RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


FRC blatantly lies to U.S. Senators

by Jeremy Hooper

In a letter to the U.S. Senate, the shockingly duplicitous and reliably animus-driven Family Research Council uses LGBT rights as a way to trip up Michelle Friedland's confirmation to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This is no huge surprise, since FRC is truly one of the most obsessively and rabidly anti-LGBT groups in all of the "culture war" kingdom. The fact that this organization maintains the access that it does is a blight on American politics.

But what is shocking is just how unscrupulously FRC lies in this letter. Here it is is full; for the purposes of this post, pay particular attention to the fifth paragraph, all about attempts to "cure" gay people:

FRC's fallacious letter opposing 9th circuit nominee

In the "ex-gay" portion, FRC makes it sound like the APA is still undecided about how to proceed with efforts to "change" sexual orientation. They yank one tiny little quote from its context to make this case.

But now look at what the the APA really said, with FRC's tiny little pull quote highlighted in red:


The only reason they said there was "no clear indication" (which FRC changed to "no clear evidence," but whatever) is because there simply hasn't been a thorough study on the subject. The truth is that all of the studies that have been done have been conducted by the far-right for political purposes, with most of the subjects speaking more to their personal faith than to actual science. The APA knows this.

But even with in adequate research, APA still notes, in this section, that more evidence points to danger than it does to happiness. That alone speaks to the need to scrutinize rather than support these baseless practices. However, the much bigger repudiation comes later on, when the APA closes this very same document with this policy summation:


And then the APA offers a whole host of resolutions that thoroughly repudiate everything for which the FRC stands on this and related LGBT rights matters:


This is the kind of document that FRC should be trying to hide. Yet instead, they are twisting it to seem like it goes against Michelle Friedland's position when it in fact supports it?!

I guess FRC thinks that whole "false witness" thing was of much less concern to Jesus than were the LGBT people who he ever even mentioned.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails