RECENT  POSTS:  » Beheadings, loving marriages make AFA writer wonder where God is » Video: A reminder that marriage equality won't silence spineless anti-gay a*holes » 'Ex-gay' org. excited to be 'featured exhibitor' at #VVS14 » Three of history's four women Supreme Court Justices have now performed same-sex weddings » GLAAD: Questions we'd like reporters to ask at the Values Voter Summit » HA! Robert Oscar Lopez mentions me in truly bizarre amicus brief to 5th Circuit » Gay man realizes he shouldn't have entered an opposite-sex union—so no same-sex marriage for anyone?! » Your daily 'Gay Gestapo' moment with the American Family Association's senior analyst » Scott Lively equates accurately noting his public record with inciting murder » Audio: Mark Regnerus doesn't think marriage equality has 'a lot of gas left'  

09/18/2014

Scott Lively equates accurately noting his public record with inciting murder

by Jeremy Hooper

Anti-LGBT activists do and say all kinds of truly shitty and deeply dangerous things as they work to dehumanize, delegitimize, and deny rights to certain citizens. They do this. By choice. Most of them for a paycheck.

But then, when those actual LGBT humans who are actually harmed by their work simply say, "Hey, look at these people and their campaigns against us," these very same people who work to hurt us turn around and claim they are the victims simply because their opponents (i.e. their targets) are calling them out for their own chosen line of work. Latest case in point is hardcore fringe activist Scott Lively who is quite literally accusing the Human Rights Campaign of inciting homicide because of a new report that tracks his decades of anti-LGBT work in America and abroad:

Screen Shot 2014-09-18 At 11.59.09 AmThe so-called Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has taken a page from the left wing hate-group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and published a new report called “The Export of Hate.” Ala SPLC this publication is nothing less than an enemies list designed to help people like “gay” activist Floyd Lee Corkins identify their assassination targets.
...
The greater their power, the less they are concerned about hiding the true nature of their agenda or the true face of the LGBT community.

Frankly, that dramatically raises the threat level for people like me. Because, as the “gays” lose their fear of public opinion, they are increasingly less inclined to restrain the murder that is in their hearts toward their enemies, the chief of whom is now Yours Truly.

FULL: HRC has targeted me for murder [Scott Lively]

So disingenuous! People in politics note the goings-on of their opposition movement. That is true for the right and the left, conservatives and liberals, in every sector of public debate. People do things; people note those things. People push back against what they see as detrimental.

Here's a really novel idea: stop hurting others and you won't be called out for it! I know the anti-LGBT movement wants to create an America where it's worse to be called anti-gay than it is to actually be anti-gay, but nobody is buying that fake "victim" routine.

comment G-A-Y post email AddThis Feed Button G-A-Y writer-hooper

Audio: Mark Regnerus doesn't think marriage equality has 'a lot of gas left'

by Jeremy Hooper

Mark Regnerus, a man whose widely discredited "research" actively drained a bit a gas from the anti-equality movement, is now in the business of making predictions. According to the burgeoning conservative pundit, the fight against "real marriage" is running out of gas:

[SOURCE: Relevant Radio]

Well I can hear that his movement is not in danger of running out of hot air.

But wishful thinking there, Mark. When your movement runs on organic truth, you don't need crude matter. And frankly, pal, you're the last person who should even be making such a suggestion.

comment G-A-Y post email AddThis Feed Button G-A-Y writer-hooper

09/17/2014

Friday: NOM president shares the bill with 'ex-gay' activists

by Jeremy Hooper

Below is a snippet from the schedule of the so-called Stand For Family conference, which will be held in Provo, Utah, this Friday. From this scheduled, we learn that at around noon, Brian Brown, the man who claims that his agenda is focused on policy work limited to the issue of marriage will regale the crowd with the "strategy" for his side to regain ground. And then, in the immediately following block, a crew of "ex-gay" activists will set back that same movement (and the gathered activists' pretense) by continuing the scientifically discredited and deeply offensive charade that certain sexual orientations can and should be "changed":

Screen Shot 2014-09-17 At 10.17.08 Pm
[Stand For The Family conference]

It's not some coincidence that these conference organizers saw it fit to make the "ex-gay" sham as much of a part of the presentation as the marriage policy stuff. The idea of "changing" us is always on these folks' minds! Sure, they hide it during campaigns and in court. Yes, they pretend to have a focused cause when they pundit their way onto cable news. But it never goes away. It's always there. If you do just a cursory dig of any national organization that fights us on policy, you will find a robust undercurrent of animus toward the very notion of our happy and healthy sexual orientations.

NOM's agenda is the "ex-gay" agenda and the "ex-gay" agenda is NOM's agenda.

comment G-A-Y post email AddThis Feed Button G-A-Y writer-hooper

Today in 'um, yeah, obviously': Stunt marriages not confined to opposite-sex partnerships

by Jeremy Hooper

For the life of me I don't understand why I'm supposed to be annoyed with the two straight men in New Zealand who are apparently planning to enter into a same-sex union in order to win a radio contest. I mean, I think it's a very bizarre choice. And yes, there is an undercurrent of homophobia, considering it's being portrayed as an "extreme" stunt kind of thing. But for the most part, I'm just kind of like, "whatever." People are of their own free will, and if these straight men want to make this unusual choice for themselves and their apparently platonic love, then that does not harm me.

But of course Jennifer Roback Morse, formerly a top cat at the National Organization For Marriage and who remains a player on the larger "protect marriage" stage (she's appearing alongside NOM and others at a big event in Utah later this week), is portraying this as some sort of new slippery slope development. She writes:

Two men can get married for any reason they want. The law does not require them to prove that they are actually “gay,” or that they “love each other,” however those terms might be defined in a legal context. (!)

I hate to say I told you so. But I told you so.

Back in 2010, I created this talk that showed what life under a genderless marriage regime would look like, thirty years on. The story did not contain a single “gay” or “lesbian” person. The story showed that changing the law would induce a whole series of behaviors among people who are not same sex attracted. Two men may want to get married to get off-base housing in the military. Or to get one of them a green card.

Or to win a radio contest.

Gay activists and their wealthy patrons seem surprised that they do not get to control what everyone does and why they do it.

They have not really thought through what redefining marriage will actually mean for the whole of society.
FULL:
Rugby buddies get married: what’s the problem? [Ruth Institute]

I love how Morse acts like she's "found us out" or something. That's kind of her M.O. She fancies herself a but of a prophet (often with truly hysterical results).

But here's the thing: sham marriages, stunt marriages, marriages of convenience, and the like, have all been happening for as long as there has been something called marriage. Men and women who are not in love with each other famously marry so that they can obtain green cards. Gay people sometimes enter into opposite-sex union in order to please their families and what they see as the status quo. Opportunistic people marry so that they can tap into their spouse's oversized savings account. Etcetera, etcetera.

So long as there is an institution called marriage, there is plenty of room for people to find unfortunate, unorthodox, gold-digging, or an infinite number of reasons for entering into it. The legalization of same-sex unions changes nothing here, other than the potential for same-sex couples to do exactly what opposite-sex couples have done. The law does not demand that any spouse-to-be prove his or her sexual orientation or true love for his or her intended. There is no policy difference here. None. Zilch. Nada.

Again, I think it's a boneheaded choice, just like I've considered many heterosexual reality TV weddings, ill-advised celebrity unions, and even mismatched unions that I know in my personal life to be boneheaded moves on the part of the spouses. But people are going to do what they are going to do. And I do mean people—not gay people or straight people or any specific type of people.

comment G-A-Y post email AddThis Feed Button G-A-Y writer-hooper

Video: Brian Brown's fellow panelist gives insight into Moscow panel's extreme views on homosexuality, marriage

by Jeremy Hooper

At last week's "Large Family and the Future of Humanity" conference in Moscow, Russia, National Organization For Marriage president Brian Brown was joined on a panel by John-Henry Westen, the Canadian editor of the very anti-gay website LifeSiteNews:

201409171123John-Henry Westen, co-founder of lifesitenews.com, recalled how there are serious consequences in going against God's plan for sexuality, the worst of which is the spiritual damage. Among other measures, the session deserves to be mentioned that of Abdolreza Azizi, Head of the Social Committee of the Parliament of Iran.
...
The American Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, has stressed the need to unite to fight against those who want to redefine the family and pointed out that, as the United States, it would be wrong to think that Americans in general support the ideology promoted by the Government Obama: indeed, many also oppose actively.

FULL (machine translation): International Family Congress - Statement of ProVita [Notizie ProVita]

As of now, no video has emerged from the panel. But for some insight into what went down and what view was guiding the proceedings, listen in as Westen, from right outside the very event where the two men spoke, admits to Russian interviewers that he speaks out against marriage equality because he believes homosexuality "harms the body" and "hurts you," that equality activists are trying to make evil seem good, and that "Satan's focus" is behind the whole push for same-sex marriage. Most of the pertinent comments come between 3:15 and 5:20:

Brian sure is making some eye-opening bedfellows. Not the choice I would be making if I was eyeing a Supreme Court win.

comment G-A-Y post email AddThis Feed Button G-A-Y writer-hooper

Video: TN man condemns gays with Leviticus billboards; oddly allows local Red Lobsters to remain open

by Jeremy Hooper

Tennessee, the place of my birth and childhood, is a truly gorgeous state. Though less so now:

WSMV Channel 4

No word if Mr. Mundy will commit to all Old Testament condemnations. Although locals (and particularly women) might want to hide any stones that are large enough to wound, just in case.

comment G-A-Y post email AddThis Feed Button G-A-Y writer-hooper

09/16/2014

Video: 'Ex-gay' speaker at upcoming ERLC summit equates talking to gay people with talking to cancer patients

by Jeremy Hooper

The Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission has tapped the "ex-gay" with the best name, Rosaria Champagne Butterfield, to guide their upcoming convention on how to "change" people's sexual orientations but in the "nice" way. And in a new video, she gives a teaser of what kind of "compassion" we can expect. Clip is cued:

@1:27 "One of my takeaways, from having been in the community for a decade, is those folks are good listeners. And Christians need to be more reciprocal in their listening. I would say the first thing to do is if a friend shares either an identification as gay or lesbian, or struggles with same-sex attraction, to ask that person what the parameters are, now, for how we talk about this. You would do that for a friend who had cancer. You would want to know if it's OK to talk about publicly or privately. You would not presume, because you had not experienced it, how you should frame it."
[SOURCE]

"Ms. Butterfield, I just found out I have stage four lung cancer and I might only have months to lives; please keep a lid on that for now, would ya?"

"Ms. Butterfield, I just found the man that I, another man, love more than anything and with whom I plan to share my life in wedded bliss; please keep that under wraps until I can make this happy announcement myself, could ya?"

Can you see how those of us who exist within the latter realities might reject your comparison, Ms. B? Maybe? Just a little bit?

comment G-A-Y post email AddThis Feed Button G-A-Y writer-hooper

GLAAD: Mainstream media is catching on to NOM's broader agenda

by Jeremy Hooper
Cap Header Final 0-5


Mainstream media is catching on to NOM's broader agenda[GLAAD]

comment G-A-Y post email AddThis Feed Button G-A-Y writer-hooper

more



© G-A-Y / www.goodasyou.org