Carrie's porn loses her a gig with NJ "family defenders"
Wal-Mart bans gay couple for NOT shoplifting
California Poll: I support marriage but I don't want to vote again
Because She Needed It
The "Biblical" Worldwide Anglican Communion
Namibia Political Parties Hesitantly Supportive
Purdue Professor Spews "An Economic Case Against Homosexuality"
Australian Senate Refuses to Oppose Uganda's "Kill Gays" Bill
Featured Reports
David Benkof: Behind the Mask
At first glance, David Benkof appears to be a young gay man who believes that same-sex marriage will damage the institution of marriage, that there are better options for gay couples than marriage, that the community should join him in prioritizing other more pressing issues, and that the marriage discussion is harming the efforts of gay couples in red states to get recognition for their unions. He also claims that he’s a gay columnist, that he speaks for an influential collection of gay thinkers, and that he is part of the gay and lesbian community and that he shares our goals and dreams. But none of that is true.
“Repeat After Me”: The Reparative Therapy Echo Chamber
The April 2008 edition of the pay-to-publish vanity journal Psychological Reports featured a new report from NARTH. Written by NARTH president A. Dean Byrd, past president Joseph Nicolosi, and Richard W. Potts, the report carries the unwieldy but self-descriptive title, “Clients perceptions of how reorientation therapy and self-help can promote changes in sexual orientation.” While the title describes what the authors meant to show — how clients describe the benefits of reparative therapy — the report itself actually illustrates something very different: the ex-gay movement’s remarkable ability to instill an almost robot-like parroting of ex-gay rhetoric among their clients.
Testing the Premise: Is MRSA The New Gay Plague?
The Toronto Star said that a new study “discover[ed] a new strain” of a super-bug “hitting gay men.” Headlines in Britain screamed, “Flesh-eating bug strikes San Francisco’s gay community,” and anti-gay extremists across America spread the alarm that gays were introducing another plague into “the general population.” But there was a small problem with all of this: None of it is true!
Paul Cameron’s World
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don't miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
Review: The Gay Report
When Karla Jay and Allan Young published The Gay Report in 1979, it quickly a favorite source of statistics for many anti-gay extremists. But before you accepts these statistic at face value, you should examine the inner workings of this survey very carefully. What you learn might surprise you.
Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Contrary to last week’s Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll, a new Field Poll released yesterday (PDF: 49KB/8 pages) shows a historic shift in California voters’ support for same-sex marriage. For the first time in history, a majority of California voters now say they support same-sex marriage and oppose a proposed anti-marriage state constitutional amendment.
Daniel Gonzales
May 28th, 2008 | LINK
Also expected to be on the ballot in CA this November is a 20 billion dollar high speed rail system. Nothing gets us young liberal urban elitist folk excited (and to the polls hopefully) like the dream of high speed rail transit. That same group also tends to come down overwhelmingly in favor of marriage equality. Hopefully we’ll see some synergy come November.
werdna
May 28th, 2008 | LINK
Good news! If Arizona could defeat a gay marriage ban, I hope California can too.
But… bad spelling! I caught “votors” and “marraige” (twice). Hopefully all of the numbers were correct.
Timothy Kincaid
May 28th, 2008 | LINK
This may be an odd way to look at this poll, but I’m excited about the polling results of those who are in the opposing groups.
According to this poll:
24% of born again Christians
11% of strongly conservative people
25% of Republicans
38% of residents of the Central Valley
45% of Catholics
all support marriage equality.
“Common knowledge” says that ALL of these folks should oppose gay marriage. That sizeable minorities within these categories support gay marriage tells us a great deal about the future of gay issues as a wedge in politics.
It’s exciting to see this poll. But considering the LA Times poll it’s hard to know what it means. I’ll cautiously celebrate but we must still work very hard to defeat this amendment.
Jason D
May 28th, 2008 | LINK
Yeah, Californian’s don’t let this be like Bush vs Gore, don’t rest on your laurels and assume it’s a done deal.
I don’t know if anyone can address this, but I’ve heard rumors that even if a ban passed, it would be nullified because :
A) The Supreme Court ruling in some way nullfies or prohibits amending the CA constitution.
–and or–
B) The CA constitution cannot contradict itself. If it says “equality before the law” in one place, it can’t say “no marriage for gays” in another. Something similar to not being allowed to amend the US constitution to invalidate the Bill of Rights.
cowboy
May 28th, 2008 | LINK
Affirmation (gay Mormons) has issued a press release asking the LDS Church stay out of California politics.
Not likely to happen but I wonder if Californians will take kindly to Vatican West meddling with politics in another State. Oh…that’s right, Orange County is nearly all Mormon and all the Salt Lake connections to Disneyland can’t be ignored.
At least Affirmation got a reaction in the news. The comments on ksl.com is blisteringly high and likely to melt their server.
werdna
May 28th, 2008 | LINK
Amendements to the US Constitution can override existing amendments. That’s why we can drink alcohol legally again (cheers!). Is there any reason we couldn’t pass an amendment that would supercede one of the first 10? The “Bill of Rights” isn’t legally untouchable is it? It’s just politically and culturally hard to imagine changing those amendments because they are considered central to the American project.
In the case of the California constitution, an amendment would certainly supercede a judicial ruling. The recent ruling said that the state can’t offer equivalent opposite-sex marriage and same-sex domestic partnerships, so it seems possible that the result of the amendment would be that nobody at all could get married in California, or that the state couldn’t offer same-sex domestic partnerships. I’ve actually been looking for some analysis of what the legal implications of the proposed amendment might be. It’s one of those things that seems simple (just adding one line to the constitution) but the implications could be far wider (and wilder).
howller
May 28th, 2008 | LINK
Werdna: “I’ve actually been looking for some analysis of what the legal implications of the proposed amendment might be.”
A good place to start would be Leonard Link
Mark
May 28th, 2008 | LINK
wernda:
Actually, drinking alcohol has never been illegal for adults in this country. Prohibition just outlawed the commercial manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol. A few counties in some states still maintain prohibition.
werdna
May 29th, 2008 | LINK
howller, thants for the link, very good stuff.
Mark, yes fine, you’ve out niggled me. ;-)
My point was just (in response to Jason D’s questions) that an amendment to a constitution (US or state) will supercede any existing part of the constitution with which it conflicts. Another example would be the 14th Amendment which (among other things) rescinded the “3/5 compromise” found in the main body of the US Constitution.
Duncan
May 29th, 2008 | LINK
Parts of the constitution may grant rights that are opposed to each other (such as the right to information vs the right to privacy). The principle used by the Supreme Court in the USA (and followed in most other democracies) is that a law may restrict a constitutional right only by invoking another.
But “marriage between gay and lesbian couples” surely means a gay couple marrying a lesbian couple. Shouldn’t it be “marriage between gay or lesbian partners” or “marriage for gay and lesbian couples”?
Californians support marriage equality, says new Field Poll « break the terror
July 18th, 2008 | LINK
[...] support marriage equality, says new Field Poll Yep. The last Field Poll on the issue was just after the Supreme Court ruling, and it found that 51% of Californians were [...]
Leave A Comment