Box Turtle Bulletin

Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg Wants To Throw You In Jail

Jim Burroway

February 2nd, 2010

Don’t believe me? Then check this out:

Peter Sprigg was on Chris Matthews’s Hardball to talk about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ban on gays in the military. Sprigg, of course, is against ending the ban. But skip ahead  to about the 8:15 mark, and you can see what Sprigg really wants to do:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you Peter, do you think people choose to be gay?

SPRIGG: Uh, people do not choose to have same-sex attractions, but they do choose to have homosexual conduct. And that’s conduct also , which incidentally is against the law within the military. It violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It doesn’t make any sense for us to be actively recruiting people who are going to be violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

MATTHEWS: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?

SPRIGG: Well, I think certainly it’s defensible.

MATTHEWS: I’m just asking you, should we outlaw gay behavior?

SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.

MATTHEWS: So we should outlaw gay behavior.

SPRIGG: Yes.

This is the guy who nearly two years ago said we should “export” gays:

Where The Money To Overturn Same-Sex Marriage in DC Coming From?

Jim Burroway

February 2nd, 2010

Hint: None of it is coming from within Washington, D.C.. Rev. Harry Jackson’s three groups to wage three different ballot fights against DC’s new marriage equality law have raised a total of $199,000 so far. Of that, $102,192 came from Rev. Jackson’s MAryland-based High Impact Leadership Coalition. That sum is followed by $40,000 from Focus On the Family, $32,130 from the National Organization for Marriage, and $25,000 from the Family Research Council. None of the donations are from DC residents.

Family Research Council Wants Your Holiday Family Photos — And So Do We

Jim Burroway

December 5th, 2009

Well, they’re a bit more specific than that. They want you to send in your family Christmas photos. Here’s the email that landed in my inbox overnight:

Submit your Family Photos and Win!
December 04, 2009 | Share with Friends

Dear James,

Let’s face it, family photos aren’t easy to get. From children fidgeting, to getting everyone wearing the proper attire, to blinking eyes and lighting, just getting one good shot can often be an ordeal. But in the end, the effort pays off with for better or worse, a snapshot to fuel memories for generations to come. This year, FRC is offering another incentive to grab the camera and gather the family: the FRC Family Photo 2009 Contest.

Here’s the rundown: this Christmas season, send us your best family photos in one of four categories:

* Photo that best captures the spirit of Christmas
* Most original family Christmas photo
* Photo with the most family members
* Funniest Christmas photo

Once FRC has reviewed and posted your photo online, we’ll make them available on an upcoming web page where send your friends and family to vote for your photo. The winners in each category will each receive 2 free standard admission passes to the 2010 Values Voter Summit, to be held in Washington, D.C. on September 17 to 19, 2010. The contest begins now, and runs until January 15, 2010, and winners will be announced on January 20, 2010.

Send your attached photos to familyphoto@frc.org, and be sure to include the following information with your email:

* First & Last Name
* Photo Category (you may enter different photos in each category, but only one photo per category per entrant)

So ready your camera, gather your family, and best wishes in the contest.

Sincerely,

Tony Perkins
President

P.S. Please forward this email to at least one friend.

So what do you say? Send in your family photos and see if you can win. And when you do, you can send a copy to us as well, and we’ll show them what families really look like.

Another Reason To Rejoice

Jim Burroway

November 14th, 2009

There’s another reason to rejoice over the LDS Church’s historic support for pro-LGBT legislation in Salt Lake City: it’s causing all sorts of angst among anti-gay extremists. The right-wing group America Forever, whose fundraising ventures included selling worthless ID’s to Mexican immigrants, is incredulous. They charged that the seemingly powerless Church “was placed in this position by the gays from Utah.” That’s right. Gays are more powerful in Utah than the Mormon Church.

Other denunciations were more conventional. The American Family Association of Michigan’s Gary Glenn sputtered that the Church’s position was “grossly ignorant.” The Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg charged that the Church was “bend[ing] over backwards to exhibit tolerance toward homosexuals in some way.” Peter LaBarbera wailed that the church’s stance may mark “the ‘official’ split of the American pro-family movement against homosexuality into two camps,” with only one camp holding fast to unadulterated, no-holds-barred, anti-gay warfare — the only stance he finds acceptable. LaBarbera also worries:

If churches back “gay rights” (and the LDS is hardly the first), is there some truth to the idea that those of us who remain opposed to ALL aspects of the “GLBT agenda” are “bigots” or somehow extreme in our worldview?

Increasingly, the answer to LaBarbara’s question is self-evident. If someone opposes ALL aspects (as LaBarbera emphatically stipulates) of recognizing the humanity of any people — whoever they may be — then yes, they are bigots and extremists. That’s pretty much the definition. There’s no other way to put it. And whenever a major denomination like the LDS church can frame a question like this through its actions with such stark clarity, we all benefit.

Anti-Gay Activists React To Hate Crimes Bill Passage

Jim Burroway

October 23rd, 2009

And their reactions are true to form — full of all the same bald-faced lies we’ve heard before. Fortunately, this should be their second-to-last gasp. The last one will come when President Barack Obama signs the legislation into law. First up, Tony Perkins, of the Family “Research” Council:

“In a slap to the face of our servicemen and women, they attached ‘hate crimes’ legislation to the final defense bill, forcing Congress to choose between expanding hate crimes or making our military go without. This hate crimes provision is part of a radical social agenda that could ultimately silence Christians and use the force of government to marginalize anyone whose faith is at odds with homosexuality. … We call on President Obama to veto this legislation which violates the principle of equal justice under the law and also infringes on the free speech rights of the American people.”

The Family “Research” Council really needs to bone up on their research skills, because right there in the text of the bill (Section 4311)  are these clauses:

3) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this division shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

(4) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed to diminish any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(5) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

So unless the “planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence” is an essential element of Christian speech, people of faith have nothing to worry about.

Next up, we have Traditional Values Coalition Executive Director Andrea Lafferty. She also repeats the false claim that ”Christians and other people of faith will now become targets for persecution and prosecution,” but adds this bit of creativity:

Hate crime legislation is based on the phony premise that there’s an epidemic of hate in America against LGBT (gays, bisexuals, lesbians and transgendered) persons. This is false. FBI hate crime statistics prove that most so-called hate crimes amount to little more than name-calling or pushing or shoving.

First of all, the FBI doesn’t collect statistics for “name-calling, pushing or shoving.” They only collect statistics on violence and credible threats of violence.  But that’s not the only whopper she told. Of all the hate crime categories that the FBI tracks, hate crimes based on sexual orientation are much more likely to be violent personal crimes than any other category.

	Total Hate Crime Offenses, 2007	Violent Crimes, percentage of total
Race	4,724	1,471	31%
Religion	1,477	126	9%
Sexual Orientation	1,460	695	48%
Ethnicity	1,256	497	40%
Disability	82	21	26%
TOTAL	9,006	2,810	31%
Violent crimes include: Murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault and simple assault.

There are more. Bob Unruh at WorldNetDaily calls the bill “the Pedophile Protection Act,” an obvious play on the “thirty sexual orientation” lie, which we dissected last May. All in all, there’s at least one thing you can say about these anti-gay activists: they may not be truthful, but they are consistent.

Why Was Tony Perkins Smiling At A White Supremacist Meeting?

Jim Burroway

October 9th, 2009

Tony Perkins, as President of the Family Research Council, is often called upon to “defend traditional family values” by the mainstream media. But given his background, it’s fair to ask exactly which traditions he’s motivated to defend. This clipping from a Council of Conservative Citizens newsletter called the Citizen’s Informer shows Tony Perkins appearing before the Louisiana CCC on May 17, 1997. He was a state representative at the time. According to a 2007 Media Matters for America post quoting from two sources, the Boston Herald and the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report, Perkins spoke again before the Louisiana Council of Conservative Citizens on May 19, 2001.

The CCC, according to the SPLC, is a White Nationalist group which is a direct descendant of the racist White Citizens Councils which were common in the 1950s and 1960s. The CCC still harbors many of those beliefs, according to their statement of principles:

(2) We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people. We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character. …We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called “affirmative action” and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.

And while the statement on “cultural, national, and racial integrity is very carefully crafted, its historical and cultural context is unmistakable.

8) Cultural, national, and racial integrity. We support the cultural and national heritage of the United States and the race and civilization of which it is a part, as well as the expression and celebration of the legitimate subcultures and ethnic and regional identities of our people. We oppose all efforts to discredit, “debunk,” denigrate, ridicule, subvert, or express disrespect for that heritage. We believe public monuments and symbols should reflect the real heritage of our people, and not a politically convenient, inaccurate, insulting, or fictitious heritage.

And among those symbols which “reflect the real heritage of our people” is the Second Third (and final) Confederate Flag you see behind Perkins. Also known as the “Blood-Stained Banner,” it was adopted in 1865 and was based on the unofficial battle-flag, which we today are more likely to misidentify as the Confederate Flag. The Confederate Congress didn’t identify what the white field was supposed to represent. Some suggested that it was meant to represent the purity of the southern cause. But others believe that it was also meant to represent the white race.

Whatever the flag’s white field may have been meant to represent at the time, at the hands of the CCC today, the entire flag’s meaning is clear. On one page of the CCC’s web site, “Why are we unique? Because we’re effective!“, the CCC brags that they are the “only group advocating for ‘white rights’ that attracts elected figures as speakers.” Tony Perkins claims that he didn’t know what the CCC was all about when he spoke to them in 1997 and 2001. I find that hard to believe.

According to the Media Matters 2007 post, Several Louisiana papers printed dozens of articles in 1998 and 1999 describing the CCC as a racist group. In fact, a 1999 Associated Press article reported that Republican National Committee chairman Jim Nicholson asked party members to sever all links to the Council of Conservative Citizens because “it appears that this group does hold racist views.” This was after Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and Rep. Bob Barr, (R-GA) created a national furor after it was revealed that they had spoken at CCC meetings.

But there’s Tony Perkins, all smiles and laughter in front of the Second Confederate Flag, speaking to an organization that is proud to promote “White Pride.”

[Hat tip: Carlo Baca]

Addendum: This isn’t the only dealings that Perkins has made with White Supremacists. Max Blumenthal wrote in The Nation that in 1996, Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,000 for a copy of his mailing list. Perkins was then the campaign manager for Louis E. “Woody” Jenkins, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the Jenkins campaign $3,000 for its role in hiding the money paid by Perkins to Duke.

Breaking: FRC Touts Evolution

Jim Burroway

October 7th, 2009

The Family “Research” Council has waved the white flag of creationism, now that it’s convenient to use real archaeological science against gay people. Peter Sprigg has penned a piece which claims that new archaeological evidence shows that marriage “as a union of a man and a woman” has been around for 4.4 million years. That’s quite a switch from the old Darwinism-leads-to-eugenics argument. But when gays are in the crosshairs, any piece of manipulable data is fair game, right?

Voter Values Summit: All Porn Is Gay Porn

Jim Burroway

September 20th, 2009

That pearl of wisdom came from Michael Schwartz, chief of staff for Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). He and two others held a workshop on “The New Masculinity” at this weekend’s Voter Values Summit in Washington, D.C. Schwartz claims that his ex-gay friend revealed the true secret of how homosexuality is “inflicted on people”:

SCHWARTZ: (4:33) And one of the things that he said to me, that I think is an astonishingly insightful remark. He said, “all pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards. Now think about that. And if you, if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to go out and get a copy of Playboy? I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants.” You know, that’s a, that’s a good comment. It’s a good point and it’s a good thing to teach young people.

… (5:28) But all pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards. And that in fact is what it does. I know couples now who are struggling with the husband’s addiction to pornography. It’s a terrible thing, and that is what happened to him. You know, if it doesn’t turn you homosexual, it at least renders you less capable of loving your wife.

I don’t know what’s crazier: the notion that “Debbie Does Dallas” or “Deep Throat” are gay movies, or where he ends this clip. If being “less capable of loving your wife” is along some sort of scale where loving your wife is on one end and being gay is the other, then isn’t everyone who divorces somehow more gay and less straight? Is Newt Gingrich (two divorces) gayer than Bill Clinton (still on wife #1)? Help me out here. heterosexual “logic” hurts my brain.

[via Think Progress]

Self-Centeredness – An Example

Timothy Kincaid

August 3rd, 2009

One of the common claims of anti-gays is that “the gay lifestyle is selfish”. Mostly, their argument is based on the idea that we selfishly demand to be treated with equality and dignity instead of generously giving in to their demands that we not exist.

But on the Family Research Counsel site, I found what I think may be one of the most blatant examples of selfishness and self-centered demands:

It’s not that unusual for me to have fellow worshipers come up to me after church, over coffee. Normally, however, we swap family stories, talk about children, grandchildren, hobbies, and common interests in our town. Yesterday, however, two friends sought me out with some urgency.

My first friend of the coffee hour was in anguish over his daughter’s decision to live the gay lifestyle. He and his wife had raised two daughters in their loving Christian home. Their younger daughter married and has blessed them with grandchildren. Their elder daughter pursued an academic career. He described this daughter as a brilliant scholar, a Ph.D. candidate in philosophy at a major university. But he and his wife are heartbroken over their daughter’s decision not only to live in a lesbian relationship with another woman, but also her plan to change her sex. Their daughter is beginning hormone treatments soon. Distraught over their daughter’s choices, he appealed to me for help.

I referred him to PFOX—Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays. There, my sorrowful friend would learn that parents can give unconditional love to their children—even as they hold out hope they will exit the gay lifestyle.

My friend was especially concerned that his lesbian daughter would take the extra step—sex change surgery—seeking to alter forever her sexual identity. Will “gender reassignment surgery” be covered under President Obama’s health care takeover, he asked, explaining that his daughter does not currently have the money to cover such expenses. I told him I cannot see how such surgery would not be included in the Obama plan. And if the President or Congress does not include it, activist judges surely will. He pleaded for consideration of parents. “Our wills give our entire estate to the two daughters we gave birth to” he said poignantly. “Now, we will have only one daughter. Where are our rights?”

Cameronesque Award: The Family “Research” Council

Jim Burroway

May 15th, 2009

The Family “Research” Council is engaging in some downright Cameronesque “research” in its latest fundraising appeal. In an email blast with “Save America’s Future” in the subject line, the FRC is begging its members to donate online “to help us stop liberal attacks on life, marriage and your religious liberty.” And what is the greatest danger to your religious:

Repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act . . . special rights for homosexuals, lesbians, transvestites, and transsexuals . . . ultimately silencing both pastors in their pulpits and Christian and conservative broadcasters.

And they site a very prestigious name to back up their claim:

Religious freedom? Not for you, if the Harvard International Law Journal is right:

“[S]cholars [are] now suggesting that even core religious practices . . .

can be regulated in the name of equality . . .”

“Regulate” your religious freedom? We can’t let that happen!

But wait a minute, doesn’t the United States still have a First Amendment guaranteeing the free exercise of religion? How did the editors of the Harvard International Law Journal miss that?

It turns out, they didn’t. The article the FRC is quoting from was written by Carolyn Evans and Beth Gaze, scholars at the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies, Melbourne Law School, Australia.

That’s right. Australia. The relevant quote — without the ellipses — is this:

On the other side, there is an increasingly powerful movement to subject religions to the full scope of discrimination laws, with some scholars now suggesting that even core religious practices (such as the ordination of clergy) can be regulated in the name of equality.[6] At present, exemptions are given to religious organizations in many non-discrimination laws,[7] but the scope of those exemptions is being reduced in many liberal democracies.[8]

Now most people never bother to look at footnotes. But the relevant footnote are very instructive — as footnotes always are:

[6] See Pru Goward, Address at the Ordination of Catholic Women Annual Conference, Melbourne: Women, Human Rights and Religion (Nov. 5-6, 2005), available at http://www.ocw.webcentral.com.au/ articles.htm; Cass R. Sunstein, On the Tension between Sex Equality and Religious Freedom, Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 167 (2007), available at http://www.ssrn.com/ abstract_id=995325; Cf. Reid Mortensen, Rendering to God and Caesar: Religion in Australian Discrimination Law, 18U. Queensland L. J. 208, 219 (1994-1995).

[7] See, e.g., anti-discrimination laws in the U.S. and the U.K.: Civil Rights Act of 1964 §§ 702 and 703, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1 and 2000e-2; Equality Act 2006 (U.K.), §§ 50 and 57-60; Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (U.K.) §§ 7 and 25.

[8] For example, in 2000 a European Directive (Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000) was issued that created quite strict limitations on the ability of EU member states to grant exemptions from anti-discrimination laws to religious employers.

Notice what’s happening. There are three scholars (two in Australia and one in Chicago) who believe that the state ought to regulate “core religious practice.” There are, of course, other scholars not cited who believe the opposite, and can back up their beliefs as well. But that doesn’t mean a court will go along with it.

The authors also cite the European Union in as attempting to impose such regulations. But the authors cite the United States as holding a body of laws which preserve religious freedom.

And when the authors go on to examine “core religious practice” (i.e. “selection and training of clergy, the language and symbolism of ritual, and the determination of membership of the religious community”) they conclude that religion enjoys a special claim to being exempted from the kinds of regulation that the FRC would have us fear.

It’s been a while since we awarded a Cameronesque award to anyone. But it’s been a while since we’ve seen such an outrageous example of misuse of the professional literature. The Family “Research” Council is now a two-time winner.

Mel White vs. Tony Perkins

Jim Burroway

April 14th, 2009

Soulforce’s Mel White calls out the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins beginning at the 6:45 mark:

Tony Perkins’ Strange Understanding Of Democracy

Jim Burroway

April 8th, 2009

The Vermont Senate and House today voted to override the governor’s veto and provide marriage equality for all citizens of that state. And the city council for the District of Columbia voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. All three of these legislative bodies are made up of members who stand for regular free and fair elections. So how does the Family “Research” Council’s Tony Perkins react to today’s news?

“Same-sex ‘marriage’ is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists and a liberal elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well”

That’s right. Overwhelming votes by representatives of the people are destroying democracy.

There are more winger reactions here.

FRC: Lesbians Led To Octuplets’ Birth

Jim Burroway

February 13th, 2009

Everyone’s talking about Nadya Suleman. She was the California single mother of six who gave birth to eight more. These octuplets were a result of fertility treatments. Comments have been all over the map. Pro-lifers questioned her decision but praised her for giving life to six more children. Ta-Nehisi Coates, on the other hand, asks us to imagine the reaction if she had been a black woman. Meanwhile, the Onion recoiled, “Uh oh. Eight Aquariuses living under the same roof for the next 18 years—yikes.”

It didn’t take long however for someone to finally getting around to blaming the gays. Leave it to Tony Perkins at the the homo-obsessed Family “Research” Council to do it:

Last week, taxpayers learned that they would be partially liable for the family’s care through hundreds of dollars in food stamps and disability payments. The news fueled even more conviction that the fertility doctor should have refused the procedure. But is he really to blame–or are our courts? In California, the state Supreme Court made it virtually impossible for a physician to exercise his own judgment after two lesbians sued in 2001 for the right to be artificially inseminated over the doctors’ personal or social objections.

Update: The problem, of course, is that the Surpreme Court only held that a physician cannot withhold treatment because of the patients sexual orientation. It said nothing about any other considers outside of the state’s protected classes of race, creed, color, sexual orientation, national origin, etc. Physicians can find many reasons to withhold treatment, including ethical ones. Discrimination however is not legal. And since Suleman’s case had nothing to do with discrimination, the FRC’s argument is utterly senseless. But you probably knew that, didn’t you?

Anti-Marriage Amendment To Be Introduced In Indiana

Jim Burroway

January 12th, 2009

We were tipped to this press release from the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund announcing a press conference on a proposed anti-marriage amendment for Indiana. State Reps. P. Eric Turner (R-Marion) and Dave Cheatham (D-North Vernon) are listed as co-sponsors for the amendment during for the current General Assembly session. Also participating at the press conference are unnamed representatives from the Family Research Council and the Indiana Family Institute.

[Hat tip: Mike]

Prop 8: The End of the World

Jim Burroway

October 27th, 2008

If California’s Proposition 8 fails, it’ll be Armageddon, and all that — according to Charles Colson and Tony Perkins:

“This vote on whether we stop the gay-marriage juggernaut in California is Armageddon,” said Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries and an eminent evangelical voice, speaking to pastors in a video promoting Proposition 8. “We lose this, we are going to lose in a lot of other ways, including freedom of religion.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian lobby based in Washington, said in an interview, “It’s more important than the presidential election.”

“We’ve picked bad presidents before, and we’ve survived as a nation,” said Mr. Perkins, who has made two trips to California in the last six weeks. “But we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage.”

Why the doom and gloom? Prop 8 proponents are now raising the scare tactic that Prop 8’s passage will mean that churches that refuse to marry same-sex couples will be sued, or ministers will be jailed if they preach against homosexuality.

This, of course, is not possible in the United States because of the First amendment. Christian Identity churches are free to preach White Supremacy and anti-semitism, and fundamentalist protestant extremists are free to call the Pope the Anti-Christ. Nobody gets thrown in jail for any of that. And the Catholic Church has been free to refuse to marry anyone who has been divorced, no matter how many divorce papers or civil marriage licenses a couple can waive in front of the priest.

Family “Research” Council: Racism for Sale

Jim Burroway

September 13th, 2008

The Family “Research” Council is putting on its Values Voters Summit right now in Washington, D.C., and it appears that among the “Voter Values” they’re pushing is Aunt Jemimah-like racial caricatures:

Activists at a conservative political forum snapped up boxes of waffle mix depicting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as a racial stereotype on its front and wearing Arab-like headdress on its top flap.

The FRC claims they didn’t know that the packaging was offensive. It’s hard to imagine what world they live in where these images don’t conjure ugly racial stereotypes from the earliest part of the 20th century. The horribly racist images run rampant throughout the packaging, proving this FRC-sanctioned vendor to be an equal-opportunity offender:

While Obama Waffles takes aim at Obama’s politics by poking fun at his public remarks and positions on issues, it also plays off the old image of the pancake-mix icon Aunt Jemima, which has been widely criticized as a demeaning stereotype. Obama is portrayed with popping eyes and big, thick lips as he stares at a plate of waffles and smiles broadly.

Placing Obama in Arab-like headdress recalls the false rumor that he is a follower of Islam, though he is actually a Christian.

On the back of the box, Obama is depicted in stereotypical Mexican dress, including a sombrero, above a recipe for ”Open Border Fiesta Waffles” that says it can serve ”4 or more illegal aliens.” The recipe includes a tip: ”While waiting for these zesty treats to invade your home, why not learn a foreign language?”

Co-sponsors of the summit include Gary Bauer’s American Values, Focus On the Family Action, the Alliance Defense Fund, and — most ironically — Rev. Harry Jackson’s High Impact Leadership Coalition. Confirmed speakers include Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck, Bill Bennett, Jeb Bush and Lou Dobbs. Dobbs, reportedly saw the box and loved it:

According to the the site’s blog, Lou Dobbs, who was also speaking at the convention, lauded the product Friday.

“My wife will love this,” Dobbs purportedly said. A photograph of Dobbs with a box and one of the sellers is online here.

The seller has since removed the online post.

The Books-A-Million bookstore is reportedly set to sell these boxes on their shelves.

Update: TalkBytes.com has the photo of Lou Dobbs posing with the Obama Waffles box that was pulled from the seller’s web site:

[Hat tip for the update: Pam Spaulding]

FRC Disapointed With Donnelly’s Testimony?

Jim Burroway

July 25th, 2008

You bet they are. Yesterday, right on schedule, the Family “Research” Council sent out their daily Washington Update yesterday as they always do. Washington Updates typically consist of three stories, and yesterday’s top story was one which blamed Elaine Donnelly’s utterly deplorable testimony before the House Armed Services personnel subcommittee on “rude congressmen” instead of  Donnelly’s own abysmal incompetence:

Rude Congressmen Tell and Don’t Ask at Hearing

For the first time since Congress beat back Bill Clinton’s effort to bring homosexuals into the military in 1993, there was a hearing on the topic yesterday on Capitol Hill, which FRC’s Vice President for Policy Peter Sprigg and several Witherspoon Fellows attended. The Democrats in Congress are laying the groundwork for action next year, when they hope Barack Obama will be president, to overturn the law which codified the military’s longstanding policy excluding homosexuals. Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, and Sgt. Major Brian Jones, a veteran of the Army’s elite Delta Force, ably defended the law in the face of shockingly disrespectful and even abusive questioning by members of the House Military Personnel subcommittee. Particularly egregious was the behavior of Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.), who said that Donnelly’s concern about the impact of HIV-positive soldiers was “dumb” and that her testimony about behaviors common among homosexuals was “bonkers.” Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.) used the silly line, “When did you decide to be heterosexual?” The false assumptions that people are “born gay” and can never change, and that homosexuality is equivalent to race, permeated the questioning. Yet no one explained how it would benefit the military to recruit service members who plan to commit acts which are criminal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

This morning, that lame defense of Donnelly is gone, along with the rest of the entire Washington Update for the day.

Cameronesque Award: Family “Research” Council’s “Slippery Slope” Brochure

Jim Burroway

July 21st, 2008

The Family “Research” Council is at it again, doing what they do best. Their brochure, “The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex ‘Marriage’,” which the FRC is touting in a recent action alert in their battle against same-sex marriage in California, is a prime example of the sort of “research” the FRC is all about.

It’s a lengthy brochure and it would take days to research the whole thing, but its entire premise is build on three specific claims. The first two are:

Relationship duration: While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged “societal oppression.” A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.

Monogamy versus promiscuity: Studies indicate that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same Dutch study found that “committed” homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year.

Both of those claims come from the same so-called “Dutch study,” published in 2003 bt Maria Xiridou and her colleagues in the journal AIDS. We’ve already published a full analysis of that report, but here’s the Cliff Notes version:

• This study was not about gay relationships, as most people who misuse this study claims. Its purpose was to study how HIV is transmitted in the Dutch population. That’s why the study was based only on those with HIV/AIDS attending STD clinics. It is no more generalizable to the general LGBT population than heterosexuals with STD’s are representative of straight people overall.
• This study excluded everyone over thirty — the prime age in which people are more likely to settle down and marry.
• “Relationships” weren’t defined. Anything including a second date to a lifetime commitment could be counted. You simply cannot compare that to straight couples who are married as the FRC does.
• FRC cites the study as taking place in a country with “legalized homosexual marriage”, but the Netherlands didn’t have anything like it when the study ended in 1998. Registered partnerships for same-sex and opposite-sex couples didn’t begin until October 1, 1999. A limited form of same-sex marriage wasn’t available until 2001.
• And this is the most important point of all: Because the purpose of the study was to look at how AIDS is transmitted, all monogamous couples were specifically excluded from the study. Because monogamous couples aren’t transmitting HIV, they would have been completely irrelevant to the study’s goals.

And what happens when you exclude all monogamous people from the study? It turns out that when people say they’re not monogamous, they tend to sleep around. But it has absolutely nothing to do with those who are monogamous, or the broader population generally.

This misused study is one of the FRC’s favorites. At the end of our “Dutch Study” report, we maintain a list of those who misuse this study, and the FRC are repeat offenders — including in two amicus briefs that we know of before the Maryland Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of New Jersey. If the FRC has no fear of lying to the courts, then they certainly aren’t ashamed of lying to the public.

The third point the brochure is built on is this:

Intimate partner violence: homosexual and lesbian couples experience by far the highest levels of intimate partner violence compared with married couples as well as cohabiting heterosexual couples. Lesbians, for example, suffer a much higher level of violence than do married women

They base this claim on the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Violence Against Women Survey (PDF: 62 pages/1,475 KB) If you want to see how they construct this particular distortion, I encourage you to download the report yourself and we’ll go through it step by step. Believe me, it’s worth it because this is a classic example.

On page 29, you will find that when you only look at victims with a history of same-sex cohabitation and compare them with those with a history of opposite-sex cohabitation, then it’s true, gays and lesbians experience higher levels of intimate parter violence. But that’s not true for gay and lesbian couples.

To see this, go to the next page. Among women with a history of same-sex partnership:

• 30.4% were raped, assaulted or stalked by their husband/male partner
• 11.4% were raped, assaulted or stalked by their wife/female partner.

And among men with a history of same-sex partnership:

• 10.8% were raped, assaulted, or stalked by their wife/female partner.
• 15.4% were raped, assaulted, or stalked by their husband/male partner.

So here is what it all means. Many women with a history of same-sex partnership also have a history of opposite-sex partnership. Because of that, they are far more likely to report being raped, assaulted or stalked because it is the men in their lives who are doing the raping, assaulting or stalking, not the women. Same-sex cohabiting women were nearly three times more likely to report being victimized by a male partner than a female partner.

And here is where the statistic gets really interesting: 20.5% of women in opposite sex relationships were raped, assaulted or stalked by their husband or male partner. That compares to 15.4% of men who were raped, assaulted, or stalked by their male partners. In other words, gay men are safer around their same-sex partners than straight women are around their husbands or opposite-sex partner.

But if course the Family “Research” Council didn’t want you to know the full story. That’s what makes their “research” so Cameronesque, and it’s why they are such deserving recipients of our latest award.

Family “Research” Council Repeats Benkof’s Distortions

Jim Burroway

July 2nd, 2008

The Family “Research” Council sent an Action Alert out with this familiar distortion:

Michigan’s largest homosexual activist group says once marriage is legally redefined to include homosexual couples, business owners and even news media outlets that refuse to recognize such marriages should be jailed, or sued and “publicly slapped.”

As we reported earlier, the source of this piece of libel is Benkof’s column in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Sean Kosofsky complained that his remarks were taken completely out of context and misrepresented to say something which he did not say:

David Benkof is misleading folks about my quote. He selectively removed several minutes of our conversation between statements and did not disclose that. What I said was that if you break a civil law and you do not pay your penalty or you do not follow a judges order that you could indeed be found in contempt of court. When an individual is found in contempt of court a punishment for breaking the law can include jail time. I don’t know of any gay activist prescribing jail time for discrimnination. Although when you violate a court order you should be penalized accordingly.

And when Benkof tried to defend his distortion, Sean was more blunt:

David, it is flat out immoral to do what you did. It is not my responsibility to track you down to correct a lazy, stupid and inflammatory misrepresentation. You should be ashamed of yourself, your journalistic integrity and your misrepresentation of your agenda during our call. The right wing is using your article all over the country to smear my good name because of your sloppiness or outright slant. I did leave a correction at the LA Weekly sight so I did try to correct you. This is horrible of you to do.

We’ve come to expect these sort of tactics from the Family “Research” Council, and we have documented countless instances where they have distorted social science research and other sources. This is their stock and trade, as exposing these distortions is ours.

Now the FRC has found a comfortable bedfellow in David Benkof. They make a good pair, as I frankly am unable to see much of a difference between them in their tactics. Maybe we can soon chalk the FRC’s web site as yet another of those “prestigious” media outlet’s he’s a columnist for.

Truth In Upcoming “Day Of Truth” Hard To Find

A Box Turtle Bulletin Original Video

Daniel Gonzales

April 21st, 2008

The religious right legal group Alliance Defense Fund started an anti-gay “Day of Truth” in response to the pro-gay “Day of Silence.” The “Day of Truth” is little more than an excuse to push ex-gay misinformation on queer youth in public schools which prompted me to make a video examining and mocking ideas promoted by the “Day of Truth.”