Box Turtle Bulletin

AFA Gearing Up For Another Boycott?

Ugh. It was bad enough when I felt like I had to eat at McDonalds out of loyalty. Does this mean I’ll have to start drinking Pepsi?

Why can’t they boycott cool stuff?

Certified Cameronite: Kathleen Gilbert, OneNewsNow and LifeSite

As we reported today, Kathleen Gilbert has reached into the depths of “agenda-driven, pseudo-scientific gobbledygook” by a Nazi apologist to fuel her anti-gay propaganda on the web sites LifeSite News and OneNewsNow.

And so today we have triple-header: three Certified Cameronite Awards go to Gilbert, LifeSite and OneNewsNow. And to add to that, we have a full denunciation from a UK researcher whose study she misrepresented. That’s a home run! Congratulations.

Researcher: LifeSite and OneNewsNow Misrepresent Our Review

A British researcher has denounced two North American anti-gay web sites for distorting his research. University College London professor Michael King, in a statement to Box Turtle Bulletin, clarified the findings of his research on depression and suicide among LGB people, and emphasized the importance that “all sectors of society welcome them as equal and valuable citizens.”

Professor King spoke out in response to an article that appeared last Wednesday in LifeSite, an unofficial Catholic web site, which claimed that the “homosexual lifestyle [is] strongly linked to depression [and] suicide.” The same article by Kathleen Gilbert appeared again Saturday on the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow. It began:

A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com.

After analyzing 25 earlier studies on sexual orientation and mental health, researchers, in a study published in the medical journal BMC Psychiatry, also found that the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.

The LifeSite/OneNewsNow article claims that the study proves lesbians, gays and bisexuals experience this risk not because of stigma or discrimination, but because homosexuality itself is a mental disorder:

Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist and member of the Catholic Medical Association, says there is evidence that homosexuality is itself a manifestation of a psychological disorder accompanied by a host of mental health problems, including “major depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, conduct disorder, low self-esteem in males and sexual promiscuity with an inability to maintain committed relationships.”

The BMC Psychiatry article by professor Michael King and colleagues is available online for free. This means that you don’t have to take anyone’s word for anything; you can read it yourself. And as you do, you’ll notice that the study bears little resemblance to Gilbert’s description of it.

First, the authors make it clear that participating in a “homosexual lifestyle” — and by that I presume Gilbert means sexual activity — is not a necessary risk factor. The studies that the authors analyzed defined homosexuality and bisexuality by many different standards, including sexual attractions and identity apart from behavior.

The authors also make it clear that while lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people appear to be at greater risk than heterosexual people of mental disorders and suicidal behavior:

LGB people are subject to institutionalised prejudice, social stress, social exclusion (even within families) and anti-homosexual hatred and violence and often internalise a sense of shame about their sexuality.

And:

Although our evidence does not specify the nature of such mechanisms, there is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is itself a disorder that is thereby subject to a higher co-morbidity than is found in heterosexuals.

In fact, even if Gilbert hadn’t seen the study itself — even though it is available online — her “report” doesn’t even bear much resemblance to the Health24.com article that she claims to cite but doesn’t link.

We asked Professor King for his reaction to the LifeSite/OneNewsNow article. This was his reply:

LifeSite News and OneNewsNow have misinterpreted our review.  Evidence from around the world identifies the main stressors leading to mental distress in gay and lesbian people as discrimination, prejudice, bullying in schools and colleges, and the consequent need for many LGB people to keep their homosexual identity secret, even from their families.

Our review did not examine links between mental disorder and homosexual “behaviour” or “lifestyle”.  Our work reviewed studies of the mental health of lesbian, gay and bisexual people, and sadly, those studies showed that it is people (not behaviour) that are discriminated against, and not least by religious groups and organisations.

Discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is even more devastating than other forms of discrimination such as racism, as it reaches right into families and leaves no refuge for its victims.

We suggest in our review that the availability of alcohol and drugs at gay social venues may be a factor in the greater risk of drug and alcohol misuse in LGB people.  Reducing this problem is something for which LGB people must take greater responsibility.  However, the fact that discrimination still exists in our societies means that many are forced to use such venues to meet each other rather than through more common ways available to heterosexuals, such as at work, during the pursuit of hobbies and past-times, or at church.

There is now abundant evidence that homosexuality is not itself a mental disorder and that it is compatible with a healthy lifestyle.  We shall only begin to see a reduction in mental distress and deliberate self harm in LGB people when all sectors of society welcome them as equal and valuable citizens.

To throw more confusion into the mix, Gilbert tossed in a discredited 2007 study by Nazi-apologist Paul Cameron which supposedly demonstrated that “that the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual.” She also used Cameron’s study to claim that discrimination hat nothing to do with it, saying that, “Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark – the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality – both die on average in their early 50’s, or in their 40’s if AIDS is the cause of death.”

We have already examined glaring flaws in Cameron’s study, as has Danish epidemiologist Morton Frisch who described his study as “humorous example of agenda-driven, pseudo-scientific gobbledygook.” Cameron’s false claims of presenting this “study” before the Eastern Psychological Association earned him an official condenmnation from EPA president Phile Hineline in April 2007.

Gilbert’s brief article in LifeSite and OneNewsNow combines the worst misrepresentations of legitimate science coupled with the worst example of phony pseudoscience — all in six short paragraphs. That’s quite a remarkable if dubious achievement. What Gilbert lacks in veracity, she certainly makes up for in ingenuity — and audacity. Maybe someday she’ll decide the truth ought to play a role as well. Somehow I doubt it.

[Thanks to regular reader Stefano A. for his help in gathering material for this post.]

Folsom Street Fair Organizers Make Questionable Claim Against Americans For Truth

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth and I may disagree on pretty much everything related to sexuality but something we both share is the fact we’re activists who rely on “fair-use” to expose and analyze things in the world we find objectionable.

In a recent analysis of Folsom, LaBarbera posted a digital copy of a congratulatory letter from Mayor Newsom to Folsom organizers as a one page excerpt from Folsom’s 2008 Program Guide which he found particularly offensive and illustrated the focus of his analysis.

Folsom organizers took issue with this apparently as their attorney sent LaBarbera a cease and desist letter claiming intellectual property infringement. LaBarbera, aided by the American Family Association’s General Counsel fired back calling their bluff, citing the “fair-use” clause of copyright law.

In this case I agree with Pete. Folsom’s lawyers are full of shit.

Specifically, the letter from Mayor Newsom is not Folsom’s property, it was written by someone at the Mayor’s office and is a matter of public record in the public domain. According to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act misrepresenting ownership of intellectual property puts the person making the false-claim at risk. Per Wikipedia:

anyone who makes a false claim of infringement or false counter-notification is liable for the damages suffered by the other parties

It appears the only thing Folsom organizers have succeeded in is giving the appearance of legitimizing Mr. LaBarbera’s attacks on them by allowing him to paint himself as the victim.

I contacted Folsom organizers to see if their side of the story differed from Pete’s — our email exchange is below:

I’m a pro-gay activist and write for a website called BoxTurtleBulletin.com which tracks and monitors the religious right. Recently it came to my attention that the anti-gay group Americans For Truth is claiming your lawyers sent them a cease and desist letter relating to their use of Folsom St. Fair promotional materials. The full article is online here:

http://americansfortruth.com/news/so-much-for-leather-pride-folsom-
organizers-try-to-stop-aftah-from-exposing-their-vile-event.html

Based solely on Peter LaBarbera’s account it appears he is well within the realm of fair-use and your lawyer’s claims have no ground are designed only to intimidate him.

Before blogging on this I would appreciate your side of the story.

Thanks,
Daniel Gonzales

Folsom’s response:

Daniel,

Thanks for your email. While AFTAH claims fair use, that doesn’t mean it is fair use. There are specific legal criteria by which fair use is gauged. And, there are actually pretty severe limits placed on the amount of a work that can be reproduced under the fair use rule. We state clearly in our Guide: “Reproduction in whole or in part without permission…is prohibited.” That said, we apparently disagree on the issue which is why we are pursuing it. There is no intimidation involved here.

Demetri Moshoyannis
Executive Director

AFA’s Misquoting of the CDC

We commented earlier on an article in AFA’s OneNewsNow in which Regina Griggs displayed astonishing ignorance about the HIV infection rates of gay youth. Now the editors at AFA have amended the article

Over 70 percent of young kids 13- to 24-years-old, men having sex with men, are now HIV-positive,” Griggs notes. (see editor’s note)

and the editor’s note reads

In June of 2007 the Centers for Disease Control stated that homosexual sex accounted for 71 percent of all HIV infections.

Well now that’s an interesting statistic (though entirely irrelevant to Grigg’s claim). But what do they mean?

Is AFA saying that homosexual sex accounted for 71 percent of recent infections? The CDC Report (pdf) states:

MSM (49%) and persons exposed through high-risk heterosexual contact (32%) accounted for 81% of all HIV/AIDS cases diagnosed in 2005. [the most recent year reported ; emphasis added]

Is AFA saying that homosexual sex accounted for 71 percent of total persons living with HIV/AIDS?

By sex, 73% of adults and adolescents living with HIV/AIDS were male.

Of the estimated 341,524 male adults and adolescents living with HIV/AIDS, 61% had been exposed through male-to-male sexual contact, 18% had been exposed through injection drug use, 13% had been exposed through high risk heterosexual contact, and 7% had been exposed through both male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use. [In other words, half: (61% + 7%) * 73% = 50% ; emphasis added]

Although the report provides information by ethnicity, location, age at transmission, cumulative deaths, and much more, I was unable to find any statistic that could be interpreted to state that “homosexual sex accounted for 71 percent of all HIV infections”.

(hat tip to reader Neil H)

PFOX’s Griggs Goes Off the Deep End

PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) claims to be a support group of parents and others that support and work for the interests of their ex-gay children and friends. However, a closer look at their activism reveals that they are comprised mostly of a handful of ex-gays, a few parents that wish their children were not gay, and some others who just want to “fight the homosexual agenda”.

And while there may be a place for an organization that fights for civil inclusion for those who identify as ex-gay, this group does not fulfill that function.

Ex-gays face discrimination and hostility in society – most of it based on perceptions and stereotypes. It is not unknown for ex-gay men to appear less masculine or ex-gay women to appear more so than social norms may expect. And while they may have religious objections to homosexuality, many of the employment, housing, and other protections that gay people seek would also benefit those ex-gays who may appear to be gender atypical. So any organization seeking to better the lives of ex-gays could find common cause with the LGBT community on a number of issues.

But PFOX has no interest in common cause. Or even in the civil protections of ex-gays.

PFOX pays but nominal attention to ex-gays and instead expends its efforts in seeking to restrict services and information for gay people, primarily youth. And they have a long history of showing little regard for truth, decency, or integrity in their efforts.

They have distorted the work of reputable scientists, made wild accusations against various schools and youth programs, manufactured “attacks” by gay activists, hurled vile insults against those who disagree with them, and, most recently mangled research to exploit suicide statistics for political positioning.

But now Regina Griggs, and PFOX, have bested themselves. They now have made a claim so phenomenally ridiculous, so homophobic (in the traditional sense of the word), that even anti-gays should be driven to mocking them.

As reported by the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow, Griggs opposes Gay-Straight Alliances and other safe spaces for gay teens:

Research shows that individuals often go through periods of gender and sexual confusion as they grow from children to teenagers to adults. Griggs wonders why, then, would schools opt to send children along a dangerous path. “Why are we allowing people to tell them, ‘Try it — you might like it?’ Over 70 percent of young kids 13- to 24-years-old, men having sex with men, are now HIV-positive,” Griggs notes.

Seventy Percent?

That claim is phenomenally stupid, even by anti-gay standards.

As Ed Brayton at ScienceBlogs.com notes:

According to the 2000 census figures, there are roughly 50 million people between the age of 13 and 24. Slightly more than half would be female, so let’s say conservatively that there are 22 million men between those ages. If 2% of them are MSM, that’s 440,000. The percentage of HIV positive MSM between 13 and 24 is more like 3.1%, a far cry from 70%. Okay, it’s probably a bit higher than that because there will be some men in that age group who were diagnosed before 2001, but at the absolute outside we’re talking 5%, not 70%.

I might calculate using different variables, but Brayton is right. HIV infection in gay youth, or even in sexually active gay youth, is FAR from 70%.

Griggs is either a wanton liar or a raging loon. Perhaps both.

UPDATE

I calculate around 0.7% of all gay youth aged 13 to 24 are now HIV-positive.

AFA Approved Comments: Knoxville Church Doing “Satan’s Work”

Not anyone can log in and leave a comment on the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow site. Once you submit a comment, it has to be approved by a moderator before it goes public. And what kind of comments earn the AFA’s stamp of approval on their re-post of the AP’s story on the Knoxville church shooting? How about this one:

While this is a tragedy, the article may mislead those who are not familiar with the Unitatian [sic] “non-religion”. Unitarians are not Christians, and like all non-Christians they are doing Satan’s work.” Only a non-Christian would say something like that at a time like this. Thanks for muddying the waters.”

And again, another one, probably by the same author (note the repeated misspelling):

While this is a tragedy, the article may mislead those who are not familiar with the Unitatian [sic] “non-religion”. Unitarians are not Christians, and like all non-Christians they are doing Satan’s work.”

They liked the comment so much they approved it twice.

We’ve lamented the resounding silence on the part of anti-gay religious activists concerning Larry King’s murder. It looks like some quarters have decided not to be so quite this time, now that a gay-friendly church was the target.

Disgusting. Is it any wonder Christians have such a bad name?

Update: As readers point out, it does appear that the first comment reposted above may be a rebuke to the second comment. It takes a very close reading to catch it; OneNewsNow’s formatting makes it all very unclear. OneNewsNow has removed the second comment that we reproduced above, but there’s still another one remaining:

The truth is never hateful or an insult and those who mock the truth are Satan’s stooges. Unitarians are not Christians and anyone who is not of Christ is of Satan. That is truth, not hate or insult.”

Another comment, (the most recent one?) states the obvious:

At a tragic time like this we should be praying for these people, not attacking them. I don’t agree with their beliefs, but to insult them during this time does nothing to further the gospel of Christ. It only serves to give those who hate Christianity a reason to call us hateful.

Well, if it talks like a duck…

See also:
Knoxville Gays On Edge; Local MCC Church Wants To See Letter
Relief Fund Set Up for Knoxville Churches
Thoughts and Prayers for Knoxville Shooting Victims
Knoxville Shooting Witness’s First-Hand Account
Knoxville Shooter Hated “Blacks, Gays, Anyone Different”
AFA Approved Comments: Knoxville Church Doing “Satan’s Work”
Knoxville Shooter Hated “Liberals,” Gays
Just Concluded: Knoxville Press Conference
Knoxville Shooter’s Manifesto Found
Gunman Opens Fire On Gay-Friendly Church, Two Killed

Most Pathetic Protest Ever

The AFA’s McDonalds boycott has started off with a resounding thud. Have you ever seen anything more sad?

AFA’s Latest Email Perfectly Illustrates Their Fixation With Man On Man Sex

I just received an email from the AFA’s “One Million Dads” campaign “alerting” me to the grave danger that awaits young children in any public library with a reasonably stocked gay and lesbian studies section Barnes and Noble bookstores.

In Collierville, Tennessee, recently, an 11 year-old boy named Landon Howse was walking through the Barnes & Noble bookstore when he noticed a book lying open on one of the reading area tables. His dad, Brannon Howse, was right behind him. What Landon saw were graphic pictures of two men engaged in sex. The book was titled “Ultimate Gay Sex,” and is one of the many sexually explicit books offered in Barnes & Noble stores.

[snip]

Since this story broke, AFA has learned that this is a serious problem in Barnes & Noble stores across the country. Many parents have written to say they have had the same type of heart wrenching experiences with their children as Barnes & Noble does not place the homosexual pornography behind the counter or even in a restricted area not open to minors. Anyone can go in and find it on the shelf. I wanted to warn parents and grandparents about this danger because this is the largest bookstore chain in America and other bookstores have similarly have no responsible policy when it comes to placing these kinds of books in theirs stores.

“Since this story broke” the AFA says? Odd how a Google News search for the father’s name turns up nothing.

But back to my main point. The offending book, “Ultimate Gay Sex,” or at least the one sold on Amazon.com is nothing more than a sex guide, a sex guide that happens to be written for gay people. Gay people of course enjoy reading about how they can improve their sex lives much as straight people do.

But alas the AFA hysteria alert makes no mention of straight sex guides sold at Barnes and Noble — yet another example of how the AFA is fixated on the sex lives of gays and lesbians more than any other group.

As a side note, Collierville hosted a Love Won Out conference earlier this year.

AFA To Boycott McDonalds

The American Family Association is calling for another of their futile boycotts, this time of all McDonalds restaurants.

The AFA claims that McDonalds is giving “the full weight of their corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage.”

Are they serious? McDonalds is promoting the homosexual agenda? In those shoes?

Personal Cruelty

Anti-gays often portray their attacks as being directed against a nebulous “homosexual agenda” or perhaps “the sin of homosexuality”. This is often packaged with a claim that they love individuals, or “the sinner”.

But sometimes their anti-gay activism reveals itself to be an obvious hateful attack on individuals.

For example, Tammy Baldwin has served as the representative for Wisconsin’s 2nd congressional district since 1999. And since that time Lauren Azar, her other half, has been accorded travel privileges on par with the spouses of other Congressmen. Although the House rules specify that spouses are given travel accomodations, the former House Speaker, Dennis Hastert (R-Ill), had waived the rules for Azar.

However, when Azar prepared to accompany Baldwin on a fact finding mission this year, the Pentagon blocked her from traveling on a military plane. The situation was resolved when current House Peaker Nancy Pelosi informed Defense Secretary Robert Gates that she was waiving the House rules to allow Azar to travel.

From the AP

The Pentagon still has in place its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which bars gays from serving openly in the military. But that had nothing to do with this case, said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell.

“This is strictly about following our statutory guidelines and the House rules,” he said.

Morrell said that Pelosi asked Gates to honor her decision to waive House rules to allow Azar to travel and that Gates asked her to put that request in writing.

“She did so, and he — in this one case only — agreed to it,” Morrell said. “This is not a precedent by any means. This does not open the doors for life partners to travel on congressional delegations.” But Gates has agreed to review future requests on a case-by-case basis, Morrell said.

Now most living breathing people see this as a simple act of decency. Most folks would think it odd to insist that Baldwin be the sole Congressman to travel alone.

However, Elaine Donnelly and the AFA spin it differently

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness calls this situation “a slippery slope.” “This sets a disturbing precedent because it tends to suggest that marriage doesn’t matter, [and that] marriage of people of same-sex or any such association should be treated as the equivalent of marriage,” she contends.

Donnelly believes this gives ammunition to those who want to change the military’s policy of not allowing homosexuals in the military. “This is an incremental step forward for the gay rights agenda,” she continues. “These things are all interconnected. This radical social change doesn’t always happen overnight with a court ruling. Sometimes it comes creeping along incrementally.”

This is a single instance of a consideration granted to an associate in Congress. Donnelly’s concerns about a “slippery slope” ring hollow when compared to the assurances of the Pentagon.

So why, then, does Donnelly find Azur’s travel so objectionable? Why would she complain that Azur should not be granted passage?

Simply, because Baldwin and Azur are gay.

By her attack on the travel of a specific individual, Elaine Donnelly discredits any presumption of principled objection and reveals her agenda and herself to be petty, spiteful, and cruel.

Having a Cow Over McDonalds

Ed Brayton is thinking about starting a weekly award “for the most ridiculously hyperbolic rhetoric I come across.” Ed might want to think daily. Anyway, he thinks that anti-gay rhetoric alone will provide plenty of fodder, although that’s not strictly his beat. He was checking out the personal blog of Rick Pearcey, husband of Nancy Pearcey of the Discovery Institute. That’s where Ed found this little gem:

Not today, in light of reports that McDonald’s has decided, apparently, to declare war on my family. And to declare war on the civilization of liberty, independence, creativity, and humanity under God that my Dad fought for in World War II.

What did McDonald do the “declare war” on liberty, independence, humanity, World War II, and Ricky Pearcey’s family?

Well it turns out he gets his “news” from the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow:

McDonald’s … has given a significant amount of money, I might mention, to become a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce,” Wildmon explains. “Among the many other things that the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce promotes is hate crimes [legislation], the ENDA [Employment Non-Discrimination Act]. [T]hey’re dedicated to pushing the homosexual agenda.”

In exchange for the donation, a McDonald’s senior executive has been placed on the board of the pro-homosexual group. Wildmon says the chain’s decision is baffling

Wildmon is apoplectic, and so is Pearcy. Brayton found this reaction particularly noteworthy:

For human beings, this is a matter of liberty under God — Why help finance groups that turn their backs on the Declaration of Independence, the Founding vision, and the living Creator who holds it all together?

Run for the hills everyone! World War II was all in vain.

More Response from Ford to AFA’s “Boycott Victory”

Earlier this week, the American Family Association, declared victory in changing the advertising policy at Ford Motor Company and it’s various brands.

At that time the response from Ford, while encouraging, was not adequately specific to assure me that no agreement had been made or that Ford would continue its relationship with it gay market. But Jeff Bercovici at Conde Nast’s Portfolio.com has contacted Ford and reports the following comments:

But Ford spokesman Jim Cain insists the automaker had made no such promises. “I can tell you there was not a negotiated settlement to this boycott,” he says, sounding somewhat mystified by AFA’s triumphalism.

While Ford has scaled back some of the marketing and philanthropy AFA objects to, any such decreases were merely part of a broader retrenchment in response to dismal market conditions, says Cain. “We’ve been in real financial difficulties. There’s been reduced spending in lots of areas.”

But, he adds, Ford continues to be involved with groups such as PFLAG and Human Rights Campaign, both of which agitate for gay marriage.

I will take the Ford spokesman at his word. And I will watch to see whether any increase in performance at Ford Motor Company will result in the resumption of marketing and philanthropy towards the gay community.

AFA’s Ford Boycott is Over

Two years ago this week the American Family Association declared that they and their anti-gay allies would boycott Ford Motor Company. They had made demands on Ford – which they thought were being met – until gay groups convinced Ford that homophobia would not stand unchallenged. Ford did not want to be portrayed as caving to a campaign of bigotry.

The boycott was called after Ford reneged on an agreement with American Family Association to stop funding homosexual groups which promote homosexual marriage.

Specifically, AFA had insisted on the following:

1. Ford would not renew current promotions or create future incentives that give cash donations to homosexual organizations based on the purchase of a vehicle.
2. Ford would not make corporate donations to homosexual organizations that, as part of their activities, engage in political or social campaigns to promote civil unions or same-sex marriage.
3. Ford would stop giving cash and vehicle donations or endorsements to homosexual social activities such as Gay Pride parades.
4. Ford would cease all advertising in homosexual websites and media outlets (magazines, television, radio) in the U.S. with the exception of $100,000 to be used by Volvo. The Volvo ads would be the same ads used in the general media and not aimed at the homosexual community specifically.

Now the AFA is lifting their boycott. They believe that their demands have been met.

Concerned over the claims, blogger Joe.My.God contacted Ford. He received the following reassurances (more details at his site):

The AFA has made its decision and is ready to move on. Our principles have not changed. We are committed to treating everyone fairly and with respect, including our dealers, customers and employees. Ford will continue to market its products widely to attract as many customers as possible and make charitable contributions to strengthen communities to the extent business conditions allow. Difficult business conditions in recent years have reduced our overall spending across the board.

Generally, gay bloggers seem to read in the above statement some indication that Ford remains committed to marketing to the gay community. I wish that I was so convinced.

I have found that when questions like, “Do you love me” elicit vague responses such as, “I love everyone”, the real answer is “no”. This is especially true when questions of gay rights and equality enter the picture.

You seldom find a raging homophobe or dedicated anti-gay activist who doesn’t “love the person bound by homosexuality”. Every argument against hate crimes includes “we oppose crimes against all people”. Every opposition to non-discrimination policies is phrased, “we oppose discrimination against everyone but don’t think special groups should be listed”.

So when I read non-specific vague promises of “treating everyone fairly” and “market [our] products widely to attract as many customers as possible”, my first assumption is that Ford will no longer be target marketing the gay community. If you intend on continuing advertising to gay customers, well you just say so. Ford’s statement didn’t even mention the word “gay”, much less any indication that AFA’s claim is without basis.

I believe it is still far too soon to know what has been promised or what will occur. Ford will have ample opportunity to clarify whether any concessions have been made to AFA and that all advertising in gay media will cease. Alternately, Ford could run an add next month in the Advocate.

So far I find this situation troubling. But I’m sure that by June I’ll know whether or not to take “Don’t Buy Ford” signs to gay pride.

AFA Finds Goldfish Sexy

At least that’s how it looks to me. The American Family Association sent out this Action Alert, alarmed that hotels are replacing Gideon Bibles with “Sex Kits.”:

Hotels replace Gideon Bibles with “sex kits”

Now is the time to let the hotel chains know that you want them to keep the Gideon Bibles

The latest fad with some hotels is to replace their Bibles with “intimancy [sic] kits.” For instance, at New York City’s trendy Soho Grand Hotel guests can enjoy a gourmet mini-bar, an iPod, a flat-screen TV and even the company of a complimentary pet goldfish. But no Bible.

That’s the problem with the AFA crowd. There’s no telling what they’ll find sexy.