Box Turtle Bulletin

New Hampsure results silence NOM’s Maggie Gallagher

Timothy Kincaid

March 20th, 2010

On March 10th, National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher was euphoric. She was joyously reporting that the residents of New Hampshire had voted to reject same-sex marriage (National Review Online)

Of the vote results reported by the Union-Leader, along with a couple from the Concord Monitor, seventeen towns approved and three rejected the article.

Voting for a marriage amendment were: Charlestown (620-305), Kingston (719-346), Milton (385-285), Littleton (912-627), Wakefield (504-242), Dunbarton (77-58), Kingston (719-346), Windham (1,428-832), Epsom (422-225), Bedford (2,783-1,040), Hampstead (1,190-499), Allenstown (383-198), Auburn, Swanzey (542-422), Stark (unanimously), Pittsburg (64-4), and Belmont.

Rejecting were Newhampton, Salisbury (30-27), and Northumberland (57-104).

This is a partial list; still looking for full electoral info.

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! She chortled in her joy.

To understand what this means, we have to take a step back and look at how same-sex marriage came to New Hampshire and what these town votes mean.

New Hampshire is one of two states in which the legislature passed a bill which was signed by the governor which changed the family law code to allow same-sex couples to marry. This was not due to a lawsuit or other court action but was an act of the purest representative government.

To reverse this law, anti-gay activists have a few options.

They can vote for representatives who oppose marriage equality who could then repeal the law. But while it is possible for marriage rights to appear and disappear with the change (or whim) of the elected representatives, many legislators are hesitant to play so cavalierly with the lives of their constituents. Further, the representatives are aware that changing laws back and forth create complexities and legal confusion which would both make their jobs more difficult and open them up to criticism.

They can lobby for a change in the constitution, a one-time fix. However, New Hampshire does not have a initiative process and the constitution can only be changed in two ways.

The state has a provision by which a constitutional convention can be called. Every ten years (or by a majority of both houses) the people vote on whether to call a convention (the next vote is scheduled for 2012). Then delegates are elected and a convention convened. Amendments to the constitution require a 3/5 vote of the delegates and a 2/3 vote of the people. Anti-gay activists may encourage a “yes” vote on the next constitutional convention question.

The second method for changing the constitution for both houses, by a 3/5 vote, to place an amendment on the ballot. Such an amendment would require a 2/3 affirmative vote of the electorate. And it was towards the last method that the rhetoric of the anti-gay activists was directed. NOM (among others) sought to demonstrate that it was the will of the people that they be allowed to vote on the issue. And this was the focus of their language: marriage is too important to be decided by the legislature, it should have the input of the people.

NOM was hoping that folks who were moderate or even supportive of marriage would agree that a “people’s vote” was needed. And once it was on the ballot, they would dump tens of millions of dollars (from undisclosed sources) to fund a campaign of bald-faced lies and seek to enshrine the doctrines of some religious organizations into civil law.

To put pressure on the legislature and create an impression of public support, anti-gay activists used a political mechanism that is peculiar to New England states: the town meeting, a gathering of the residents to determine town business. They sought to have the towns demand of the state that the residents be allowed to vote on marriage equality.

There are (basically) two types of town meeting. A traditional type, which is a public gathering on the second Tuesday in March, works well for small communities. And, since 1995, the state has allowed a two-part meeting (called an SB2 Meeting) in which first a deliberate session is held, which creates wording, and then residents vote through polling places. These votes occur on the second Tuesday of March, April, or May. To get a matter up for consideration at a town meeting, concerned citizens can collect twenty-five signatures on a petition.

So anti-gay activists organized to have towns pass a non-binding resolution, an “opinion of the people”, if you will, to ask the legislature to “let us vote. And using the town meeting approach was actually a pretty smart move. Cities, such as Portsmouth or Dover, don’t have a non-binding resolution process, so any results would skew towards smaller towns or rural communities where conservative sentiment was more likely to thrive. Further, those fired up to “fight the homosexual agenda” were more likely to attend than residents who weren’t much interested either way.

The best scenario for anti-gay activists would be for each town to endorse the “let us vote” effort by 2/3 of the residents. This could allow NOM to spin the results as evidence that a constitutional amendment would pass and that residents demand their rights. But success would be a majority of voters – or a majority of towns – which would allow Maggie and Brian to claim that they speak for “the people”.

Even “a majority of those towns which voted”, while meaningless, would allow Maggie a press release (for NOM it’s all about perception and spin) and a “victory”. Any result which could be stretched to suggest that the legislators were out of touch with the residents of New Hampshire.

Thus the gloating comments she made at NRO.

But it seems that Maggie forgot to comment once the “full electoral info” was found. And she has good reason not to want to discuss the decisions of the New Hampshire towns.

Dean Barker at Blue Hampshire has compiled the votes to date, and here is what he found:

Traditional meetings:

28 towns supported the anti-gay effort
61 towns did not provide enough signatures
31 towns tabled the bill, refusing to even vote on it
33 towns voted “no” on the measure
1 town flipped the effort and voted to commend the state for supporting equality

SB2 Meetings:

31 towns supported the anti-gay effort
10 towns did not provide enough signatures
14 towns amended the language in the deliberative session, killing the petition
1 town flipped the effort but failed to vote to commend the state for supporting equality

There are 11 towns yet to decide. But of the 210 towns which could have supported the efforts of the anti-gay activists, only 59 chose to do so. Few of those were by a 2/3 vote.

Of course NOM and the other participants at LetNHVote are seeking to spin this as a victory. They simply don’t count the towns in which the motion was tabled or in which the deliberative sessions killed the effort, and claim that of the towns in which the residents did decide to vote, they won a majority.

But their claims ring a little hollow. It’s a bit like celebrating because the people inside the ice cream parlor voted that they like ice cream.

And for some reason, Maggie’s chortling has turned to silence.

Anti-Gay Group Sells Snakeoil

Jim Burroway

March 19th, 2010

Okay, in the interest of full accuracy, I cannot vouch for the ingredients of Concerned Women for America’s “exciting liquid nutrition discovery and a new program at CWA,” but hawking a new elixir as “a single, liquid ultra-premium formula that provides the vitamins, minerals and nutrients needed for optimal health*” (all-important asterisk in the original) seems be a good fit for an organization that has a long history of selling political snake oil.

San Diego candidate learns not to buddy up to ex-gay gadfly James Hartline

Timothy Kincaid

March 17th, 2010

It never pays to buddy up to ex-gay activist James Hartline. You’re going to get burned. Even if you agree with everything that Hartline supports, you have to be as extreme and wacky as he is or he’ll turn on you.

And San Diego City Council candidate Lorie Zapf has just found that out. Hartline is sharing some of their communications with the press. (Union-Tribune)

Hartline said he distributed the e-mail to media outlets this week because Zapf was not living up to his anti-gay standards.

It all started in 2006 when Zapf supported a candidate for City Council who endorsed the mayor who was known to be tolerant of gay people. Although she had attended church with him at Mission Valley, this was enough to lead Hartline to suspect Zapf’s anti-gay credentials. Or as Hartline tells it (in the third person):

It was because Hartline and Zapf knew each other at MVCF that Hartline began to email Zapf regarding her obviously hypocritical involvement with the campaigns of Judy Riddle, a member of the cult Mormon Church, and pro-homosexual San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders. Hartline could not understand at the time how Zapf could be involved in promoting Mormon candidates when MVCF had taught her that Mormonism is a cult. Equally perplexing for Hartline was the idea that Zapf was so involved with Jerry Sanders after the years Sanders had marched in San Diego’s pornographic gay pride parades.

Initially, Zapf attempted to manipulate Hartline in emails, telling Hartline that she was firmly in his camp on the homosexual issue. As Hartline responded with emails showing Zapf was compromising, she began to take a sinister turn, emailing Hartline’s pastors in an attempt to shut Hartline down. It appears by her responses in the recent Union Tribune article, that the sinister Zapf is once again replacing the “Aunt Bee” Lorie Zapf.

Hartline’s view of “compromising” is probably a bit different than yours. Zapf was pretty clear where she stood: (City Beat)

“I absolutely want to keep homosexuals out of public office and not be allowed to influence our schools, textbooks, altering marriage, children, and on and on”
…
“I like that you are trying to keep homosexuals and homosexual activists out of public office because we both know what the long term agenda is.”
…
“I do believe homosexuality is a sin. I have three homosexual first cousins. I love them all and would ‘be seen’ in a photo with them. I believe they all live in sin and frankly all are very unhappy people and had horrible childhoods as well.”

But hating the gay isn’t enough for Hartline. You have to be fire-breathing, take no prisoners, crazy-ass in your hating of the gay. But crazy-ass homophobia doesn’t sell with in San Diego. Yes, this is a Republican city, but it likes its Republicans to be either gay supportive or gay themselves.

So Zapf is now clarifying. She says that she didn’t mean gay people, per se, just gay activists (ya know, the gay folk who aren’t closeted, delusional, ex-gay, or like Roy Ashburn).

And she’s a victim. It was just taken out of context.

“This is what keeps good people from running for office,” she said. “Everyone’s got something. It’s going to be a little sentence plucked out, taken out of context … and then used against me to try to destroy me and my family.”

Zapf said voters should note that Hartline’s anger stems from her support of gays.

“The irony is that James Hartline, of all people, who is so rabidly anti-gay, is trying to hurt me because I’m not,” she said. “He doesn’t think I’m anti-gay enough. I’m not at all.”

Oh, I dunno, Lorie. I think you’re plenty anti-gay.

Even if you would ‘be seen’ in a photo with me.

Riding Horses

Jim Burroway

March 15th, 2010

My beloved Arizona never disappoints when it comes to extreme looniness. Sen. John McCain is facing a primary challenge from former Arizona congressman and Phoenix right-wing radio host J.D. Hayworth, who told an Orlando, Florida radio audience that Massachusetts’ marriage equality law could lead to marriages between man and horse:

“You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage — now get this — it defined marriage as simply, ‘the establishment of intimacy,’” Hayworth said. “Now how dangerous is that? I mean, I don’t mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point — I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse. It’s just the wrong way to go, and the only way to protect the institution of marriage is with that federal marriage amendment that I support.”

Sen. McCain opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment because he felt that it violated the principles of federalism, not because he believed in equality for gay people. McCain supported Arizona’s Prop 102, the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage which passed in 2008.

Hayworth, who promoted tea party events on his radio program and gained the endorsement of national tea party leaders, is determined to run an extremely negative campaign. I wonder if the next whisper campaign against McCain will somehow imply that he enjoys ”riding horses.”

Fact Checking the Family “Research” Council Straw Man Argument

Jason Cianciotto

March 13th, 2010

In response to a Washington Post article about the economic benefits of same-sex marriage in DC, the Family Research Council (FRC) provides a classic example of how right-wing organizations manipulate data and statistics to suit their anti-LGBT positions.

Here’s the quote:

When same-sex weddings kicked off in D.C. yesterday, the city wasn’t seeing anything but dollar signs. In an absurd article in today’s Washington Post, reporters tried to argue that counterfeit marriage could be the economic salvation of the city’s economy. In a region with 12% unemployment, local officials claim that redefining marriage “will create 700 jobs and contribute $52.2 million over three years to the local economy.”

Not so fast, says FRC. The last census counted 3,678 same-sex partner homes in D.C. Assuming that number has stayed roughly the same, then the 150 who applied for marriage licenses yesterday would amount to a whopping four percent of the local homosexual population–hardly the stuff of economic recovery. For the Post’s $52.2 million projection to come true, all 3,678 of those D.C. couples would have to get married and spend over $14,000 per wedding. (I don’t know about you, but my wife and I spent a LOT less!) These “marriages” (which have yet to meet financial expectations in other states) may make a fast buck in the short term, but they will do nothing but drain the economy down the road. Consider the massive health care expenses incurred by taxpayers every year to cope with the diseases spread by homosexual behavior. According to the Kaiser Foundation, federal funding grew to more than $18 billion in 2004 to deal with the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Over half of all U.S. infections are in men having sex with men! That means taxpayers spend roughly $10 billion a year treating the diseases caused by a behavior celebrated in same-sex “marriage.” So much for economic development!

Not so fast FRC.

Yes, according to the Washington, DC Census Snapshot published by the Williams Institute, there are an estimated 3,678 same-sex couple households in the district, and the Associate Press did report that 150 same-sex couples applied for licenses on the first day same-sex marriage became legal there. This is about all that is factually correct in FRC’s statement.

FRC’s claim that the 150 couples represent “four percent of the local homosexual population” is a classic manipulation used by the religious right and discredited “researchers” like Paul Cameron. They take an estimate of one portion of a minority population and pretend that it is generalizeable to the population as a whole. In this case, the number of same-sex couple households willing to self-identify in the Census is not equivalent to the total population of lesbian, gay, or bisexual DC residents, which according to the Williams Institute is approximately 33,000.

Even more importantly, it is laughable for FRC to base its argument on the number of couples who applied for licenses on the first day. The Washington Post article references another Williams Institute report, which estimates that 2,000 same-sex couple in DC would marry over the next three years. In addition, another 12,500 couples are expected to come from out of state to get married. This is a more complete picture of the estimates used to create the projection of 700 new jobs and $52.2 million in revenue, but FRC simply ignores this information.

Where to begin with FRC’s last argument about same-sex marriage being a long-term drain on the economy because of “diseases spread by homosexual behavior?”

We could cite CDC data on transmission rates caused by “heterosexual behavior.” We could also estimate federal funding spent on prevention efforts that address the damage caused by social, and familial environments created by FRC. As they say, so much for economic development!

However, it would be a waste of time to feed into FRC’s “straw man” arguments.

They have no interest in examining real facts. Nor do they see the folly in their position against allowing same-sex couples access to an institution that fosters monogamy as well as mutual caring and support. As so many articles and special reports on Box Turtle Bulletin have illustrated, there is no place for scientifically supported facts in the anti-gay playbook.

The Lies of Martin Ssempa, Part II

Jim Burroway

March 13th, 2010

Ugandan pastor Martin Ssempa’s latest tirade includes a “testimony” by George Ooundo, a deeply disturbed man who was an important ex-gay “success story” for a short while. A very short while. Last we heard, he is now ex-ex-gay and seeking forgiveness in the LGBT community for being part of a massive anti-gay vigilante campaign. I don’t know what demons Oundo is wrestling with, and for the sake of compassion for this obviously troubled young man, the less said the better. But Ssempa’s account of Oundo’s “story of transformation” somehow avoids one critically important element: Oundo hasn’t changed at all.

It looks like we may have the beginnings of an ongoing series.

Another passenger on board LaBarbera’s Wackadoodle Train

Timothy Kincaid

March 12th, 2010

Nearly every week on the elimination competition television show So You Think You Can Dance, highly excitable judge Mary Murphy will see some performance that especially liked and shriek at the top of her lungs, “Wooo-woooo, you’re on the Hot Tamale Train.” Well I figure that if Murphy can have a train just for “hot tamales”, then Peter LaBarbera can have one for wackadoodles.

And today yet another wackadoodle has jumped on the train racing forward in its quest to discredit Dr. Warren Throckmorton. Today’s passenger: Laurie Higgins.

We all know Laurie from her declarations that it is the Christian duty of children and teachers to “condemn volitional homosexual conduct” of gay students (i.e. bully them). And we remember when we awarded her the LaBarbera Award for equating homosexuality with Nazi atrocities.

So it’s not too surprising that this defender of “culture of disapproval and condemnation” had chosen to yet again climb on board with The Peter and his collection of wackadoodle extremist nutcases to attack the latest conservative evangelical Christian who is not adequately pure in his animosity towards gay people, Dr. Warren Throckmorton.

Now Laurie is not one to consider perspective, allow for differing understanding, or honor any opinion that veers in the slightest from her own. Black and white, all or nothing, these are notions that Laurie values. She’s don’t need no complexity; she’s a simple thinker.

“Nuance” — yet another manifestation of rhetoric serving the cause of sin.

You see, for Laurie, Christ means everything (a notion with which I’m sure she’d agree). And this Christ of Laurie’s is no namby-pamby, eat with sinners, forgive them for not knowing what they do, liberal activist kind of Jesus. No! He’s a hardcore conservative, follow The Law to the letter, kick over the tables of the religious folk I disagree with, stern Jesus who demands complete obsequience.

And Laurie loves this Jesus so much, so very very much, that she’d be privileged to pile the firewood and light the torches to defend his TRUTH.

And as for valuing professionalism or respecting the mental health of the patient, that’s not for Laurie. That sounds too much like nuance. It’s much much easier to demand that clients yield to the religious dictates of their counselor.

Throckmorton and Yarhouse’s statement could be made only by those whose allegiance to a secular worldview takes precedence over their allegiance to Christ. Unfortunately, Throckmorton and Yarhouse are not alone in their subordination of faith and truth to the demands of secular professional guidelines or requirements.

But what really gets Higgins’ goat is that Throckmorton considers that gay people may have some civil right to self determination and equality under the law:

In his interview with One News Now, Throckmorton also said that “he takes a more ‘nuanced’ view” on the topic of same-sex marriage. He said “that he opposes same-sex marriage but believes the Equal Protection Clause permits homosexual civil unions.” Tricksy rhetoric again. He cleverly avoids saying he supports homosexual unions, instead saying that the Equal Protection Clause permits homosexual unions.

Laurie is having none of that. It’s time, she thinks, for Christians to denounce civil law, to abandon professionalism, to throw freedom in the hopper where it belongs, and to become downright nasty to friends and family who don’t share her own passion for denouncing the sinners around them.

What seems clear is that many Christian mental health professionals are subordinating their faith to the professional standards established by a world largely hostile to faith. No serious Christian — no one who understands that Christ expects full submission of every aspect of the lives of those who accept the gift of eternal life that came at the cost of His life — would affirm to others either implicitly or explicitly profoundly sinful behavior, behavior that orthodox Christian doctrine teaches will lead to eternal damnation.

Increasingly, Christians from all walks of life are going to have to choose between their work and their faith, between friendships and faith, and perhaps even between family and faith.

But Laurie Higgins isn’t the only new passenger. Peter also hauled aboard “a reader” who had this to say:

Warren seems to compartmentalize “mental health/mental illness” as if it is entirely separate from the consequences of sinful attitudes, lustful thoughts, wicked behaviors — whereas a mature Christian (especially a counselor) ought to see a strong connection between the two.

Personally, if I were The Peter, I’d not want to look too closely at the strong connection between mental illness and religion. There’s a reason why asylums are full of sad folks who think they are Jesus or Joan of Arc.

Oh, yes. Peter has himself a whole train full of wackadoodle nutcases. But before he gets a full head of steam, he may want to peer down that track a ways. Rather than ‘roll across the trestle, spanning Jordan’s swelling tide‘ he may find that he’s heading for a derailing.

Tell GoDaddy To Remove Web Site Advocating Murder of LGBT Kenyans

Jim Burroway

March 12th, 2010

We reported earlier that GoDaddy is hosting charged domestic terrorist Neil Horsley’s ProjectSEE web site, which is posting identifying information about LGBT Kenyans along with an exhortation to carry out the Levitical call to murder. That web site is also the source for several posters which are appearing in parts of Kenya with photos and other information about LGBT individuals there. Horsley has already been arrested for threatening Elton John in front of his condo in Atlanta.

After the New York office of the Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR) contacted Joe.My.God, who referred them to me for more information, amfAR CEO Kevin Robert Frost faxed the following letter to Bob Parson, CEO and founder of GoDaddy. We encourage you to contact GoDaddy yourself and demand that this web site be taken down.

Meanwhile, the Gay Activists Alliance International (GAAI) has reportedly contacted PayPal about Horsley’s fundraising account through their web site. I’m told but cannot confirm that PayPal has promised to investigate.

Click here to read the letter from amfAR to GoDaddy

98% of Disney Shareholders Say No To “Recognizing Ex-Gays”

Jim Burroway

March 12th, 2010

Um, would that be because they already have that covered by recognizing straight people? PFOX, of course, lives in a bizarre alternate universe of their own.

Georgia Man Arrested for Threatening Elton John, Runs Web Site Calling for Death to Gay Kenyans

Jim Burroway

March 12th, 2010

A Georgia man who was arrested for making terroristic threats against Elton John this week is also behind a web site inciting violence and murder of gay Kenyans.

The Associated Press is reporting that Neal Horsley, 65, was arrested early Wednesday in Carrollton, Georgia for making a terroristic threat. Atlanta Police Sgt. Curtis Davenport would not say who Horsley is accused of threatening, but it is believed that the charges are in connection with a February 28 YouTube video in which Horsley held up a sign reading “Elton John Must Die” in front of a building where he said John has a condo. In the video, Horsley is heard saying, “We’re here today to remind Elton John that he has to die.”

Horsley is not only calling for Elton John’s death, but we have learned that he is also the operator of a Kenyan site known as ProjectSEE. That web site is responsible for placing posters written in Swahili in parts of Kenya containing photos and identifying information for LGBT people, and encouraging Kenyans to follow the Levitical law calling for their death.

The anonymous blogger GayUganda received an email from an American in Kenya saying that ProjectSEE is placing posters in the Rift Valley area of Kenya:

First, it explicitly encourages the broad public posting of images of individuals, with a Swahili translation that basically advocates their harm through a Swahili Leviticus ‘quote’ that says death is in order. Encouraging these postings in a place like Kenya presents a very real and potentially harmful threat to their targets.

Secondly, they have put individual faces and in some cases contact information on the posters, placing some people at potentially immediate risk.

Third, this campaign and website appears to be organized and financed by U.S. citizens based on U.S. soil.

According to the ProjectSEE web site:

The Project SEE coalition exists to expose the “who, what, where, when, why, how, & to what extent” of the satanic efforts to legalize abortion, legalize homosexuality and otherwise contaminate Kenya with tolerance for the rebellious abominations that have corrupted the USA and Europe, and caused unbelievers to blaspheme the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The section inside the quotation marks includes a hyperlink to another page seeking and providing personally identifiable information on the web site’s targets. BTB is not providing direct hyperlinks to ProjectSEE in order to discourage increasing the site’s Google PageRank.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has an extensive profile on Horsley’s anti-abortion terrorism activities:

It was Horsley who Clayton Waagner, a self-described anti-abortion “terrorist” on the Ten Most Wanted List, chose to drop in on shortly before being arrested last November. It was Horsley who propelled his notorious website — featuring home addresses and other detailed information about hundreds of abortion providers — into the national limelight after a physician was murdered by a sniper in 1998.

It was Horsley who managed to make himself a central focus of a Home Box Office documentary on the extremist fringe of the anti-abortion movement. Horsley has become so well known that the Southern Party — a neo-Confederate group with strong secessionist elements — had him give a keynote speech last August.

According to a “whois” lookup for ProjectSee, the web site is registered through GoDaddy, and the domain servers hosting the web site are also operated by GoDaddy. (Disclosure: BTB uses GoDaddy for domain name registration.) GoDaddy’s Terms of Service prohibits the following activities:

• activities designed to defame, embarrass, harm, abuse, threaten, slander or harass third parties;
• activities prohibited by the laws of the United States and/or foreign territories in which You conduct business;
• activities designed to encourage unlawful behavior by others, such as hate crimes, terrorism and child pornography;
• activities that are tortuous, vulgar, obscene, invasive of the privacy of a third party, racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable…

I have not yet been able to determine specific contact information for lodging a complaint against ProjectSEE. GoDaddy’s Technical and Billing Support phone numbers are provided here.

The LaBarbera-Birther-Dominionist link

Timothy Kincaid

March 11th, 2010

To paraphrase a common phrase, “wackadoodle extremist nutcakes of a feather flock together”. So it should be no surprise to find anti-gay activists dancing the tango with “birthers” and other fringe political gadflies.

Currently anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera is waging war on Dr. Warren Throckmorton. Throckmorton engages in the grievous sin of believing that therapists – even Christian therapists – should allow same-sex attracted clients who are seeking congruence with their religion to determine their path without overlaying the therapists’ views, even if it means that “some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity.”

But Throckmorton infuriates LaBarbera even more by questioning the efficacy of reparative therapy and noting that “it appears from the research that change is infrequent in attractions”. LaBarbera sees this as heresy or, in his words, Throckmorton has “lost his faith in God’s ability to change people.”

LaBarbera has begun a letter and media campaign seeking to threaten Throckmorton’s employment at Grove City College. And he’s rounded up a number of “concerned citizens” to assist in his quest. Not surprisingly, they are as, ummm, colorful as is Peter himself.

First up was Linda Harvey. We know Linda well here at BTB and are familiar with her efforts to endanger the wellbeing of school children who may be discovering their same sex attractions.

But, for those who may not know the extent of Linda’s animus and how it goes to the very core of her self definition, these words from her “testimony” might shed some light.

It was 1992. I had spent months reading the Bible seriously for the first time in my life, and I was trembling on the brink of a stunning decision: to become a Christian, but not just another pew-warmer. I was increasingly tempted ­ beyond all conventional wisdom — to accept the Bible as true, which would make me one of “those” Christians.
…
So I continued on, hopeful in the joy of discovery. Plodding through the morality code passages in Leviticus ­ lambs being sacrificed, how to deal with boils and leprosy– I concluded some of the messages were symbolic, some were particular to that specific ancient time, while other messages were timeless. It was one of those timeless verses that stopped me cold.

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”

Whoa. If ever there was a definitive statement, this was it. I read it again, then continued on a little farther, looking for the escape clause. Not finding any, I read the passage again. Then I did some cross-referencing to find relevant verses about homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments. This led me to Leviticus 20, Romans 1, and 1 Corinthians 6, passages conveying a consistent platform, strong and uncompromising. I mulled it over for a while, recognizing that it was probably a sub-category of the commandment against adultery. And for a woman thoroughly grounded in heterosexual desires, I had a very interesting reaction. I closed the Bible and stopped reading it for several weeks.
…
A troubling internal debate threatened my new faith. Even back then in 1992 ­ ancient history in the “gay rights” movement ­ I had absorbed the notion that only obtuse bigots opposed homosexuality. Every enlightened person knew that the freedom to practice homosexuality –responsibly, of course — would surely not threaten the mainstream, but would simply meet the needs of a small, harmless and kind of pitiful minority.
…
For several weeks I stewed about this, strongly tempted to return to the comfort of my familiar plastic beliefs. Opposing forces wrestled for authority in my mind and heart as I considered first one, then an alternative view of “truth.” What was the reality behind this issue? It was the first time, but not the last, where I would encounter a Joshua 24 moment. I needed to “choose this day whom I would serve.” I didn’t recognize the moving of the Holy Spirit yet, how He presents evidence before each of us in unique ways to drive us toward understanding. In deciding what to believe, or even how to sort it all out, I would be starting a journey toward either one or the other kingdom of two completely different masters.

Linda’s very essence – as “Christian not a pew-warmer” – is grounded in the rejection of the idea that gay people are non-threatening and the adoption as literal, relevant, and objectively true a Scriptural passage that calls for the execution of gay men. To Linda, this was the separation between “plastic beliefs” and choosing to serve God; her entire “journey” is based on the belief in death for homosexuals.

Next up was Steve Baldwin, “the former Executive Director of the Council for National Policy, a former State Assemblyman in California, and a longtime conservative Republican activist.” Baldwin wrote Grove City College’s president, seeking to discredit Throckmorton and threated to “no longer be recommending Grove City College” to “hundreds of conservative high school students” who ask him for a recommendation.

As might be expected, Baldwin is no friend of the gay community. His article written for the Regent University Law Review, Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement, is a recitation of fabrications and oft-repeated but debunked demonizations.

It is difficult to convey the dark side of the homosexual culture without appearing harsh. However, it is time to acknowledge that homosexual behavior threatens the foundation of Western civilization the nuclear family. An unmistakable manifestation of the attack on the family unit is the homosexual community’s efforts to target children both for their own sexual pleasure and to enlarge the homosexual movement. The homosexual community and its allies in the media scoff at this argument. They insist it is merely a tactic to demonize the homosexual movement. After all, they argue, heterosexual molestation is a far more serious problem.

Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the legal age of consent.

The thesis is breathtaking in its dishonesty.

As we have shown, the premises behind such claims are based on the false assumption that every adult who molests a child of the same sex is, by default, homosexual even if he identifies as heterosexual, is married, and has a long string of opposite sex victims.

Of course, activists like Baldwin don’t limit their extremist to gays. He also advocates for library censorship. But his greatest influence was as the executive director of the Council for National Policy, a dominionist secretive right-wing umbrella group.

After Baldwin was Priscilla Smith, “a freelance writer based in Indiana”. Smith disapproved of an email that was purportedly sent by “David Bier, Grove City College Senior” to LaBarbera in which he states, “Your recent article on Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton is yet another of your pathetic attempts to mislead otherwise moral individuals into the belief that God disapproves of homosexuality.”

This convenient email – whether genuine or contrived – was Smith’s jumping off point. She ranted:

They are about to graduate a young man from their so-called Christian institution without teaching him that God not only disapproves of homosexuality, but He describes it as an abomination, unnatural, dishonorable, perversion, depravity.

I don’t know much about Ms. Smith. If she is a freelance writer, she’s rather selective about making her writings available.

After the elusive Ms. Smith, the Peter ran a commentary by Michael Glazte. As readers may recall, Glatze had been a gay activist (though few knew who he was, he thought of himself as a “rising star”) who became ex-gay and converted to Mormonism before settling on conservative Christianity while working at a Buddhist retreat. Currently he seems to hold a grudge against Throckmorton, and lent his voice to the attack.

I have experienced Professor Throckmorton’s forked tongue, as he has pretended to seek “my side” of the story various times, then turned around and told a biased side of the same story, in a public sphere, with the intention of discrediting my testimony and shaming my stance for Gospel truth. As we have all seen, throughout Christian history, it is quite easy for people to create false worlds, to skew human perception, to persecute Christian truth. Sadly, this professor at a seemingly-reputable Christian school, has engaged in these tactics, with the outcome of persecuting the very truth he supposedly is teaching, atop his perch.

Aside from Glatze’s bitterness, he betrays a worldview that heightens the concerns that have been expressed about his mental stability. He seems to think that “objective” and “subjective” are filtered through dogma rather than observations so that “objective truth” becomes that which he’s been taught and now believes.

It is funny. In this world, truth seems to almost be subjective. Then, you meet Jesus. In Jesus, truth is objective. It is from this vantage point that I write this.

Such a way of thinking lends itself easily to cults and manipulation. It certainly has led to some peculiar political views. After advocating for bullying in schools (“Bullying in schools is a part of life, a part of growth“) and making some racists comments about President Obama, even NARTH removed him from their site.

But the very latest participant in LaBarbera’s campaign of personal destruction is also perhaps the most peculiar. Margaret Hemenway, described by the Peter as “a Virginia parent”. She pretended to be the mother of a 16 year-old girl who, after attending Catholic school, was considering attending the evangelical Grove City College.

We want our children to grow up to be healthy and happy–enjoying a wholesome college experience–not one which will undermine their years in a safe and nurturing Catholic educational environment. It is remarkable that the College would permit this professor, given your school’s Biblical charter, to crusade on behalf of homosexuality–would you also allow your staff to advocate openly for adultery, pornography or prostitution–other sexual sins? Where do you draw the line and how is the professor’s conduct and activity consistent with your Christian mission? We would look forward to your reply.

Hemenway first blipped my radar in 2008 when she claimed in an article hosted by Human Events that her daughter’s first grade teacher told her class that she was marrying another woman and “read aloud, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” about two male “gay” guinea pigs, promoted by the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Transgender Lobby for children.” She claims to have lodged a complaint.

But Margaret Calhoun Hemenway is no Virginia parent new to politics. Her bio states

Mrs. Hemenway spent 15 years on Capitol Hill in various staff positions in the Senate and the House, followed by five years in the Pentagon. She is married to a native of Washington, D.C. and is a proud parent of three school-age children.

And Hemenway is not shy in expressing her views. Currently she contributes to FamilySecurityMatters.org. And it is from her writings there that we find Hemenway’s more peculiar political activism.

It seems that Hemenway’s father-in-law, John D. Hemenway, is a lawyer heavily involved with the “Birther” movement, a collection of conspiracy theorists who believe that President Obama is not eligible to be President because he was not born in the United States.

From a letter he wrote to Rupert Murdock:

That problem is this: the man now occupying the White House is likely Constitutionally unqualified to hold the office.
…
As an attorney, I facilitated a lawsuit (Hollister vs. Soetoro et al.) in the United States District Court (D.C. Circuit) demanding that Obama produce his birth certificate or satisfactory substitute evidence.

But I am not trying to peg Margaret with guilt by association. She has written or her own faith in the birther movement.

Mr. Obama’s lawyers are now threatening my 84-year-old father-in-law, through Judge Robertson, with penalties of legal fees for pursuing the truth about Mr. Obama’s birth. This threat of financial sanctions is meant to silence all of us who remain unsatisfied with equivocations by the Obama camp about his legal qualifications to become President, and to punish us for pursuing our Constitutionally-guaranteed right to redress.

The Obama campaign, with questions about his birth in Kenya to his Kenyan father (a British citizen), and his years in Indonesia where he was known as Barry Soetoro (taking the surname of his stepfather), was not nearly as forthcoming as the McCain campaign. What was posted in support of Mr. Obama’s eligibility was not a birth certificate, but something that resembles a “Certification of Live Birth” or COLB, which, even if authentic, does not prove “natural born” U.S. citizenship. In Hawaii, a Certification of Live Birth is issued within a year of a child’s birth to those who register a birth overseas or one that takes place outside of a hospital.

So in his desire to punish and discredit Dr. Throckmorton, anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera has surrounded himself with a most fascinating collection of characters: a woman who’s very identity is defined by her adoption of death-penalty based Levitical prohibition on homosexuality, a dominionist whose writings on homosexuality mirror those of Paul Cameron, an unknown freelance writer named Smith, an ex-gay with a grudge and a history of sporadic religious associations and a questionable worldview, and a Birther.

As history progresses and even conservatives begin to see gay people as human – as their friends, family, neighbors and co-workers – those who are left behind are increasingly appearing as fringe and, frankly, more than a little weird. And these are just the ones that Peter is taking public.

Exodus President Wants To Apologize for Ugandan Conference. So What’s Holding Him Back?

Jim Burroway

March 10th, 2010

As I write this about now, ABC’s Nightline, which is slated to cover the current anti-gay situation in Uganda, is just about to wrap up its broadcast on the east coast. I still have to wait another hour before I can see it, so I don’t know what the report will look like. But if the shorter segment shown on ABC World News with Diane Sawyer earlier this evening is any indication, it should be a good one.

Among the clips shown in the shorter evening broadcast were interviews with Ugandan pastor Martin Ssempa (who comes off looking like a buffoon — no surprise!), and video clips of the March 2009 conference put on by the three American anti-gay activists: Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively (who reiterated that he was very proud of his “nuclear bomb”), Exodus International board member Don Schmierer (who refused to be available for an interview or make a statement) and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Brundidge (who was also nowhere to be found).

Exodus International president Alan Chambers has already responded, in a comment left on Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton’s web site:

I am disappointed that Exodus won’t be heard in this piece. Sadly, Don Schmierer declined the interview and our request to go on record with ABC was denied. I would have loved nothing better than to share our disdain for this bill and apologize for going anywhere near such a horrible conference.

If Chambers is sincere that he really does want to apologize on behalf of Exodus, then it is lamentable that ABC decided not to include his statement on their broadcast. An apology would be a very welcome — and I think newsworthy — development. But what’s stopping Exodus from issuing that apology that they know in their hearts is the right thing to do?

As we’ve discussed before, BTB’s Timothy Kincaid tried in vain to warn Chambers personally about the conference before it took place, but those warnings went unheeded. We also know that Ex-Gay Watch’s David Roberts had also contacted Chambers personally, as did Warren Throckmorton. But those please to contact Schmierer at the posh Triangle Hotel in downtown Kampala — they have faxes, Internet, and telephones like any other world-class hotel — went unheeded.

Instead, we got self-congratulatory sanctimony in the weeks following that fateful conference, when they were still proud of Schmierer’s performance. (By the way, people have been arrested in Uganda since then; we’re still waiting for Exodus VP Randy Thomas to book his flight to “plead for their freedom.”)

Back when the media hadn’t quite awaken to the unfolding tragedy in Uganda and BTB was one of the few outlets refusing to allow the story to go unnoticed, Exodus wrote us off as “American militant gay activists” making a bunch of “North American noise.” Now that mainstream television is highlighting the conference in prime time, Alan feels moved to make an apology. Odd, isn’t it?

But darn, now that he wants to apologize, there isn’t an ABC camera around to broadcast it. Oh well, I guess that means he can’t apologize now.

Seriously, if Exodus were to issue such a policy, BTB would be happy to do its part to get the world out. I’m no Diane Sawyer (Shut up, guys!), but I think we now have the world’s attention finally. I know that Exodus doubts my sincerity, but all I ever wanted was for them to respond responsibly to the mess they helped to create by their action and inaction. There is no better time than right now to make amends. Don’t tell me you you’re holding out for Diane Sawyer to do the right thing.

Theocracy Watch: Janet Porter Wants a Christian Takeover of Media

Jim Burroway

March 10th, 2010

Because, you know, a dozen or so major Christian channels on the internet, cable, satellite and local broadcasting isn’t enough.

Randy Thomasson: “no such thing as gay”

Timothy Kincaid

March 9th, 2010

I love anti-gay activist Randy Thomasson. He makes our work so much easier and he is always worth a chuckle. Remember when the campaign for Proposition 8 called him “extreme” and sued him to make him go away?

Thomasson, currently of SaveCalifornia.com, always has opinions. So, of course, he has some thoughts about newly-out-but-still-anti-gay drunk-driver Roy Ashburn. Not surprisingly, Ashburn is now a bad bad man. But that’s not all, he’s also mistaken.

Now he’s completely “out.” Monday morning on the radio, Republican State Senator Roy Ashburn of Bakersfield said “I’m gay.”

But Roy Ashburn is mistaken. No one is “gay” because the so-called “gay gene” does not exist.

Oh, Thomasson, you funny fellow. Without a gay folk to battle (for donations, of course) you’d starve to death.

I’m guessing that the “amusingly irrational gene” exists in your family in abundance.

“Elaine’s List” of 1,100 officers doesn’t represent today’s Military

Timothy Kincaid

March 9th, 2010

Elaine Donnelly, despite her best efforts, continuously illustrates that the case for keeping openly gay servicemembers from the US Military is based on bias, animus, fear, and irrationality.

Whether she’s being laughed out of Congress for her fears or marauding gangs of lesbians, babbling ineptly opposite Dan Choi on CNN, or claiming that retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili called for the repeal of the law because he’d suffered from a stroke, Elaine can always be counted on to make a fool of herself and her cause in ways we never could.

Yet in April 2009 when she came up with her declaration that “1,100 high-ranking retired Flag and General Officers for the Military have personally signed a statement expressing support for the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military”, I bought it. I figured that Elaine had found a way to link into a network of conservative former military officers who were now free to state their opposition to equality. Considering that military personnel generally are more conservative politically, and considering that those now retiring might reflect somewhat older perspectives, how hard would it be to get a legitimate and relevant list?

And I’m not the only one to assume that her 1,100 officers were representative of some segment of recent members of the Military. John McCain has been waving around this list in the Senate claiming that it represents the views of those who know best. But both McCain and I should have known better. This is Elaine Donnelly, after all.

But Servicemembers United wasn’t fooled; they took a closer look. They’ve not yet gotten through the entire list, but they’ve looked at 200 officers and have issued a preliminary report telling us a bit more about “Elaine’s List.”

So who are these 1,100 Officers?

Well, to start with, some of them make John McCain look like a spring chicken. The average age of their sample was 74, with the oldest living signatory being about 99. “Living signatory” you ask? Well, yes. Because at least one of them “signed” the letter after he died and several more are no longer living.

Others have no recollection of being asked about the list, several indignantly stating that they didn’t authorize the use of their name, and some saying that they don’t support the ban on gay servicemembers.

And then there was the scoundrel problem. Some of her glorious officers left service under some not-so-glorious circumstances. While most signatories were honorable, Elaine had no problem including the fellow who gave false testimony to Congress about an anthrax vaccine, the guy who severely threatened relations with Japan, or various other men of poor judgment.

But whether or not her officers are alive, lucid, and of good character, few were qualified to offer an opinion. Most had left the military long before DADT was put in place.

These guys hail from the good ol’ days when ‘darkies’ knew their place, obedient wives met you at the door with a cocktail in hand, whores were discreet, and an open attack on a fellow soldier suspected of being gay was not only socially acceptable but a sign of your own manhood. Although Captain Jim Jefferis never made it high enough in rank to sign Elaine’s List, his postcard from the 1940’s published at Peter LaBarbera’s site gives us an idea of the mindset of a few of these good ol’ boys.

During my enlisted service, homosexuals seemed to be a clumsy lot. They had a tendency to repeatedly fall headfirst down an engineroom ladder. Some were even known to trip on deck and “fall” overboard.

Yes, no doubt. But everything I’ve heard from service men and women today is that they are too busy fighting a complicated war to decide which of their fellow soldiers they were going to murder next. If today’s American soldiers share Jefferis’ appalling lack of character, then we have bigger worries than the Taliban.

So yes, Elaine has done it again. She’s proven again to be a valuable asset to our community. Now that opponents of open service are relying so strongly on Elaine’s List, the exposure of who’s on the list may well drive the nails into DADT’s coffin.

Hate Group Co-Founder Says Dobson Was Pushed Out of Focus

Jim Burroway

March 9th, 2010

Seattle-area pastor Ken Hutcherson, a co-founder of Watchmen On the Walls which is one of about a dozen anti-gay hate groups monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center, mourns the retirement of James Dobson from Focus On the Family. Not only that, but Hutcherson sees a conspiracy — Dobson didn’t retire; he was pushed out:

I am not very happy with the new, progressive, “loving” leadership at Focus on the Family. However, it is God’s ministry, and He will do with it what He pleases.

While I don’t work for Focus, I definitely have an opinion. God used Dr. James Dobson as its founder to change the world’s view of the family. Taking him off the air effective this month was not Dr. Dobson’s decision but a board decision. Why was that decision made? What prayerful consideration did the board engage in that ended with their choice to remove Dr. Dobson from the air? Evidently, he didn’t want to stop his voice from being heard over the airways after turning over leadership to the new team. The new radio program he is launching tells me that.

Hutcherson also complains that he wasn’t offered the leadership post at Focus On the Family. Then he says he would have turned it down because he already has a ministry. Then he says he has no ego. Self-awareness is definitely not his strong suit.

Martin Ssempa Lies Again, This Time On BTB

Jim Burroway

March 8th, 2010

We sometimes make mistakes — nobody’s perfect — but for the most part, they are rare, relatively minor, and corrected when we become aware of them. That was the basis for this post this morning.

But what we will not do is knowingly commit fraud. Unlike Ugandan pastor Martin Ssempa, one of the main supporters of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill — and yes, we do call it the “Kill the Gays Bill” for a very good reason — who left this bald-faced lie in a comment on our web site this afternoon:

This is one of the many errors that have been made concerning this whole issue of the anti homosexuality bill.

There is too much panic reporting and little double checking of the facts. One hour back I just asked facebook to shut down a false Martin Ssempa who was linked with photos of murders.

You have called this the “kill the gays bill” but it is really about capital punishment for “paedophiles and rapists”. The more we have states this, the more you dont want to hear us.

There’s some debate in the comments whether this particular comment is genuine, but the record shows that this comment is entirely consistent with similar lies that we know Ssempa has repeatedly told elsewhere. I believe the comment is genuine, and it’s that lie which has been repeated numerous times that I want to address.

There is a reason we don’t take the word of liars like Martin Ssempa at face value. The man of “the Word” willfully misrepresents the very words of the “Kill the Gays Bill” — yes, I said it again — and what they really mean. That’s why we have the full text of the bill posted here (PDF: 847KB/16 pages), straight from the official governmental Uganda Gazette in which all bills are published before being voted on. We posted the full text of the bill for a very simple reason — so that you can see for yourself exactly what the bill says.

Ssempa, on the other hand, is too cowardly to post the text of the bill on any of his web sites. And the truth is he can’t, because if he did those very words would show Ssempa’s followers exactly what a compulsive liar he really is. He cannot post the bill, and he desperately hopes that nobody else reads it to learn what it actually says.

But the truth sets you free, and that’s why, with the truth firmly on my side, I enjoy the total freedom of posting the plain and unadulterated text of the bill on this web site to point out Ssempa’s prevarications. Unlike Ssempa, I have nothing to hide and the real truth leaves me free as a bird. And so here are the death penalty provisions, in the plainest of English:

3. Aggravated homosexuality.
(1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the

(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;

(b) offender is a person living with HIV;

(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;

(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;

(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;

(f) offender is a serial offender, or

(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by  enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,

(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.

(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.

True enough, parts 1a and 1c deal with child molestation, as Ssempa says. And whatever Ssempa or anyone else would want to with child molesters is of little concern to me. Sections 1d and 1g deal with rape. Again, while the death  penalty is harsh (and I’m against the death penalty on general principles), I have no quarrel here.

However, I would expect that these four provisions apply to everyone, and not just gay people. But they don’t, do they? They only provide the death sentence when it involves people of the same gender. Where are the death sentences for the same crimes when they are committed by people of the opposite gender? Rape and molestation are equal-opportunity offenses. Why are these provisions in an Anti-Homosexuality bill when neither provision has anything specifically to do with homosexuality? Why aren’t these provisions part of anti-rape or anti-child exploitation bills instead?

I’ll tell you why. They are there to serve as a red herring, and to allow liars like Ssempa to divert attention from the rest of the bill. Sections 1b, 1e and 1f have nothing to do with rape or child abuse (and neither do sections 2 through 19, which you can see here). As Ssempa knows very well but is too cowardly to reveal, there is only one target for these other “aggravated homosexuality” provisions: gay people. Anyone with the smallest smidgen of comprehension of the English language can see that as plain as day. It takes a fraud like Ssempa to claim that the words somehow say something other than what they actually say. So much for a man of “the Word” when he won’t read the very words in front of him.

Of one couple that I know, one man has perfect hearing but the other man is profoundly deaf — “a person with disability” as section 1e puts it. They have been happily together for I don’t know how many years, but one would die (the hearing one) and one would live (the deaf man) under this bill. While Ssempa claims that this is only about rape or exploitation, there is no mention of consent in this provision where one has a disability and the other does not.

Closer to home, my partner is HIV-positive; I’m HIV-negative. If we were in Uganda living under this law, I would be imprisoned for life, but my partner would be sentenced to death by hanging. Disclosure, consent — none of that matters. My partner is hanged and I’m imprisoned. Aren’t I the lucky one? Well, knowing the conditions of Ugandan prisons, a man or woman sentenced to a life sentence for homosexuality would be, for all practical purposes, not particularly “lucky.” A lifetime sentence under these circumstances is merely a more torturous and drawn-out death than the one Ssempa would demand for my partner under this law.

But wait! It turns out I’m not exactly saved from the gallows anyway. It’s that “serial offender” provision that would still get me. The “Kill The Gays Bill” — because now we know that this is exactly what this bill does — defines a serial offender this way:

“serial offender” means a person who has previous convictions of the offence of homosexuality or related offences;

Get that? Homosexuality or related offenses. I have violated — and it is my solemn promise to you that I will continue to violate — the following related offenses:

• Section 7 — “Aiding and abetting homosexuality” through my private and public efforts to help gay people who are being persecuted, wherever they may be.
• Section 12 — procuring a same-sex marriage, when it become available.
• Section 13 — “promoting homosexuality,” because that is what this blog would be accused of doing under this bill, and I won’t stop defending gay people wherever they are in the world.
• Section 14 — “failure to disclose the offense,” because I absolutely refuse to turn in other people for the so-called crime of merely loving one another.

So there you have it; upon a second conviction I will have committed “aggravated homosexuality,” and I too can join my partner at the gallows.

So I have one message for Ssempa:  I will not stand by while you post a lie on this web site, and use that lie to accuse me of lying. I publicly dare you to post the text of the bill on your own web site, and refer to it when you try to explain your lies. Failure to take this dare reveals your cowardice and guile. Your acceptance of this dare exposes your guilt as a liar and a fool. What do you choose? Either way, with the entire world and your God as my witness, I call you out.

Ssempa’s lies are no mere “mistake” like the one I corrected yesterday. His are deliberate attempts to deceive, deceits by a unrepentant serial liar. Ssempa claims to be a man of God, but he is a fraud and a serial falsifier. He claims to bring light and truth, but he instead spreads darkness and hatred borne by blatant and clearly demonstrable distortions in order to turn neighbor against neighbor and wreck havoc on God’s creation. Whatever Ssempa accomplishes or fails to accomplish in this life, we can be assured that there will be a very special place in hell set aside for him in the next.

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Linda Harvey takes purer-than-pure to a whole new level

Timothy Kincaid

March 8th, 2010

Most social conservatives are not wild eyed hate-filled bigots who would like nothing more than to see gay folks burnt at the stake. Most folks who don’t support civil equality for their gay fellow-citizens really don’t know much about gay folk and don’t actually wish us individual harm. It’s more of a “them liberals” kind of thing.

And over the past decade Americans – including many folks who think of themselves as conservative – have began the process of seeing gay folk as human. We are neighbors, friends, coworkers, and family. We no longer are “confirmed bachelors” and “maiden aunts” living with “lifelong friends” who are a shameful secret, but instead are respected and acknowledged parts of our community.

And, as such, it is no longer socially acceptable to just oppose anything and everything to do with our lives. Yes, polls suggest that the nation isn’t quite ready to joyously celebrate marriage equality, but blatant discrimination is frowned on, even in right-wing circles. Especially if it sounds too hateful.

Ah, but not everyone is on board with the “treat ‘em like human” idea. As we saw with the recent brouhaha at CPAC, some folks can’t even be in the same room with gay folk – even those who agree with most of their agenda. The uber-conservative CPAC crowd got a taste of excitement when the purer-than-pure conservatives attacked their brethren for not being adequately anti-gay.

But no one has ever accused Linda Harvey of noting being adequately anti-gay. In fact, few can live up to her standard. And now Linda is letting conservatives know just how pure she is, in the offensive over-the-top inflammatory language she’s know for.

Linda has decided that some people aren’t really conservative because they “support homosexuality”. And by “support homosexuality”, Linda means pretty much anything other than venom-spewing declarations of disgust and intolerance. Anything short of piling up the firewood and calling for the torches is seen by Linda as selling out.

And the list of “Conservatives who aren’t” is pretty impressive. Folks who just aren’t as pure as Lina include:

• CPAC, for allowing GOPride to be there
• “Bill O’Reilly and his feebly-informed culture warrior, Margaret Hoover” because they ” endorse repealing the ban on homosexuality in the military”
• Charles Krauthammer, who thinks that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is discriminatory
• Dick Cheney, for “listening to a self-declared ‘born-that-way’ homosexual relative”
• “Cindy McCain and her silly daughter” for backing same-sex unions
• Mitt Romney, because ” in 2004, ordered reluctant clerks to issue marriage licenses to Party A and Party B. A genuine conservative might have held off until forced.”
• Ted Olson, for the obvious
• Stand for Marriage Maine, for saying “we want to be tolerant of gays”
• Maggie Gallagher, because she can’t be depended on to “always articulate clear objections to homosexual behavior. Sometimes, she bows the knee to the vaunted ‘identity’”
• The Catholic Church, because it says that it “respects and accepts gays”

Oh yes, when it comes to being a real conservative, Linda is purer-than-purer-than-pure.

It’s behavior, it can be changed and it’s always wrong.

Teach kids to “respect” this behavior? No! Respect for others, yes, but people are born with the anatomy for heterosexuality, not homosexuality. Genuine respect involves telling the truth, and citing the risks, limitations and sinfulness of this perversion.

Ah, but lovely Linda has an extra-special place in her contempt for one fellow who is worse than anyone: Warren Throckmorton. Ya see, Warren actually thinks that you should treat gay people the way you want to be treated. Such heresy!!

And Warren has gone so far as to suggest that instead of storming out of school on the Day of Silence, conservative Christian kids should observe the Golden Rule and hand out the following message.

This is what I’m doing:

I pledge to treat others the way I want to be treated.

Will you join me in this pledge?

“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:31).

But not Linda. She’s having none of that.

If I were a parent who discovered my minor child had been counseled in this way, I’d bring the largest and most aggressive medical malpractice suit I could launch against this counselor at Grove City.

Golden Rule? Not on your life.

And so now Warren is the pet project for Linda and her buddy Peter LaBarbera. LaBarbera has run a series of denunciations of “heretical” Dr. Throckmorton and has asked his readers to

TAKE ACTION: Contact Grove City College (President Richard Jewell: 724-458-2500; rgjewell@gcc.edu) and ask them if GCC professor Warren Throckmorton’s unorthodox views on homosexuality represent “authentically Christian” teachings on this issue. (GCC advertises itself as a solid, “authentically Christian” institution.) Request a written response as to whether Throckmorton’s writings on and approach toward homosexuality honor Grove City’s Christian charter “rejecting relativism and secularism.”

Yes, it looks like Warren should be fired; he just can’t be counted on to be a hater. Nor Bill O’Reilly. Nor even the Catholic Church. Or at least not up to Linda’s and Pete’s standards. It’s a sad sad world.

But at least Linda and Pete have each other. And Pete’s porn collection.

Florida lawmaker wants to bring back Mayberry

Timothy Kincaid

March 8th, 2010

Florida State Rep. Stephen Precourt (R) wants good wholesome movies and television that have family values and none of them nasty gay people. Ya know, just like the good ol’ 60’s type of television which depicted white middle-class people solving real life issues like what to do when Barney and Thelma Lou want to set Andy up on a blind date with her cousin Karen.

Precourt so longs for entertainment from the days of black and white TV that he’s willing to pay good money for it. Well, the public’s good money, that is. (Palm Beach Post)

Movies and TV shows with gay characters could be ineligible for a “family-friendly” tax credit in Florida under a little-noticed provision tucked into a $75 million incentive package that Republican House leaders hope will attract film and entertainment jobs to the state.

The bill would prohibit productions with “nontraditional family values” from receiving a so-called family-friendly tax credit. But it doesn’t define what “nontraditional family values” are, something the bill’s sponsor had a hard time doing, too.

While some folks were having trouble understanding what “nontraditional family values” means, not Charlie Crist.

“Let me define it in the positive,” said Gov. Charlie Crist, who wants lawmakers to approve a $55 million corporate income tax cut he has proposed. “A traditional family is a marriage between a man and a woman. That’s traditional.”

And if you’re still unsure, Precourt has an example

“Think of it as like Mayberry,” state Rep. Stephen Precourt, R-Orlando, said, referring to The Andy Griffith Show. “That’s when I grew up — the ’60s. That’s what life was like. I want Florida to be known for making those kinds of movies: Disney movies for kids and all that stuff. Like it used to be, you know?”

Ah, Mayberry. Opie, whistling, fishin’, traditional families… oh, wait.

Was there anyone actually married in Mayberry? Andy? Barney? Aunt Bee? Anyone?

CA State GOP Rep Comes Out, Defends Anti-Gay Record

Jim Burroway

March 8th, 2010

California State Sen. Roy Ashburn, the conservative Republican who was arrested last week for driving while intoxicated after having left a Sacramento gay bar, came out as gay today on a Bakersfield radio station talk show. Asburn, who has a solidly anti-gay voting record however, continued to defend his record:

“I am gay. Those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long. It is something that is personal, and I don’t believe I felt with my heart that being gay would affect how I do my job,” Ashburn said.

…Radio talk show host Inga Barks wanted assurances that Ashburn would continue to vote in a conservative manner on LGBT rights issues. Ashburn responded, “I believe firmly that my responsibility is to my constituents. I will take a careful look at each measure and apply that standard. How would they vote on this? How would they want me to vote on this,” adding that most people understood what that means.