I'd add, but why pile on?)

Try this for hated.

The Democrats can be great partners, and the Party has many great progressive members. When they work with us, the result can be powerful.

But when the Party works against us, progressives must separate, go our own way, treat them as opposition if that's how they want to act.

How did gays get their great gains? Not by playing nice. By taking on the Democrats and winning. By challenging Obama in a room where he couldn't run away. Unapologetically.

How did immigrant constituencies get the recent part-way DREAM gain? By exploiting Obama's need for immigrant votes — in an tightening election year — when the word was spreading that Obama was tougher on deportations than Bush. (UPDATE: For more on this, go here.)

Simple, right? Practical, right?

Yet this is one of the tripwires. It's emotionally very difficult for progressives to separate from Dems. In the years I've been working this beat, I've seen it again and again. I saw it at Netroots Nation just this month.

We've supported Dems most of our lives. We've worked to elect them. In many cases they are our best professional friends.

Even progressives who see what the Party has become, treat it like an ex-spouse we still care about. We don't live together any more; but we don't want ill to befall them. We still care.

Yet to be effective, progressives have to choose between progressive goals and Party goals every time the choices conflict. If a person or group can't do that, they can help us out elsewhere, but they cannot lead.

And if they really get in the way, they'll get bit.

It's that simple. When Dems try to mislead progressives, we don't need "progressives" on the inside cheering them on.

There's a second way that "progressives" can be unfaithful to progressive causes, a way that has nothing to do with the Democratic Party. We all have careers and personal goals. This is not in itself bad.

But to use the progressive movement to preference one's own career, one's own goals at the expense of the movement itself — this also violates the rule. It's the same in effect as using the movement to advance the Rubinite Dems. Not good; not allowable behavior at the core of the Coalition.

Again, if career — or list-building, or cocktail-contact-climbing, or whatever — comes first, great. People like that can work with us, but they cannot lead.

I hope you can see why Rule 3 is necessary, at least at the leadership level. We can't be led by divided loyalties; that way lies failure.

Rule 4. The Coalition preferences action over discussion (the No Dithering Rule).

I personally like this one, but also think it's necessary. There's something about us on the left — one of our great virtues — that makes us thoughtful.

But like all god's creatures, we have the defect of our virtues — we are sometimes very thoughtful, grad-student thoughtful, dissertation thoughtful.

If you believe as I do that we're entering a period of simultaneous global deadlines — I'll have another post on that, but my current count is eight — I think not preferencing action is an indulgence, perhaps a fatal one.

I like the FDR approach. Paraphrased:

Do something. If that doesn't work, do something else.

A fine idea.

Bottom line

For once, the bottom line really is at the bottom. I tried to reduce these rules to only those needed. I think I succeeded. There are only four.

If I imagine this wonderful Coalition not strictly following any of these rules, I see failure — something like the current landscape in fact. That's not an outcome any of us wants:

• Backward steps? Loser plan.
• In-fighting? Loser plan.
• Led by Dems or careerism? Loser plan.
• Endlessly debating? Loser plan.

Pretty simple for a long post, right? A definite bottom line.

Did I miss one? Let me know in the comments. And thanks as always for your thoughtful consideration.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

ABC's Carrie Gann sugarcoats anti-gay study paid for by anti-gay activists

This is the network that just put Ann Coulter on This Week, so perhaps I'm expecting too much actual journalism. Read the rest of this post...

Ann Coulter just said Charlie Crist would make a great VP

Sounds like he'd make a great First Lady too. Read the rest of this post...

Pee etiquette

Would you - should you - be offended is someone you didn't know asked, in all sincerity, whether you preferred to be referred to as "he" or "she"? Read the rest of this post...

Artur Davis is becoming a Republican because of the GOP's embrace of "diversity." Seriously.

Artur Davis is becoming a
Republican because of the
GOP's embrace of "diversity."
Stop laughing. 

I always get a kick when far right Republicans cry that they just aren't welcome in the Democratic party.

No sh*t, Sherlock.

Former US House member Artur Davis, from Alabama (go figure), has left the Democratic party because he says the party has moved too far to the left.  His "proof" of this move to the left is simply priceless.

Here are examples of the "diversity" that Davis thinks the Dems lack, but the GOP has:

Imagine if a Democratic candidate, senator or congressman were to say this week, "The Supreme Court is going to issue a ruling soon on the Affordable Care Act, and I sure hope the court overturns it." Can you imagine what the reaction would be? And this is, mind you, two years after 36 Democrats voted against the Affordable Care Act in the House. I can't imagine a Democrat saying that.

Imagine.

You mean, Democrats aren't willing to welcome fellow Democrats who try to undermine the President's number one campaign promise and the singular achievement of his entire first term? The horror!

That's not a sign of Democratic intolerance. It's a sign of politics. Neither Democrats nor Republicans tolerate party members who try to undercut their most important policy goal of the coming four years. Since Davis wants to talk health care reform as a litmus test of party intolerance, let's talk health care reform.

How many Democrats voted against their party and against health care reform? 36

How many Republicans voted against their party and for health care reform? 0

Now tell me again which party is more intolerant of a diversity of viewpoints on health care reform.

But oh, it gets better. More examples of Democratic intolerance from Davis:

Take same-sex marriage. Can you imagine if a prominent Democratic elected official were to say this week, "I think the 1st Circuit got it wrong on the Defense of Marriage Act, and I think the president's got it wrong on same-sex marriage"? I don't mean Sanford Bishop in Georgia, or an African-American politician perhaps in the South. I mean if a major Democratic figure were to say that, that person would be denounced instantly.

Can you imagine if a prominent Democratic elected official were to say that the Supreme Court got it wrong on Brown v Board of Education or Loving v Virginia?  Would Davis be cheering their "diversity" then?  Doubtful.  But don't try too hard to find consistency among southern bigots.  (Oh, and before Davis trots out the old "it's not the same thing" line, Coretta Scott King says it is.)

Davis is upset because the Democrats won't tolerate his intolerance.

Then there's Davis' third example:

Look at what happened to Cory Booker on Bain Capital. Mind you, that wasn't a philosophical disagreement; that was a tactical statement that the Obama campaign was unwise to attack Mitt Romney's history running Bain Capital. Cory Booker was savaged, particularly in the blogosphere, for just tactically questioning an element of the campaign.

Yes, how dare anyone criticize Cory Booker for undercutting his own party's primary argument against electing Mitt Romney as president.  Shouldn't the Democrats openly welcome people who give aid and comfort to the Republican nominee?  I mean, the Republicans would be just as welcoming of their own party members who supported Democratic policies and principles - just look at how many Republicans voted for the President's stimulus package: 3.

Lots of diversity in Artur Davis' GOP.

And finally, Artur Davis, a black man from Alabama, thinks the notion of "inequality" being a problem in America is overblown.

Last fall when Occupy Wall Street was in vogue, there were a few major Democrats who said, "Well, they need to get their act together and develop a sense of priority." But I don't remember a single major Democratic elected official who said that their focus on inequality is an overstatement, is an exaggeration, is wrong, and that the dominant focus of the administration ought to be finding ways to strengthen the entrepreneurial class.

Yes, because there's certainly no inequality in Artur Davis' own Alabama:

Source: Kids Count

Not that Artur Davis ever cared.

Oh, and here are a few other fun facts that demonstrate Artur Davis' commitment to diversity by moving over to the GOP:

Percentage of African-Americans in the US population at large: 12.6%
Percentage of African-American Republicans in the US House: 0.8% (2/242)
Percentage of African-American Democrats in the US House: 22% (42/190)

So Artur Davis thinks there's more diversity in a party that has 0.8% people like himself than a party that has 22% of the same.

Artur Davis isn't leaving the Democratic party because the Democrats have gone too far to the left.  Artur Davis is leaving the Democratic party because he cares more about Wall Street than racial inequality, civil rights, or affordable health care - which is pretty much the textbook definition of a conservative Republican.  I'm sure he'll be quite happy in his new home. Read the rest of this post...

Fox won't let lesbian host O'Reilly because she's gay

And this was unexpected? Read the rest of this post...

VA GOPer defends discrimination against gay judicial nominee

Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall (R-Prince William) took to CNN on Friday to defend the legislature's failure to confirm Tracy Thorne-Begland as a judicial appointee. Check out the exchange:



Delegate Marshall's argument boils down to this:

1. Laws are set up to discriminate against homosexuals like Tracy Thorne-Begland.
2. Thorne-Begland was coerced into hiding his identity and, in doing so, breaking said discriminatory laws.
3. When Thorne-Begland breaks discriminatory laws, and when he advocates for reforming such laws so that no one is compelled to break them, he disqualifies himself from being a judge.

Delegate Marshall refused to answer whether or not a gay man could ever be an acceptable judicial appointee in his eyes.

Kudos to the other members of the discussion, who handled Marshall's bigoted logic as well as they could (even pointing out that, despite Marshall's assertions, sodomy is a civil right and has been since the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling). Read the rest of this post...

Virginia House of Delegates rejects judicial nominee because he's gay

*Unless you're gay.
(Or black.)

The Virginia State Legislature is at it again.

Just after 1:00 am Tuesday morning, the GOP-controlled Virginia House of Delegates voted to block the appointment of an openly gay Chief Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney, Tracy Thorne-Begland, to the judgeship of the General District Court in Richmond.

Thorne-Begland's nomination had received bipartisan support and had been approved by the courts committees in both the state House and Senate. Of the more than three dozen judicial nominees considered during the legislative session, Thorne-Begland was the only one not approved.

Thorne-Begland received only 33 of the 51 necessary "aye" votes in the House of Delegates to confirm him as a judge. 31 legislators, all Republicans, voted against him. Ten more Republicans abstained and another 26 members of the 100-member chamber did not vote. The State Senate did not put Thorne-Begland's appointment up for a vote at all, allowing it to die as the legislative session ended.

There was no question as to Thorne-Begland's qualifications for the judgeship. Following his discharge from the Navy after coming out on Nightline in protest of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", he began a career in law and worked his way up to becoming the Chief Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney.

Having served as a prosecutor for over twelve years he was considered highly qualified to sit on the General District Court. But a movement from the Family Foundation and Delegate Bob Marshall (R-Prince William) pushed back, arguing that his sexual orientation should have kept him from even being considered. Said Delegate Marshall:

I don't even think it's proper to put his name forward because of his behavior... I don't know why the folks on the courts committee didn't catch this before, but they didn't. But it's up to us to act as a backstop.

(As a side note, I'm going to go ahead and agree with Bill Maher's statement that organizations with 'family' in their name are bigoted.)

The "folks on the courts committee" didn't "catch" Thorne-Begland's sexual orientation beforehand because being gay doesn't have anything to do with being a good judge; there wasn't anything to "catch." Virginia Republicans' blatant disregard for Thorne-Begland's qualifications and their rejection of him solely on the basis of his sexual orientation is, as FOX News' Shep Smith would say, on the wrong side of history. Hate has no place in our government, and those who voted to block this appointment are creating a dark, embarrassing legacy for themselves.

Endnote: ProgressVA is circulating a petition denouncing homophobia's role in determining qualified judicial nominees which can be found and signed here. Furthermore, a list of those voting "nay" or "abstaining" in Thorne-Begland's appointment vote can be found here and here. Read the rest of this post...

Chris Matthews takes down Tony Perkins over gay rights

Yes, Chris Matthews.

There's an interesting backstory to this story (thanks to emailers for all of these links).

Matthews had previously been all deferential to Tony Perkins of the "Family Research Council" — not only by not challenging his lies and distortions, but by handing out cred like cookies with comments like those noted below (see first quote block).

But thanks to Obama's sea-change (regardless of its cause), many in the media and government are getting religion, the real kind, and rethinking their gay positioning. Yes, this really was a big deal, what Biden–Obama did. (It probably helps to have the well-liked Rachel Maddow over there as well, spreading her think-this-through pixie dust.)

According to this story, someone confronted Matthews at a book signing in late March of this year, and the following occurred (video at the link; my emphasis and some reparagraphing throughout):

Last weekend, Faithful America members from the Boston area confronted Chris Matthews at a book signing in Framingham, Massachusetts about his track record of inviting Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on Hardball as a representative of Christian voters.

FRC was named a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2010 for spreading hateful lies and junk research about the LGBT community — and in part because of an incident in which a senior FRC staffer said on Hardball that there should be “criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.”

Matthews, who just received Human Rights Campaign’s Ally for Equality award, responded by falsely claiming that Perkins has never “pulled that homophobic stuff on my show,” and insisting that “every time he’s on he’s challenged.” ...

That’s just not true. ... Instead, Matthews has gone out of his way to give credibility to Perkins, calling him an “honest conservative” with “true views” whose conscience he trusts. Viewers who trust Matthews’s judgment and honesty come away with the impression that they should do the same of Perkins. ...

As you can see in the video [click link to play], when Faithful America member Jeff Bridges raises the question of legitimizing Perkins’s off-air comments, Matthews has no real response, admitting that “you may be right. I may agree with you, but not right now.”

The sea around Matthews has changed since then, and Matthews seems to have changed with it. Thus the new Matthews in this May 10 exchange with Tony Perkins (helped out by Barney Frank, who knows a thing or two). Watch:



This is how the media should treat Perkins, each and every time he appears. The "Family Research Council" has been named a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. That should be part of his intro wherever he goes.

(Why the quotes around "Family Research Council"? Because they don't stand for real families; they don't do research; and as far as I know they're not a council, but the policy arm of Tony Perkins. Ever see anyone else but Perkins represent them?)

Good work, Mr. Matthews. Good work also by Jeff Bridges of Faithful America, who confronted him. See, not all religious people are not-religious — just a great many of them.

GP

To follow on twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Top Romney aide gleefully outed transgender woman, ending her political career

So much for pivoting to the middle. Read the rest of this post...

Limbaugh accuses Obama of waging war on traditional marriage

How much of an idiot do his followers have to be to accept anything that he has to say about marriage? For a guy who has burned through three marriages and is on his fourth, maybe he ought to be more concerned about his own war on traditional marriage.

MediaMatters has more about the same guy who ranted about illegal drugs but was doctor shopping to illegally purchase prescription drugs.

Rush Limbaugh attacked President Obama today over his support for marriage equality, accusing Obama of leading a "war on traditional marriage" and the Catholic Church while accusing same-sex marriage supporters of wanting "to corrupt the institution." However, polls show that public support for same-sex marriage has been trending upwards over the past several years, including in the Catholic community.

Read the rest of this post...

Fox News: "Obama flip flops, declares war on marriage"

I guess when your clichés lose their force, you have to double up. Media Matters has the goods:

In response to President Obama's declaration of support for marriage equality this afternoon, Fox Nation ran the following headline:

OBAMA FLIP FLOPS, DECLARES WAR ON MARRIAGE

Looks like that was too much though, even for Fox. Media Matters again:

Within an hour of posting its original headline, Fox Nation removed the “war on marriage” language from its post[.]

Media Matters also has screen caps and a few more tidbits; do click.

My comments are few — I'll just add that as a verb "flip-flop" is a hyphenated word.

Word.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...