Video: Pat Robertson warns of contagious lesbianism
Listen in as a 700 Club viewer and its host have an on-air conversation about how to properly quarantine viral lesbian so that it doesn't spread throughout the home:
Oh please. Just don't drink or use the toilet after she does and you probably won't catch it.
Sheesh, anti-gay evangelicals can be *such* hypochondriacs.
GLAAD: Bob Newhart, don't become the next Kirk Cameron!
The anti-LGBT movement's goal is our criminalization. Stop pretending otherwise.
If you don't believe that the American far-right would love to reinstate bans on homosexuality, you simply are not paying attention. Check out these new comments from the executive director of the legal organization that represents the other side in most every court case we face:
"When given the same choice the Supreme Court of the United States had in Lawrence vs. Texas, the Indian Court did the right thing," says [Benajmin Bull, executive director of Alliance Defending Freedom Global], which was choose to "protect society at large rather than give in to a vocal minority of homosexual advocates."
"America needs to take note that a country of 1.2 billion people has rejected the road towards same-sex marriage, and understood that these kinds of bad decisions in the long run will harm society," he adds."
FULL: Attorney: India got it right on homosexual 'rights' [ONN]
"The road to same-sex marriage"? Hogwash! Mr. Bull (fitting name) is using that as cover for his support of what we are really talking about here: the day-to-day existence of human beings who are marked as criminals for who they are and how they love.
The good news about heinous decisions like the one in India is that the anti-LGBT movement often drops its guard at times of "victory." When they applaud this decision, which the UN is already noting as a violation of international law, I suggest we pay attention. And call them out.
Sen Mike Lee (R) to waste more time, resources, potential for national unity on unnecessary anti-LGBT bill
Marriage equality activists will be the first to tell you that we are not asking, seeking, or forcing churches to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Our fight is about CIVIL marriage equality. Churches and individual faith leader are free to make these determinations for themselves, just as they always have with opposite-sex unions that some might find objectionable (e.g. interfaith, non-faith, prior divorce, child out of wedlock, etc.).
But leave it to House Republicans to waste more time on non-issues that they hope will damage both equality and the current U.S. President. Sen Mike Lee (Very Far R-Utah) is teaming up with cosponsors like Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL.), John Thune (R-SD), Tom Coburn (R-OK.), Pat Roberts (R-KS.) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK) to sponsor this ridiculous bill:
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) plans to introduce a bill Wednesday that would prevent the Obama administration from pressuring churches into recognizing gay marriage.
Full: MIKE LEE AUTHORS BILL TO PROTECT CHURCHES FROM BEING PRESSURED INTO RECOGNIZING GAY MARRIAGE [The Blaze]
What's really annoying about this is the fact—THE FACT!—that the very reason why the whole religious ceremony versus civil marriage conversation is so screwed up in this country is because social conservatives like these senators have spent the past decade insisting that this CIVIL rights conversation is all about them and their "religious freedom."
The fact is, pro-LGBT progressives are some of the most-willing-to-support-true-religious-freedom people that you will find anywhere. I'm not just saying this because it's convenient—I'm saying it because it's true. Virtually any credible pro-equality activist is 100% willing to grant churches all of the religious exemptions to which they are entitled. Individuals have the freedom to push the equal marriage conversation within their church denominations, and some surely will (good on them!). But the marriage equality movement is not and never has been seeking church marriage. Our fight is for the civil licensing, with the always-optional religious ceremony guided by the church's own decision-making.
The idea that they, the same folks who refuse to take us at our word because they know their spin will help them recruit duped voters, are now acting like we are the ones who have been acting in bad faith is laughable, at best. WIllfully-deceptive-in-a-disgusting-way-unbecoming-of-a-U.S.-Senator, at worst.
Read: Anti-gay coalition sends SPLC-bashing letter to Secretary Hagel
When it comes to a movement that hates nothing more than its own rhetoric presented back to it and its water-carriers, there are no bigger enemies than those of us who bring more light to their extreme views. Which is why these folks hate GLAAD's Commentator Accountability Project, bloggers who track their work, sites like RightWingWatch—and particularly the Southern Poverty Law Center.
In a new letter that some of the most anti-LGBT voices in the nation (Bauer! Staver! Boykin!) have sent to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, this increasingly desperate movement continues to fire rhetorical shots at the messenger rather than take responsibility for their own words and actions. Once again, they have the SPLC front and center:
They've been trying this stuff for so many years now. In all that time, I've yet to hear even one of these anti-LGBT figures actually acknowledge what they've said and done to earn scrutiny. Not one. It's all part of this weird far-right idea that it's somehow worse to call someone anti-gay (or anti–any number of things) than it is to actually be actively (and often militantly) opposed to the minority group in question.
And no, the fact that a madman used the SPLC's documented findings in order to find out that the FRC is actively anti-gay does not change the facts. That 2012 incident was sad, awful, frightening, and worthy of the strongest condemnation—and LGBT groups led the charge saying as much! But just because this crazed individual misused the work does not strip the work of its merits.
AFA's star spokesman: We need a Supreme Court that will criminalize gays
Bryan Fischer is a big fan of criminalizing gay people—that is not news. But with the Supreme Court of India's chilling decision to uphold an ancient ban on homosexuality, the American Family Association's biggest star feels emboldened to admit his true desires:
Of course what we actually have is a U.S. Supreme Court that, while decidedly conservative, still strikes down sodomy bans and invalidates federal laws limiting marriage equality. That's where we are; that's where we're headed. Because Bryan's vision of society is not just wrongheaded to people like me, but it is also unsupportable even by a court where GOP presidents appointed a majority of the justices. He's that out of touch.
Although if Bryan wants to convince his organization to move itself to the India that he apparently so cherishes, I will gladly get behind that plan. That's an outsourcing I can fully support!
Shorter Focus on the Family: 'We support nondiscrimination laws that help or (or that we know we must)'
After running down a list of reasons why that discriminatory cake baker in Colorado supposedly wasn't discriminating when he turned away a same-sex couple (e.g. "he said he would've baked them cookies"), Focus on the Family's Bruce Hausknecht explains that Focus on the Family does, in fact, support nondiscrimination laws—so long as they were passed in the sixties and are now seen as closed debates. Clip is cued:
Oh, Bruce—is it that the nature of nondiscrimination law has changed, or is just that you are now playing the very same role that others who supported discrimination played at the time these other categories were up for debate?
It's not like these earlier categories were protected without opposition. There is always opposition, it's just that the passage of time makes that opposition seem wrongheaded, out of touch, and virtually unthinkable to modern ears. Those who stand up and speak out against LGBT nondiscrimination act like they are new and novel and that this current debate is some sort of anomaly that will, for the first time in American history, be one in which the pro-discrimination side will prevail. How quaint.
For those scout leaders with discriminating taste in literature
Big news: Trail Life USA, the Boy Scouts alternative that was launched for the sole (and proudly stated) purpose of excluding gay scouts/leaders has finalized its program guides, both for the youngsters and their troop leaders:
Not sure about ink, font, or binding. Although I do hear that both editions are printed on the wrong side of history.