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
The Daily Agenda for Saturday, June 15
The Daily Agenda for Friday, June 14
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:
Smith
September 24th, 2012 | LINK
The McDonald campaign is not over. He won the Independence Party line and he has said that he will run in the general election. As an incumbent, he enjoys high name recognition. He is generally popular in his district. It is likely he will draw substantially from both Republicans and Democrats. There is absolutely no reason to think that he can’t win in November. Moreover, while all 3 candidates have about the same cash on hand right now, McDonald will enjoy substantial help from 2 new local marriage equality PACs, and he is likely to be able to refill his own coffers, giving him the financial edge.
Whatever happens with McDonald, it is folly to focus on this one race in isolation while ignoring NOM’s abysmal record of retaliation on pro-SSM legislators. NOM can really only exact retribution under limited conditions. NOM needs a low turnout race or a race in which its target doesn’t fight back. To date, NOM has lost nearly every one of its campaigns against pro-gay marriage candidates. From special elections in Iowa to the recent primaries in New Hampshire (where it lost every single race in which it became involved) to its backing of Anthony Pugno for the CA legislature. It loses almost all the time.
It has won – and by that I mean that it achieved its desired electoral outcome and that gay marriage played a material part in that outcome – in just 3 instances. First was the judicial retention election in IA in 2010. Second was the special election for the NY Senate in Brooklyn this year. And third was the McDonald primary.
In the first case, the targets did not fight back, did not answer charges and did not campaign. This is also true of the Saland-DiCarlo race, where Saland actually didn’t do very much because he didn’t take his opponent seriously.
The latter 2 cases involved low turnouts of 15% and 13% respectively. In both cases, NOM’s side only just squeaked through with a margin of 8 votes and 100 or so votes, respectively. So the gist is that NOM can only hope to win when all it needs to do is turn out about 7% of the electorate. Even when those conditions prevail, it will usually lose. And indeed it lost most of its races in NY last week.
I do hope you don’t fall on the media bandwagon of magnifying NOM’s wins while ignoring its multitude of losses. The spin is nearly as important as the reality here. Future GOP legislators should know that there is some risk, but it is not nearly the risk NOM would make it out to be.
cooner
September 24th, 2012 | LINK
Aww, hell. I remember reading that specific statement back during the voting and loved the words. It’s sad to hear he’s been beaten down because of it.
Hopefully karma finds another way to reward him somehow.
MattNYC
September 25th, 2012 | LINK
@Smith
As I noted earlier in my Saland story comments, I think it’s a much stronger likelihood that LGBT money will follow Robin Andrews, the Democratic Party’s candidate.
There are a number of factors, including how much he spent on the Primary, exhaustion, not stepping on the toes of the party he has represented for years, only having a single ballot line, and the fact that the big donors in the LGBT community like to stick with the “established” parties.
I refrained from donating to McDonald’s campaign because it took me 6 months to get off all of the Republican mailing lists after I did so immediately after the ME vote. My blood pressure could not take getting letters from Jim DeMint and Mitch McConnell.
I will go ahead now and send my money to Robin Andrews’ campaign.
Doug
September 25th, 2012 | LINK
“My blood pressure could not take getting letters from Jim DeMint and Mitch McConnell.”
So they forced you to read them?
MattNYC
September 25th, 2012 | LINK
Doug–their names were on the envelopes and I came close to punching the mailbox. (OK, I have wingnut-related anger management issues, I know!) I lost brain cells merely reading their names and felt like I got their stupid and hate on me. A steaming shower and scouring pad helped.
I stuffed every bit of paper and heavy crap I could fit into the postage-paid envelopes along with some choice words as to where they could stick their letters. And it felt surprisingly GOOD! LOL
Not holding my breath, but I haven’t gotten another one since then. :D
Alas, R-money’s mailers did not come postage-paid (I guess that’s one of the ways he stays rich), so those merely went in the recycling bin.
Smith
September 26th, 2012 | LINK
Mattnyc:
I hope you will reconsider about McDonald. And I am going to respectfully disagree with your prediction about gay money going to Andrews. BTW, I am a Dem.
First, why not support Andrews? Because even though Andrews is pro-equality (and is in fact lesbian), if she wins, NOM can still claim that their efforts were a victory. Their sole purpose in getting involved in this race is to show that a Republican who votes for SSM will be gone. They don’t need to show that his successor is good or bad, just that the targeted legislator has been punished with a loss of career. This is exactly what happened in the NY congressional primary involving Dede Scozzafava. They targeted her and, even though a pro-gay Dem ultimately won the general election, they have used that race for years to threaten other Republicans. So an Andrews win is still a win for NOM and that will hurt us in state legislatures considering marriage equality in the future, including DE, IL, RI, and NV. Similarly, a win by the Democrate, Amodeo over Mark Grisanti, will be claimed by NOM as a win.
The only way to defeat NOM in this PR battle is to ensure that all 3 senators remain in office this one election cycle. After this year, we owe these guys nothing and can resume support for their Dem opponents. But if you care about marriage equality, you will put aside your very understandable distaste for the GOP and their mailers this one time and support McDonald.
As to what gay money will do, we will know soon enough. But a huge chunk of the money, perhaps 75-80% is coming from not from liberal gay orgs, but nonideological or even GOP allies. The main PAC supporting McDonald was funded by Paul Singer and Ken Mehlman, both GOP’ers. That money will continue for McDonald.
And if Cuomo endorses McDonald, as he has hinted he will do, that will provide a major incentive for gay groups to support McDonald. I can’t imagine gay groups crossing Cuomo and embarrassing him by defeating McDonald, thus simultaneously betraying not one but 2 heroes of the 2011 marriage effort. Unless polling shows that McDonald has no chance, there is no way they will take that course.
Smith
September 26th, 2012 | LINK
Update: Cuomo has now endorsed McDonald. If McDonald goes ahead on the Independence line, which I believe he has already said he will, I have no doubt that the marriage equality movement will back him with money for all the reasons I set forth above.
Anonymous
October 22nd, 2012 | LINK
Hate to break it to y’all, but Sen. McDonald–who is a very angry man–has ceased his campaign after losing his GOP primary to Kathy Marchione. See http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/top-stories/stories/sen-roy-mcdonald-announces-he-not-run-3rd-term-3331.shtml.
Anonymous
October 22nd, 2012 | LINK
Maybe voting for same-sex marriage and dropping the F-bomb about it isn’t such a great idea for a Republican. Just saying.
Leave A Comment