The Daily Agenda for Thursday, May 23
It's Not the Principle, It's the Prejudice
Congratulations Mitch!
Gay Couples Excluded from Immigration Bill Markup
How To Spot A Swivel-Eyed Loon
The Daily Agenda for Wednesday, May 22
House of Commons officially passes marriage equality
British Commons Approves Marriage Equality Bill
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:
Everett
September 20th, 2010 | LINK
The Knights of Columbus are a very influential contingent of the Catholic Church. They’re very anti-gay, and anti-abortion. They’re at most Catholic colleges and universities and chances are, once a guy is a member, he’ll stay a member long after he graduates from college. They’re organized and they’re politically smart. GLBT folks need to be aware of this group. It’s true that they do engage in charity work, but they are also not afraid to get political to advance the conservative Catholic agenda. This organization has a lot of zealous, conservative Catholic white men.
Cooner
September 20th, 2010 | LINK
They spent over two and a half times as much on anti-gay advocacy as they did on anti-abortion advocacy?
Criminy. o.O
Lynn David
September 20th, 2010 | LINK
And I used to wonder why they never asked me to join.
Ben Mathis
September 21st, 2010 | LINK
The National Organization for Marriage refuses to follow state laws that require disclosure of who is paying for political advertising.
How are they getting away with this part? Is there no enforcement metric?
Matt
September 21st, 2010 | LINK
KoC really deserves to be picketed. There’s a lodge/coven/whatchamacallit near my partner’s house and it always disappoints me that I am never there to coincide with their frequent “hoagie sales” (we’re near Philly) that they advertise. I want to do something similar to the PFLAG “dollars” that they put in the Salvation Army buckets during the X-mas season. Some form of civil protest of the KoC’s HORRIBLE record on gay rights.
I believe that everyday people–including liberal Catholics–are completely unaware of the Knights’ horrendous attitudes. They peobably think it’s a “benevolent” organization–like B’nai B’rith–and not a blatantly political group. I really do not understand how they maintain their 501(c)3 status.
BlackDog
September 21st, 2010 | LINK
Hmmmm, and here I just thought the Knights of Columbus was a bunch of old guys doing charitable stuff. The K of C guys in the Catholic church that I used to go to were pretty apolitical.
Of course, it makes sense. The one K of C member (Or possibly former member, I don’t know exactly) I know at the moment is a transplant from Louisiana, raised Catholic but currently (more or less) non-denominational Evangelical and that is how he acts/talks/thinks generally. He’s not especially anti-anything, but I can see how other members might be.
He generally automatically votes conservative.
Greg
September 21st, 2010 | LINK
Knights of Columbus does do some really good work–every town I’ve lived in, they’ve done great stuff for underprivileged and disabled kids.
Also, a lot of the members don’t realize how anti-gay they are. At least, that’s the only conclusion I can come to after having talking to the members who would be out for one collection drive or another. When I tell them that I can’t support openly homophobic groups, they try to let me know that the individual member isn’t homophobic and supports full equality. Unfortunately, that doesn’t stop the money they collect from getting thrown into the general Hate the Gays pot.
I don’t think the members will leave over the anti-gay stance–it doesn’t affect them. However, they are thinking twice, and hopefully when they actually have meetings together, they can point out that they want to do good things for kids, not hurt their gay neighbors.
Rob
September 21st, 2010 | LINK
Isn’t Knights of Columbus the Catholic equivalent to the Orange Order?
customartist
September 21st, 2010 | LINK
Matt, They keep thier their 501(c)3 status because nobody engages in court challenges against them. Olsen and Boies should take on the issue of illegal political finance by NOM next.
BlackDog,
This group keeps their actions covert. They want to keep the perception of being apolitical. This allows them to keep on raking in dollars under the guise of popular charity. Their hatred of Gays is not a new thing. I’ve seen their names assigned to Gay Opressive movements for quite some time now.
We should start a Feed the Children charity, and then turn over the dollars to gay groups! Thgere’d be no difference.
Chris McCoy
September 21st, 2010 | LINK
Rob wrote:
The Knights of Columbus was started as an alternative to Freemasonry (and other “Fraternal Societies”) – due to the Papal ban on Freemasonry. The ban forbids Catholics from joining any “secret” organizations. So Knights of Columbus’ membership list is publicly available.
The Orange Institution was founded specifically as an anti-Catholic institution, whereas the Knights of Columbus are not specifically anti-Protestant.
For this reason, wearing Green on St Patrick’s Day means you are pro-Catholic-Ireland (Pro-Unification, Anti-British). The Anti-Catholic, Pro-Protestant-Ireland, Pro-Great-Britain, wear Orange.
Paul
September 27th, 2010 | LINK
As a life-long Catholic and a proud member of the Knights of Columbus, I’m shocked (and a bit amused) at the level of ignorance and misinformation posted here.
“Of the $34.6 million that the Supreme Council spent in 2009, only $3.0 went for doing good deeds.” … funny. I guess we define ‘good deeds’ differently. Of course, this doesn’t begin to address the MILLIONS of volunteer hours we put in each year to benefit everything from homeless shelters, battered womens shelters, food-shelf programs to feed the needy, collecting coats for the homeless in the winter time (it gets COLD where I live), and on and on and on it goes…
We were NOT started as an alternative to the Freemasons. We were founded by Fr. Michael J. McGivney, assistant pastor of St. Mary’s Church in New Haven, Connecticut in March of 1882. He observed great need by the many widows and orphans of his parish and founded the Knights as a volunteer order to help them.
@Customartist: Your comments are ridiculous to the point of being comical. No need for paranoia here. We are not some evil secret society. We’re not trying to be “covert”. We’re simply a volunteer organization with values in-line with the rest of the Catholic Church.
We DO NOT hate homosexuals. We simply value the traditional family. In this era of the quickie-divorce, dead-beat dad, and ‘I don’t need a man to have a baby’ attitude, the traditional family has become something of a rarity. None of the aforementioned attitudes have the welfare of the child at it’s core.
Could 2 men raise a baby well? In my opinion, absolutely. LOVE is the key ingredient, as with most everything. But they cannot ever be a Mom. Nor could 2 Moms replace a Dad. We believe every child deserves the benefit that comes from having both a Mom and a Dad.
What you mistake as hatred for gay people is nothing more than love and advocacy for the child who has no choice in the matter.
It’s the same for our views on abortion. What is being ‘terminated’/killed? A mango tree? A Water Buffalo? A ’67 Mustang? No. It’s a person. A human being. And we cannot help but see that as murder. Does this mean we hate the woman having the abortion? NO! We pray for her. But we pray and fight also for the life she is choosing to end.
I hope this gave some clarity to all of you. But unfortunately, I think it will just spark more pooh-flinging…
Peace!
TJMcFisty
September 27th, 2010 | LINK
Children are not a legal requirement for marital rights and privileges, Paul.
Christopher
September 27th, 2010 | LINK
Paul, what’s the special benefit of having parents of two different genders? I’m not trying to be facetious–I honestly would like you to clarify this point.
However bringing children into the argument misses the fact that, right now, a man and a woman who love each other can enjoy the benefits of marriage as long as they are married, even if they never choose to have children.
You complain about “ignorance and misinformation” and accuse an earlier poster of “paranoia”. How about mutual disarmament? You put down your pooh and I’ll put down mine.
Timothy Kincaid
September 27th, 2010 | LINK
Paul,
Your history lesson is a bit skewed. The Knights were not founded as a social society to help “the poor” but rather as “mutual benefit society”, i.e a means of self insuring in a time when Catholics were subject to discrimination (ironic, isn’t it?).
And of course you do not “hate homosexuals”. You simply wish them to be second class citizens which are denied the rights that you take for granted. You wish them to be unable to serve their country, immigrate to be with the person they love, be protected from employment discrimination, be free of targeted hate crimes, pay the same rate of income taxes, or especially marry the person they love.
You don’t hate homosexuals, you just hold them in contempt. So much so that you are willing to spend more on fighting the ability of gay people to live with dignity than you spend on homeless shelters, battered womens shelters, food-shelf programs to feed the needy, and collecting coats for the homeless in the winter time, COMBINED.
You see this as “love”. If so, please stop loving me and just start ignoring me. Your “love” is not the love of Christ.
Jason D
September 27th, 2010 | LINK
“We DO NOT hate homosexuals. We simply value the traditional family. In this era of the quickie-divorce, dead-beat dad, and ‘I don’t need a man to have a baby’ attitude, the traditional family has become something of a rarity. None of the aforementioned attitudes have the welfare of the child at it’s core.”
Paul, my partner and I neither have kids, nor want kids (easy to follow through on that when you don’t have a chance of getting pregnant).
Please explain exactly HOW preventing us from marrying gives any child a Mom or a Dad. More importantly, please explain how our marriage would keep a kid from having a Mom or Dad.
Richard Rush
September 27th, 2010 | LINK
And furthermore, banning marriage for same-sex couples does not prevent a them from raising a child. But the marriage of that couple would benefit that child.
Vito
March 5th, 2011 | LINK
Well said Paul
People are generally afraid and skeptical of groups that they don’t understand. Google is their for everyone. Be my guesses everyone.
Priya Lynn
March 5th, 2011 | LINK
Paul said “We DO NOT hate homosexuals. We simply value the traditional family.”.
B.S. Paul. One can value the traditional family without attacking gays. You however choose to attack gays and that is hatred no matter how vehemently you deny it.
Leave A Comment