« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
10/26/2009
And before you get ideas, FRC: 'Good Morning America' doesn't mean entire nation's been officially 'good morninged'
The Washington Post has a blog called "Federal Eye," which tracks federal government goings on. That blog, like many others, begins each morning with a roundup post containing various news bits. Seeing as how the blog's name contains an ocular reference, they call this feature "Eye Opener." Not because the stories and links within this regular morning feature are in some way shocking, mind you. It's simply because this collection of odd and end stories (which this morning mentioned things like David Axelrod being on "60 Minutes" to discuss his daughter's epilepsy) is the first post of the day -- thus the "opener" of the Federal Eye blog.
Well leave it to the Family Research Council to mine deep, "scandalous" meaning out of a benign title in order to make a certain gay rights idea seem unsavory. Here is how they mention a certain pro-LGBT matter's recent appearance on this particular WaPo blog, turning "Eye Opener" into an editorial statement rather than a simple title for a morning feature:
Before we entrust Secretary Kathleen Sebelius with health care reform, maybe Americans should take a closer look at how her Department spends other taxpayer dollars. Even the Washington Post called Friday's announcement from Health and Human Services (HHS) an "eye opener," writing that the President's "gay outreach continues." A $1.4 trillion deficit aside, HHS has set aside a quarter million dollars to launch the first-ever National Resource Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Elders.
Now, never mind that the other stories on this particular "Eye Opener" post (from 10/22) mentioned such colorless items as the United States Postal Service launching a mobile site and repairs beginning at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. FRC isolated the one mention of gay rights, took the blog post's convenient title, and deliberately made it sound as if the paper sees this particular HHS resource center as somehow "shocking" or "out-of-line" or -- "eye opening." It is FRC deception as its most predictable.
But then again, had FRC not begun with such a witness-leading setup, then they might not have felt as able to segue into an unbelievably claim like this one:
In reality, HHS has no idea how many LGBT seniors exist. No one does! The movement is only a few decades old, and people who are 80- or 90-years-old didn't grow up in a culture where it was acceptable to identify with this lifestyle.
Of course, the real tragedy here--apart from the unnecessary spending--is that, given the risks of homosexual conduct, few of these people are likely to live long enough to become senior citizens! Yet once again, the Obama administration is rushing to reward a lifestyle that poses one of the greatest public health risks in America.
Now this unscientific attack on gay lives, dear readers, is what is truly "eye opening"! And it fully shows the FRC's real beef with the report and with HHS itself: That they are working to reduce the harms and risks faced by the LGBT people, rather than stamping their foreheads with the scarlet "TAINTED" label that FRC seems to prefer!
A true black eye on the national discourse, this Family Research Council!
*FULL FRC POST: For HHS, a Senior Moment [FRC]
Your thoughts
Jeremy, this WILL be a post on my blog tomorrow (giving you a hat tip of course).
Posted by: a. mcewen | Oct 26, 2009 7:53:32 PM
Among other things wrong with this, and there are many, they conveniently forget about LGBT people in their 60s and 70s who've been out for most of their adult lives, and that there are a *lot* of ageing people coming up.
Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | Oct 26, 2009 8:28:05 PM
"In reality, HHS has no idea how many LGBT seniors exist. No one does!"
Well, that is probably why it was decided that they launch the first-ever National Resource Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Elders. FRC is an enormous, disappointing joke.
Posted by: KZ | Oct 26, 2009 9:32:35 PM
Probably the single biggest reason that we need marriage equality is for the day (would that it weren't so inevitable) when we eventually succumb to old age. Married couples have some safety net for growing old, albeit meager in many cases. But, god forbid that the primary bread-winner (assuming that there is only one) in a same-sex couple should die, the options available to the survivor are pretty limited. For married couples, while it is not good by any stretch, it is not as bleak as it is for same-sex couples who have no legal protection of marriage.
I would seriously suspect that at least one of the reasons that the administration is going down this path, is to identify the scope of the problem, and to, more than likely, determine to what extent the lack of marital benefits contributes to the problem.. the problem being that many elderly LGBT persons end up being at least somewhat indigent. And, even more indigent that their contemporary married couples.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Oct 26, 2009 9:41:16 PM
I am rapidly approaching the point of finding these "claims" of the far religious right hilarious.
Seriously, do they not realize how utterly ridiculous and hateful they sound to the younger, more educated Americans with their twisted lies?
Posted by: Dale | Oct 26, 2009 10:19:44 PM
OK, I've got to admit, Jeremy, that I don't take your blog at face value. I double-check what you write and post to make sure it's in accordance with the facts. Although I don't always agree with what you say, I have found that your research is sound. You are rather fastidious about your facts. It's good journalism.
I can't say the same about FRC. They act as if homosexuality's some new thing that today's kids are into, like Twitter and premarital sex. Nobody in the "Greatest Generation" is gay, and especially nobody from the turn of the century.
They also act as if homosexuality is an instant death sentence. Do some gay people sleep around? Yes. Is that high-risk? Absolutely. Do some straight people sleep around? Yes. Same goes. Sex has risks. It doesn't mean you're going to die of the HIV before you're 25.
It's sad, really. It gives us non-hateful Christians a bad name.
Posted by: Brian | Oct 27, 2009 12:11:01 AM
Jeremy, this time I just had to laugh, and I'm kind of at that point with much of what comes from the Religious Right: They are so shameless, so stupidly shameless, so willing to lie about ANYTHING in their quest to score points, and as shown here, lying about dumber and dumber things, that it just strengthens my confidence that their ideas are on the way out (at least on a level that affects my life), and that the ideas of fairness and equality are coming in to replace them.
/7:30 AM run-on sentence. Deal with it. :)
Posted by: Break the Terror (Evan) | Oct 27, 2009 7:29:38 AM
Brian: By all means, check anything I ever write. I encourage it. Not only because I'm so confident in my research, but also because there's always a chance for error. And unlike my opposition, I want to correct any errors I might find.
In fact it's funny: You'd be shocked if you knew how many of my biggest adversaries -- I'm talking people I've written about hundreds of times -- have written me privately to tell me that a certain point is valid/they appreciate my work and tone/etc. So don't think for a second that they are, by and large, unaware of the stuff that goes on on their side. Which I actually think is worse -- that so many of them turn blind eyes to things like this.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 27, 2009 7:45:22 AM
Evan: Excellent! laugh, laugh, laugh!
That's always how I've seen this fight: Like a farcical play with a wacky cast of characters. I'm determined to bring down the curtain.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 27, 2009 8:09:13 AM
comments powered by Disqus