Murkowski makes three
Massachusetts GOP Senate Candidate goes to Pride
The Daily Agenda for Wednesday, June 19
Another Exodus Conference Is Upon Us. Let's Review.
For Our Opponents: Talking to Your Kids About Same-Sex Marriage
The Daily Agenda for Tuesday, June 18
The Daily Agenda for Monday, June 17
The Daily Agenda for Sunday, June 16
Featured Reports
What Are Little Boys Made Of?
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
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 500 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:
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) doesn’t think sexual orientation should be included in the hate Crimes law because, he says, homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic. CBS News decided to follow up on that:
TampaZeke
October 14th, 2009 | LINK
Someone needs to tell all of those people who change their religion, or lose their religion altogether, that they can’t do that because it’s genetic and immutable.
Christopher Eberz
October 14th, 2009 | LINK
I don’t even care to comment on one man’s (very likely under-informed) opinions on the issue of sexual orientation, how it works and whether or not its changeable.
I’d rather just point out, like TamaZeke did, the idea implied by his argument: if black or brown people could change the color of their skin, there’s no point in making race a protected class.
Way to go Boehner.
Burr
October 14th, 2009 | LINK
Gender’s not immutable either, despite how much people stick their heads in the sand over it.
Burr
October 14th, 2009 | LINK
BTW, is that atrocious tan immutable?
Jim
October 14th, 2009 | LINK
The honorable Mr. Boehner’s ideals seem so at odds with mine. Maybe there is common ground. I hope so.
Edwin
October 14th, 2009 | LINK
If people would think before they open their mouths, they might see what kind of idiots they really are. I wonder how many of these people have gay people in their families and are really deniing that they exis too.
Boehner is like all homophobic’s. Just trying to deny someone that doesn’t think has no rights. What an a**.
Dan L
October 14th, 2009 | LINK
I think you mean that Boehner thinks that “homosexuality is not an IMmutable characteristic”. Obviously, what you mean is clear from the context, but I had to read that two or three times before I figured that out :-).
Lindoro Almaviva
October 14th, 2009 | LINK
Of course he is supporting protections based on religion. How else could you pass hate legislation and still be able to cry foul when it comes back to bite you ion the ass?
John
October 14th, 2009 | LINK
Boehner’s remarks are exactly why I do not oppose this hate crimes bill, even though I have strong concerns about such legislation in general. I can respect a party taking a position that all hate crimes legislation are wrong for XYZ reasons but that’s not what I’ve been hearing from the GOP. Nope, this line is only brought up when it involves teh gheys. That to me is quite revealing about the true motives behind their opposition which have very little to do with differences on the Constitution. When I see Republicans put as strong an effort behind repealing ALL hate crimes laws because of a principled difference then I will be willing to listen to what they are saying. Right now, no thanks.
Oh and the President would be seriousl mistaken if he thinks signing this bill will lessen the well-deserved heat is undergoing. This is a crumb, nothing more. Thanks but let’s get to something more substantial. Repeal DADT and I would consider that to noteworthy.
Jim Burroway
October 14th, 2009 | LINK
Dan L. Sorry for the confusion. I’ve corrected the text.
Mel
October 14th, 2009 | LINK
This is the argument that needs to be thrown back in their face every time the phrase “immutable characteristic” passes their lips. If only “immutable characteristics” are worthy of protection, then religion – which is clearly a “lifestyle choice”, to use their parlance – deserves no protection. And if they feel that religious “lifestyle choice” is deserving of protection, then they have no grounds to protest two adults falling in love, whether it be choice or biology.
KZ
October 14th, 2009 | LINK
Two things…
Boehner needs to see the video of Jack Price’s being beaten.
Then he needs to sit down and have a frank discussion with Mr. “the opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality, it’s Holiness” Alan Chambers. I want to know if Boehner thinks homosexuality is changeable when the PRESIDENT OF EXODUS INTERNATIONAL admits he still struggles with sexual temptation.
Lynn David
October 15th, 2009 | LINK
I like Levin’s ideas concerning why hate crimes are important.
Jafuf
October 15th, 2009 | LINK
Never mind the obvious category of religion. Is he speaking from personal experience? Is he one of those claiming to be ‘ex-gay’? And what about transgenered people? Is he going to tell them the operation made no difference? That they are still the same sex they were born (despite the new body parts)? I think they should add stupidity to the law. Obviously, in his case, that is not an immutable trait.
Bill Ware
October 15th, 2009 | LINK
Those who can hold two mutually exclusive beliefs to be true at the same time like their churches interpretation of the Bible vs. scientific reality can also believe that sexual orientation is immutable as far as hate crimes laws are concerned yet mutable when it comes to evangelizing. It’s an extreme form of compartmentalizing. When one is being considered, the other is walled off and vice versa. Since they are never considered at the same time, their mutually exclusive natures are never acknowledged.
johnozed
October 15th, 2009 | LINK
Sexuality is just like going to a tanning salon.
Richard W. Fitch
October 15th, 2009 | LINK
I’ve never had a real high opinion regarding Boehner, but this finally puts him at the bottom of the list for me.
David Blakeslee
October 15th, 2009 | LINK
Religion is not an immutable characteristic…
Neither is atheism…
Both are protected.
GLBT folks should be protected under the same rubric.
David Blakeslee
October 15th, 2009 | LINK
@ KZ,
that would be a good conversation and we should encourage Exodus to have it…
More light…more light.
Ben in Oakland
October 15th, 2009 | LINK
but wait. we’re told that everyone is really heterosexual, and that this cannot be changed, just un-holy-fied.
I’m confused.
David Blakeslee
October 15th, 2009 | LINK
@ Ben
:).
I am sure if I try to clear things up…we’ll all feel misunderstood and confused.
David
October 15th, 2009 | LINK
political affiliation is not immutable either, and yet, though it is not specifically protected, the fact remains that the Constitution contains protections for political beliefs, though such guarantees as those found in the 1st amendment – which effectively prevents the government from suppressing unpopular political parties.
In essence, Boehner’s argument is that Constitutional protections only apply to immutable, intrinsic traits, and this would apply to free speech, petition to redress of grievances, and all other rights in the context of mutable characteristics.
For example, the Second Amendment could be waived for residents of a particular state, since residency in any particular state, or city, is a mutable characteristic. Under Boehner’s argument, we could completely ban guns in Texas, but not anywhere else, since gun owners could always move if they wanted to continue to own guns.
Additionally, Boehner has in essence argued that the Democrat majority can now set aside such Constitutional protections as they apply to political affiliation, and actively suppress the Republican party, since political affiliation is mutable.
In other words, Boehner has no clue what the Constitution actually achieves, and is clearly unfit for public office, especially since ignorance is not immutable.
bruce
October 15th, 2009 | LINK
It is time we marched on every congressman who could make such as outrageous comment. If he had to be waiting on a bunch of us daily with signs and banners asking him to reconsider he might not like that. It is time we gathered our troops and march on all of the bastards and make this a huge issue!
Burr
October 15th, 2009 | LINK
I’m with you on your point there, John. Whatever is or isn’t implemented, it needs to be the same across the board, but yet we’re not seeing a real push for that from the opposition, despite the principle they claim to be extolling.
homer
October 15th, 2009 | LINK
Many light skinned African-Americans have passed into “white” society. There have been several interesting books on this topic- The Sweeter the Juice: A Family Memoir in Black and White by Shirley Taylor Haizlip is a particularly interesting one. Based upon Boehner’s so-called logic, race should not be covered because certain individuals have changed their race.
Mark F.
October 17th, 2009 | LINK
There are good arguments against a Federal hate crime laws (it is unconstitutional, it puts people in de facto double jeopardy, it won’t reduce violence, motive shouldn’t make a difference in punishment, etc.), but this argument is stupid.
Désirée
October 18th, 2009 | LINK
Mark, motive alreadymakes a difference. If you plan to kill someone, that is first degree murder. If it’s spontaneous, that is second degree murder. These two crimes have different punishments. Does the murder victim care? No, she’s dead either way. So that argument just doesn’t fly.
How is it unconstitutional? The only thing I can think of is you think it violates the mandate against “cruel & unusual punishment” but I hardly see anything cruel or unusual. What hate crimes enhancements are for is punishing a person for attempting to inspire fear into a community by committing a crime against an individual. Sure, every crie is horrible and all would-be murderers, rapists and muggers should be dealt with, but when someone kills another person *because the person is gay (or black, or Jewish etc)* and makes it known that that was in fact the reason for the crime, the goal is to inspire fear into others of the same class as the victim. It’s no longer just a crime against an individual, but against a group.
Double jeopardy? How so? That means a person can’t be tried again for the same crime. It says nothing about charging a person for multiple crimes stemming from a single incident. So charging a hate crime murder as opposed to a “regular” murder in no way subjects a person to double jeopardy, effectively or otherwise.
Burr
October 18th, 2009 | LINK
Double jeopardy because as I understand it, if they fail to get a conviction, the option exists to take it to the federal level (since the assumption is that local bias and hate has prevented justice from being served).
Richard W. Fitch
October 18th, 2009 | LINK
The issue of double jeopardy is very complex. I won’t even pretend to have a scholarly comment. There are, however, lots of good resources on the web to try and make sense of it. Burr, the very reason that it needs to be a federal issue seems to be that when a case is prosecuted under local/state jurisdiction, it can still be brought to trial at the federal level as a separate jurisdiction and not violate the 5th amendment protection.
Leave A Comment