San Diego candidate learns not to buddy up to ex-gay gadfly James Hartline
New military survey on DADT
Episcopal Church approves lesbian bishop
Catholic Church continues to have predatory priest problems
NOM funds DC Candidate with questionable ethics
Thursday's testimony to include pro- and anti-DADT former soldiers
Queens chose gay marriage
Uganda Burning
Featured Reports
Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than two hundred posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
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:
Ephilei
June 17th, 2008 | LINK
It would be so interesting to work in the CA courts right now. Much more exciting than parking tickets.
Suricou Raven
June 18th, 2008 | LINK
Enjoy while it lasts – The marriage-banning ammendment is almost certain to pass in November, not just preventing new marriage but annulling those already performed.
Still, it’s a few months to demonstrate that gay marriage isn’t going to destroy anything :>
Duncan
June 18th, 2008 | LINK
I don’t agree with Mr Raven. There’s a good chance the amendment will be defeated. It’s happened in Arizona, which is surely more conservative than California.
The legislature has already voted twice in favour of equal marriage (though the voting system means the representatives are more liberal than their constituents), and the popular governor supports it. And it’s surely in CA more than anywhere else that gays live like everyone else, not confined in urban ghettos.
Remains to be seen if Dr. Dobson and his colleagues will start railing against arrogant unelected voters taking decisions away from ordinary Americans (i.e. themselves).
Todd
June 18th, 2008 | LINK
I also beleive that if the amendment passes, it will not have the effect of “overturning” the decision of the court since the decision was much broader than the amendment writers could have anticipated. There is a good chance that if the amendment does pass, the ruling that the State must recognize all unions equally may lead to the State being forced to only recognize Domestic Partnerships for all couples as the term marriage will be limited to only male/female couples. The fact that sexual orientation was determined to be a suspect class and therefore falls under the equality clauses of the State constitution as to equality of laws, also plays a huge roll in the decision. The amendment does not overule these aspects of the decision so there is a good chance equality can be maintained.
Timothy Kincaid
June 18th, 2008 | LINK
Suricou Raven,
Are you a Californian? As a fourth generation native that has lived in Northern, Central, and Southern California, I have some very reasons to think otherwise. The circumstances now are very different than they were in 2000 and I think that there is a very good chance that this amendment will fail. And by substantial numbers.
I may later write a post on why but I want to wait until the vote is closer.
Suricou Raven
June 18th, 2008 | LINK
No, I was basing my guess on two factors: Past trends and efforts. In other states, the campaigners trying to pass no-gay-marriage amendments have done so more often than now, even when the amendments have some potentially dangerously unclear language. They are also campaigning more heavily than ever before – they know as well as us that CA could be a turning point. The financial effort, not to mention the underhanded manipulation, is very powerful. They got enough signatures to get on the ballot *easily* – it wasn’t even close. Also, I note that two years ago the people voted for a plain law to ban gay marriage – it passed. The new amendment uses the same wording. Two years isn’t that much time to change, and this time the anti-gay-marriage faction is much more motivated. A poll says it has 52% backing, and remember that those who support it are *far* more likely to bother voting than those who claimed to oppose, many of whome don’t have strong views and so just said no by default.
I think they can do it. I am quite confident in this.
As for the effect of the amendment, that’s easy enough to find out. Just look up it’s exact wording. It couldn’t be more clear: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” That’s it. No complicated legal text this time: Just a single sentence. The effect of that is very obvious: All those gay marriages will no longer be recognised.
Unusually for a marriage protection ammendment, there is no ban on civil unions. Bit of a loophole there, but it would only work that way if the legislature voted to pass a law creating civil unions. And even if they did, there would be no federal recognition, which makes them half-useless.
Timothy Kincaid
June 18th, 2008 | LINK
Suricou Raven,
I appreciate the factors you are considering. I am considering those as well. But I think there are more that you are not considering and I hope to discuss those further in a later post.
Let me just make a few factual corrections…
1. “They got enough signatures to get on the ballot *easily* – it wasn’t even close.”
Actually it was fairly close timewise. As of a few weeks before the deadline they had to redouble efforts to push to get the signatures. I didn’t doubt that they would, but it wasn’t a slam-dunk.
2. “Also, I note that two years ago the people voted for a plain law to ban gay marriage – it passed. The new amendment uses the same wording. Two years isn’t that much time to change, and this time the anti-gay-marriage faction is much more motivated.”
That vote was in 2000, eight years ago, not two.
3. “A poll says it has 52% backing, and remember that those who support it are *far* more likely to bother voting than those who claimed to oppose, many of whome don’t have strong views and so just said no by default.”
There are conflicting polls. Another poll released a week later said that the amendment would fail. See my commentary here.
4. “As for the effect of the amendment, that’s easy enough to find out. Just look up it’s exact wording. It couldn’t be more clear: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” That’s it. No complicated legal text this time: Just a single sentence. The effect of that is very obvious: All those gay marriages will no longer be recognised.”
Actually, there are a number of outcomes, none of which is obvious. This is because the ruling was not limited to marriage but also established orientation as a “suspect class” and also because amendments are not retroactive. There is no clear agreement of what is likely, much less what is obvious. However, most legal experts I’ve heard agree that marriages that occur before November will continue to stand.
5. “Unusually for a marriage protection ammendment, there is no ban on civil unions. Bit of a loophole there, but it would only work that way if the legislature voted to pass a law creating civil unions. And even if they did, there would be no federal recognition, which makes them half-useless.”
Currently California has Domestic Partnerships that have all and exactly the same rights, benefits and obligations of marriage that are conferred by the State. No further litigation would be necessary.
I appreciate your concern but I think that your prediction about the outcome of a California vote in November may be based on incomplete information.
Todd
June 18th, 2008 | LINK
Timothy,
As you were probably aware, there was a second petition in California that would have banned marriages and Domestic Partnerships in California and that one did not get enough signatures to be voted on in November.
Suricou Raven
June 18th, 2008 | LINK
We shall see following November.
I doubt that will be the end of it though. If you are correct, then even if this amendment passes, it will still leave domestic partnerships in place. The anti-gay-marriage campaigners will not settle for that.
Robguy
June 19th, 2008 | LINK
With all the talk about which states will recognize the marriages, I think it would be hilarious if some states started not recognizing marriages from states that didn’t offer marriage equality. (I know that would never happen, but it would still be funny).
Leave A Comment