Box Turtle Bulletin

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.”

Peter Sprigg Apologizes

Jim Burroway

March 27th, 2008

Current immigration laws deny the foreign partners of gay Americans the ability to immigrate to the U.S, unlike their heterosexually-married counterparts. A bill is stalled in Congress which would address this problem. Last week, we awarded the LaBarbera Award to the Family “Research” Council’s Peter Sprigg for suggesting that instead of uniting gays and lesbians with their partners, we should export gays instead:

I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society.

Today, Peter Sprigg issued an apology:

In response to a question regarding bi-national same-sex couples who are separated by an international border, I used language that trivialized the seriousness of the issue and did not communicate respect for the essential dignity of every human being as a person created in the image of God. I apologize for speaking in a way that did not reflect the standards which the Family Research Council and I embrace.

Of course, the Family “Research” Council’s standards still allow him to cite the discredited “research” of holocaust revisionist Paul Cameron. No apology or retraction for that. Nevertheless, a start is a start.

LaBarbera Award: Peter Sprigg

Jim Burroway

March 20th, 2008

These awards have been coming fast and furious lately. It must be spring fever or something. Or Sprigg fever.

Current immigration laws which deny the foreign partners of gay Americans the ability to immigrate to the U.S. A bill is stalled in Congress which would address this problem which forces families apart. The Family “Research” Council’s Peter Sprigg was asked about it and said this:

I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society.

This “kick them out” kind of sentiment is definitely worthy of the LaBarbera Award. And today, we get a two-fer. Spriggs is also a Certified Cameronite for citing Holocaust revisionist Paul Cameron’s discredited research in his and Timothy Dailey’s 2004 book, Getting it Straight: What the Research Shows About Homosexuality.

See also:
Family Impact Summit: A Lesbian Shows Peter Sprigg How To Debate

More Anti-Gay Math Problems

Timothy Kincaid

February 26th, 2008

Perhaps we should pity the anti-gays; they have seem to have learning problems. I’m not saying that they are downright stupid, but they certainly do seem to be confused about math.

In response to a booklet created by the NEA and the APA called Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth, the usual suspects jumped in with their indignation and, well, ignorance. And the Christian Post was right there to give them a venue.

“Among the so-called ‘facts’ in the 24-page document is the opinion that homosexuality is ‘a normal expression of human sexuality,’” stated Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC), in an email to FRC supporters.

I suppose it is amusing that this statement alone is shocking, shocking I say, to FRC’s supporters. You can almost hear the froth forming at Tony’s lips when he says, “normal”.

But the gem in the piece was this:

“Despite decades of activism and media propaganda promoting acceptance and celebration of homosexuality, and a number of political and judicial victories for the pro-homosexual movement, polls show that a clear majority of Americans still believe that homosexual behavior is ‘morally wrong,” said Paul Sprigg, vice president for policy of the FRC.

Well, unless there are two wacky Spriggs, his name is actually Peter, not Paul (or Mary), and he’s the darling of anti-gays such as PFOX. Sprigg is just chuck full of opinions about gays, all of them vile.

As it turns out, not only is Sprigg a raging loon, he also doesn’t understand mathematics. This is the result of Gallup’s annual poll (May 2007) of public opinion on the morality of homosexuality:

49% believe homosexual relations are morally wrong; 47% believe they are morally acceptable; with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

In other words, the numbers are statistically equal. But even without allowing for sampling error, 49% is not “a clear majority”, it’s a simple plurality. A “clear majority” would be a number above 50% which allows for the sampling error.

And those numbers are a year old. Which, if we look at the chart below, may well make a difference when Gallup runs its poll this May.

Poor Peter (or Paul or Mary or whoever he is). Not only is it clear that time is his enemy, but he left out the other little facts which show that his battle is nearly over and it’s time for him to start sewing the white flag:

* In general, do you think homosexuals should or should not have equal rights in terms of job opportunities? 89% yes; 9% no

* Do you think homosexual relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal? 59% yes; 37% no

* In your view, is homosexuality something a person is born with, (or is homosexuality) due to factors such as upbringing and environment? 42% born; 35% upbringing; 11% both

and even

* Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages? 46% yes; 53% no.

And, as I’m sure you guessed, these trends are not in his favor either. But somehow I think that someone unable to recognize that 49% is not a clear majority also won’t recognize that his brand of demonization and loud (false) accusations is losing badly.

The LaBarbera Award: Tony Perkins

Jim Burroway

December 10th, 2007

Good Lord, what should we make of this? I received an FRC Action E-mail from Tony Perkins, as I often do. There’s an article praising Mike Huckabee, there’s another one chastising Congress, and then at the bottom, Perkins says this:

An Assault On Faith
It is hard not to draw a line between the hostility that is being fomented in our culture from some in the secular media toward Christians and evangelicals in particular and the acts of violence that took place in Colorado yesterday. But I will say no more for now other than that our friends at New Life Church and YWAM are in our thoughts and prayers.

It looks like Perkins has been chomping at the bit to pin the blame for the Colorado shootings on somebody he doesn’t like. When it comes to culture wars, nobody is safe, and no tragedy is off-limits for exploitation. Here he chose the old familiar bogeyman, “the secular media.” We’re lucky I guess. It could have just as easily been anyone else.

I’m not sure how Perkins found it so easy to “draw a line” between the secular media and Matthew Murray, the Christian-raised guy who actually did the shooting. Unlike the FRC, we won’t imagine any lines where none exist. (Update: The most direct line so far may be mental illness.) And we call on the Family “Research” Council to live up to its name and do a little research before releasing statements that are so patently moronic. Why, they’re beginning to sound like someone else we know…

Here is a screenshot of the E-mail. Click on it to see the full-size version.

See also:

Colorado Gunman Scared Co-Workers, Heard Voices
The LaBarbera Award: Tony Perkins
Prayers and Condolences for Arvada and Colorado Springs
Four Shot At New Life Church
Two Christian Missionaries Killed, Two Injured Near Denver

Family Impact Summit: A Lesbian Shows Peter Sprigg How To Debate

Jim Burroway

September 24th, 2007

It was last Saturday afternoon, and I had already endured nearly two full days of the Family Impact Summit in Tampa. You can imagine what kind of a mood I was in by then. And as I sat down to enjoy another dose of verbal gay-bashing at a town hall meeting called “Defending Marriage: What’s At Stake?” I overheard two people behind me talking about a small protest by gay activists that was taking place outside.

“Do you think any of them will try to come in here?” the older one asked.

“Nah. They won’t bother because they know they won’t be able to find anyone to have sex with afterwards,” sneered the other.

“Hah! So true!”

Nice crowd. These were the kind of people whose company I enjoyed for most of the weekend.

Only about 120 people took their seats in the sanctuary for the main even that afternoon. This session was conducted by four B-list speakers: Rena Lindevaldsen, law professor at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University and associate director of the Center for Constitutional Litigation and Policy; Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council; John Stemberger, president of the Florida Family Policy Council which is collecting signatures to put a gay marriage ban on the Florida ballot; and Dale O’Leary, a speaker and author who bills herself as an expert on the “lies” of the gay rights movement.

And when they began their panel, we heard about a two more hours of lies from the anti-gay movement.

I won’t get into all of them here – it would take a book to do it and they aren’t anything you haven’t heard before. But it mostly went like this: we’re all prone to mental illnesses and physical diseases, we’ve all been abused as children, we’re all substance abusers, and we don’t really want marriage because we don’t want it to interfere with our promiscuity. Dale O’Leary put it this way:

And so I think we need to understand is that the desire to live in a nice little cottage with a dog and two children and all the things we think of as parents is not their goal. That is their P.R.

But at least she was nice enough to note, “The fact is, they love the children they acquire.” But after detailing the supposedly horrible childhoods these “acquired” children endure, she concluded, “Nobody should be in the business of making tragedies.”

After the panelists had their say (after about an hour of this, I might add), the “town hall meeting” was finally opened up to questions from the floor. And the second questioner, a brave young woman wearing a red tee-shirt, was a stunner:

Hi. My names is Cathy James and I would like to challenge all of the individuals here listening today to really take a look at some of the rationale and some of the comments that speakers have given in regard to things such as …why government gets involved with personal relationships, that is, for the procreation of children. I think as most of the attorneys will tell you, that civil marriage was created for one purpose only, and that was property and how to divide property.

And so I am a lesbian, I live in the Riverview area with my partner of thirteen years and our son who is seven. And I go to work Monday through Friday and attend church weekly, I volunteer at the school, I volunteer at the homeowners association. And what I have a hard time understanding is why you are interested in keeping a legal framework from us in being able to handle the same things as heterosexual couples and such things as visitation, and hospital…. And how to divide our property in the same way, and how to parent our child?

The stunned silence was amazing. John Stemberger thanked her for coming and tried to stammer out an answer. He said that some forms of discrimination are perfectly legitimate (“home ownership benefits society in the way renters do not.”) and ended by saying, “marriage uniquely benefits society in the way same sex couples do not.” But Cathy remained calm and firm:

But in what way? What’s the difference in the benefit? How does your marriage benefit society more than my relationship with my same gender partner does not?

Peter Sprigg jumped in to assert that “without question” the best family structure was headed by a man and a woman. But Cathy persisted:

…But now you’re devaluing, what, over fifty percent of the children who live with one parent or that one parent as died or that they’re divorced and now they’re just living with one parent. You’re devaluing them and that’s not fair.

By now the panel was speechless, leaving Peter Sprigg to stumble around trying to get his footing. “Each person’s relationship choices serves as an example to the rest of society… and if that example becomes more widespread, more people will make the same choice, more children will suffer.”

So you’re saying a man and a woman in a marriage are valued higher than single people? They’re valued higher than…

Sprigg cut her off and instead of relying on his own outwitted wits, he decided to read from David Blankenhorn’s book, The Future of Marriage. And as he read, his voice rose, becoming more strident, more angry, more sharp with each word. “I would be rich if I had a nickel for every time someone who knows almost nothing about marriage has told me that historically marriage was all about property. That is nonsense!” But as he continued to spit out the words, it slowly dawned on him that Blankenhorn was talking about dowries and gifts to the bride’s family – which had nothing do with Cathy’s questions.

Clearly Sprigg is a man who doesn’t like having his reputation as an “expert” challenged. And it became obvious that he wasn’t up to this particular challenge. But he kept reading, vainly looking for the rescue that he was sure he’d find in Blankenhorn’s book. But it wasn’t there. He finally gave up and Cathy graciously thanked all of the panelists for their time.

For the two and a half days of the summit so-called “experts,” one after another, paraded from one stage to another convincing everyone who would listen that homosexuals would be the downfall of society. The solution? “Ordered Liberty Under God” went the oft-repeated battle cry.

But one brave woman burst through the bluster and showed that the emperors had no clothes. It was a wonderful moment, and for me the greatest highlight of the whole conference.

Did You Really Mean It, Alan Chambers?

Timothy Kincaid

August 21st, 2007

In September of last year, Alan Chambers was the principle author (with four other Exodus employees) of a book titled God’s Grace and the Homosexual Next Door.  On page 115, Mike Goeke offered the following advice:

Stand up for gay people. The church and conservative Christianity hasn’t been a safe, welcoming place for homosexuals. Oftentimes pastors and youth leaders make insensitive remarks about homosexuality or gay people. These remarks can be devastating. When you’re a witness to unkind words, or a judgmental attitude, or hate, stand up for gay people. Boldly and graciously confront injustice and hatred. Jesus always stood up for the sinner, and we should as well.

Which brings me to my as-of-yet-unanswered question: Why are Scott Davis, Mike Ensley, and Alan Chambers all going to an anti-gay rally next month with some of those who have been the most guilty of unkind words, judgmental attitudes and hate.  I cannot think of better illustrations of people who embody injustice and hatred towards gay people.

If you can’t “stand up” to these people, Alan, then just who were you talking about?  Why are you going?

I’m still waiting for an answer.

A Question of Company

Timothy Kincaid

August 20th, 2007

See Update below 

A “pro-family” crowd is gathering in Florida next month at something called the Family Impact Summit to “inform and empower involved Christian citizenship”. They’ll be talking about religious freedom, racial reconciliation, global warming (is it global whining?), and life issues. Oh yes, and homosexuality.

Lots and lots and lots and LOTS of homosexuality. In fact, there isn’t a panel period that doesn’t have at least one discussion on homosexuality including:

• Homosexual Agenda
• Homosexuality and Youth
• Homosexuality and Ministry
• On the FL Marriage Amendment and how to do a petition drive in your community or church
• New and relevant research on homosexuality

And who will be there? The speakers list includes some of the most strident homophobes in the conservative movement. Let me be clear - these are not just people who oppose homosexuality or same-sex couples for religious reasons. No, these are people who actively seek to dehumize gay persons by using derogatory language, lies, and false accusations. These are people who regularly campaign to exclude gay persons from the civil liberties and freedoms that they demand for themselves.

Let them speak in their own words:

Tom Minnery (Focus on the Family): There has been a recent attack on the freedoms of gay citizens in Poland. News reports indicate that many gay Poles are so fearful of the increasing violence and homophobia that they are leaving the country. In May, Minnery told a Polish “family” gathering, “[A]t this conference, we have taken great encouragement from the determination of the Polish people to honor the definition of the family. It is your strength that we have taken great hope from.”

Tony Perkins (Family Research Council) - “homosexual men are more likely to abuse children than straight men” and “homosexual behavior is a “death-style” that is sending young people to an early grave.”

Gary Bauer (American Values) –“Homosexual activity is not a civil right, it is a lethal and immoral behavior, and opposition to homosexual behavior is not a discrimination issue, but a moral one.” Bauer supports sodomy laws and not only opposes anti-discrimination laws because of “threats to religious freedom” but actually supports anti-gay hiring and renting practices. Bauer is believed to be one of the principal reasons that the Reagan administration was not proactive in combating AIDS.

Ken Blackwell (failed Ohio gubernatorial candidate) – Homosexuality “is a lifestyle, it’s a choice, and that lifestyle can be changed. I think it’s a transgression against God’s law, God’s will.” Blackwell also compared same-sex marriage to barnyard animals, saying “I don’t know how many of you have a farming background but I can tell you right now that notion even defies barnyard logic … the barnyard knows better.”

Don Wildmon (American Family Association) – this is the guy who lead the boycott against Disney for allowing gay people to organize Gay Days (an unofficial event) and against Ford for advertising in gay magazines. In the process he makes wild exagerations and unsubstantiated claims. His group also publishes the highly fictional and virulently anti-gay OneNewsNow. They push the video, “It’s Not Gay”, a rant about the evils of homosexuality masked as an ex-gay presentation. This video featured Michael Johnston who was later exposed as engaging in unsafe drug-fueled orgies while claiming to have overcome his same sex attractions.

Catherine Harris (Failed Florida Senatorial Candidate) – claimed the separation of church and state is “a lie”. “Civil rights have to do with individual rights and I don’t think they apply to the gay issues. I have not supported gay marriage and I do not support any civil rights actions with regard to homosexuality.”

Bob Knight (Media Research Center) – for many years Knight was the voice of Concerned Women for America. There was never an anti-gay position too extreme or a notion to ridiculous for Bob Knight to spout it out in the press. “They are luring kids into a homosexual behavior” and “There is a strong undercurrent of pedophilia in the homosexual subculture.”

Linda Harvey (Mission America) – “Professed homosexuals should not be allowed to teach or lead groups of youth” and “Open or suspected homosexuals should never be elected” and “The vast majority of people involved in homosexuality are projected by many studies to be people that are employed sporadically, because of their lifestyle. They are more unstable.”

Bill Federer (author) – “statistics show[] 300% greater incidents of child abuse in homosexual households versus traditional marriage homes” and “There would be no way to protect children from sexual predators if homosexuals were allowed to marry and adopt”.

Mike Heath (Christian Civic League) – this is the guy who tried to get others to help him identify elected officials who were suspected of being gay. “Homosexuality is a sin that arouses God’s anger in a special way” and “Individuals who speak out against the homosexual agenda often lose their livelihoods. Worse, gay activists have attacked, beaten, and spat upon individuals who protest their politically-correct celebrations of ‘diversity.’”

Peter Sprigg (Family Research Council) – “research clearly shows that homosexual behavior specifically and the homosexual lifestyle generally are associated with serious threats to the physical and mental health of those who engage in them”. His book, Outrage, reveals “the tangible harms and significant costs to society wrought by homosexuality — including higher rates of promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, and child sexual abuse” and “Homosexuality is harmful to society, and young people have no business committing to a sexual identity until they’re adults.”

Get the idea?

Along with this virtual Who’s Who of Homophobia there are a number of other speakers who seem to have been selected due to the one thing they have in common – extremist credentials. Surely, no one who is seeking to reach out to same-sex attracted people would want to have anything to do with this hate-fest.

Yet into that mix are added Scott Davis, Mike Ensley, and Alan Chambers of Exodus International and Dr. Warren Throckmorton.

Wait!! Really??

But aren’t these the same guys who claim over and over and over that the church needs to welcome homosexuals and help them reclaim their heterosexuality? Don’t they say that anti-gay language and bigotry have to go?

Huh? How does that fit with joining in a conference of noted homophobes which seems obsessed with a political agenda against the rights of gay people?

What do you have to say, guys?

UPDATE:  Dr. Warren Throckmorton has responded indicating that he will not be attending the Summit.  See his comments below.

Memphis Commercial Appeal Uncritically Repeats FRC’s Lies About Hate Crimes Bill

Jim Burroway

August 3rd, 2007

The Memphis Commercial Appeal yesterday reported on a campaign by Tennessee pastors pressuring Rep. Steve Cohen (D) to vote against the proposed hate crimes bill, claiming it will restrict their rights to preach against homosexuality. This follows reports that the Family “Research” Council is targeting Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) with automated “robocalls” in Nashville.

The bill, which cannot and does not overturn the First Amendment, addresses only violence and direct threats of violence. It does not address speech or religion or what anyone says in the pulpit — or anywhere else for that matter. How do I know this? I posted the text of the bill on my web site. Three times! Funny how the Family “Research” Council is too cowardly to do the same.

It’s a shame that the Memphis Commercial Appeal would let these lies about hate crimes go unchallenged. Fortunately, Rep. Cohen doesn’t appear to be swayed. “That Crime Bill affects acts of violence, not acts of thought or speech,” Cohen said. “It never has in this country’s history, and it never will.”

Holsinger’s Nomination Hearing: More Opposition Than Before

Jim Burroway

July 13th, 2007

I was just sitting down to write this observation about yesterday’s Senate committee hearing on Dr. James Holsinger’s nomination for Surgeon General when I saw that Frank Lockwood’s observations run very similar to mine.

Frank, at Bible Belt Blogger, compares Holsinger’s nomination to that of Harriet Myers’s failed nomination to the Supreme Court. Her nomination was immediately opposed by the political Left, and the more the Right learned about her, the less enthusiastic their support for her became. It looks like Dr. Holsinger’s nomination may be following a similar trajectory.

Dr. Holsinger had already raised flags with the Family Research Council over his previous support for stem cell research. And so during the nomination hearing he backed away from that stance and implied that his position is now more in line with the Bush administration’s.

But he also backed away from his 1991 paper, “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality”, saying, “That paper doesn’t represent where I am today, who I am today. It is not a published paper. It was not meant to be a scientific paper, not meant to be published.”

Frank noticed that this did little to endear Holsinger to the Christian Right. Concerned Woman Matt Barber responded, “We’re left not knowing whether Dr. Holsinger will put scientific substance over political correctness in dealing with the issue of homosexual behavior.” And the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins complained that Holsinger is “changing his tune”:

Dr. Holsinger’s confirmation should not fail because of his views, but because of his seeming lack of conviction on any of them.

But Peter LaBarbera’s not giving up on Holsinger yet. While he’s disappointed that Holsinger gave what he called “artful non-answers” when asked about his 1991 paper, he chalked that up to Holsinger’s political handlers in the White House. He and Matt Barber also smell a media conspiracy:

Enter the Mainstream Media. They are widely reporting that Holsinger has “disavowed” his belief that homosexuality is “unnatural” and “unhealthy.” They’ve apparently made that extrapolation based upon Holsinger’s above referenced quote (quite a stretch I think). Brit Hume, reporting on the Fox News Channel, said, “Holsinger also told senators in a confirmation hearing that he no longer holds the views about homosexuality that he expressed in a controversial paper in 1991, in which he called it unnatural and unhealthy.” Unless I totally missed something, he never even came close to saying that. [Emphasis in the original]

At any rate, it looks like Holsinger emerged from the confirmation hearing with less support than when he went in.

Update: Peter LaBarbera joined the rest and threw in the towel.

Why Does The Family Research Council Hate Our National Anthem?

Jim Burroway

July 11th, 2007

The Family Research Council just sent this action alert to its supporters:

This past Sunday, at the San Diego Padres baseball game, what was advertised as a “Free Floppy Hat Night” for kids under 14 turned out to be a double play. While the Padres management was enticing families with the giveaway for kids, it was also promoting the evening as a Gay Pride night at the ballpark. Children who received free hats were treated to the Gay Man’s Chorus of San Diego singing the national anthem prior to what one homosexual group billed as “Out at the Park with the San Diego Padres.”

…Click the link below to contact the San Diego Padres and tell them that baseball is a family game that shouldn’t be used as an exhibition of homosexual lifestyles.

A gay chorus singing “The Star Spangled Banner” is an “exhibition of homosexual lifestyles.” My hat’s off to the FRC. I don’t have the imagination it takes to make this stuff up.

Exodus Continues To Associate With Vitriol-Spewing Bishop For Day Of Youth Prayer

Daniel Gonzales

June 1st, 2007

(Advertisement posted by Exodus Youth on MySpace)

Exodus has joined a coalition of various religious right groups in some sort of vague day of prayer for youth or possibly sexual purity for said youth. Their website isn’t very clear and doesn’t even give a formal name for the event or coalition.

Included in that coalition is Wellington Boone Ministries. Let’s review what Boone had to say at the Family Research Council’s “Liberty Sunday” (official transcript) last October.

We know what a family is. My wife said to me this morning, she said, “Well, okay then. It’s sodomites because they’re not gays; it’s a misnomer. They’re sodomites.”

…If God calls homosexuality an abomination, if he calls it vile affections, if he calls it wickedness, I can’t call it inappropriate behavior. (Applause.) So if this is just a small matter, I’ll tell you what — let two women go on an island and a whole bunch of - all women, if you’re sodomites, go on an island, stay by yourself, all women, put all the men on another island - this is my wife talking to me this morning - let them stay. I’ll tell you what: “We’ll come back and see you about 100 years.”

I say Exodus is partnering with Boone again because at “Liberty Sunday” Exodus president Alan Chambers was the second speaker following Boone.

See my previous coverage of Boone at XGW.

FRC Warns “Your Child At Risk!”

Jim Burroway

January 31st, 2007

The Family “Research” Council has issued a hyperventilating Action Alert which claims that “special rights legislation could place your child at risk!” — complete with an exclamation mark in the title:

The Iowa state legislature is preparing for a vote on the “Bullying Bill” — a bill which currently protects Iowa students from bullying only if they are in certain protected classes, including sexual orientation and cross dressing. This sends the message that bullying only certain groups of students is wrong, not that the act of bullying itself is unacceptable.

Well, no. Just about none of what you just read is true.

The bill sets up classes of students which, based on historic data, have demonstrated a need for special protection, and it requires school systems to report bullying incidents to the state with an explanation of what the school did in response. It does not, as the FRC claims, deny anti-bullying measures to anyone. It doesn’t say that some students can be bullied while others cannot. In fact, it reinforces the opposite message.

Let’s not kid ourselves. We all know of many instances in which bullying of gender noncomforming kids have been met with silence as teachers and administrators looked the other way. You’ve heard the arguments. If these kids would just act normal, then none of this would happen. And unfortunately, anti-gay extremists are sometimes guilty of promoting this message.

Remember, it was just last August when a NARTH scientific advisery board member insisted that some children should be singled out on the playground. How’s that for sending a message? With supposed professionals like that, it’s no wonder many consider legislation like this to be necessary.

And as for the claim that this legislation would only protect some children while somehow endangering others, I would like to remind the FRC (yet again!) that legislation like this actually does protect everyone — including straight kids who are mistaken for being gay (as well as, I suppose, straight football players that are set upon by roving gangs of sissies).

When the law specifies protection of everyone regardless of sexual orientation, the plain English used in the law couldn’t be simpler. It protects everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

FRC’s Tony Perkins “Unimpressed” With State of the Union Speech

Jim Burroway

January 24th, 2007

The Family “Research” Council’s Tony Perkins issued a press released in which he complained about President Bush’s State of the Union address last night. Apparently, the Uniter-In-Chief’s message wasn’t divisive enough:

“What will become of the culture of life, the defense of marriage and permanent family-friendly tax policies?” Perkins asked. He called on Bush to “fight for the American family, and American families will stand with you!”

Tuesday’s State of the Union speech marked the first such address in five years in which the president did not focus on family values issues like abortion, stem cell research and marriage.

Noting that President Bush called for constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in the 2004 and 2005 State of the Union messages, he “avoided homosexual ‘marriage’ after a year — 2006 — in which efforts to create a constitutional amendment to ban it failed.”

If this speech is any indication, perhaps the President finally recognized that the old politics of division and scapegoating didn’t serve his administration well. Only time will tell if there has been a change of heart. But there is one thing we can all count on. In Tony Perkin’s ideal America, second-class citizenry would not only be acceptable, it would be the law of the land.

Update: Gary Bauer of American Values chims in with an e-mail he sent to his troops (You don’t want to know what shows up in my inbox sometimes!):

While the president did challenge the Senate to provide up-or-down votes on his judicial nominees, I was disappointed that there was no mention of values issues –- like the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, or religious freedom. I realize the president was addressing a hostile Congress and was undoubtedly advised to avoid these “controversial issues.” But, my friends, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is not controversial with the American people.

Tell that to the people of Arizona.

FRC and the Maryland Gay Marriage Case

Jim Burroway

December 3rd, 2006

I wish I had found it earlier, but just yesterday I ran across an Amicus Brief that the Family Research Council submitted to the Maryland Court of Appeals for Conaway v. Deane. This case will decide whether marriage equality for gays and lesbians will be granted in that state.

I looked into the brief to see what it said. Most of it consists of legal arguments citing case law, court precidents, and so forth. But one portion of the brief claims that gays and lesbians don’t deserve the right to marry because of what social science says about them. I looked into these claims, and it turns out that the FRC has a problem with the truth when it comes to citing social science. You can read about it in my latest report, The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing.

So, my questions are these: What exactly are the legal obligations of a friend-of-the-court to present their arguments truthfully? And what weight, if any, do courts give to amicus briefs when deciding cases? And what does it say about their arguments when a “values” group throws away the values of truth to become a false witness?

Somehow, I don’t recall reading “the ends justify the means” in Proverbs, or anywhere else in Scriptures for that matter.

Update on “The Politically Inconvenient Truth”

Jim Burroway

October 20th, 2006

Three weeks ago, I wrote about the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins going on various media outlets to claim that gays are much more likely to molest children. I examined the “evidence” that he offered and found it to be quite lacking.

When I wrote that, I had tried to contact the FRC to get some clarification on exactly what source material Tony Perkins was using when he made his claims. My e-mail went unanswered for more than a week, and when I did get a reply, they just referred me to their online tract, Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse, which wasn’t much help.

A few days ago, someone passed on an E-mail he received from the FRC which clarifies one point, namely the following claim:

…the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy found that boys molested by men are almost four times more likely to become homosexual or bisexual than boys who weren’t molested.

When I wrote my examination, I couldn’t find the relevant article in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. My detective work led me to believe that claim actually came from a third-hand reference to a book written in 1979 by David Finkelhor. I now stand corrected.

According to the email I received, the claim actually comes from an article written by James R. Bramblett, Jr. and Carol Anderson Darling entitled “Sexual contacts: Experiences, thoughts, and fantasies of adult male survivors of child sexual abuse” (Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, vol 23, no. 4, Winter 1997; pp 305-316).

And right there on page 313, we read the following:

In this study, 46% of the abused men, as opposed to 12% of the non-abused men, defined their sexual orientation as either bisexual or homosexual.

This study examined two groups of men, one group of 35 men who had been sexually abused and another non-abused group of 33 men to serve as controls.

That’s right. The Family Research Council is basing its evidence on thirty-five men who somehow are to represent all men who were sexually abused — that’s not very compelling evidence.

And notice the non-abused group. Twelve percent identified themselves as being gay. Now, if this group were representative of non-abused men, would the Family Research Council concede that gay men make up 12% of the male population? I doubt it.

Another interesting fact is that the composition of the abused group broke down this way: 54% straight, 32% bisexual, and 14% gay. In other words, the number of gay men in both groups is the same. What’s more, there were no bisexuals in the non-abused group. They were either gay or straight.

So why the large numbers of bisexuals in the abused group? The authors note that “according to existing literature, gender identity confusion and gender preferences are often cited as being affected by childhood sexual abuse.” The very small number of participants makes it extremely dangerous to try to draw broad conclusions. Not all bisexuals — and perhaps not even significant numbers of bisexuals — are bisexual due to past abuse, for example. And this is not to say that bisexuals generally are “confused”, but it certainly begs the question of whether abused men suffer a greater degree of uncertainty over their sexual orientation than non-abused men.

The most this study proves is that abused men are more likely to report being bisexual than being gay. That’s an important distinction given the difficulties involved with overcoming child sexual abuse. But the Family “Research” Council won’t recognize that very important distinction. Instead, they’ll do just about anything for a smear, including misrepresenting the lives of abused men to denigrate others.

The Politically Inconvenient Truth

Jim Burroway

October 8th, 2006

Over the past week, Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council, has tried to make himself something of a media expert on the supposed link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse. Since October 3, he appeared on CNN’s The Situation Room, MSNBC’s Hardball and MSNBC Live, Fox’s The Big Story, with Charmaine Yoest on CNBC, and all three nightly network newscasts. And wherever he’s appeared, he’s been making the claims that he made in this blurb, entitled “The Politically Incorrect Truth” that he posed on his web site:

The more recent revelation that Foley himself was molested as a teenager, and his lawyer’s acknowledgment that he is indeed a homosexual, simply reinforce a pattern well-attested in the scholarly literature. For example, the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy found that boys molested by men are almost four times more likely to become homosexual or bisexual than boys who weren’t molested. Homosexual activists don’t want you to know that, because it undermines the myth that people are “born gay.” Although homosexuals and bisexuals are less than 3% of the male population, male-on-male abuse accounts for about a third of all child molestation. The Archives of Sexual Behavior reported that “eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.”

Three specific statistical claims, but only two cited sources. Let’s examine them one by one.

Claim 1:

…the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy found that boys molested by men are almost four times more likely to become homosexual or bisexual than boys who weren’t molested.

I looked high and low in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy for this statistic. It was nowhere to be found. But after searching through the FRC’s website, I was able to find it repeated in another document that carried this footnote: Watkins and Bentovim (#35).

Update (10/20/2006): Almost there weeks after writing this post, I have learned the actual source for this claim. You can read that update here.

Okay. Here’s the first example of shoddy research: Tony Perkins got his source wrong. He should have referred to Bill Watkins and Arnon Bentovim’s “The sexual abuse of male children and adolescents: A review of current research”, which originally appeared in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry vol 33, no. 1 (January 1992): 197-248.

I happened to have that report on file, and this is what I learned:

Finkelhor (1984c) note it is a traditional mythology that molestation leads to homosexuality, but at the same time he found, in his college study, that boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims.

With that, I went to our local university library and found David Finkelhor’s 1984 book Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research (New York: Free Press) and found this on page 195:

Boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be engaged in homosexual activity than were nonvictims.

For this statistic, David Finkelhor cited yet another book he wrote clear back to a book he published in 1979, Sexually Victimized Children (New York: Free Press). This book presented some preliminary results of a survey that he conducted in the mid-seventies among social science college students at six New England colleges. Notice that now we’re talking about data that is some thirty years old. And since it comes from a convenience sample of social sicence college studients, the data is not representative. David Finkelhor plainly discusses the weakenesses of his sample in pages 38-41 of his book.

But that’s not all. Finkelhor’s claim about boys victimized by men doesn’t actually appear to be in the book (I can’t find it, anyway). So how did he determine that these kids were “currently engaged in homosexuality” as he said in his later book? I found my answer in appendix B, where the questionnaire was reproduced:

In the last year, how many sexual experiences have you had with someone of your own sex?

0. None
1. 1-2
2. 3-5
3. 5-10
4. 11 or more

So this is what it took for Tony Perkins to come up with his statistic that he’s so proud of. It wasn’t a comprehensive survey of adults who were molested as children. Perkins had to find an obscure third-hand reference to a thirty-year-old study that was not peer-reviewed, and was based on a convenience sample of college students taken at the very height of the sexual revolution (college students who were enrolled in social science classes in New England, no less). And that statistic included those who may only have had a single experimental experience in the past year.

How’s that for cherry picking?

Let’s skip Perkins next claim for now — that 3% of male homosexuals account for a third of all molestations, a claim we’ll come back to in a moment — and move on to his other attributed statement.

Claim 2:

The Archives of Sexual Behavior reported that “eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.”

This is a very poor choice of support for such a broad contention. That 1988 study (Erickson, W.D.; Walbek, N.H.; Seely, R.K.; “Behavior patterns of child molesters.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 17, no. 1 (1988): 77-88; abstract available here) consisted of a convenience sample of only 63 convicted molesters against male victims. The brief sentence of “eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual” is the only mention of sexual orientation. There was no attempt to follow up on whether any of these predators had any adult relationships, or if so, what kind of relationships they were. There was no description of how they may have measured these predator’s sexual attractions. There was no attempt to quantify their erotic age preference. Just one single sentence in passing, with no further explanation or support.

This is important. As you can imagine, it’s much easier to label oneself as a homosexual than as a pedophile. Members of the Aryan Nation, for example, call themselves Christians instead of bigots, a claim which most Christians would vehemently disagree.

I’m sure the “researchers” at the Family Research Council had to dig long and hard to find that statistic, because it runs completely counter to what the most respected experts have to say about the subject — Dr. Carole Jenny, Nicholas Groth, and the late Kurt Freund, for example. They have all found that this supposed connection between homosexuality and pedophilia simply don’t exist.

And finally…

Claim 3:

Although homosexuals and bisexuals are less than 3% of the male population, male-on-male abuse accounts for about a third of all child molestation.

Here’s a news flash: that 3% statistic only applies to men who openly acknowledge their sexual orientation. It does not include those who engage in same-sex sexual activity but identify as straight.

A recent random survey of 4,193 men in New York City revealed that among men who have sex with men, 72.8% identified as straight. And these only represent those who admit to such sexual activity when questioned.

In short, this claim is not only unsubstantiated, it is logically false and demonstrably wrong. But he’s not the only one to make it. You can read an extensive analysis of that myth in my report, Testing the Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Friends, this is what passes for research at the Family “Research” Council: cherry-picking of thirty-year old data, ill-supported conclusions, and statements built on faulty logic. In other words, the same old stuff. It’s time we — and specially the press — called them on their so-called “science” and exposed it for what it is: junk.

Challenging Predators Is “Gay-Bashing”?

Jim Burroway

October 2nd, 2006

Just a few moments ago, Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council just appeared on CNN’s “The Situation Room” to talk about the unfolding scandal involving Congressman Foley’s sexually explicit Instant Message exchanges with 16-year-old pages. When Perkins was asked why he thought the Republican Congressional leadership delayed so long in handling the situation, he answered that he didn’t know. But, he said, it raised a lot of questions:

Was it out of fear of pushing something too far, over-reacting, and that, uh…. because of the orientation of congressman Foley they would be seen as being ‘gay bashing’? Was that part of the decision not to act? That’s what I think we need to know.

Let’s get these two things clear right away:

1. Going after sexual predators is not gay bashing.
2. Equating homosexuality with sex abuse is.

Fear of gay-bashing? This congressional leadership? Give me a break. The election is down to the last five weeks. I’m surprised the gay bashing hasn’t started earlier.

Gary Bauer, who heads a group which calls itself “American Values” sent this outrageous statement out in his daily “End of the Day” e-mail this afternoon:

Groups like NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, continue to be given positions in “gay rights” parades and, without shame, continue to promote their governing slogan, “Sex by eight or it’s too late.”

I would like anyone who has any evidence of NAMBLA has been invited to participate in a gay pride parade to email me directly. I’m looking for photographs or mainstream newspaper articles. (Sorry, I’m afraid I won’t take Agape Press’s word for it.) I haven’t seen anything like this in at least the past ten years –- probably longer. I know I would be outraged to see such a thing, as would virtually everyone I know. If it’s happening, I want to know about it.

It looks as though this scandal will provide the anti-gay lobby plenty of ammunition to use against us. Now is the time to get informed. One place to start is by reading Testing the Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?.