Legal Experts

Family Law Professors: Amendment “Threatens Harm To A Broad Range Of North Carolina Families.” According to a statement posted by Protect All NC Families, law professors from every law school in North Carolina have agreed that Amendment One poses an unnecessary threat to families:

We are family law professors who teach at every law school in the state of North Carolina. We speak on behalf of ourselves, rather than our institutions. Based on our professional expertise, the language of the proposed North Carolina amendment is vague and untested, and threatens harms to a broad range of North Carolina families. The amendment is phrased more broadly than most similar amendments in other states, and would therefore likely be construed by courts more broadly than in other states.

The amendment would certainly ban same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, and would very likely ban the domestic partnership health insurance benefits that a number of municipalities and counties currently offer to same- and opposite-sex unmarried couples.

It also threatens a range of other protections for unmarried partners and their children, including domestic violence protections and child custody law. We are aware that some law professors at Campbell Law School think otherwise. In our view, this disagreement simply underscores the fact that Amendment One is vaguely worded and that it is not possible to know how broadly it will eventually be construed. [Protect All NC Families, 4/22/12, emphasis added]

UNC Law Professors: Impact Of Amendment One “Could Be Extensive And Severe.” In a November 2011 brief published in opposition to Amendment One, four law professors from the University of North Carolina School of Law wrote:

If approved by North Carolina voters, the proposed Amendment’s impact on North Carolina citizens and on the state could be extensive and severe. The Amendment does not simply ensure that judges cannot overturn North Carolina’s existing prohibitions against same-sex marriage, as supporters claim. It would also bar civil unions and other protections for unmarried couples, including the domestic partnership benefits that several municipalities currently offer to their unmarried public employees.  More than that, the vague and untested language of the Amendment could be interpreted to prohibit the government from recognizing a broad spectrum of legal rights and protections for all unmarried couples – whether straight or same-sex. The Amendment could invalidate domestic violence protections for unmarried couples; undermine current custody and visitation laws constructed in the best interest of children; and prevent courts from enforcing end-of-life arrangements, such as wills, trusts and powers of attorney executed by unmarried couples. [UNC Amendment One Brief, 11/8/11]

NC Attorney General Roy Cooper: Amendment One Is “Unclear, Unwise, And Unnecessary.” On April 25, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced that he would be voting against Amendment One, writing:

I am writing you today to let you know I am voting against Amendment One in next month's primary elections on May 8th. I believe it is unclear, unwise and unnecessary. Amending our constitution demands careful deliberation along with precise language - both are missing here.  Amendment One's lack of clarity will also result in a significant amount of litigation on many issues which will be decided by courts for years to come. This should be avoided. Thank you for the opportunity to serve as your Attorney General and letting me share my thoughts with you about this issue. [Roy Cooper statement, 4/25/12]

Conservative And Republican Activists

Anti-Equality Activists: Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment One Goes “Too Far.” In an April 11 op-ed for North Carolina’s News & Observer, anti-equality activists David Blankenhorn and Elizabeth Marquardt criticized Amendment One, writing:

One of us (David), reared in Mississippi, has for more than two decades directed a think tank, the Institute for American Values, that aims to strengthen marriage and reduce divorce and unwed childbearing. In 2010, he served as an expert court witness in California’s widely followed “Proposition 8” marriage case.

The other (Elizabeth) grew up in North Carolina and has for a decade directed the Center for Marriage and Families at the same institute. She has made her case against same sex marriage in national opinion pieces, book chapters and reports. We believe that marriage is a uniquely important institution that unites mothers and fathers to their children.

But as marriage advocates, we oppose the state marriage amendment now being debated in North Carolina. We hope that when North Carolinians go to the polls on May 8 they will defeat this measure. Let us explain.

The proposed amendment states that “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” That’s a big mouthful, and it goes well beyond the issue of same-sex marriage.

For one thing, it means that North Carolina could not, now or ever, take any step or devise any policy to extend legal recognition and protection to same-sex couples. No domestic partnership laws. No civil unions. Nothing.

That’s mighty cold. If you disdain gay and lesbian persons, and don’t care whether they and their families remain permanently outside of the protection of our laws, such a policy might be your cup of tea. But it’s not our view, and we doubt that it’s the view of most North Carolinians.

If you want to create a backlash against mother-father marriage – if you want to convince people that the real agenda of marriage advocates is not protecting marriage, but ignoring and ostracizing gay people – then this amendment might be to your liking. But we believe that the cause of marriage is hurt, not helped, by gratuitously linking it to the cause of never under any circumstances helping gay and lesbian couples. [News & Observer, 4/11/12, emphasis added]

John Locke Foundation President: Amendment Is “Unwise And Unfair.” John Hood, president of the conservative think tank The John Locke Foundation, has argued against Amendment One, writing:

I think amending North Carolina’s constitution to forbid gay and lesbian couples from receiving any future legal recognition, including civil unions, is unwise and unfair. In my opinion the real threat to marriage is not the prospect of gay people getting hitched. It is the reality of straight people too quickly resorting to divorce, or never getting hitched in the first place. [Carolina Journal Online, 3/26/12]

Former NC Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr: Amendment Is “Probably Not A Provision That Ought To Be In” The Constitution. Former North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr, a conservative, has questioned the necessity of Amendment One:

Former Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr, the former executive director of the conservative North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law, said the fate of such an amendment may end up out of the hands of voters and legislators.

“My sense is that the federal courts will ultimately resolve this,” he said.

Orr, a Republican, also questioned the need for the amendment.

“Any provision that has to be put into the ‘miscellaneous’ section of the constitution immediately raises questions about whether it should be in the state constitution,” he said. “It’s probably not a provision that ought to be in.” [Charlotte Observer, 3/28/12]

Republican Lawyer Russsell Robinson: Amendment Is “Completely Unnecessary,” “Very Bad.” In a YouTube video produced for Protect NC Families, Republican lawyer Russell Robinson – who is the grandson of the North Carolina constitution’s lead drafter – denounced the amendment, saying:

ROBINSON: The amendment is completely unnecessary. Same-sex marriage is now prohibited in North Carolina. The amendment also is very poorly worded. It’s worded in a way that is bound to invite litigation, to make litigation necessary.

[...]

ROBINSON: This amendment could disrupt parent-child obligations, parent-support obligations, so it could really create havoc in family law. I think the amendment is very bad and I really devoutly hope that this state will reject that Amendment when they vote on May the 8th. [Protect NC Families video, 3/20/12]

GOProud Co-Founder Chris Barron: “No Reason” To End Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage With Amendment. In a column written for Pam’s House Blend, GOProud co-founder and conservative activist Chris Barron criticized Amendment One for shutting down public debate over the issue of marriage:

Amendment 1 not only bans gay marriage, it is also so broadly written that it bans civil unions, domestic partnerships and threatens to outlaw any benefits offered to same-sex couples. While I support marriage equality, I understand that the country is still debating this issue, and that different states are coming to different conclusions and that will continue. This debate is healthy, and reflects the best our democracy has to offer. There is simply no reason to end this debate for all time with a Constitutional amendment. [Pam’s House Blend, 4/30/12]

Republican Politicians

Former GOP Charlotte Mayor Richard Vinroot: Amendment Won’t Stand The Test Of Time. According to the Charlotte Observer:

Former Charlotte Mayor Richard Vinroot, once the Republican nominee for governor, said Wednesday that he opposes the proposed marriage amendment to the state’s constitution.

[...]

“My reaction, was, ‘My gosh, the legislature wants us to put something in the constitution that the leader of our party – the speaker of the House – doesn’t think will stand the test of time for more than a decade,’ ” Vinroot told the Observer. “I can’t imagine amending the constitution for something he believes is that tenuous.”[Charlotte Observer, 3/28/12]

U.S. Rep. Renee Ellmers: Marriage Amendment Shouldn’t Include Ban On Civil Unions. According to North Carolina’s News & Observer, Republican and Tea Party activist Rep. Renee Ellmers opposes Amendment One because the measure would also prohibit civil unions for same-sex couples:

U.S. Rep. Renee Ellmers says that she opposes same-sex marriages but that she intends to vote against a proposed constitutional amendment banning them that will be on the North Carolina ballot in May because it would also ban civil unions.

[...]

Her spokesman, Tom Doheny, confirmed that she planned to vote against the constitutional ban that was adopted by the legislature in September because it is too broadly drawn.

"Congresswoman Ellmers has always believed that marriage is a sacred institution and is defined as the union between one man and one woman," Doheny wrote in an email. "That is why she has and will continue to protect and defend marriage at the federal level.

"When asked about civil unions, which are different than marriage, she said that she finds nothing wrong with people being granted them but at the same time, it is currently a state issue and up to the voters to decide," Doheny said.

"As a voter, she would vote against a piece of legislation that would add a ban on civil unions to the protection of marriage since they are two different issues and should be dealt with separately," he said. [News & Observer, 10/2/11]

Republican Chairman Of Equality NC: Anti-Gay Republicans “Are Really Fighting History.” Dan Gurley, Republican chairman of the board of directors of Equality North Carolina, has been a vocal opponent of Amendment One:

But other Republicans disagree, including Dan Gurley, chairman of the board of directors of Equality North Carolina, one of the main groups working against the amendment.

"Republicans who oppose equality really are fighting history, and they're going to get left behind," he says. "My concern as a Republican is that if our party does not adapt to the changing times, that we're going to get left behind." [NPR, 4/26/12]

Business Leaders

Business Leaders: Amendment Will Hurts Efforts To Recruit Businesses, Talent. According to News 14 Carolina:

Executives across North Carolina are speaking out against the proposed constitutional amendment on next week's ballot.

They claim it will hurt the state's chances to reel in new business. 

"The biggest thing that will hurt us is a perception issue, that North Carolina is a backwater town," said James Avery, CEO of Adzerk, a Durham-based startup. 

Avery and dozens of other Triangle CEOs signed an online petition saying the marriage amendment would hurt efforts to recruit top businesses, talent and investors to North Carolina. 

"So instead of getting new talent here, we're going to lose talent because they're going to move to other places," he said. [News 14 Carolina, 4/30/12, emphasis added]

Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers: We’ll Think About The Amendment “The Same Way We Think About The Jim Crow Laws.” During an April 13 business breakfast, Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers spoke out against North Carolina’s anti-gay marriage amendment, saying:

"Our state today is known as a state that's inclusive. And any bill that we pass that basically says that we're not inclusive, we don't treat people fairly ... We live in an era now where 50 percent of the people who get married get divorced. We live in an era with (these) statistics: There are so many single households today - more than ever before in the history of our country.

"And I believe that when you pass an amendment like that, you're sending a message to the world about what kind of community this is: We're not inclusive, we don't have equal standards for all people with different points of view. You don't have to believe in them, but you have to be open to them.

[...]

If this amendment passes, we're going to look back 20 years from now, or 10 years from now, and we're going to think about that amendment the same way we think about the Jim Crow laws that were passed in this state many, many years ago.

"This is the 21st century. We're competing with people around the world. We've got to be inclusive and open." [Charlotte Observer, 4/13/12, emphasis added]

Bank Of America Technology Chief: Amendment Could Have “A Disastrous Effect On Our Ability To Attract Talent” To North Carolina. In a March 29 video posted to Protect NC Families’ YouTube account, Bank of America Technology Chief Cathy Bessant condemned Amendment One:

“We’re in a war with other states across the country who would love to have the jobs that we have today,” said Catherine Bessant, global technology and operations executive at the Charlotte, North Carolina-based lender, in a video posted to YouTube this month. “Amendment One has the potential to have a disastrous effect on our ability to attract talent and keep talent in the state of North Carolina.” [Daily Herald, 4/1/12]

Medical Organizations

NC Medical Organizations: Amendment Would Have Negative Impacts On Children, North Carolina Families. During an April 15 press conference at the North Carolina General Assembly, representatives from a number of medical organizations expressed opposition to Amendment One:

At a press conference held Wednesday, April 25, at the North Carolina General Assembly, representatives from the North Carolina Pediatric Society joined with colleagues from the North Carolina Psychological Association, the North Carolina Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, North Carolina Chapter and the Carolinas Chapter of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists in opposing Amendment One, the proposed amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that would ban relationship recognitions and threaten protections for the state’s unmarried couples.

Speaking for the North Carolina Pediatric Society, past president Peter Morris, M.D., said he worries if the amendment were to pass, "families of all types will find themselves with stresses, toxic stresses, that will affect their lives and that will affect their children's lives. The North Carolina Pediatric Society opposes the ratification of Amendment One."

That opposition was echoed by Raleigh psychiatrist Jean Aycock, who explained that because of the amendment’s far-reaching language, potentially impacting health care and legal safeguards for all unmarried, cohabiting households, 911,186 North Carolina children could be threatened by Amendment One, according to 2010 census data. “That’s almost one million North Carolina kids who stand to be impacted by Amendment One,” said Aycock. “This is not so much an anti-gay amendment as an anti-child amendment.”

[...]

Sample remarks from today’s press conference:

“There is nothing in North Carolina’s proposed Amendment One, that will serve to protect either children or families…. children could be denied access to a parent’s health insurance, quality child care and early childhood education programs, custody agreements, domestic violence protections, and more.” - Dr. Erica Wise, M.D. President-Elect, North Carolina Psychological Association

“This Amendment will undermine existing family structures and the societal protections that many of our patients depend upon, such as adoption rights, access to healthcare and insurance, and domestic violence protections. This Amendment changes no North Carolina law affecting the LGBT community – but it affects many heterosexual couples in ways that are largely unpublicized. We know many of our patients are in unmarried heterosexual partnerships that will be negatively affected by this amendment. We are particularly concerned about the children who will lose insurance benefits should this amendment pass.” – Dr. Harold Carmel, Past President, North Carolina Psychiatric Association

“This amendment not only affects our profession but the clients we serve. Domestic violence protections against unmarried women will be affected as the Amendment redefines marriage. Children in unmarried homes will be affected from not having insurance coverage to visitation rights. Seniors lose privileges such as visiting loved ones in the hospital or making critical medical decisions on behalf their loved ones. Protecting our citizens is important to ensuring a productive society and this Amendment does not protect North Carolina’s citizens.” – Tanya Roberts, MSW, Board President, National Association of Social Workers, North Carolina Chapter [Mountain Xpress, 4/26/12, emphasis added]

Faith Leaders

Pastors Against Amendment One: Amendment “Doesn’t Understand The Point Of Faith Or Family.” The group Pastors Against Amendment One has gathered dozens of signatures from religious leaders who oppose the anti-gay marriage amendment:

As Christians, we have a responsibility to stand for the least of these. That is why I am opposing Amendment One. The broad wording of Amendment One could strip health care from children, remove protections for battered women, and force widows to choose between survivor benefits and legal protections. An Amendment that asks us to trade the well-being of our children, battered women, and widows to supposedly protect religion and family doesn't understand the point of faith or family. [Pastors Against Amendment One, accessed 5/1/12]

Faith Leaders: Amendment One Would Cause Hard To “ALL Of God’s Children.” The group Protect All NC Families has released a statement from faith leaders opposed to Amendment One:

As clergy and leaders in our faith traditions, we are mandated by God to demonstrate and protect love in all its forms and to stand for justice for all of creation. In faithful response to this calling, we commit ourselves, along with thousands of other Christians, Jews, Muslims and other people of faith around North Carolina, to voice our opposition to Amendment One, to witness to the harms it would cause ALL of God’s children in North Carolina and to use the gifts God has given us to defeat this amendment. [Protect All NC Families, accessed 5/1/12]

• Protect All NC Families’ Statement Has Been Signed By Hundreds Of North Carolina Faith Leaders. [Protect All NC Families, accessed 5/1/12]

NAACP

NC NAACP Conference President: “We Should Never Seek To Codify Or Vote Discrimination” Into The Constitution. In an April 26 press release, Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, President of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, wrote:

"The polls and the politicians are asking the wrong questions on this discriminatory amendment, hatched in the backrooms of the extremist, rightwing think-tanks," said Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II, President of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. "Our message is consistent: A vote on the same sex marriage amendment has nothing to do with your personal and religious opinion on same sex marriage but everything to do with whether or not you believe discrimination should be codified and legalized constitutionally. We should never seek to codify or vote discrimination into the very heart and framework of our Constitution."

Dr. Barber continued, "The real insult to the Civil Rights Movement is that the same regressive, ultra-conservative Tea Party type folks suing to overturn the 1965 Voting Rights Act, re-segregating and robbing our public schools of valuable resources, blocking workers' rights to organize, trying to force us all to get photo ID's to exercise our right to vote and cut back on the time and opportunities to vote, and attempting to repeal the Racial Justice Act, now somehow think the sons and daughters of the Civil Rights Movement cannot see through their Trojan Horse trick." [NAACP, 4/26/12, emphasis added]

NO Special Rights PAC

Heath's History Of Extreme Anti-LGBT Commentary

Exploiting Accidental Death To Depict Gays As Murderers, Deviants

Alienated From Traditional Anti-Gay Groups

NO Special Rights PAC

Heath, Madore Form NO Special Rights PAC, Promise To “Take Off The Gloves” In Referendum Fight. According to the Associated Press:

Two longtime opponents of gay rights and same-sex marriage initiatives are forming a political action committee to oppose Maine's same-sex marriage referendum.

Michael Heath and Paul Madore said Tuesday they've formed the No Special Rights PAC to oppose November's ballot measure asking voters if same-sex marriage should be legalized.

Heath and Madore have held leadership roles going back to the early 1990s opposing gay rights and gay marriage initiatives in Maine. Heath was executive director of the Christian Civic League for 15 years until his resignation in 2009, and Madore once headed a group called Maine Grassroots Coalition that opposed sexual orientation laws.

Madore said he's ready to "take off the gloves" in the campaign leading up to November's election.

"It's going to be a fight," he said. [Associated Press, 3/20/12]

NO Special Rights PAC Distributed “Truth Pledge” Asking Voters To Oppose “Sodomy Based Marriage.” According to Think Progress’s Zack Ford:

Anti-gay conservatives Paul Madore and Mike Heath — activists whose heated rhetoric has been squelched in past campaigns — have launched the “No Special Rights PAC” to oppose the referendum. Today, they took their first action, interrupting the beginning of Pride Week at the University of Maine to distribute a “truth pledge,” which refers to the ballot initiative as promoting “Sodomy Based Marriage.” Individuals who take the pledge are encouraged to refer to the freedom to marry as a “special right,” a “hellish” and “evil” doctrine, and an “attack by demonic forces.” [Think Progress, 4/9/12]

Heath's History Of Extreme Anti-LGBT Commentary

Heath: The Gay Movement “Is Rooted In Sorcery And It Is A Child Of The Devil.” From a March 27 blog post:

The so-called "gay" movement is rooted in sorcery and it is a child of the devil, and an enemy of everything that is right. 

[...]

The people of Maine are like the proconsul in the story above from Acts.  They honestly want to understand the truth.  The media, most politicians, an increasing number of religious leaders and the "gay" lobby are Elymas the Sorcerer.

My dearest Christian friend, you and I are called to be Paul in the story.  Just as Elymas was stung by Paul's direct confrontation, you can expect our enemy to howl.  I would dare say, in fact, that if the enemy isn't howling we must be doing something wrong. [MikeHeath.net, 3/27/12, emphasis added]

Heath: Supporters Of The “Homosexual Agenda” Should Be “Cast Into The Sea.” In a March 27 blog post, Heath condemned a number of pro-equality Maine politicians, writing:

Dale McCormick is a child of the devil. Betsy Sweet is an enemy of everything that is right. John Baldacci, Angus King, Olympia Snowe, Mike Michaud, Chellie Pingree and Susan Collins all support the homosexual agenda. They support an agenda that is publicly and boldly devoted to training your child through their "public" schools in the ways of both fornication and transgendering. 

Jesus went further than Paul in speaking out for children. He said that children of the devil who violate the innocence of our little ones should be cast into the sea with a millstone hung about their neck. [MikeHeath.net, 3/27/12, emphasis added]

Heath: America’s Economic Crisis Is God’s Punishment For LGBT Equality. In a September 2008 blog post, Heath wrote:

The nation will right itself if it fixes sex 

We are all rightly concerned about the nation's financial situation today. Our crisis is a symptom, not the cause. 

Ruth Graham told her husband Billy years ago that God would have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah if He doesn't judge America. They were reflecting on a list of sinful conditions existing in our nation in the 1960s. Things have only deteriorated since then. 

I am not saying I know whether this financial crisis is God's judgment or not. It is not for me to know that definitively. Graham's observations are instructive, however. 

If Maine's politicians really want to get serious about making Maine strong in light of this national crisis they will do the following immediately: 

1. Put Maine on record as being against abortion the nanosecond the Supreme Court releases the Roe shackle. 
2. Defund the Family Planning Association of Maine. 
3. Amend Maine's Constitution to define Marriage. 
4. Eliminate domestic partnerships and ignore pleas to create civil unions. 
5. Unleash Maine's private sector to make Maine energy independent. 
6. End discrimination against private religious schools and homeschools. [Mike Heath’s blog, via Good As You, 9/25/08, emphasis added]

Heath: Marriage Equality Caused Rain, Crop Failure, Depression In Maine. In response to the Maine legislature’s 2009 vote to legalize marriage equality, Heath wrote:

Friends known for their high-spirits seem remote and gloomy. Our gardens droop low as if worn out and saddened. Bird and beast stay close to home, and when they do venture out, they too, seem peevish and sullen. 

What is missing is the sun, God’s emblem of cheerfulness and benevolence. 

Our crops are faring like our moods. The potato crop is blighted, and corn and fruit fields wither. In one historic building in Augusta, rain flooded the basement, as water from another source poured down through the ceiling and extinguished a century-old chandelier. 

Few people would be bold enough to suggest the cause of the endless rain and gloom, that the moral climate in Maine has caused the sun to hide its face in shame. 

Worse than the rain is the fact that Maine voted in homosexual “marriage.” 

In May, our elected officials overturned a law of nature, and in its place paid honor to evil and unnatural practices. Our leaders allowed a cloud of error to hide the light of reason, and then the rain began. How fitting that this eclipse of human reason is mirrored by the disappearance of the sun! 

What darkness equals the error of saying a family should be headed by two mothers or two fathers? What error equals saying that two women can be married, or two men? I am not saying that homosexuals or the gay rights movement are to blame for the weather. Far from it! 

The fault lies with a refractory governor and Legislature who imposed an immoral law on our people. [Maine Family Policy Council, via Good As You, 8/10/09]

Heath: Gays Are Going After Children, Gay Ideology Is A “Cancer” Spreading Throughout Maine. In a December 2007 column, Heath wrote:

Years ago we said the "gays" were going to go after the children. Everyone laughed thinking we were nuts.

In August the Maine Supreme Court perverted a nineteenth-century definition of adoption. They unanimously ruled that nineteenth century Mainers imagined homosexual adoption and allowed for it in their definition. Maine state government is now placing kids in "queer" homes through both the foster care and adoption systems. There was never legislative approval for any of this, I don't believe. It was all created by unelected Judges and bureaucrats.

The entire Middle School System in Maine is now moving toward the provision of prescription contraceptives to 11 year old girls without parental knowledge. Don't think that the King Middle School incident is the end of the story. No way. That is just the beginning. The only thing that will turn that around is a lawsuit that may be filed this Friday. The people of Portland, Christians especially, don't care enough to do ANYTHING. So, guess what. The political and cultural pressure is going to grow and grow. The tyranny of "gay" ideology has already silenced the church of Portland. It is only a matter of time before the cancer spreads throughout Maine. [News With Views, via Right Wing Watch, 12/8/07, emphasis added]

Heath: “I Want Maine To Be The Place Where The ‘Gay’ Wall Starts To Crumble.” According to a December 2007 column:

You might conclude that I am not hopeful about Maine's future. Nothing could be further from the truth. This "gay" ideology is going to go the way of the Berlin wall. It is only a matter of time. It can't come soon enough for me. One person told me the backlash would come in five or ten years. As far as I'm concerned the backlash is going on right now. I'll never give in to these people, these evil ideas. Most Mainers feel the same way I do. They are going to speak. They are going to react. It is only a matter of time. Only a sad and pathetic minority embraces these nutty ideas about sex. 

I want Maine to be the place where the "gay" wall starts to crumble. How about you? Lets take the word "gay" back from them. How about the rainbow? Lets take that back also. [News With Views, via Right Wing Watch, 12/8/07, emphasis added]

Heath: Promoting Homosexuality Is A “Profoundly Immoral And Evil Doctrine.” From a July 2009 blog post for the Maine Family Policy Council:

The [Maine Family Policy Council] calls on the people of Maine to be mindful of the fact that the idea of same sex marriage is promoted by a vocal minority which seeks to impose a view of human sexuality which is contrary to reason, and is profoundly harmful both to individuals and to society. The homosexual rights lobby seeks to implement this view of sexuality throughout every part of society, from every kindergarten and elementary school, to every carpenter shop, factory, and law office. 

If the people of Maine do not make a concerted effort to resist the imposition of this profoundly immoral and evil doctrine, a perverted notion of human sexuality will be enforced through civil lawsuits; and if homosexual activists have their way, through fines and/or imprisonment. Thus, the debate over same sex marriage is not merely a matter of sexual morality and ethics, it is a matter of freedom of conscience. [Maine Family Policy Council, via Good As You, 7/9/09, emphasis added]

Heath: Employment Non-Discrimination Laws Are Part Of “An Evil Political Agenda.” Writing for the Christian Civil League of Maine, Heath criticized the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) for protecting “evil”:

The creation of legal rights that protect evil is ... well ... an evil political agenda. I wasn't being rhetorical (sorry), and the only unfortunate thing about this whole political discussion is how insistent people like Susan Collins are on avoiding the facts. 

The fact is that there really are evil forces at work in our culture. They have already mostly destroyed the innocence of childhood in the west. This powerful force is rapidly undermining the capacity of young people to imagine and live the age-old story of creation, sin and redemption... 

This force is telling us that it is possible to create a civilization built on the premise that all sex is good sex as long as it is consensual. Normal people know that this is nonsense. 

Politicians appear to be losing their grip on normal. [Christian Civic League of Maine, via Good As You, 11/16/07, emphasis added]

Heath: “Homosexuality Is Perverse, Deviant And Disgusting Sexual Behavior That Isn’t A Topic Of Discussion In Polite And Civil Societies.” In a 2007 press release from The Christian Civic League of Maine, Heath was quoted as saying:

"They aren't going to be stopped in Maine by anything short of the truth. And the truth is that homosexuality is perverse, deviant and disgusting sexual behavior that isn't a topic of discussion in polite and civil societies. If people want to do it in the privacy of their home then shame on them, but I'm not interested in stopping their boorish bedroom antics anymore than I'm interested in hearing about it."[MaineToday, 6/14/07, emphasis added]

Heath: “Homosexuality Is A Sickness. It’s A Sin.” In a November 2009 blog post, Heath wrote:

Homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with marriage. Homosexuality is a sickness. It’s a sin.

We need to stop putting up with it. There is nothing civil about hiding the truth from those we love. And the truth about sex outside of marriage is that it hurts, it’s bad for us. We need to avoid it.

We need to choose life over sex. Sex is for life … it creates life. Sex and life must be connected in our thinking. We come together sexually in the context of marriage to celebrate creation, the creation of a unique individual human life. It is perilous to disconnect sex from creation. It is even more perilous to pretend that pleasurable sex should be associated with acts unspeakable. [Mike Heath’s blog, via Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, 11/5/09, emphasis added]

Heath: Homosexuality Should Be Recriminalized, Non-Discrimination Laws Should Be Repealed. From a November 2009 blog post:

In the interest of protecting and affirming all of Maine’s people, especially our children and grandchildren, we must repeal domestic partnership laws that provide benefits on the basis of homosexuality, we must de-fund the so-called “civil rights teams” [pro-homosexual student groups] and remove “sexual orientation and gender identity” from the Maine Human Rights Act and the Maine Civil Rights Act. It would also be prudent to reinstate Maine’s anti-sodomy law that was quietly removed from our criminal code in the late 1970s. [Mike Heath’s blog, via Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, 11/5/09, emphasis added]

Heath: Homosexuality Is “Unwholesome, Unhealthy And Dangerous.” In a February 20 blog post, Heath wrote:

I told the congregation that Maine may endorse sodomy based marriage in November.  Maine could become the first state in America to endorse this perversion in statewide voting.  There is little doubt in my mind about this.  It will happen because Maine Christians are too sensitized to the whims of power and money.  They think they are being like Jesus by choosing "love" and "compassion" toward "gays."

The truth is that Jesus spoke very clearly about evil.  He said that adults who cause children to stumble in sin should be cast into the sea with a millstone around their neck. Many teachers and parents now promote the idea publicly in schools that homosexuality is a moral good, even for children.

Google the "Maine civil rights teams" and do some research and thinking about the ideology that informs this taxpayer funded effort.  I am clueless as to why Governor Paul LePage allows this to continue.  And this indoctrination is going on without the specific knowledge of the parents.  How evil is that?

It is never wrong to tell the truth.  It is always wrong to pretend that something unwholesome, unhealthy and dangerous is benign and morally good. [MikeHeath.net, 2/20/12, emphasis added]

Heath: There Aren’t Enough Critical And Derogatory Words In The English Language” To Describe The Gay Rights Movement. In a March 14 press release for NO Special Rights PAC, Heath said:

"It is good that Christian leaders are speaking out, teaching and organizing,"  said Rev. Michael S. Heath.  "We must, however, go further than teaching and politicking.  Sexual immorality is wrong in every way, and must be vigorously denounced.  We are talking about embracing a civilization destroying death-style here, not a life-style.  There aren't enough critical and derogatory words in the english language to adequately describe the perverted essence of this movement.  Christianity has always taught it is an 'abomination.'" [MikeHeath.net, 3/14/12]

Heath Exploited Accidental Death To Depict Gays As Murderers, Deviants

A Gay Activist Accidentally Killed A Man Before Testifying In Favor Of Marriage Equality In Maine. Days before testifying in favor of Maine’s marriage equality law at a public hearing in 2009, prominent gay activist Bruce Lavallee-Davidson accidentally shot and killed Fred Wilson during a consensual sex act. Prosecutors and defendants in the case both agreed that the death wasn’t intentional, and Lavallee-Davidson was eventually convicted of manslaughter. [Associated Press, 1/14/10]

Heath: Wilson Incident Proves Homosexuality Is “Deviant And Abnormal.” Heath has repeatedly used the Wilson incident to attack homosexuality. In a January 27 blog post, he wrote:

The sanctity of marriage cannot be conferred on acts which by their very nature are harmful and immoral.  To believe otherwise goes beyond folly.

It is no coincidence that one homosexual rights activist who testified at the gay marriage hearing in Augusta claimed that God had blessed his “marriage,” despite the fact that he shot and killed a man in a homosexual orgy four days earlier.   

Occurrences such as these, coupled with the audacious depravity of so-called “gay pride parades,” force the public to confront  the truth -- often in spite of itself --  that homosexual marriage cannot be safely regarded as anything other than deviant and abnormal.

If anyone doubts this, let him consider for a moment that this “alternate lifestyle,” carries with it the gravest possible penalties for the physical and spiritual well-being of those who practice it. [MikeHeath.net, 1/27/12]

Heath: Mainstream Media, Gay Activists Concealed Info About Wilson Incident “To Ensure Victory For Same-Sex Marriage.” In a January 28 blog post entitled “Murder, Marriage & Mayhem: The ‘Gay’ Way,” Heath wrote:

The most prominent figure in the push for homosexual marriage in Maine was Larry Bliss. Bliss was a homosexual rights activist from California who became head of the Judiciary Committee of the Maine Legislature. The day same sex marriage became law,  Bliss was made President Pro Tem of the Maine Senate. The photo shown here shows Bliss standing at the podium as homosexual marriage becomes law.

[...]

After I left the Christian Civic League, the online newspaper of the League began reporting on the Bruce LaValle-Davidson killing in South Portland. It is preposterous to suggest that Bliss had any connection to the crime; but it is important to learn when Bliss knew of the crime, because he chaired the same sex marriage hearing in Augusta at which Bruce  LaValle-Davidson testified. It is probable that Bliss knew of the crime before the hearing, since at the time of the shooting he lived five blocks from the victim's home.

The RECORD also revealed that Bruce LaValle-Davidson's victim, Fred Homer Wilson, was a member of  a sadomasochistic group in Portland called the Harbor Masters, and donated to a museum in Chicago devoted to the “leather lifestyle.”

The mainstream media and the homosexual rights movement concealed this information from the public in order to ensure a victory for same sex marriage.

If their tactic is to conceal this sort of information, we must shout it from the rooftops. [MikeHeath.net, 1/28/12]

Heath: Wilson “Murder” Reveals “The Dark Underbelly Of The So-Called ‘Gay’ Movement.” From a March 29 NO Special Rights PAC press release:

"This case simply cannot get enough publicity,"  said Heath.  "If it were on the front page everyday from now until November that wouldn't be enough."

The dark underbelly of the so-called "gay" movement is ignored, or worse, denied by many people who know better.  Maine is going to vote on sodomy based marriage again in November of this year.  The facts about homosexuality and marriage will be largely ignored in the media.

Mike Heath and Paul Madore have teamed up to try to address this problem.  They've formed a political action committee called the No Special Rights PAC.  They have devoted themselves to talking about the morality and behaviors that are the essence of the homosexual political movement.  A correct vote cannot be cast on this matter without thoroughly considering all the issues associated with the sodomy based marriage proposal.

Proponents would have the people of Maine believe their movement is only about love and commitment.

The facts of the Wilson murder prove otherwise.

While there probably is no connection, the openly homosexual State Senator, and celebrity of the "same sex marriage" movement in 2009, Larry Bliss, abandoned Maine as the Wilson murder case was playing out in the media.  Bliss lived blocks away from Wilson's house, where the brutal murder took place. [MikeHeath.net, 3/29/12]

Alienated From Traditional Anti-Gay Groups

SPLC: Rumors That Heath Was “Shunted Aside” From 2009 Campaign Over His Extreme Rhetoric. In an April 10 blog post, Southern Poverty Law Center’s Evelyn Schlatter wrote:

Heath has a long history of outrageous and inflammatory statements about LGBT people. A former board chairman of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, Heath also had a long career with Maine’s Christian Civic League (later the Maine Family Policy Council), including the directorship, until his resignation in 2009 amid rumors that he was shunted aside because of his extreme anti-gay rhetoric. That same year, he had called for the re-criminalization of sodomy, the repeal of domestic partnership laws, and the removal of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from the Maine Human Rights Act and the Maine Civil Rights Act. He has referred to homosexuality as a sickness, claimed that the “tyranny of ‘gay’ ideology” has silenced the church in Portland, and that it’s “only a matter of time before the cancer spreads throughout Maine.”[Southern Poverty Law Center, 9/10/12, emphasis added]

Heath Was Removed From A 2009 Flyer Advertising Traditional Marriage Rally. According to documents retrieved by Good As You’s Jeremy Hooper, while Heath was featured in a flyer for a February 2009 traditional marriage rally, he was scrubbed from an almost identical flyer for an event just a few months later. [Good As You, 9/8/09]

Linda Harvey: Anti-Equality Maine Groups “Threw” Anti-Gay Extremists “Under The Bus” In 2009. In a November 2009 column for WorldNetDaily, Mission: America founder Linda Harvey condemned Maine’s anti-equality groups for dissociating themselves from the extreme commentary of some anti-gay activisits:

Pro-family forces prevailed on Nov. 3 in the state of Maine to preserve traditional marriage – for now – and praise God for that. Yet the Stand for Marriage Maine campaign ceded some precious ground in the process and threw long-time family activists under the bus instead of working with them as they could have.

[...]

Two weeks ago, Brian Camenker joined long-time pro-family warrior Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth and Maine’s Paul Madore at a press conference in Maine. These veteran pro-family professionals revealed what no one had yet talked about: the rotten core of homosexual activism behind the No on 1 effort. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, for example, has a not-so-long-term strategy to legalize every sexual behavior imaginable.

[...]

But despite the teaching moment that LaBarbera, Madore and Camenker took advantage of, and despite the excellent media coverage their statements received, the Stand for Marriage campaign did not embrace them. In fact, they did everything possible to discourage their efforts, both in public and behind the scenes. Scott Fish of Stand for Marriage told the Maine media he “disavowed” any association with these brave pro-family warriors. [WorldNetDaily, 11/6/09, emphasis added]

Heath: “I Was... Horrified By” Softened Rhetoric Of Maine Anti-Gay Groups. In a November 2009 blog post Heath criticized Maine’s anti-gay groups for distancing themselves from his brand of anti-gay extremism, instead expressing tolerance towards gays and lesbians:

In referendum after referendum over nearly twenty years I fought side-by-side with thousands of fellow Mainers and slowed the propagandists and politicians.  Working behind the scenes gay activists still managed to enact all of their agenda except for marriage.  It was gratifying this year to finally see substantial statewide and national groups step up to face this goliath.  I was, however, horrified by the concession proclaimed by Stand for Marriage this past weekend.  They repeated their endorsement of domestic partnerships and gay rights, going so far as to suggest that more rights to protect homosexuality may be in order.

I pray this election result signals that we have turned the corner, and that we are going to listen to our hearts.  Sexual love is made for a man and a woman to enjoy in the context of a life long commitment.  Surely we don’t want to build a society where our children and grandchildren are encouraged to invent new perversions to avoid boredom?

The path to sanity is well defined.  We don’t need experts to help us define marriage.  We already know it when we see it.  We simply need to see more of a commitment to it in ourselves, and those we love. [Mike Heath’s blog, via Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, 11/5/09, emphasis added]

Heath: Anti-Gay Groups Downplay “The Evil Essence Of Homosexuality And Sodomy.” In a March 16 blog post at MikeHeath.net, Heath criticized groups like the National Organization for Marriage for sugarcoating their opposition to marriage equality, writing:

In 2009 national evangelical groups came together under the banner of the "National Organization for Marriage" with Catholics and Mormons.  They raised and spent more money in that one campaign than we were able to raise in four previous campaigns on "gay rights" combined.   Even with all that we barely won.

Their message purposely downplayed the evil essence of homosexuality and sodomy.  They tried to sugarcoat the message.  It barely worked then.  It isn't going to work this time. [MikeHeath.net, 3/16/12, emphasis added]

Heath: Anti-Gay Groups Should Focus On The “Profoundly Evil Lie” That Homosexuality, Sodomy Are “’Moral’ Goods.” In a March 16 blog post, Heath chided other anti-gay activists for softening their rhetoric on LGBT issues, writing:

I found the "hate" list interesting. Many of the leaders on the list have softened their rhetoric dramatically over the years. They've decided to emphasize a truncated message of "love" over encouraging folks to honestly react to the profoundly evil lie that tells us sodomy and "sexual orientation" are "moral" goods. 

I once believed what many on the GLAAD "hate" list, believe. I thought that we could win this fight by being clever, and primarily pragmatic in our approach. Staying on the good side of "friendly" Republicans would win the day. It hasn't worked. And … it won't work. [MikeHeath.net, 3/16/12, emphasis added]

NOM Documents Reveal Strategy Of Intentional Race-Baiting

NOM Document: “The Strategic Goal Of This Project Is To Drive A Wedge Between Gays And Blacks.” From a 2009 document identifying NOM's “cultural strategies” for 2009 and beyond:

The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party. Fanning the hostility raised in the wake of Prop 8 is key to raising the costs of pushing gay marriage to its advocates and persuading the movement’s allies that advocates are unacceptably overreaching on this issue. [NOM Board Update, 2009, emphasis added]

NOM Document: NOM Should Make “Support For Marriage A Key Badge Of Latino Identity.” A 2009 document describing NOM”s “National Strategy for Winning the Marriage Battle” stated:

Will the process of assimilation to the dominant Anglo culture lead Hispanics to abandon traditional family values? We can interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity.

[...]

Here’s our insight: The number of “glamorous” people willing to buck the powerful forces to speak for marriage may be small in any one country. But by searching for these leaders across national boundaries we will assemble a community of next generation Latino leaders that Hispanics and other next generation elites in this country can aspire to be like. (As “ethnic rebels” such spokespeople will also have an appeal across racial lines, especially to young urbans in America.)

[...]

Our ultimate goal is to make opposition to gay marriage an identity marker, a badge of youth rebellion to conformist assimilation to the bad side of “Anglo” culture. [NOM strategy document, 8/11/09]

NOM Officials Dismiss Outrage Over Internal Documents

NOM’s Brian Brown: “We Proudly Bring Together People Of Different Races.” In a March 27 press release, NOM president Brian Brown responded to criticism over his organization’s internal documents, stating:

“The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) was formed in 2007 and has worked extensively with supporters of traditional marriage from every color, creed and background. We have worked with prominent African-American and Hispanic leaders, including Dr. Alveda C. King, Bishop George McKinney of the COGIC Church, Bishop Harry Jackson and the New York State Senator Reverend Rubén Díaz Sr., all of whom share our concern about protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

“Gay marriage advocates have attempted to portray same-sex marriage as a civil right, but the voices of these and many other leaders have provided powerful witness that this claim is patently false. Gay marriage is not a civil right, and we will continue to point this out in written materials such as those released in Maine. We proudly bring together people of different races, creeds and colors to fight for our most fundamental institution: marriage.” [NOM press release, 3/27/12]

NOM’s Thomas Peters: “Left-Wing Angry That Diversity Is On The Side Of Marriage.” In a March 27 tweet, NOM’s cultural director Thomas Peters promoted his organization’s press release, adding “left-wing angry that diversity is on the side of marriage”:

[Thomas Peters tweet, 3/27/12]

NOM’s Maggie Gallagher: “Must Be A Slow News Day.” In a March 27 blog post for National Review Online, NOM co-founder and former chairwoman Maggie Gallagher dismissed BuzzFeed’s coverage of NOM’s internal documents, writing:

BuzzFeed Exclusive! NOM Thinks Gay Marriage Not a Civil Right!

It’s always amusing to watch the media go to work to generate a non-story. In this case, it’s about “secret” documents that show NOM reaches out to black and Latino churches to fight gay marriage.

NOM’s response is here.

Mine is: Must be a slow news day over at BuzzFeed. [National Review Online, 3/27/12]

NOM’s Gallagher: “Where’s The Evidence We Did Any Race-Baiting In This Time Period?” In the comments section of her blog post, a commenter claiming to be Maggie Gallagher – “Maggie 1960 Gallagher” – added:

Here's the fundamental problem with the narrative. This is about documents detailing what NOM plans to do in the past 2009 and 2010 I believe. Where's the evidence we did any race-bating in this time period. What did we say or do that is toxic or beyond the pale or remotely racist?

The organization's document uses language that I would call "inapt"--in part because its tremendously vain to think that I or NOm or any other White Christian conservtive can manipulate black or latino church leaders. I don't think so. [National Review Online, 3/27/12]

But NOM’s Been Widely Condemned For Race-Baiting, Anti-Gay Tactics

SPLC’s Mark Potok: Documents Help “End The Idea That NOM Is An Honorable Group.” In a March 27 HateWatch blog post, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) spokesman Mark Potok wrote:

NOM isn’t the first organization to use such cynical marketing ploys, schemes that seem to have little do with the interests of the people they claim to represent, and it certainly won’t be the last. But the revelation of its bald attempt to exploit black people and Latinos should help end the idea that NOM is an honorable group that would never engage in race-baiting. Because that is precisely what it has done. [SPLC, 3/27/12]

PFAW’s Minister Leslie Watson Malachi: NOM Documents Expose “The Depravity Of Their Politics.” In a March 27 press release, Minister Leslie Watson Malachi – director of People for the American Way (PFAW) Foundation’s African American Ministers Leadership Council – stated:

“If the success of the National Organization of Marriage’s movement depends on stirring up resentment between communities, it might want to rethink its strategies.

“African American men and women of faith are not a political football to be tossed around in a cynical game of resentment and division. We, like all Americans, struggle thoughtfully with issues of faith, family and politics. Anti-equality activists such as NOM consistently attempt to use a deeply cynical ‘wedge’ strategy to divide African Americans and the gay community, playing up what are now old and tired cliches. In the long run, this strategy will falter as African American and LGBT communities continue to work together for equal justice.

[...]

“NOM’s explicit attempt to drive a wedge between the LGBT community and African Americans is deeply offensive, and it exposes the depravity of their politics.” [PFAW press release, 3/27/12]

Freedom To Marry’s Evan Wolfson: NOM Works To “Exploit Racism And Homophobia In Its Attacks On LGBT Americans.” In a March 27 email to supporters, Freedom to Marry founder and president Evan Wolfson wrote:

Here's the smoking gun. 

We've long known that the so-called National Organization for Marriage's strategy is to pit Americans against Americans in its drive to enact its anti-gay political agenda.  Now, just-revealed internal strategy memos document how NOM has spent years -- and millions -- working to "drive a wedge between gays and blacks -- two key Democratic constituencies" toexploit racism and homophobia in its attacks on LGBT Americans.

[...]

It's clear from their own words that NOM, fueled by a shadowy handful of secret funders, will stop at nothing, including pitting minority against minority, family members against family members. It's a strategy they've employed in state after state where gay Americans and allies have had to fight back against brutal and well-financed campaigns of lies and distortion. [Freedom to Marry email, 3/27/12]

HRC’s Joe Solmonese: NOM Documents Are “A Game Changer.” In a comment for the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) NOM Exposed blog, HRC president Joe Solmonese said:

“Nothing beats hearing from the horse’s mouth exactly how callous and extremist this group really is,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “Such brutal honesty is a game changer, and this time NOM can’t spin and twist its way out of creating an imagined rift between LGBT people and African-Americans or Hispanics.” [HRC, 3/27/12]

NAACP’s Julian Bond: NOM’s Race-Baiting Is “Reprehensible.” From a March 27 Metro Weekly article:

NAACP chairman emeritus Julian Bond today noted in a statement, "NOM's underhanded attempts to divide will not succeed if Black Americans remember their own history of discrimination. Pitting bigotry's victims against other victims is reprehensible; the defenders of justice must stand together." [Metro Weekly, 3/27/12]

TWO’s Wayne Besen: NOM Strategy “Manufacture[s] Malice Between Communities That Didn’t Previously Exist.” During the March 28 edition of MSNBC Live, Truth Wins Out (TWO) executive director Wayne Besen said:

BESEN: This is incredibly disrespectful of African Americans and downright contemptuous of Latinos. Instead of the great American melting pot, what they’re trying to do is stir the pot of divisiveness. It’s mean-spirited. And the thing that really needs to be pointed out is not only does this divide entire communities, but this divides families. People are being rejected by their own parents because of such rhetoric. They’re being thrown out of their homes; they’re being bullied at schools. There’s a real disconnect with the National Organization for Marriage and their political memos that are dreamed up in Washington and what happens on the ground to real people. And what they’ve done, essentially, is manufacture malice between communities that didn’t previously exist. And that's incredibly harmful to people. [MSNBC Live, 3/28/12, via Equality Matters]

TWO’s John Becker: Documents “Reveal A Remarkably Cynical, Shrewd, Callous Organization.” In a March 27 blog post, TWO Director of Communications and Development John Becker wrote:

Even though we knew -- or at least suspected -- that this was going on, reading NOM's putridly divisive strategy in print is remarkably unsettling. The newly released documents reveal a remarkably cynical, shrewd, callous organization that is willing to say and do whatever it takes -- be it blatant race baiting, spreading anti-gay lies through propaganda campaigns, or using religious leaders as weapons with which to bludgeon LGBT people from the pulpits and in their parishes -- in order to prevent loving, committed same-sex couples from winning the freedom to marry. And they're not satisfied with bullying LGBT people at home, either; they also seek to spread their hateful bigotry across the world. The fallout from these damning revelations could and should be widespread and far-reaching. Stay tuned: we may well be witnessing the beginning of the end of the National Organization for Marriage. [TWO, 3/27/12]

Salon’s Mary Elizabeth Williams: NOM Exposed As “Dumber And More Consciously Hateful Than We’d Ever Given [Them] Credit For.” In a March 27 column, Salon staff writer Mary Elizabeth Williams wrote:

Way to go, NOM. You’ve not only been exposed as dumber and more consciously hateful than we’d ever given you credit for, you’re got the chutzpah to now pull the old shtick of acting like your creepy philosophy is some big, beautiful tent. I guess if exploiting minorities because you hate homosexuals so much is something you think really brings people together, um, maybe? But meanwhile the rest of us – gay and straight, dark- and light-skinned – are going to keep drinking our gay lattes, advocating for civil rights, and eagerly awaiting your next boneheaded, self-justifying and disastrously backfiring move. [Salon, 3/27/12]

Anti-LGBT Activists Accuse GLAAD Of Censoring, Silencing Their Voices

FRC’s Peter Sprigg:  “An Honor” To Be “Among Top 36 Commentators On Homosexuality” That Glad “Wants To Censor.” In a March 14 tweet, Family Research Council Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg wrote:

[Peter Sprigg tweet, 3/14/12]

FoF’s Gary Schneeberger: GLAAD’s CAP Is “An Attempt To Stifle Freedom Of Speech And Freedom Of Religion.” In a March 14 article for CitizenLink, Focus on the Family Vice President of Communications Gary Schneeberger condemned GLAAD for “trying to intimidate the media”:

Schneeberger added that GLAAD’s campaign was “rather chilling.”

“This is an attempt to stifle freedom of speech and freedom of religion by trying to intimidate the media into forfeiting their constitutional right to freedom of the press,” he explained. They’re seeking to saw three of the five legs of freedom off the stool that holds up the First Amendment.”

“America was founded on debate and discussion; that formula has worked pretty well for us for more than 230 years. It makes you wonder why GLAAD would want to eradicate it.” [CitizenLink, 3/14/12]

FoF’s Candi Cushman: GLAAD Created A “Public Enemy List.” In a March 15 blog post for CitizenLink, Focus on the Family Analyst Candi Cushman accused GLAAD of creating a “blacklist” of anti-gay spokespersons:

I found it fascinating to read the announcement yesterday that I had been included in a list of 36 dangerous radicals who should be banned from national television and print outlets. That’s definitely a first.

But rather than feeling the shame it was intended to create, I guess I’m feeling rather honored to be included alongside the likes of Focus on the Family President Jim Daly; Prison Fellowship’s Chuck Colson and the head of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Albert Mohler. All of whom are compassionate, biblically minded leaders who unabashedly proclaim the redemptive truth that we’ve all fallen short of God’s plan for humanity and that we are all equally in need of a Savior.

This blacklist was created by a group called GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. But after this action, I think it’s fair to say they appear to only be against certain types of “defamation.”

They’ve issued a blanket accusation against all of the leaders, researchers and spokespeople on their list, claiming “They represent nothing but extreme animus towards the entire LGBT community.”  

GLAAD is calling its public enemy list the “Commentator Accountability Project”—meaning, when anyone on the bad list appears on television, radio or in print, GLAAD wants individuals to fill out an online report. Then GLAAD will use that information to pressure media outlets to exclude those individuals. In press releases and interviews, the organization says it aims to warn the media about the “extreme anti-LGBT rhetoric” of the spokespeople and the fact that they “aren’t experts.” [CitizenLink, 3/15/12]

Michael Brown: GLAAD’s CAP Is “Bigotry, Intolerance, And Attempted Censorship.” In a March 19 TownHall column, anti-gay commentator Michael Brown criticized GLAAD’s CAP for being part of a larger campaign against people who disagree with pro-gay rights activists:

[F]or those who claim that GLAAD is not trying to engage in censorship, note well that at the end of 2010, GLAAD launched a petition drive urging “CNN to Make a New Year's Resolution: Keep Away From the Anti-Gay Industry.” Yes, said GLAAD, “It's time for outlets to finally drop several hundred pounds of unhealthy weight, which they've been carrying around for years, in the form of anti-gay activists. . . . CNN and the rest of the media are doing nothing but exposing their viewers to dangerous anti-gay rhetoric when they invite members of these anti-gay groups onto their programming. Starting in 2011, this needs to stop.”

This must be labeled for what it is, namely, bigotry, intolerance, and attempted censorship, which is why – to repeat yet again – I say that we recognize GLAAD for what it is: the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement. [TownHall.com, 3/19/12]

Radio Host Kevin McCullough: I’m Being Targeted By The Forces Of “The Evil One.” Conservative radio host Kevin McCullough – while guest hosting for the American Family Association’s Focal Point radio show – accused GLAAD of working on behalf of “the Evil One”:

McCULLOUGH: When you get targeted by the enemy, and I mean “the Evil One,” I don’t mean human beings, but I mean by his forces, it gives -- it can be rather earth-shaking and then it can be very deliberately motivating. And so I would ask, friends, that as you have just heard, I’ve just told you about this list that GLAAD has put out

[...]

McCULLOUGH: About thirty people that have been targeted by the most radical of activists that are seeking to basically blackball our voice from being allowed to be put in the public arena. They basically say on their website today that they’re going to “aim to deliver information,” whatever that is and whatever they want to say, “into the hands of newsrooms and editors and hosts and reporters, journalists and producers.” They want to paint us with a broad brush and in some cases try to get us banned from being allowed to talk. Because they obviously believe in free speech, right? [Focal Point, 3/14/12]

McCullough: GLAAD “Want[s] Me Dead. From the Match 14 edition of AFA’s Focal Point:

MCCULLOUGH: Here’s how GLAAD thinks. GLAAD believes as long as there’s a single person that has an independent thought that has anything to do with God or morality, saying that only certain types of sexual expression are healthiest, that that is hate. And until they’ve erased all the hate on the planet, they’re not going to be satisfied. Someone asked me before I went on the show today, ”what do you think their end goal in developing this list is? Is it just to get you blackballed off media?” I said “no, they want me dead. They’re not going to be happy until my voice goes dark.” [Focal Point, 3/14/12]

Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber: GLAAD Trying To Silence Dissent To Promote “Radical Secular Socialism.” Speaking to OneNewsNow, Liberty Counsel Vice President Matt Barber condemned GLAAD for “attempting to silence” anti-gay activists:

Since they cannot win the debate on the merits, he says the only thing left for these activists to do is try to silence those who disagree with them. But he asserts that that will never happen.

"They need to understand -- liberals and secularists -- that as Christ followers, we will never, ever stop speaking God's truth in love," Barber comments. "We appreciate when they reveal who they really are here and reveal the weakness inherent within their own arguments by attempting to silence those who would dare to dissent with their radical secular socialism."

The attorney suggests that GLAAD is taking a page out of the Southern Poverty Law Center's playbook, "attempting to smear and marginalize those with whom they disagree" by designating them as "hate groups." [OneNewsNow, 3/15/12]

Mission America’s Linda Harvey: GLAAD Adopting Nazi-Like Tactics, Attempting A “Revolution.” In a March 20 column for WorldNetDaily, Mission America President Linda Harvey compared GLAAD’s CAP to tactics used in Nazi Germany:

Recognize this? Hate branding, focusing on Jews, succeeded in branding them as the “enemy” in public opinion in Nazi Germany. It’s the method used today by Islamic radicals who spread ludicrous fables about Jews in many mosques.

You would think the SPLC and even GLAAD might recognize this, search their hearts and say,”What are we doing here? Christians are not monsters and traditional values are not Hate!”

We have to call this what it is – an attempt at revolution. We need to come up with a no-nonsense response. I am of course not advocating anything abusive or violent. Unlike our ideological opponents, we tend to play by the rules, which is why truly honorable people are easy targets.

But playing by the rules, with the truth of the Lord in our corner, gives us more than enough advantage. We just need to think more strategically, we need to join forces, and we need to do it now. [WorldNetDaily, 3/20/12]

Alliance Defense Fund: GLAAD’s CAP “Targets Free Speech.” In a March 14 “Alliance Alert,” the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund promoted a Politico article about GLAAD’s CAP, titling the alert “GLAAD ‘Commentator Accountability Project’ targets free speech.” [ADF Alliance Alert, 3/14/12]

AFA’s Bryan Fischer: GLAAD “Blacklist” Is Like McCarthyism, Nazi Germany. During the March 22 edition of AFA’s Focal Point, host Bryan Fischer said:

FISCHER: GLAAD – this is a big-time homosexual advocacy organization – and they have launched what they call a Commentator Accountability Project, CAP for short. Commentator Accountability Project. Now they’ve listed 36 people on their hit list. I mean, this is like McCarthyism. This is like a black list. This is no different than what they claim, what the Left complains about Joseph McCarthy doing and the Hollywood blacklist back in the forties and fifties. This is no different. Trying to identify those they think represent a danger to their interest, to their agenda, and then trying to silence them.

[...]

FISCHER: So they want me blacklisted from media, from any appearances on media outlets because I speak the truth about the homosexual agenda

[...]

FISCHER: What did the Nazis do? They silenced their opposition. [Focal Point, 3/22/12]

Deacon Keith Fournier: GLAAD “Has Established A Ministry Of Propaganda.” In a March 21 article for Catholic Online, Catholic Way founder Keith Fournier criticized GLAAD for creating a “blacklist” to “ensure that only positions of the Homosexual Equivalency movement are allowed to be read, heard, or considered”:

In a sign of their growing intolerance of people who hold positions other than those of the Homosexual Cultural Revolution, the Media Watchdog Organization which calls itself "GLAAD" (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) has issued a blacklist of commentators. 

This effort is called the "Commentator Accountability Project". The blacklist includes some people I know and admire. It also includes some of my favorite commentators, in both the Catholic and evangelical protestant communities. For example, both Robert George and Chuck Colson have been blacklisted.

The effort recruits likeminded parties to "spy". They are asked to send reports in to GLAAD if these commentators are featured in local media. GLAAD will then pressure the media sources to not feature their writing. In effect, the organization has established a ministry of propaganda. Its purpose seems to be to ensure that only the positions of the Homosexual Equivalency movement are allowed to be read, heard or considered. [Catholic Online, 3/21/12]

Catholic League’s Bill Donohue: GLAAD Lobbying To Get Guests Off The Air. In a March 19 tweet, Catholic League president Bill Donohue celebrated his inclusion in GLAAD’s CAP list:

[Catholic League tweet, 3/19/12]

Gary Bauer: GLAAD’s “Media ‘Black List’” Is “Latest Example Of The Radical Left’s Intolerance And Its Assault On Free Speech.” In the March 21 edition of his American Values newsletter, prominent conservative activist Gary Bauer railed against GLAAD’s “assault on free speech”:

I’m pleased to report that my name was included on a list of pro-family, Christian leaders. Others on the list include Chuck Colson, Tony Perkins, Jim Daly, Don Wildmon and Robert George. That’s pretty good company!

So, what is this list? It is a media “black list” drawn up by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) as part of its so-called “Commentator Accountability Project.” GLAAD is working hard to silence conservative, pro-family, Christian voices in the media.

My friends, the culture war is real. This is just the latest example of the radical left’s intolerance and its assault on free speech. That is why Fox is under attack and why advertisers on the Rush Limbaugh Show are being threatened. It is more evidence of its efforts to force faith and conservatism out of public arena and into the closet. [American Values, 3/21/12]

Chuck Colson: GLAAD Seems More Interested In “Demonizing And Shouting Down Their Opponents” Than In Dialogue. In a March 17 op-ed for The Christian Post, conservative political commentator Chuck Colson depicted GLAAD’s CAP as a form of intimidation:

So, yes, I'm surprised I made the list. But sadly, I realize I shouldn't be. For one thing, this type of intimidation is par for the course for many in the so-called gay-rights movement. Not interested in dialogue, they seem more interested in demonizing and shouting down their opponents.

For another, their definition of "gay bashing" is skewed. For them, anything short of renouncing the historical Christian teaching on sexuality is akin to hate. If I say that homosexual sex is a sin, they say I'm hateful. Yet I also say that pre-marital sex is a sin, as is drinking too much. Is that hateful, too? [The Christian Post, 3/17/12]

WND’s Joseph Farah: GLAAD Presented “Not One Example” Of Anti-LGT Rhetoric. In a March 14 article, WorldNetDaily (WND) editor Joseph Farah claimed GLAAD was defaming anti-gay activists without evidence:

“The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation should more accurately be called the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Criticism,” said Farah. “These people actually believe that if you have a different viewpoint and a different value system from them you are a hate-filled, bigoted monster. Here’s a group that claims in its own name that it is ‘against defamation,’ but actively defames those with whom it has disagreements. Not one example of hateful or defamatory language is offered as evidence against any of those listed in this report.” [WorldNetDaily, 3/14/12]

Peter Heck: GLAAD’s CAP Is “The Face Of Fascism,” “Fascism 101.” In a March 23 blog post, conservative radio host Peter Heck wrote:

If you’re looking for the face of fascism, look no further.  The homosexualists over at GLAAD have come out with a new hate list for those who disagree with them, and are using it to try to blacklist them from all media.  If you disagree with them on the issue of homosexuality as completely normal and moral, you are termed a hater who should not be allowed to speak to the issue.  No joke.

[...]

You get what’s going on here, right?  GLAAD is trying to use their media allies to totally silence any contrary view on the issue of homosexuality in the culture.  If you don’t share their views, you are a hater who shouldn’t be allowed to be heard.  So much for the marketplace of ideas, so much for free speech.  They simply term those who disagree with them “full of hate,” and then threaten media outlets not to empower or enable the spreading of hate.  It’s Fascism 101. [Liberty Tree blog, 3/23/12]

Pastor Jim Garlow: GLAAD Wants To “Destroy These People.” During a March 18 sermon at his church, anti-gay activist Jim Garlow said:

GARLOW: There are 36 of us total they’ve selected, they said ‘we want to destroy these people and keep them off the air, keep them from interviews.’ I’ve done about [inaudible] interviews. And they said ‘we want to keep them from not being allowed to speak anymore, that’s our goal.’ It’s a particular project they have called the Accountability Project. [Skyline Church sermon, 3/18/12]

NOM’s Jennifer Morse: GLAAD “Trying To Discredit Skeptics.” In a March 24 column for The Blaze, the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) Jennifer Morse rejected being described as anti-gay, writing:

Earlier this month the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation’s (GLAAD) “Commentator Accountability Project” included me on their list of people who deserve special scrutiny before they can be engaged as commentators on the marriage debate. But it is organizations like GLAAD that need to be held accountable for the impact of their rhetoric on the public debate.

[...]

Evidently GLAAD believes that raising legitimate questions about the group’s preferred policies automatically makes a person “anti-gay.”  But surely one can disagree with policies advocated by the National Education Association without hating every teacher in America, just as one can surely oppose policies advocated by the NAACP without being a racist.

Redefining marriage raises questions that deserve to be fully aired. Trying to discredit skeptics changes the subject. Equating all disagreement with evidence of bias lowers the intellectual level of the discussion. These rhetorical tactics do not do the gay lobby any credit. In fact, responsible people of all parties should shun these strategies and make room for honest debate on this momentous question of changing the fundamental structure of our most important social institution. [The Blaze, 3/24/12]

In Fact, GLAAD’s Commentator Accountability Project Is The Opposite Of Censorship

GLAAD’s CAP Meant To “Shine A Big, Bright Light” On Anti-Gay Views. In a guest column for Mediaite, GLAAD’s Director of News and Field Media Aaron McQuade wrote:

GLAAD’s Commentator Accountability Project is designed to shine a big, bright light on the extreme views of the vast majority of prominent anti-LGBT talkers. Bizarre allusions to Nazi Germany. Frequent accusations of satanic influence. Apocalyptic predictions for a world in which LGBT citizens are treated equally. Vile claims that the AIDS epidemic is God’s judgment. Dehumanizing comparisons of loving same-sex relationships to crime, drug abuse, alcoholism, or “jumping off a 10-story building.”

The truth is, many newsrooms don’t actually know the extent of the animosity that these anti-LGBT activists hold towards the LGBT community. They’re often careful not to say these things in the mainstream media. But get them speaking to right-wing radio, or writing statements to their supporters, and you see them in a whole new way.

[...]

Please note here that “accountability” does not necessarily mean keeping these people out of the media. But if a reporter is interviewing someone who insinuates that his or her political opponent is controlled by the devil, it’s the reporter’s journalistic responsibility to put that person’s opinion in perspective.

The Commentator Accountability Project contains facts that every journalist who covers LGBT issues should be familiar with, but usually is not. It’s the responsibility of journalists to inform their audiences about an issue. But it is also journalists’ responsibility to fully inform themselves about the people they’re calling on to provide opposition to the LGBT community, and to relay that information to their readers, listeners, or viewers. [Mediaite, 3/14/12, emphasis added]

GLAAD’s McQuade: “We’re Not Telling The Media Who To Talk To And Who Not To Talk To.” In a March 14 GLAAD blog post, McQuade wrote:

While Matt [Barber] and others would love to claim that we are trying to "silence" them, what we're actually doing is almost the exact opposite. This project is aimed at taking Matt's own words, and making the journalists and reporters who go to him for quotes about LGBT issues aware of the animus at the root of his positions. Like the fact that he routinely uses words like "purveyors of evil" or "satanic" to refer to his political opponents. Or the fact that he says Ellen DeGeneres "guides her many adoring housewife fans into rebellion against God's divine and explicit natural order."

If the mere awareness of your views results in you being "silenced" by the media, then sorry but that's on you, Matt.

We're not telling the media who to talk to and who not to talk to. We're giving them critical context for the people they're already booking. What they do with that information is up to them. But as it stands right now, most mainstream media audiences simply aren't getting the full story behind the voices that oppose the LGBT community, or the cultural context in which that opposition needs to be taken.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of speech. Matt Barber has every right to claim that his opponents are satanic. And our community has every right to let the media know about this speech if they’re planning to give his and other anti-LGBT voices a platform. [GLAAD blog, 3/14/22]

American Family Association

AFA’s Bryan Fischer: Fluke “Sleeping With So Many Guys That She Can’t Keep Track.” During the March 7 edition of his Focal Point radio show, American Family Association (AFA) spokesman Bryan Fischer said:

FISCHER: To think that you would have a leftist like the President of the United States saying that the parents of a woman who goes on national TV, admits that she’s sleeping with so many guys that she can’t keep track, doing it three time a day, running out of money, driving me to the poor house, and to think that parents, he’s saying that parents ought to be proud of that. You know, I just wonder if he would be proud if his daughters were doing the same thing. Would he be proud of his daughters going on national TV to say the same thing? [AFA’s Focal Point, 3/7/12]

Fischer: Limbaugh Was “Lexically Accurate” By Calling Fluke A “Slut.” In a March 5 entry on AFA’s Rightly Concerned blog, Fischer wrote:

The dictionary definition of “slu*,” by the way, is “a slovenly or promiscuous woman.” The Georgetown law student whom Rush called by this word testified last week before a sham committee hearing hosted by Nancy Pelosi that she and her classmates are having so much random sex that they are going broke buying contraceptives. Therefore, they want Georgetown to be forced at gunpoint to buy protection for her and her randy colleagues so they don’t wind up in the poorhouse. 

So if the definition of “slu*” is “a promiscuous woman,” then as ugly as the word is, it is lexically accurate in this case, by this woman’s own admission. Rush didn’t out her; she outed herself. The word is an ugly word because it describes describes ugly behavior. 

The real scandal here is that a woman could without any trace of shame whatsoever give open testimony before the entire United States of America about how much promiscuous sex she and her classmates are having. What would have been a humiliating admission a generation ago has now, in today’s twisted world become a badge of honor. She has been lionized by the left and apologized to by the most powerful man in media. In other words, this whole sorry affair reveals much more about America than it does about either this law student or Rush Limbaugh. [AFA’s Rightly Concerned, 3/5/12, emphasis added]

Liberty Counsel

Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber: Fluke Has A “Sexually Immoral Lifestyle,” Thinks “Sex Is Cheap And Causal.” In a March 8 column in Canada Free Press, Liberty Counsel Director of Cultural Affairs Matt Barber wrote:

Ms. Fluke recently went on Schultz’s program to criticize Limbaugh for indirectly suggesting that, in light of her admitted sexually immoral lifestyle, she was a “sl-t” (an offensive and inappropriate slang for which he has apologized).

[...]

David Burge (@iowahawkblog) of the Iowa Hawk blog summed it up nicely in a tweet: “How can you monsters talk about a $15 trillion debt at a time like this, when a brave coed has hurt lady-feelings?”

Yes, how can we focus on trillions in Obama debt, $6.00 gasoline and Islamo-fascists with nukes while a Georgetown “coed” is being denied free medication from Christians for her “Saturday night fever”?

[...]

Only a dying culture lionizes a woman who publicly impugns – with pride – her own honor and virtue. Yet, to the left, she’s a hero.

It’s genuinely sad that, as a society, we are no longer appalled that a young, single woman – though very nice, I’m sure – would go on national television nonetheless, to proudly and publicly boast that, to her, while sex is cheap and casual, dealing with the potential consequences is so expensive that those of who disagree must subsidize her bad behavior.

Can someone please explain to me how and why a woman’s “right” to be promiscuous is my financial responsibility? If you refuse to buy your own “preventative medicine,” why not hit up the fellas? Last I heard it takes two to do the fornication Fandango. [Canada Free Press, 3/8/12, emphasis added]

Barber: Fluke Is An “Over-Sexed Co-Ed,” “Feminist Radical.” In a March 2 tweet, Barber mocked Fluke by calling her an “over-sexed co-ed”:

[Twitter.com/jmattbarber, 3/2/12]

Barber: Fluke Lacks “Moral Virtue,” Is A Fake Martyr. In a March 2 tweet, Barber wrote:

[Twitter.com/jmattbarber, 3/2/12]

National Organization For Marriage

NOM’s Jennifer Morse: Fluke Is An Advocate Of “Sexual Anarchy.” During the March 6 edition of Lutheran Public Radio’s Issues, Etc., the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) Jennifer Morse said:

MORSE: She’s trying to say that nine dollars for prescription for contraceptive drugs is an untenable burden for a law student and in the absence of hormonal contraceptives, they are not intelligent enough to find condoms, which are considerably cheaper than even that. And that in the absence of finding either condoms or hormonal contraception that they’re somehow going to be stricken with pregnancy that is going to stop them from becoming academic successes. That’s the chain of logic that’s behind that appeal to the emotions and I think it’s obvious that the advocates of sexual anarchy, such as Sandra Fluke, have to stay in the realm of the emotional because the minute they get into the realm of the logical, they completely lose. They are completely illogical. [Lutheran Public Radio, Issues, Etc., 3/6/12, emphasis added]

Morse: Fluke “Should Keep Her Private Sexual Business To Herself.” From the March 6 edition of Lutheran Public Radio’s Issues, Etc.:

HOST: You do a lot of debates. If you were to debate Sandra Fluke, what would you like to tell her? Thirty seconds here.

MORSE: What would I tell Sandra Fluke? I would tell her that if she’s really concerned about the rights of privacy, she should keep her private sexual business to herself and pay for it herself. That it’s not my responsibility, it’s not Georgetown University’s responsibility, it’s not the taxpayers of the United States of America’s responsibility. She should have responsibility for her own sexual choices. That’s what I would tell her. That’d be the first thing I would tell her. [Lutheran Public Radio, Issues, Etc., 3/6/12]

Morse: Fluke Wants A World That Is “Illogical,” “Cannot Stand.” From the March 6 edition of Lutheran Public Radio’s Issues, Etc.:

MORSE: The only way you can create this world of sex without consequences is to do a whole lot of social engineering to remove the connection between cause and effect. So what she’s demanding, what Ms. Fluke – which is kind of an unfortunate name if you think about it – what Miss Fluke is asking for is the right to indulge in the cause without ever experiencing any effects. And this is to want a world that is illogical. It’s to want a world which cannot be. Which is why they have to stay in the realm of emotions. [Lutheran Public Radio, Issues, Etc., 3/6/12, emphasis added]

Family Research Council

FRC’s Cathy Ruse: “I Understand [Limbaugh’s] Larger Point” About Fluke. In a March 6 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Family Research Council (FRC) Senior Fellow Cathy Ruse wrote:

What about Rush Limbaugh? I won't defend his use of epithets (for which he's apologized), but I understand his larger point. At issue isn't inhalers for asthmatics or insulin for diabetics. Contraception isn't like other kinds of "health care." Yes, birth-control pills can be prescribed to address medical problems, though that's relatively rare and the Catholic Church has no quarrel with their use in this circumstance. And the university's insurance covers prescriptions in these cases.

Still, Ms. Fluke is not mollified. Why? Because at the end of the day this is not about coverage of a medical condition.

Ms. Fluke's crusade for reproductive justice is simply a demand that a Catholic institution pay for drugs that make it possible for her to have sex without getting pregnant. It's nothing grander or nobler than that. Georgetown's refusal to do so does not mean she has to have less sex, only that she has to take financial responsibility for it herself.

Should Ms. Fluke give up a cup or two of coffee at Starbucks each month to pay for her birth control, or should Georgetown give up its religion? Even a first-year law student should know where the Constitution comes down on that. [Wall Street Journal, 3/6/12, emphasis added]

Pidgeon’s History Of Peddling “Birther” Conspiracy Theories

Pidgeon Led A 2008 Lawsuit Challenging Obama’s Presidential Eligibility. According to WorldNetDaily:

A new case challenging Barack Obama’s natural-born citizenship and, therefore, constitutional eligibility to serve as president has the potential to clear a hurdle that caused several other similar cases’ dismissal: the issue of “standing.”

[...]

In Washington state’s Broe v. Reed case, however, plaintiff’s attorney Stephen Pidgeon says a unique state statute grants everyday citizens the required standing.

“These lawsuits have pointed their fingers at the various secretaries of state and said, ‘You handle the elections, it’s your job [to verify Obama's eligibility],’” Stephen Pidgeon told WND, “and the secretaries of state have said, ‘No, it’s not our job. You the voter have to prove he was ineligible.’ But when the voters try to do it, the courts tell them they have no standing. So it presents a catch-22.

“Here, we have standing by means of statute,” Pidgeon continued. “This particular statute provides for any registered voter to challenge the election of a candidate if the candidate at the time of the election was ineligible to hold office.” [WorldNetDaily, 12/30/08]

• Pidgeon’s Lawsuit Was Dismissed After Court Decided It “Plainly Lacks Merit.” [Supreme Court of the State of Washington, December 2008]

Pidgeon Led A Second Failed Attempt To Challenge Obama’s Eligibility In 2009. According to the Seattle Times:

Pidgeon has also been a figure in the widely discredited "birther" movement that peddles conspiracy theories alleging that President Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the U.S.

In 2009 he filed a petition in federal court in Washington, D.C., seeking a grand jury investigation of those claims. (The case was quickly dismissed.) [Seattle Times, 1/20/12] 

Pidgeon Self-Published A Book Promoting “Birther” Theories. In 2011, Pidgeon self-published a book, The Obama Error, in which he accused Obama of committing several federal crimes in order to conceal information about his birth. The book includes chapters titled “The unlawful birth of Barack Obama” and “Is Obama and Agent of a Foreign Principal?” [The Obama Error, 5/21/11]

Pidgeon: Obama’s Long-Form Birth Certificate Is “Completely Fraudulent.” From a June 3, 2011 interview with TruNews’s Rick Wiles:

PIDGEON: There’s been several – well there’s been, I would say probably twenty five forensic analyses of the long-form birth certificate, all which indicate the thing is completely fraudulent, from the fact is has [inaudible], from the fact that there’s page slants on the original form and not on the [inaudible] documentation. It’s just a complete fraud. [TruNews Radio interview, 6/3/11]

Pidgeon: Obama Changed His Name In British Columbia. Pidgeon claimed to have uncovered evidence that Obama legally changed his name from “Barak Mounir Ubayd” to “Barack Hussein Obama” in British Columbia on October 14,1982. [TruNews Radio interview, 6/3/11]

• Even Other Birthers Have Rejected Pidgeon’s Name Change Theory. BirtherReport.com warns supporters not to “fall for Pidgeon’s ruse without verification from the Canadian provincial government that will never come.” [BirtherReport.com, 5/3/11]

Pidgeon: Malcolm X Is Obama’s Father. From a June 3, 2011 interview with TruNews’s Rick Wiles:

PIDGEON: I believe he was born in Seattle, Washington. I believe he was born in July of 1961 in Seattle, Washington. And that his name is not Barack Hussein Obama, and it wasn’t Barack Hussein Obama at birth, but it was probably something more like Stanley Dunham or Malcolm Stanley Dunham. I believe Malcolm X is the true father. He doesn’t know that.

WILES: Do you really?

PIDGEON: Yes, I do. I believe Malcolm X is the true father.

WILES: We’re back to another communist!

PIDGEON: Yeah, well, he’s not only a communist, but a communist Muslim.

WILES: Yes.

PIDGEON: I mean every man in this guy’s life has been a communist Muslim. [TruNews Radio interview, 6/3/11, emphasis added]

Pidgeon Suggested Obama’s Relatives Were Being Killed To Conceal Information About His Birth. From a June 3, 2011 interview with TruNews’s Rick Wiles:

PIDGEON: He had another sister in Indonesia. Not his sister Maya who was born of Aunt Dunham, but he had an adopted sister that was adopted the same time as he was in Indonesia. Her name was Holiyah or she goes by Lia. But Lia unexpectedly dropped dead just before Obama went to visit Indonesia in 2010. And the Indonesian press covered this. They lived together, they shared a bedroom together in Jakarta.

WILES: Is this like his grandmother? His grandmother dropped dead too!

PIDGEON: She conveniently dropped dead just before the election. I mean, there’s a lot of people – the most dangerous place for you to be is to be a relative of Barack Obama on his mother’s side. [TruNews Radio interview, 6/3/11, emphasis added]

Pidgeon To Glenn Beck: “You Are Ill-Informed On The ‘Birther’ Issue.” In a 2010 open letter to “Glen Beck,” Pidgeon criticized the then-Fox News host for failing to take the “birther” issue seriously:

You are ill-informed on the "birther" issue.  Barack Obama, by his own admission, was a British subject at birth.  He has never denied having a Kenyan father, who himself was a British subject as a Kenyan native.  This is easily established under the British Nationality Act of 1948.  He is therefore disqualified to run for the office of the President, because the office is not available to subjects of other governments.  The issue is very simple, and very obvious.  Obama himself admitted that he wasn't a natural born citizen when he debated Alan Keyes in 2004.

Let's see you deal with this one.  There is nothing "nutty" about it, and it doesn't depend on whether his maternal grandmother tried to cover up a foreign birth in Hawaii by placing newspaper notices.  It is as plain as your face.  BHO is a foreign national first, and an American secondarily, if at all.  That is why he thinks there are 57 states; why he doesn't understand the constitution; why he wants to give us Britain's health care system (it's all in the teeth, don't you know); why he thinks Interpol should have greater authority in the US than US law enforcement; etc.  He is a British subject and has no business holding the office of POTUS. 

[...]

Glen Beck: a media persona who simply could not bring himself to utter the truth about Obama - that he is a usurper, holding the presidency illegally and unconstitutionally, because he is without a legal birthright.  Let us never forget who shirked their duty to tell the truth in these last hours, and let us not allow history to forget. [“Open Letter To Glen Beck,” via OutragedPatriots, 1/5/10, emphasis added]

Pidgeon: Homeland Security Is “Shadowing” Me Because Of My “Birther” Work. In 2009, Pidgeon told WorldNetDaily that he believed he was being “shadowed all day” by officers from the Department of Homeland Security because of his work investigating Obama’s birth certificate:

“There’s definitely observation,” attorney Stephen Pidgeon told WND. “Maybe observation in anticipation of making an arrest.”

[...]

Pidgeon said he has been “outspoken” about the Obama administration and its validity due to the eligibility questions, but didn’t realize he was “qualifying as an enemy of the state.”

He immediately reached out to a number of individuals through e-mail.

“My only protection is to contact the people I know,” he said. [WorldNetDaily, 3/25/09, emphasis added]

Pidgeon’s History Of Anti-Obama Extremism

Pidgeon Self-Published An Entire Book Comparing Obama To The Anti-Christ. In 2010, Pidgeon self-published a book, Behold! A White Horse!, comparing President Obama to the anti-Christ:

There is a person who will appear just before the return of Christ properly understood as the man of lawlessness, but often referred to – inaccurately – as the Antichrist as defined in 1 John and 2 John. The Beast that rises from the sea is in my view a system and not a person, while the man of lawlessness may also be understood as the beast who rises from the earth, the Assyrian, and the False Prophet, among others.

For those who have applied 666 to this person or that, such application ignores that this pseudo-Christ must satisfy all of the prophecies, not just a 666 enumeration.

My argument here is that the white horse of Revelation 6 is also an Antichrist – a man of lawlessness, a counterfeit Christ. This may qualify him to reach the status of the man of lawlessness whose identity is set forth in 2 Thessalonians 2, but of course, we will only know when he sets himself up in the temple of God, showing that he himself is God. Then we will know.

Until then, I have gathered all of the prophecies concerning the white horse here, and then compare them to the facts concerning our man Barack Hussein Obama as we know them. Time is short and the Kingdom of Heaven draws near. If you come to agree with the conclusion made herin, but have are unaware of the salvation found in Y’shua Ha Meshiach (you may have heard of Him as Jesus), the time is now. [Behold! A White Horse!, page 9-10, 12/5/10]

Pidgeon: Obama Wants To Be Caliph Of “Worldwide Islamic Caliphate.” From a June 3, 2011 interview with TruNews’s Rick Wiles:

PIDGEON: His ultimate objective is to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate with him as caliph, declaring himself to be God in the temple of God that will be constructed in Jerusalem on the temple mount. That’s what he intends. That’s who he thinks he is. [TruNews Radio interview, 6/3/11, emphasis added]

Pidgeon: Obama Is An “Islamic Nazi,” Member Of Muslim Brotherhood. From a June 3, 2011 interview with TruNews’s Rick Wiles:

PIDGEON: Do not think that he is not a Nazi. He is an Islamic Nazi. He is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. He is engaged in economic jihad in the United States for the ultimate overthrow of this country, and he’s eighty percent of the way finished. [TruNews Radio interview, 6/3/11, emphasis added]

Pidgeon: I “Guarantee” Obama Reelection Will Create Iron Curtain Around America, Iron Fist Of An “Islamic Caliphate.” From a June 3, 2011 interview with TruNews’s Rick Wiles:

PIDGEON: We’re in the middle of a revolution right now-

WILES: Right.

PIDGEON: And it’s a velvet overthrow of the constitutional republic that is going to go into an iron fist after this next election.

WILES: I’m in complete agreement with you.

PIDGEON: I can guarantee you that this iron fist tyranny that will come down in this country will be an iron fist, it will be an Islamic fist, and there will be an iron curtain that’s imposed. You will not be able to escape this country. You will be locked into this country and you will be under the tyranny of the iron fist of an Islamic caliphate. [TruNews Radio interview, 6/3/11, emphasis added]

Pidgeon: “Obama’s Inauguration... Was The Death Knell For The Constitutional Republic.” From a June 3, 2011 interview with TruNews’s Rick Wiles:

PIDGEON: They key thing that your listeners need to know is that this fellow is not ignorant and he’s not brain dead. It is intentional. We have arrived at a condition where we are living under corporate fascism that has nothing to do with the Constitution. Barack Obama’s inauguration on January 2, 2009 was the death knell for the constitutional republic. TruNews Radio Interview, 6/3/11]

Pidgeon: Obama’s Agenda Is That Of A “Muslim Jihadist” Seeking To Destroy U.S., Secure Jerusalem From The Israelis. From Pidgeon’s self-published book, Behold! A White Horse!:

The agenda of Barack Hussein Obama appears to be that of a Muslim jihadist engaged to accomplish the following three objectives: 1) Cripple the economy of the United States, and consequently the economies of the trilateral financial word; 2) Empower and authorize Turkey to reestablish the Ottoman Empire; and 3) Secure Jerusalem from the Israelis. [Behold! A White Horse!, page 220,12/5/10]

Pidgeon’s History Of Promoting Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories

Pidgeon: “Socialist, Totalitarian, God-hating Marxists” Are “Overthrowing Our Republic.” During an April 2010 Tea Party rally in Olympia, Pidgeon reportedly said:

"Every day we wake up to a new battle line, and a new battle that's been lost, and it's been lost to socialist, totalitarian, God-hating Marxists who are overthrowing our Constitution and are overthrowing our republic," said Stephen Pidgeon, a lawyer who has challenged Obama's citizenship in court. [The News Tribune, 4/16/10, via Nexis]

Pidgeon: Democrats’ Social Security Solution Is To “Kill The Elderly,” “Destroy The Unborn.”  At that same rally, Pidgeon added:

"I see signs out here, 'Right to life for elders, too.' Of course the Social Security solution from the Democrats is to kill the elderly. The Social Security solution from the Democrats is to destroy the unborn," Pidgeon said. [The News Tribune, 4/16/10, via Nexis]

Pidgeon: Nationalized Healthcare Results In “Cyanide Pills” For Seniors. From a February 2009 radio interview on the Values Action Radio Show:

PIDGEON: When we get to nationalized and socialized health care, the health care that’s going to be available for people who otherwise tax the Social Security system, is going to be a pair of cyanide pills.

LARRY STICKNEY (host):  Yep.

PIDGEON:  Because what happens is, they say now we control all the health care, and you who are over 65 if you get sick, this is the health care you’re getting: assisted suicide and nothing else.  Now, as you can see, that’s death.  [Values Action Radio Show, via Pam’s House Blend, 5/27/09, emphasis added] 

Pidgeon: Man-Made Global Warming Is A Lie Used To Justify An International Totalitarian Order. From Pidgeon’s self-published book, Behold! A Pale Green Horse!:

Simply put, the hypothesis that man’s output of CO2 is causing the earth to warm is a lie, and it is a lie that has been raised intentionall by a group of international fascists seeking to create and control an international totalitarian order and to pocket a cool fortune while doing so. They have an agenda – a green fascist agenda. [Behold! A Pale Green Horse, page 17, 2/24/11]

• Pidgeon’s Pale Green Horse Is Riddled With Environmental Conspiracy Theories. Chapters from Pidgeon’s book include “Architects in the Global Warming Fraud,” “The Campaign To Destroy America’s Future,” and “The International Conspiracy,” all alleging that environmentalists use the environment as an excuse to engage  in “eco-terrorism,” “green fascism,” and even genocide against “other races.” [Behold! A Pale Green Horse, page 14-15, 2/24/11]

Pidgeon’s History Of Anti-LGBT Extremism

Pidgeon: Marriage Equality Creates An “Order Of Death.” From a February 2009 radio interview on the Values Action Radio Show:

PIDEGON: So the ritual of marriage is the very core, the very heart of a social system.  And when you talk about this very core and very heart of the system, you come in and you introduce the concept of same-sex marriage or secular marriage, or any of the other rituals that have been formed by the state – and what you do is disestablish the godly order in favor of an order of death. And governments become more and more deadly when their adversary, the family, is destroyed. Government is at war with the family, it always has been.  It sees the family, the unit of the family as a direct threat to its ultimate sovereignty.  But you have to remember, the government is of the world, and it is of its father of the world.  And when governments get to that point, when they become, when they lose touch with the god who created them and the authority of Christ over them, and they begin to assert themselves as god, they will move to become a killing agent.  The only thing that stands in the way of that is the strength of the family. [Values Action Radio Show, via Pam’s House Blend, 5/27/09, emphasis added]

Pidgeon: “Homosexual Rights Are About Population Control.”  From a February 2009 radio interview on the Values Action Radio Show:

PIDGEON: When I say that government is about death, you need to understand that this is their stated goals.  So you need to look at that, and see what that is.  Homosexual rights are not about homosexual rights.  They have people who are willing to play into that field, but the truth is that homosexual rights are about population control, and the goal is to get the United States to 150 million people.  That’s why they promote, that’s why homosexual rights are found in the same bailiwick with unbridled abortion, mandatory sterilization, so on and so forth.  The idea is to reduce family size, to reduce the family to make sure that no one can procreate so as to get the population dramatically reduced.  That’s what it is about. And so, now in addition, no one has looked at the practical costs of gay marriage.  You know the divorce rate among homosexual married men is about 8 times higher than among the heterosexual community, which is astronomical. [Values Action Radio Show, via Pam’s House Blend, 5/27/09, emphasis added]

Pidgeon: Same-Sex Marriage Is A Form Of “Worship To The Demons Of Olympus.” During a speech at a March 2009 rally against Washington’s domestic partnership law, Pidgeon said:

The Ten Commandments provides honor thy father and mother, which is another edict from which the right of every child to a father and a mother springs.  This is a fundamental human right.  This state needs to recognize it.  Instead the state is at war with the family.  And this sanctuary of worship to the demons of Olympus is stained with the blood of the casualties of this war, most of whom are children.

There is no god-ordained right to same-sex marriage.  Let’s be clear about that.  There is only a state-granted privilege.  Marriage is the cultural heart and expression of a society’s relationship with god. [Pidgeon Speech, via Pam’s House Blend, 5/27/09, emphasis added]

Pidgeon: Marriage Equality Is “Moral Fascism,” “Act Of War Against The Family.” During a speech at a March 2009 rally against Washington’s domestic partnership law, Pidgeon said:

Now the state, who’s at war with our families, seeks to give us same-sex marriage.  Let’s make no bones about this: this is an act of aggression, and an act of war against the family.  Same-sex marriage as a political policy is moral fascism.  This [unintelligible] begins with the recognition of the “right” for same-sex couples to marry, and is quickly followed by anti-discrimination laws, hate speech laws, and criminal sanctions for those who are unwilling to renounce their relationship with god in order to embrace the deviant edicts of the state. [Pidgeon Speech, via Pam’s House Blend, 5/27/09, emphasis added]

Pidgeon: Marriage Equality Will Lower The Status Of Women In Society. During an April 2011 Tea Party rally in Washington, Pidgeon claimed:

PIDGEON: If you’re going to exalt homosexuality and same-sex marriage, let me tell you who’s going to pay the price for that. It is the status of women. Because women only achieve equality in a society that provides for monogamy in a one man, one woman marriage. Period. Every other society that has abandoned that standard – which is a Christian standard I might add – when you abandon that standard, guess what, women lose status. [Pidgeon Speech, 4/15/11]

Pidgeon: ENDA Would Protect Pedophilia, Necrophilia, Bestiality, and Wife-Beating. In a 2009 open letter to “pastors and elders,” Pidgeon criticized legislation barring employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, writing:

First, President Obama supports an enhanced version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (“ENDA”), an act narrowly defeated in the US House last year that was proposed by noted homosexual representative Barney Frank.  Rep. Frank limited the language to include only homosexuals and bisexuals; however, President Obama seeks to expand the non-discrimination language to include “sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.”

[...]

This means that erotic desires, fantasies, and spontaneous feelings toward, homosexuality, bisexuality, cybersex, incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, polygamy, bigamy, sodomy, bestiality, prostitution, fetishism, transvestitism, even arguably wife-beating, will become protected under federal law against discrimination in employment.  Under ENDA, a church can avoid employing a pastor or other ministers within the practices of the church, but secular employment such as administrative staff, day care assistants, teachers, drivers, and so on, will be protected by the Act. [“Open Letter To Pastors And Elders,” Deca Logos International, 2/5/09, emphasis added]

Pidgeon: Hate Crimes Laws Will Make It Illegal To Text About Pedophiles, Wife Beaters. Later in his open letter, Pidgeon made a similar criticism of LGBT hate crime legislation, writing:

This law means that a person practicing homosexuality, bisexuality, cybersex, incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, polygamy, bigamy, sodomy, bestiality, prostitution, fetishism, transvestitism, even arguably wife-beating, will be able to bring a prosecution against a person who makes a phone call, sends a text message, makes a Facebook entry or a website post, sends an email or a letter/newsletter that in the eyes of the person offended is likely to expose them to hatred or contempt. [“Open Letter To Pastors And Elders,” Deca Logos International, 2/5/09]

Minnery Falsely Claims Civil Unions Bill Force Children To Learn About Homosexuality, Gay Marriage In School

Minnery: Civil Union Law “Jeopardizes The Rights Of Parents” To Educate Children About Sexuality, Marriage. From Minnery’s February 29 Denver Post column:

The Denver Post recently quoted former state Rep. Rob Witwer saying civil unions are not a threat to his marriage. If this were only about Witwer's marriage, we wouldn't have an issue. But the impact goes much further as it jeopardizes the rights of parents to have a say in what's taught to their children in school — even as young as kindergarten — about sexuality and marriage. [The Denver Post, 2/29/12]

Colorado Schools Are Not Required To Teach Students About Sexuality. According to the National Coalition to Support Sexuality Education (NCSSE):

Colorado schools are not required to teach sexuality or sexually transmitted disease (STD) education. Colorado law states that districts can decide whether to teach sexuality education and may address the subject in preschool through twelfth grade. Colorado law also states that when offered, sexuality education classes must use curricula that are science-based, age-appropriate, culturally sensitive, medically accurate, and address the topics of both abstinence and contraception, including emergency contraception. [NCSSE, accessed 2/29/12]

Colorado Law Requires Parental Consent For School Programs On Sexuality. According to Colorado state law:

(6) (a) Any curriculum and materials developed and used in teaching sexuality and human reproduction shall include values and responsibility and shall give primary emphasis to abstinence by school aged children.

(b) School officials shall receive prior written approval from a parent or guardian before his or her child may participate in any program discussing or teaching sexuality and human reproduction. Parents must receive, with the written permission slip, an overview of the topics and materials to be presented in the curriculum. [CRS § 22-25-104, accessed 2/29/12]

Colorado Curriculum Is Finalized At The District, Not State, Level. Brad Clark, Executive Director of ONE Colorado, wrote in an email to Equality Matters:

In the state of Colorado, school curriculum is finalized at the district level. Additionally, any parent who is uncomfortable with school curriculum can opt their children out of human growth and development classes. [Brad Clark Email, 3/2/12]

Minnery Claims Falsely Civil Unions Bill Would Endanger Business Owners

Minnery: Law Would Endanger Business Owners Who Refuse To Support Same-Sex Ceremonies. In his February 29 Denver Post column, Minnery writes that the civil unions bill “endangers business owners who are sued for not photographing or renting facilities for same-sex ceremonies.” [The Denver Post, 2/29/12]

Colorado Businesses Are Already Prohibited From Discriminating On The Basis Of Sexual Orientation. According to ONE Colorado’s Clark:

State law protects all Coloradans from discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation (including transgender status), marital status, national origin, or ancestry. This law, passed in 2008, ensures that all people have equal access to the services they need -- from hotels and photographers to stores and restaurants. [Brad Clark Email, 3/2/12]

Colorado Law Already Prohibits Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples. According to the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, Civil Rights Division:

What does the expanded Colorado  Anti-Discrimination Act now prohibit?

Places of public accommodation may not deny any person participation, entry, or services based upon the person’s sexual orientation, including transgender status.

What is a “place of public accommodation”?

A public accommodation is any place of business engaged in offering sales or services of any kind to the public, as well as any place offering facilities, privileges, advantages or other accommodations to the public. Typical examples of public accommodations include, but are not limited to, hotels, restaurants, stores, hospitals, clinics, and health clubs. [Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, accessed 2/29/12]

Colorado Law Prohibits Discrimination In Public Services On The Basis Of Sexual Orientation. According to Colorado state law:

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry. [CRS § 24-34-601, emphasis added, accessed 3/2/12]

Minnery Claims Civil Unions Deny Children The Chance To Be Raised By Their Mother And Father

Minnery: Civil Unions Create “Intentionally Motherless Or Fatherless” Families For Children. From Minnery’s February 29 Denver Post column:

Mostly, it impacts children who deserve every chance to be raised in a home with their own married mom and dad rather than the intentionally motherless or fatherless home created by same-sex unions.

Colorado Law Already Allows Second Parent Adoption For Gay Couples. According to ONE Colorado:

In 2007, Governor Ritter signed a bill into law that allows unmarried couples to adopt each other’s children. This law also affords same-sex couples the opportunity to jointly accept the legal rights of being a parent. Under this law, children of LGBT couples will now have two legal parents. [ONE Colorado, accessed 2/29/12]

Colorado’s Second Parent Adoption Law Provides Gay Couples With Nearly Equal Parental Rights. According to Equal Rights Colorado:

The second parent adoption law enables any two unmarried adults to co-parent one another’s children. If a sole legal parent consents, a second adult may adopt the legal parent’s child, provided the second adult undergoes a home study and passes a criminal background check. Prior to the passage of this law, only single people (gay or straight) or married couples could adopt.

[...]

Unmarried opposite- or same-sex adults already acting as parents are able to consent to medical care and make other legal decisions for their children. [Equal Rights Colorado, accessed 2/29/12]

Civil Union Law Addresses Parental Rights After Same-Sex Couple Separates. According to the Associated Press:

The bill addresses parental rights and child support when a same-sex couple separates. The bill would also grant same-sex couples other rights similar to what exist in a traditional marriage, such as the ability to be involved in their partner's medical and end-of-life decisions. It also would enhance inheritance and property rights. [Associated Press, 2/16/12]

Analysis: Fox News Underreports Significant Advancements In LGBT Equality

Fox News Underreported The Ninth Circuit’s Decision That Proposition 8 Was Unconstitutional. According to an Equality Matters analysis*, Fox News’ coverage of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision to invalidate California’s gay marriage ban, Proposition 8, was significantly less extensive than CNN’s or MSNBC’s. Between February 7 and 8, Fox covered the story only 7 times, approximately three times less than either CNN or MSNBC.

Fox News Underreported Certification Of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Repeal. According to an Equality Matters analysis, during the period between July 21 and July 24, Fox News underreported the certification of the repeal of the military’s DADT policy, failing to dedicate even a single segment to covering the event.

[Equality Matters, 7/29/11]

Fox News Underreported Beginning Of Same-Sex Weddings In New York. According to an Equality Matters analysis, Fox News largely ignored the beginnings of same-sex weddings in New York in July 2011. Once again, Fox failed to devote even a single segment to the story, mentioning it only briefly during news alerts. 

[Equality Matters, 7/28/11]

• Fox News Also Underreported Passage Of NY Marriage Equality Law. As Think Progress noted in June, Fox almost completely ignored the passage of New York’s historic marriage equality law in June 2011. [Think Progress, 6/27/11] 

* Equality Matters searched news transcripts provided by Snapstream and TV Eyes for the phrases “same sex marriage,” “gay marriage,” “Proposition 8,” “Prop 8,” and “Ninth Circuit” between February 7 and February 8. Reruns were excluded, as were mentions of the decision initiated by guests rather than hosts. Passing references to the decision, which didn’t include a description of what the decision entailed, were also excluded. 

Gingrich Claims Catholic Adoption Agencies Were “Forced To Close” In Massachusetts, Washington, D.C.

Gingrich: Catholic Adoption Agencies Are “Being Forced To Meet The Secular Demands Of The State.” From the January 10 edition of CNN’s Starting Point:

SOLEDAD O’BRIEN (HOST): You were talking about gay adoption and you said that the church, the Catholic Church, was forced to close its adoption centers. Isn’t what really happened that, if the church decided it was going to continue to take federal funds and have access to those foster children, that they couldn’t continue to discriminate against gay couples who wanted to adopt?

NEWT GINGRICH: That’s right.

O’BRIEN: They weren’t really forced to close, they made the decision.

GINGRICH: No, no. They were forced to close because you’re saying to a religious group “give up your religion.” That’s absurd. The idea that the state would impose its secular values on a religious organization is an absurdity.

O’BRIEN: If you want funding. Isn’t that if you want funding?

GINGRICH: No, no, in Massachusetts–

O’BRIEN: You can do whatever you want but if you want funding.

GINGRICH: No, that’s not true. That’s not true. There are states now, including the District of Columbia, which essentially adopt laws that say you can’t offer an adoption service unless you meet the secular standards of the state. They are in effect saying the secular standards of the state are more important than religious freedom. I think it is inherently anti-Christian and anti-Jewish. It is in favor of a secular model, that I think is wrong. And I think that it’s wrong for the government to impose its values on religion. That’s the whole point of the First Amendment, is to not have the government imposing values on religion. [CNN, Starting Point, 1/10/12]

Reality: Catholic Charities Chose To Stop Receiving Public Funding For Adoption Services

Family Equality Council: Choice To Stop Public Adoption Services “Was Made By Catholic Charities Alone.” Jennifer Chrisler, Executive Director of the Family Equality Council, wrote in an email to Equality Matters:

Mr. Gingrich’s comments are patently false and inherently anti-family.  The decision to end public adoption services in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia was made by Catholic Charities alone. They wanted to continue to receive public funding without adhering to the law and when the state refused to make an exception for them they balked at providing critical social services to youth.

This has nothing to do with the government trying to impose values on religion. On the contrary, this had to do with the Catholic Charities trying to impose its values on children and families who needed social services.

His comments are a distraction at a time when we should be focused on the best interests of children and finding them loving and permanent homes. [Jennifer Chrisler Email, 1/10/12, emphasis added]

Massachusetts’ Catholic Charities "Voluntarily" Chose To Stop Providing Adoption Services Instead Of Serving Same-Sex Couples. According to the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) blog:

So here’s a little reality check. Catholic Charities of Boston was not forced out of the adoption business because of marriage equality in Massachusetts. The organization voluntarily ceased doing adoptions after the state’s four Catholic Bishops got wind that gay parents had been adopting kids through Catholic Charities from an October 2005 Boston Globe story. Not surprisingly, all of this happened as the Massachusetts Legislature was wrestling with whether to put an anti-gay marriage amendment on the statewide ballot, which the local Catholic hierarchy supported wholeheartedly. […]

Catholic Charities was accepting state funds to provide adoption services and was thus bound by the state’s gay-inclusive anti-discrimination law not to reject qualified adoptive parents based on sexual orientation. Oh, and by the way, the non-discrimination law has been on the books since 1989—long before marriage equality was but a doodle on Mary Bonauto’s legal pad. [GLAD.org, 3/10/11, emphasis original]

Catholic Charities Of Boston Was Never Denied An Adoption License. According to a GLAD fact sheet on Catholic Charities and adoption services in Massachusetts:

Did the state “deny” Catholic Charities of Boston “its adoption agency license”?

No. For 17 years Catholic Charities of Boston complied with non-discrimination laws and put the best interests of children first, in some cases placing a child with gay or lesbian parents. Catholic Charities chose to close down its adoption services. At no point was it denied an adoption license. [GLAD.org, 12/22/11]

Catholic Adoption Agencies Can Still Choose To Discriminate Against Same-Sex Couples In Private Adoption Services. Steve Major, director of communications for the Family Equality Council, wrote in an email to Equality Matters:

Catholic Charities facilitates relatively few public adoptions nationwide. In areas where they’ve declined to comply with existing non-discrimination rules and stopped doing public placements (Massachusetts, D.C., parts of California – and will be the likely result in IL where the issue is still working its way through the state courts) there has been little to no impact on the state’s ability to place children. Other adoption agencies have agreed to step in and continue the work of finding children their forever families.

Catholic Charities and other religiously affiliated organizations who receive public funding should be obligated to follow the same non-discrimination laws that other agencies adhere to.  If they place their own religious objections ahead of the law and the best interests of kids, they should withdraw from conducting public adoptions. They are free to continue facilitating private adoptions. [Steve Major Email, 9/9/11, emphasis added]

“Not A Man!”: Keith Ablow’s War Against Chaz Bono

Ablow: Chaz Bono Is A Woman Suffering From A “Psychotic Delusion.” In a May 17 FoxNews.com column – which was taken down shortly after being posted – Ablow criticized Chaz Bono for drawing attention to transgender issues, accusing him of suffering from a “psychotic delusion”:

Chaz Bono is not a man. She is a woman who has undergone radical surgeries and is taking male hormones in order to look like a man. That isn’t a political position, it’s a biological reality. [...]

[W]hile Chaz Bono may now feel that her journey toward self-acceptance has ended, I am not convinced. I say this because, absent the gender politics involved, I was taught to consider Chaz Bono’s contention that she is male as a psychotic delusion—a fixed and false belief.

Psychosis is not a predictor of long-term emotional well-being or stability.

Mind you, I am not judging Ms. Bono. But there is nothing substantially different from a woman believing she is a man than there is about a woman believing she is a CIA agent being followed by the KGB (when in reality, she is, say, a salesperson at J. Crew). [FoxNews.com, 5/17/11]

Ablow: Dancing With The Stars Will Turns Kids Transgender. In a September 1 column on FoxNews.com, Ablow warned parents not to let their children watch Chaz Bono on ABC’s Dancing with the Stars, arguing that “gender dysphoria” could be “kindled” by watching a transgender person being celebrated on television:

I advise parents to not allow their children to watch the episodes in which Chaz appears. […]

The last thing vulnerable children and adolescents need, as they wrestle with the normal process of establishing their identities, is to watch a captive crowd in a studio audience applaud on cue for someone whose search for an identity culminated with the removal of her breasts, the injection of steroids and, perhaps one day soon, the fashioning of a make-shift phallus to replace her vagina. […]

It would be wrong to think that gender dysphoria cannot be kindled by celebrating those who have undergone sexual reassignment surgery. Human beings do model one another—in terms of emotion, thought and behavior. By broadcasting, applauding and mainstreaming the journey of a very disordered person who endured, and likely will continue to endure, real suffering based on extraordinarily deep psychological problems, we suggest that that journey is a smart—even heroic—one to take. [...]

Chaz Bono should not be applauded any more than someone who, tragically, believes that his species, rather than gender, is what is amiss and asks a plastic surgeon to build him a tail of flesh harvested from his abdomen. [FoxNews.com, 9/2/11]

Click here to see how Ablow previously embraced Transgender people on his own television show prior to joining Fox

Ablow: “Chaz Bono Is Not A Man!” On the September 9 edition of Fox Business Network’s America’s Nightly Scoreboard, Ablow said:

ABLOW: There are a lot of kids who will be watching. Look. Kids go through phases. Adolescents. There may be tomboys watching who are girls. They don't really need to be encouraged to say 'hey wait, wait a second. Maybe I'm not just a tomboy. Maybe I'm a boy!' Chaz, look at them applauding him with a standing ovation. Now look, this is a guy who has had a terrible run of things. An incredibly tortuous path and it's not over. So I don't like the idea that you'd suggest to adolescents and young people a surgical remedy at the plastic surgeon's office for a psychiatric condition! [...]

ABLOW: The emperor has no clothes. Chaz Bono is not a man. Alan, Chaz Bono is not a man! Newsflash... Test him. Go get the DNA my friend. I stand with reality. [Fox Business Network, America’s Nightly Scoreboard, 9/6/11]

Ablow: Transgender People Are Analogous To People Who Believe They Are Zebras. From the September 8 edition of Howard Stern’s SiriusXM program:

ABLOW: Here’s an analogy: If a person came to me tattooed as a zebra – Zebraman... go on TV, but if you want me to agree with you that you’re a zebra, well now you’re invading my reality... It’s dancing with a woman as a man. I'm not going to have my kids watch a show in which people pretend to be farm animals. [The Howard Stern Show, 9/8/11]

Ablow: APA Yielded To Political Pressure On Transgender Issues. On the September 14 edition of Fox News’ America Live, host Megyn Kelly confronted Ablow about his Bono comments, citing statements from the American Psychiatric Association condemning Ablow’s analysis. In response, Ablow said:

ABLOW: The DSM-5, the Working Group, you have to understand organized psychiatry has presided over the decimation of psychotherapy. That book that he’s involved with, our diagnostic manual, has spliced and diced the range of human experience into such sterile categories that they’ve yielded to political pressure throughout the years completely. [Fox News, America Live, 9/14/11]

Ablow: Transgender People Are “Exact Parallel” To Anorexics, Heroin Addicts. From the September 19 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor:

ABLOW: We know, Bill, people model their behavior after one another. We wouldn’t invite people with anorexia to go on fashion shows and talk about how wonderful they feel now that they’re thinner and how they want more liposuction. This is an exact parallel. [...]

ABLOW: If that’s what you want, open the gates. Open up the DSM-4, our diagnostic manual in psychiatry, take the heroin-dependent people, put them on TV with their drug paraphernalia and have them speak about how happy they are. [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 9/19/11]

Ablow Resigned From APA Over His Chaz Bono Comments. On the September 19 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, Ablow announced that he had resigned from the American Psychiatric Association in light of his Chaz Bono comments:

O’REILLY: Now you resigned, today, from the American Psychiatric Association because they disagree with you, correct?

ABLOW: Look, I’ve supported them, I’ve written books that explain psychiatric thinking on behalf of the American Psychiatric Press, one of my mentors was the president of the American Psychiatric Association, but the bottom line is when you have volume after volume coming out where they’re taking diagnoses out, putting new diagnoses in, what kind of medicine is this? A group that supports Obamacare. A group that can literally say, “Hey I’m not going to take your call doctor because there’s no evidence that watching this fellow on TV can hurt anyone.” Well guess what, there’s no evidence on the other side either. So no, I’m out. [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 9/19/11]

Keith Ablow’s Campaign Against Transgender Acceptance

Ablow: J. Crew Ad Promotes “Psychological Sterilization.” In an April 11 FoxNews.com column, Ablow criticized a J. Crew advertisement for depicting J. Crew president Jenna Lyons painting her son’s toenails pink, writing:

Yeah, well, it may be fun and games now, Jenna, but at least put some money aside for psychotherapy for the kid—and maybe a little for others who’ll be affected by your “innocent” pleasure.

This is a dramatic example of the way that our culture is being encouraged to abandon all trappings of gender identity—homogenizing males and females when the outcome of such “psychological sterilization” [my word choice] is not known. [...]

[E]ncouraging the choosing of gender identity, rather than suggesting our children become comfortable with the ones that they got at birth, can throw our species into real psychological turmoil—not to mention crowding operating rooms with procedures to grotesquely amputate body parts? Why not make race the next frontier? What would be so wrong with people deciding to tattoo themselves dark brown and claim African-American heritage? Why not bleach the skin of others so they can playact as Caucasians? [FoxNews.com, 4/11/11]

Ablow: J. Crew Ad is An “Attack On Masculinity.” On the April 12 edition of Fox Business Network’s America’s Nightly Scoreboard, Ablow said:

ABLOW: Gender distinctions have a place in society. If this woman wants to paint her son’s toenails pink, I guess we should have no objection to someone who’s male modeling a sundress in their catalogue. I think it’s a message she meant to send. It’s an attack on masculinity. [Fox Business Network, America’s Nightly Scoreboard, 4/12/11]

Ablow Misinforms About Treatment For Transgender Youth. On the October 18 edition of Fox News’ America’s Newsroom, Ablow warned against providing hormone blockers to transgender youth, suggesting that not enough research had been done on how to treat transgender children:

ABLOW: It’s very tough to reverse course. And this has been written about. There are people who undergo these transformations, they may regret it later. But when you’re a boy, who, at three, is taken at his word, signing to his adoptive female parents, “I am a girl, too,” and you then are dressed as a girl and then you get hormone injections, it’s tough to reverse course even though they say “well, we’ll stop the estrogen when he’s 15 so he can decide.” Well, maybe.

I think it’s time. Here’s the thing. It’s time for the President’s Commission on Bioethical Concerns, just as with stem cells, to get involved here, summon the best minds from around the world to look at this issue, because the theory that people are born into the wrong bodies needs to be looked at scientifically. We need guidelines here for how to behave toward those young kids particularly who are at risk to be misinterpreted. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 10/18/11]

Ablow: Letting A Transgender Girl Into Girls Scouts Is A “Form Of Abuse.” In an October 28 article for FoxNews.com, Ablow expressed his opposition to the Girl Scouts’ decision to accept a transgender girl, calling it a “form of abuse”:

Dr. Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist and part of Fox News' Medical A-Team -- while prefacing himself by saying, "I know a lot of experts will disagree with me" -- cautioned the Girl Scouts against welcoming boys who present themselves as girls until more data is available on any potential harm it could do.

“On the face of it, it seems to be expecting far too much psychologically of young girls to ignore the anatomy of a boy and act as though he is a girl," Ablow said. "The girls are just developing comfort with their own bodies, after all.”

He, too, called it a "form of abuse."

"This is all [putting] the cart before the horse. We're conducting social, cultural, sexual experiments on the fly, using our own kids as guinea pigs, without the necessary research to guide us," he said. [FoxNews.com, 10/28/11]

Keith Ablow’s Year Of Anti-Gay Pseudoscience

Ablow: Pedophilia, Homosexuality Are Both Sexual Orientations, Influenced By Environment. In an August 11 column for FoxNews.com , Ablow wrote:

[F]or many people, environment and social influences do indeed impact sexual desires and sexual behavior. [...]

[S]ome adult men who have unresolved issues connected to important females in their lives during childhood and adolescence will close the door (perhaps permanently) to intimacy with females and find their sexual drive directed out of necessity toward males. They may not be unhappy about this situation, but the outlet for their erotic drives might indeed have been based partly on the tenor and tone of their early relationships, not purely on their genetic makeup.

When a magazine publishes photos of a child which are intended to be erotic, and when many thousands of adult women purchase that magazine, thereby blessing its content, that normalizes the notion that children are appropriate objects of sexual fantasy. And it has the potential to encourage men who would otherwise never have expressed their unconscious sexual interests in children to actually act upon them. [...]

We humans are powerfully influenced by one another and by the cultural values and perspectives we promulgate. Those influences can impact sexuality so dramatically as to determine not only whether one acts upon sexual feelings toward men or women or children, but also whether one ever feels such desires at all. [Fox News, 8/11/11]

Ablow: Lesbian Parents Influenced Their Transgender Child To Identify As Female. While discussing a story about a transgender child that had chosen to go on hormone blockers, Ablow said:

ABLOW: What’s happening here? We have two women raising a child. He’s adopted. And he’s come to believe that he too is female. That argues for a complete psychological evaluation, not just of the boy, but of his parents as well to see whether psychological forces are at play here to make him say such things. We need to do away with stigma and look at this as scientists and really understand what’s happening -- not make it a cultural debate, but a scientific one. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 10/18/11]

Ablow: Lesbian Mom Trying To Project “Her Own Discomfort With Masculinity” Onto Her Son. In an October 26 column for FoxNews.com, Ablow responded to the news that J. Crew’s Lyons had begun dating a woman by writing:

I thought Lyons was promoting a cultural agenda at her son’s expense—and at the expense of all our sons whose masculinity was being downplayed. Why else would you pick that photograph, decide for Beckett that it was a really good one with which to brand him in the minds of millions, and make sure that his hair was long and wavy for the photo shoot? Why spend tens of thousands of dollars (or a hundred thousand or more) to distribute that particular photo of Beckett to millions of us? […]

If reports in the media, from the New York Post's Page Six, for example, are correct, Lyons is now divorcing her husband, is romantically involved with a woman and battling over how much of a settlement to give her husband, since she was the breadwinner in the family. […]

What it says is that my worry that Ms. Lyons might be expressing her own discomfort with masculinity and projecting it onto her son—and mine, and yours—seems to have been justified. 

It says that Lyons does seem to have been promulgating her perspectives on gender roles having no value. 

It says that she was, indeed, apparently using J. Crew—a brand so many of our kids gravitate toward— as her launching pad for a mini-campaign to change the way our kids think about their bodies and their gender identities. [FoxNews.com, 10/26/11]

Ablow: Benetton Ad Claims “Homosexual Sex... Would Lead To World Peace.” In a November 17 column for FoxNews.com, Ablow criticized a new ad campaign by Benetton featuring images of world religious and political leaders kissing, writing:

The only psychological interpretation of such ads that makes sense to me as a psychiatrist is that the corporate leaders at Benetton literally believe that homosexual sex between world leaders -- or at least homosexuality, as an orientation -- would lead to world peace. They have tipped their collective hands as a company and indicted marital fidelity, faith and heterosexuality, labeling them the real sources of hatred and suffering around the globe. In the collective mind of Benetton, if religious leaders and political figures would just have sex with one another all would be well.

Really. That is what they seem to think--or at least what they want our sons and daughters to think.

No matter, Benetton would have us believe, that we may have vast differences on human rights. No matter that we may have profound differences on religious tolerance. No matter that we may have fundamental differences on economic policies, respect for international law and child labor. All these non-issues will melt away with enough wet kisses between men who were once so backwards as to believe that ideas and ideals and knowledge of history and courage still mattered. No, Benettonians -- that new movement of homoerotic Utopians -- are telling us, homosexual sex is what matters -- and so much of it, in such unrestrained fashion as to unite men from democracies with men from dictatorships, Catholic and Muslim leaders, black men and white men. See, we had it all wrong talking about hearts and minds, about the Greatest Generation and lessons from history. We had it wrong elevating principle over pleasure and sacrifice over sexual gratification. We had it wrong thinking we could move the world forward while allowing men to be attracted to women. Our connections must be made man-to-man, with our tongues and genitals. That is the only road forward. [FoxNews.com, 11/17/11]

Analysis: News Networks Regularly Host Family Research Council Spokespersons 

FRC Listed As An Anti-Gay Hate Group In November 2010. In November 2010, the Family Research Council (FRC) was added to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) list of anti-gay hate groups due to its “propagation of known falsehoods” about gays and lesbians. [SPLC, November 2010]

FRC Spokespersons Made 52 Television Appearances Since Being Labeled A Hate Group. According to an Equality Matters analysis*, FRC spokespersons – including Tony Perkins, Peter Sprigg, and Ken Blackwell – have been invited to appear on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News a total of 54 times in the twelve months since Perkins first appeared on MSNBC to discuss being labeled as a hate group. 24 of those appearances were on Fox News, 19 were on MSNBC, and 11 were on CNN:

SPLC: FRC’s “Specialty Is Defaming Gays And Lesbians.” From an October 7 SPLC report:

The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians. The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. The intention is to denigrate LGBT people in its battles against same-sex marriage, hate crimes laws and anti-bullying programs. To make the case that the LGBT community is a threat to American society, the FRC employs a number of “policy experts” whose “research” has allowed the FRC to be extremely active politically in shaping public debate. [...]

The FRC also strongly promotes the “ex-gay” movement as a way to combat LGBT civil rights measures, though professional organizations have repeatedly called so-called “reparative therapy” (which seeks to turn gays and lesbians into heterosexuals) into question and issued statements that don’t support it. [...]

Part of the FRC’s recent strategy is to pound home the false claim that gays and lesbians are more likely to sexually abuse children. This is false. The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.” That doesn’t matter to the FRC, though. [SPLC Report, “The Anti-Gay Lobby,” 10/7/11, via LGBTQNation, emphasis added]

Analysis: News Networks Frequently Host FRC President Tony Perkins

FRC President Tony Perkins Made 32 Television Appearances Since Being Labeled A Hate Group Leader. According to an Equality Matters analysis*, FRC president Tony Perkins has appeared on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News a total of 34 times in twelve months after being his organization was labeled as a hate group:

Perkins Has Been A Consistent Source Of Anti-Gay Propaganda. As president of FRC, Perkins has promoted a number of vile and hateful smears about gays and lesbians, including:

• “It Gets Better” Project Tries To “Recruit” Kids Into A “Lifestyle” Of “Perversion.” [Right Wing Watch, 8/18/11]
• “Research Is Overwhelming” That Gay Men Are More Likely To Molest Children.  [MSNBC, Hardball, 11/29/11]
• Gay Teens Commit Suicide Because They Know Being Gay Is “Abnormal.” [National Public Radio, 10/26/10]
• Anti-Bullying Programs Promote “Indoctrination Into Homosexuality.” [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 5/26/11]
• Gay Activists Are Intolerant, Hateful, Spiteful Pawns Of The Devil. [Right Wing Watch, 5/3/11]
• Senators Who Vote For DADT Repeal Will Have “The Blood Of Innocent Soldiers On Their Hands.” [Right Wing Watch, 12/16/10]
• "Kids Do Worse In These Same-Sex Households. They’re More Susceptible To Violence.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends Sunday, 4/24/11]
• Gays Are Trying To “Spread Fear And Intimidation So That They Can Disrupt And Destabilize” The Legal System, Like Terrorists. [Good As You, 4/29/11]

SPLC: Perkins Has Ties To Anti-Abortion Extremists And A White Supremacist Organization. Perkins is reported to have “failed to report an illegal conspiracy by antiabortion activists to his superiors” while acting as a reserve police officer in Baton Rouge in 1992. Perkins also has ties to the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white supremacist group that once described African-Americans as a “retrograde species of humanity.” [SPLC Report, “The Anti-Gay Lobby,” 10/7/11, via LGBTQNation]

Analysis: News Networks Host FRC “Experts” Peter Sprigg, Ken Blackwell

FRC’s Peter Sprigg, Ken Blackwell Have Made 15 Television Appearances In The Past Twelve Months. According to an Equality Matters analysis*, FRC “experts” Peter Sprigg and Ken Blackwell have appeared on either CNN, MSNBC, and Fox 15 times since their organization was labeled an anti-gay hate group:

Sprigg Is One Of FRC’s Most Active Producers Of Anti-Gay Propaganda. While acting as FRC’s Senior Fellow for Policy Studies, Peter Sprigg has made a number of extreme anti-LGBT remarks and been the chief author of much of FRC’s anti-gay propaganda:

• Anti-Bullying Programs Indoctrinate “Impressionable School Children.” [FRC Pamphlet, “Homosexuality In Your Child’s School,” 2006]
• Transgender People Should “Stop Pretending To BE The Opposite Of Your Real Sex.” [Peter Sprigg tweet, 3/9/11]
• Harvey Milk May Have Been A Pedophile, Faked A Hate Crime. [WorldNetDaily, 8/12/09]
• It Is Better To “Export Homosexuals From The United States Than To Import Them Into The United States.” [Medill Reports, 3/19/08]

SPLC: Sprigg Relies On Junk Science To Produce Anti-Gay Research. From an October 7 SPLC report:

Sprigg authored a 2010 brochure touting “The Top Ten Myths about Homosexuality.” In the brochure, Sprigg claimed that ex-gay therapy works, that sexual orientation can change, that gay people are mentally ill simply because homosexuality makes them that way, and that, “Sexual abuse of boys by adult men is many times more common than consensual sex between adult men, and most of those engaging in such molestation identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual.” He also claimed that “homosexuals are less likely to enter into a committed relationship” and “less likely to be sexually faithful to a partner.” Sprigg’s sources are a mixture of junk science issued by groups that support ex-gay therapy and legitimate science quoted out of context or cherry-picked, a tactic long used by anti-gay groups to bolster their claims about gay people. [SPLC Report, “The Anti-Gay Lobby,” 10/7/11, via LGBTQNation, emphasis added]

Blackwell Has Promoted “Ex-Gay” Therapy, Compared Gay Couples To Barnyard Animals. Even before becoming FRC’s Senior Fellow of Family Empowerment, Blackwell was promoting anti-gay talking points:

• “Homosexuality is A Compulsion That Can Be Contained, Repressed, Or Changed.” [The Gist, 1/12/09]
• “Homosexuality Is A Lifestyle, It’s A Choice, And That Lifestyle Can be Changed.” [Right Wing Watch, 1/6/11]
• Same-Sex Marriage “Defies Barnyard Logic... The Barnyard Knows Better.” [WTOL, 10/20/04]
• President Obama Shows Same Respect For Marriage That He Did For Osama Bin Laden’s Body. [FRC Column, 11/4/11]

Analysis: News Networks Fail To Identify FRC As A Hate Group

Networks Consistently Fail To Inform Audiences About FRC’s Hate Group Status. An Equality Matters analysis** found that – aside from two segments on the topic of FRC’s hate group label in 2010 – CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News consistently failed to inform audiences about FRC’s hate group status while hosting FRC spokespersons:

*Equality Matters searched news transcripts provided by Nexis and TV Eyes for the terms “Family Research,” “Tony Perkins,” “Ken Blackwell,” and “Peter Sprigg” between November 29, 2010 (when MSNBC first profiled FRC’s hate group status) and November 29, 2011.  For programs that were not available in either search database, we conducted a search through our internal archives. Four segments (three on Fox News and one on MSNBC), did not appear in search results but had been recorded by either Equality Matters or the Family Research Council, so they were included in the report.

**Equality Matters searched news transcripts provided by Nexis and TV Eyes for the terms “hate group,” and “Southern Poverty Law Center” between November 29, 2010 and November 29, 2011. For programs that were not available in either search database, we conducted a search through our internal archives.

Right-Wing Media Reviv eDiscredited Prostitution Smear Against Barney Frank

Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell: Media Don’t Want To Talk About Frank’s “House Of Male Prostitution.” After airing several news reports announcing Frank’s retirement, Fox News’ Sean Hannity asked Media Research Center president Brent Bozell: “What is missing” from these reports? Hannity continued:

HANNITY: Did anyone -- because you follow this a little more closely than I do because you’re looking for bias -- did anybody mention a guy by the name of Stephen Gobie in any of these reports?

BOZELL: No. No. That’s a chapter they don’t want to revisit. They don’t want to talk about the house of male prostitution that was going on in his townhouse. [Fox News, Hannity, 12/1/11]

Talk Show Host Larry Elder: Media Outlets Avoided Mentioning Frank’s Supposed Ties To A Male Prostitute. In a December 1 column on Townhall.com, radio talk host Larry Elder chastised the media for failing to mention “liberal, gay, untouchable” Frank’s apparent ties to to a male prostitute:

The Big Three nightly news anchors and the Times also managed to avoid any mention of Frank's congressional reprimand for fixing the parking tickets of a male prostitute.

"Representative Frank," writes National Review, "was reprimanded by the House for making misleading statements to a Virginia prosecutor on behalf of the prostitute -- whom the congressman eventually put on his own payroll -- and for having fixed dozens of parking tickets on this behalf." Frank denied knowing that his lover, a convicted drug dealer, was running a prostitution business out of the congressman's house. The boyfriend, however, insisted that Frank knew about it. [Townhall.com, 12/1/11]

Radio Host Michael Reagan: Frank’s Prostitution Ties Are Part Of His “Sexual Deviancy.” In a December 1 column on Townhall.com, syndicated talk radio host Michael Reagan cited Frank’s “homosexual roommate and lover [who] had once used the congressman’s residence almost as a brothel” as an example of Frank’s “sexual deviancy”:

Paul Kane of the Post continued to slobber: “On the left, Frank was a hero both for his effort to rein in the nation’s largest banks and for his role in promoting gay rights, having been the first member of Congress to declare his sexual orientation while in office.”

The Post glossed over the fact that Barney Frank’s homosexual roommate and lover had once used the congressman’s residence almost as a brothel. That, I assume, comes under the heading of “promoting gay rights.”

For all his sexual deviancy, Barney Frank’s greatest offense had more to do with his ultra-left wing policies. [Townhall.com, 12/1/11]

Jason Mattera: Frank’s Apartment “Was Also Operating As Gay Brothel.” In a November 29 column on Human Events, editor Jason Mattera seemed to mock the idea that Frank didn’t know about the “gay brothel” in his apartment:

Unlike the Times, the Washington Post did mention Frank’s, er, interesting partner choices over the years, one that resulted in the infamous “allegations involving his relationship with a male prostitute who worked out of the lawmaker’s Capitol Hill townhouse.” (Side note: The Washington Post frames the boyfriend as someone who “worked” out of Barney’s house? I guess that’s one way to put it. Another was that Barney Frank’s Washington, D.C., apartment was also operating as gay brothel, of which Frank denies he had any knowledge. Snort.) [Human Events, 11/29/11]

Limbaugh: “If Running A Prostitution Ring In Your House Couldn’t Make You Resign, What Does?” From the November 28 edition of Premiere Radio Networks’ The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: If running a prostitution ring in your house couldn’t make you resign, what does? This is a question -- wait a minute -- Barney did not run the prostitution ring. He said he didn’t know that it was going on. It was his partner at the time, Steven Gobie. Yeah. Barney fixed parking tickets for the clientele at the house. So if running a prostitu- if having a prostitution ring being run out of your basement couldn’t embarrass you to retire, you have to -- you do have to wonder what it is. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/28/11]

Fox’s Greg Gutfeld: Frank Will “Open Up A Bed And Breakfast... It’ll Just Be Beds.” On the November 29 edition of Fox News’ The Five, co-host Greg Gutfeld stated:

GUTFELD: Can I make a prediction though? In a – where do we see Frank going? I see a memoir in eight months called “Being Frank,” ‘cause I think that’s nice. You like that? You like that? He’ll talk about being gay, struggling with his weight, and then he’s going to later after that open up a bed and breakfast. In it, there won’t be any breakfast, it’ll just be beds, but it’ll be highly successful. [Fox News, The Five, 11/29/11]

House Ethics Committee Cleared Frank Of All Allegations

House Ethics Committee Concluded That Frank “Did Not Have Either Prior Or Concomitant Knowledge Of Prostitution Activities” In His Apartment. From the Report Of the Committee On Standards Of Official Conduct (CSOC):

Based upon information obtained under subpoena and sworn testimony, the Committee concludes that the weight of the evidence indicates that Representative Frank did not have either prior or concomitant knowledge of prostitution activities involving third parties alleged to have taken place in his apartment. ... Representative Frank's landlords ... submitted sworn testimony contradicting Mr. Gobie's assertion. ... The Committee, therefore, further concludes that no further action is warranted.

Sworn Testimony Contradicted Gobie’s Allegations That He Used Frank’s Apartment For “Prostitution Activities.” From the CSOC report:

Not only have Representative Frank's landlords, Colonel and Mrs. James Daugherty, submitted sworn testimony contradicting Mr. Gobie's assertion, Mr. Gobie's assertion has also been rendered questionable by the fact that his claims of call-forwarding service were contradicted by the telephone company. […]

While much has been said, written, and speculated with respect to Representative Barney Frank's relationship with Stephen L. Gobie, it is clear that most, if not all, of such media attention has been the product of assertions made by Mr. Gobie. As has been discussed in detail in prior sections of this Report, the Committee went to great lengths in seeking testimony or other information relevant to the assertions. In numerous instances where an assertion made by Mr. Gobie (either publicly or during his Committee deposition) was investigated for accuracy, the assertion was contradicted by third-party sworn testimony or other evidence of Mr. Gobie himself. [CSOC Report, emphasis added, 7/20/90]

Anti-Gay Activists Use Penn State Scandal To Attack Homosexuality, “Homosexual Marriage”

American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer: “This Illustrates The Truth... That Homosexuals Molest Children At Much Higher Rates Than The Heterosexual Population.” During the November 10 edition of the American Family Association’s (AFA) “Focal Point” radio show, AFA spokesman Bryan Fischer said:

FISCHER: I think the main takeaway from this, and this is what people do not want to focus on, this is what the media does not want any attention drawn to, is that what this illustrates is the truth, it’s a simple stubborn fact, that homosexuals molest children at much higher rates than the heterosexual population. And this is a fact of life that the gay lobby does not want us to know but this illustrates it. This man has victims that are in the dozens, minimum, and likely much more than that. And again, I went over this the other day so I’m not going to repeat all of the evidence for you because it’s abundant. This is in peer-reviewed publications like the Sexual Offending Against Children report, the Journal of Sex Research, Archives of Sexual Behavior, and what they have discovered is that homosexual or bisexual men are approximately ten times more likely to molest children than heterosexual men. [AFA’s “Focal Point,” 11/10/11]

WorldNetDaily’s Joseph Farah Suggests Molestation Was Unreported Due To Fear Of Being Accused Of Homophobia. In a November 16 column for WorldNetDaily, Joseph Farah wrote:

We may not fully understand the details of what Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky did or didn't do to young boys in locker rooms and showers, though he does admit inappropriate behavior. But the real question is how he did it for so long without consequences.

But now that being accused of homophobia is considered an offense, while practicing homosexuality is considered a virtue, should it really surprise anyone that such behavior would go unreported or unchallenged for so long?

In an age when government schools are actually teaching children how to perform homosexual acts and that there is nothing wrong with them, it would seem that an environment conducive for predators of children is being created under the watchful eye of the state and the media.

Remember also that Penn State is a public university. There is probably no institution more conscious of the new "sin" of homophobia than the American college campus. There are few imaginable offenses more grievous than homophobia in that environment. One pays a price for exhibiting any symptoms of this dread disease – especially in academia. [WorldNetDaily, 11/16/11]

WND’s David A. Noebel: Homosexuality And Pedophilia Are Both “Deviant, Degenerate, And Disgusting.” In a November 15 column for WorldNetDaily, former Summit Ministries president David A. Noebel wrote:

Could it be that there is still an ethical absolute? Wouldn't it be ironic to witness the demise of moral relativism at the hands of liberalism's most cherished activity – homosexuality? Yes, Virginia, there is truth after all. It is always ethically wrong for a grown man to violate a 10-year-old boy.

The scandal centers on Jerry Sandusky, a former Penn State assistant football coach, whose alleged pedophilic acts involved boys (8 at present, but the count is rising) as young as 10. His sexual abuse of these boys is not fit family reading material, making it difficult to fully comprehend the seriousness of the case. Indeed, the subject of homosexual activity is likewise difficult to discuss in public. Neither practice provides table talk material. Both are deviant, degenerate and disgusting.

Homosexuality in America is now out of the closet, front and  center (and has been for some time). Now homosexual man/boy activity (pederasty) is under the microscope, its normality, genetic implications and social acceptance being examined.

From what we are witnessing at Penn State and the firing of its president, Dr. Graham Spanier, and beloved head football coach, Joe Paterno, it appears that the public in general and the university trustees in particular are voting against man/boy activity – the same kind of activity being promoted in our society within NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) and the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

In other words, our libertine culture is in the process of making pederasty as acceptable as the lavender revolution itself. [WorldNetDaily, 11/15/11]

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality’s Peter LaBarbera: “This Was A Case Of A Serial Homosexual Predator Raping Boys.” In a November 10 press release, Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, wrote:

Sandusky is married but obviously has a homosexuality (perversion) problem. Yet pro-“gay” liberals will deny any linkage between homosexuality and Sandusky’s rape/seduction of boys. In fact, after news of the Penn State scandal came to light, “gay” activists stressed that Sandusky is married and that most pedophile cases involve “straight, married men.” However, behavior is what matters – not a person’s marital status or self-described “sexual orientation.” Sandusky was married but was he really “straight” (sexually or morally)? Some inner demons or life traumas – probably in his own youth – caused him to lust for boys, wrecking untold misery in the lives of his victims. Behavior is the issue, and this was a case of a serial homosexual predator raping boys. [AFTAH press release, 11/10/11]

Michael Brown: “A Man Who Is Sexually Involved With Boys Is A Homosexual Pedophile.” In a November 15 column for OneNewsNow, anti-gay activist Michael Brown urged Rush Limbaugh to make the homosexuality-pedophilia connection, writing:

It was surprising to hear Rush Limbaugh say the words, "I don't have the guts to bring it up" -- but he did, on November 8, to his massive radio audience. [...]

What is it that, in his words, could end his career? What is it about the Penn State scandal that is "glaring; it's right in front of everybody," and yet "Nobody has the guts to actually give the explanation for what was going on and why there was trepidation in reporting it"?
 
Could it be that the sex abuse scandal involved a man allegedly abusing boys, meaning that the acts were homosexual in nature? And could it be that even Rush Limbaugh didn't have the guts to address this? (Contrary to the protestations of some, a man who is sexually involved with boys is a homosexual pedophile; a man who is sexually involved with girls is a heterosexual pedophile.)
 
Of course, the fact there are homosexual pedophiles does not mean that all (or most) gays are child abusers. Certainly not! And yet even Rush Limbaugh, it appears, would not address this directly. [...]

But we return to Rush. If, in fact, I misunderstood him, then he has my profound apology. If I understood him correctly, then he has my profound appeal: Speak up, Rush, and don't be afraid. Surely you have the guts. [OneNewsNow, 11/15/11]

Cal Thomas: Penn State Scandal A Result Of “Culture That Forbids Almost Nothing,” Including Homosexuality. On November 14, Washington Examiner columnist Cal Thomas wrote:

On its website, the American Psychological Association brags, "Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations."

It once considered such behavior otherwise, and while even most conservatives no longer regard homosexuality as a mental illness, many still regard it as sinful. That theological diagnosis, too, has been discarded in our increasingly secular and anomalous society where everything is to be tolerated except those people who assert that, according to a standard higher than opinion polls, some things remain intolerable.

What changed? Pressure groups aided by secular education and the entertainment industry. [...]

What we tolerate and promote we get more of, and what we discourage and reject we get less of. C.S. Lewis said it best in "The Abolition of Man": "In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."

The message at Penn State was that we live in a culture that forbids almost nothing. Jerry Sandusky apparently believed that and crossed one of the few remaining lines of morality left in our culture. But even that line might soon be erased if the pressure groups and their campaign contributions grow large enough. [Washington Examiner, 11/14/11]

Pat Buchanan: Acceptance Of “Homosexual Marriage” Contributed To Penn State Scandal. During a November 15 interview for TruNews Radio with Rick Wiles, Pat Buchanan argued:

BUCHANAN: Let’s take this Penn State thing. Of course it’s a horrible disgrace for someone who is a national icon – Joe Paterno – to have remained silent in the face of these horrors that were going on but, you know, these horrors – there’s an organization that marches in the gay pride parade in New York called, used to, called the North American Man Boy Love Association, which advocated voluntary sex along the lines of exactly what was going on at Penn State. And we had many of our icons – political icons have marched in that parade right behind that NAMBLA float. And this is America. Now that would not have occurred in the 1950s in America. It would not have happened. People would have said ‘what kind of idiocy, insanity is this. But this is now, I mean homosexual marriage is now the civil rights cause of the decade. [TruNews Radio, via Media Matters, 11/15/11]

American Family Association Of Pennsylvania’s Diane Gramley: “Anything Goes” Attitude Led To Child Molestation Scandal. An article for OneNewsNow reported on Diane Gramley of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania:

"Although he definitely did not fulfill his moral obligation to do more than what he did, he acknowledges that," she points out. "But I think that we need to look more at the [roles of] Gary Schultz and Tim Curley."

Gramley was relieved that President Graham Spanier was also excused from his job, as she has advocated his dismissal for years because of his promotion of the homosexual agenda on campus.

"They played games that were geared to body parts. They also had ... sex fairs, and they had the same type games," the pro-family group president reports. "They had Larry Flynt come in. Of course, he's the publisher of Hustler magazine, and he came in as a speaker."

Now, as the school searches for new leadership, Gramley says it is not enough to find a new president who merely has lobbying and fundraising skills, but it is important to find one who recognizes the dangers of permitting an "anything goes" attitude. [OneNewsNow, 11/15/11]

Arkansas Family Council’s Jerry Cox: Penn State Scandal Reveals Problems With Same-Sex Parenting. In an interview for Public Radio International’s “To The Point” radio show, Jerry Cox of the Arkansas Family Council said: 

COX: I find it interesting that we talk about the Penn State situation and then we talk about other situations where certain categories of people say ‘it’s alright to adopt, it’s alright to be a foster parent. In both of those situations, the rights of the children seem to have been put second place. [...]

If you have a same-sex couple with an adoptive child, what you’re in effect saying is that moms don’t matter or dads don’t matter. You’re saying that one of the genders doesn’t matter. And the research is really to the contrary. The research seems to indicate that children fare much better if they are much better if they are in a stable home, male mother and father. [PRI’s “To The Point,” 11/11/11]

Scientific Research Has Found No Credible Link Between Homosexuality And Pedophilia

APA: “Homosexual Men Are Not More Likely To Sexually Abuse Children Than Heterosexual Men Are.” According to the American Psychological Association:

Studies on who commits child sexual abuse vary in their findings, but the most common finding is that the majority of sexual offenders are family members or are otherwise known to the child. Sexual abuse by strangers is not nearly as common as sexual abuse by family members. Research further shows that men perpetrate most instances of sexual abuse, but there are cases in which women are the offenders. Despite a common myth, homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are. [APA, accessed 11/17/11]

Credible Research Has Found No Link Between Homosexuality And Pedophilia. According to Dr. Gregory M. Herek, Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis:

Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children. For example, in one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote: 

Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).

In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259).

This well known lack of a linkage between homosexuality and child molestation accounts for why relatively little research has directly addressed the issue. Proving something we already know simply isn't a priority. Indeed, a commentary that accompanied publication of the 1994 study by Jenny et al. in Pediatrics noted that debates about gay people as molesters "have little to do with everyday child abuse" and lamented that they distract lawmakers and the public from dealing with the real problem of children's sexual mistreatment (Krugman, 1994). [“Facts About Homosexuality And Child Molestation,” accessed 11/17/11]

Expert: Evidence Of Homosexuality-Pedophilia Link Is Misinterpreted, Methodologically Flawed. According to Dr. Herek:

Some conservative groups have argued that scientific research strongly supports their claims that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked. The Family Research Council has produced what is perhaps the most extensive attempt to document this claim. It is an article by Timothy J. Dailey titled Homosexuality and Child Abuse.

With 76 footnotes, many of them referring to papers in scientific journals, it appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly discussion of the issue. On further examination, however, its central argument – that "the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls" – doesn't hold up.[...]

Most of the studies they referenced did not even assess the sexual orientation of abusers. Two studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated. Notably, the FRC failed to cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum, which also contradicted their argument. Only one study (Erickson et al., 1988) might be interpreted as supporting the FRC argument, and it failed to detail its measurement procedures and did not differentiate bisexual from homosexual offenders. [“Facts About Homosexuality And Child Molestation,” accessed 11/17/11]

Expert: Men Who Molest Young Boys Aren’t Necessarily Gay. According to Joe Kort, Adjunct Professor at Wayne State University’s School of Social Work:

To call child molestation of a boy by a man "homosexual" or of a girl by a man "heterosexual" is to misunderstand pedophilia. No true pedophile is attracted to adults, so neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality applies. Accordingly, Herek suggests calling men's sexual abuse of boys "male-male molestation" and men's abuse of girls, "male-female molestation."

Interestingly, Anna C. Salter writes, in "Predators, Pedophiles, Rapists and other Sex Offenders", that when a man molests little girls, we call him a "pedophile" and not a "heterosexual." Of course, when a man molests little boys, people say outright, or mutter under their breath, "homosexual. Herek writes that because of our society's aversion to male homosexuality, and the attempts made by some to represent gay men as a danger to "family values," many in our society immediately think of male-male molestation as homosexuality. He compares this with the time when African Americans were often falsely accused of raping white women, and when medieval Jews were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Both are examples of how mainstream society eagerly jumped to conclusions to that justified discrimination and violence against these minorities. [Psychology Today, 9/15/08]

Chick-Fil-A's Charitable Arm Gave Nearly $2 Million To Anti-Gay Groups In 2009

WinShape Is Chick-Fil-A's Charitable Arm. The WinShape Foundation is Chick-fil-A's charitable arm, created by Chick-fil-A founder and chairman S. Truett Cathy in 1984. WinShape has received a substantial amount of funding from Chick-fil-A: in 2009 alone, WinShape received $7,814,788 from Chick-fil-A Inc. [Winshape 2009 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 10/28/11] 

WinShape Gave Over $1.7 Million To Anti-Gay Groups. In 2009 alone, WinShape donated $1,733,699 to multiple anti-gay groups:

• Marriage & Family Legacy Fund: $994,199
• Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
• National Christian Foundation: $240,000
• Focus On The Family: $12,500
• Eagle Forum: $5,000
• Exodus International: $1,000
• Family Research Council: $1,000

[Winshape 2009 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 10/28/11]

Marriage And Family Legacy Fund (MFLF)

Chick-Fil-A Vice President Launched Marriage And Family Legacy Fund. Donald "Bubba" Cathy, Chick-fil-A’s senior vice president, helped launched the Marriage and Family Legacy Fund (MFLF), which “pool[s] funds for a national marriage media campaign and provide start-up grants for local initiatives to promote stable, lasting marriages.” [Philanthropy Roundtable, October 2007]

MFLF Is A Project Of The Anti-Gay Marriage CoMission. The MFLF was created to be the “implementation and funding arm” for the Marriage CoMission, a coalition of groups formed in response to the “downward spiral of marriage and the traditional family in America.” [MFLF Executive Summary, accessed 10/28/11, Marriage CoMission, accessed 10/28/11]

• Marriage CoMission Is Supported By Prominent Anti-Gay Activists. Since its inception, the CoMission has been supported by anti-gay activists such as Exodus International's Alan Chambers and Citizens for Community Values' Barry Sheets. [Marriage CoMission, accessed 10/28/11]

Click here to learn more about the Marriage CoMission and its ties to anti-gay groups

WinShape Donated $994,199 To Marriage And Family Legacy Fund.  WinShape donated $994,199 in 2009. [Winshape 2009 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 10/28/11]

Fellowship Of Christian Athletes (FCA)

Fellowship Of Christian Athletes Conference Has "Freed" People From Homosexuality. Every year, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) holds a National College Conference that Danny Burns, the conference Program Director, described as one in which "God freed some people from homosexuality, sexual sins, addictions and even ushered newcomers into His Kingdom." Burns’ comment has since been edited on FCA’s website. [Equality Matters, 3/22/11, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, accessed 10/28/11]

Fellowship of Christian Athletes Website Highlights Coach Who Was “Delivered From Homosexuality. [Fellowship of Christian Athletes, accessed 10/28/11]

FCA Ministry Leader Application Condemns "Impure Lifestyle" of Gays. The application to become an FCA Ministry Leader requires applicants to agree with the FCA's Sexual Purity Statement, which condemns gays as engaging in an "impure lifestyle":

God desires His children to lead pure lives of holiness. The Bible is clear in teaching on sexual sin including sex outside of marriage and homosexual acts. Neither heterosexual sex outside of marriage nor any homosexual act constitute an alternate lifestyle acceptable to God.

While upholding God’s standard of holiness, FCA strongly affirms God’s love and redemptive power in the individual who chooses to follow Him. FCA’s desire is to encourage individuals to trust in Jesus and turn away from any impure lifestyle. [FCA Application, accessed 10/28/11]

WinShape Donated $480,000 To Fellowship of Christian Athletes. WinShape donated $480,000 to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in 2009. [Winshape 2009 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 10/28/11]

National Christian Foundation (NCF)

National Christian Foundation Donates To Anti-Gay Groups. The National Christian Foundation (NCF) is a grant-making foundation that has made "hundreds of grants" to anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family, Family Life, and the Family Research Council, according to the Philanthropy Roundtable's publication "Reviving Marriage In America: Strategies for Donors." NCF allows donors to direct their donations and has experienced a surge in interest among donors in funding marriage-related giving. [Philanthropy Roundtable, accessed 2/8/11]

WinShape Donated $240,000 To National Christian Foundation.  WinShape donated $240,000 to the National Christian Foundation in 2009. [Winshape 2009 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 10/28/11]

Focus On The Family (FOF)

Focus On The Family Is An Anti-Gay Group. Focus on the Family (FOF) has been listed as an anti-gay group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). In 2005, SPLC wrote:

Among the scores of anti-gay commentaries, stories and products on FOF's Web site is a [FOF Founder James] Dobson essay that strikes a typical note: "Moms and Dads, are you listening? This movement is the greatest threat to your children. It is of particular danger to your wide-eyed boys, who have no idea what demoralization is planned for them." Another article claims that "the homosexual agenda is a beast. It wants our kids." [SPLC, Spring 2005]

WinShape Donated $12,500 To Focus On The Family. WinShape donated $12,500 to Focus on the Family in 2009. [Winshape 2009 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 10/28/11]

Eagle Forum

Eagle Forum Is An Extreme Right-Wing Anti-Gay Group. Phyllis Schafly’s Eagle Forum consistently promotes disparaging claims about LGBT people. The group opposed the Supreme Court’s decision to decriminalize homosexuality in 2003 and has railed against courts for promoting a “gay agenda” in schools. [Eagle Forum, 7/18/03, August 2006]

WinShape Donated $5,000 To Eagle Forum. WinShape donated $5,000 to Eagle Forum in 2009. [Winshape 2009 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 10/28/11]

Exodus International

Exodus International Promotes “Ex-Gay” Therapy. Exodus International is one of the world’s largest promoters of “ex-gay” therapy,  the practice of trying to change a person’s sexual orientation from gay to straight. The organization refers to being LGBT as “perverse” and a form of “sexual brokenness.” [Truth Wins Out, accessed 10/28/11]

WinShape Donated $1,000 To Exodus International. WinShape donated $1,000 to Exodus International in 2009. [Winshape 2009 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 10/28/11]

Family Research Council

Family Research Council Is Designated As An Anti-Gay Hate Group By the SPLC. The Family Research Council has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for its propagation of known falsehoods about the LGBT community. For example, president Tony Perkins has a long history of false and inflammatory attacks, such as claiming that pedophilia is a "homosexual problem." [The Washington Times, 11/24/10; SPLC, accessed 3/14/11]

WinShape Donated $1,000 To Family Research Council. WinShape donated $1,000 to the Family Research Council in 2009. [Winshape 2009 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 10/28/11]

Click here for more on Chick-fil-A's ties to anti-gay causes and organizations

Despite Ties To Anti-Gay Groups, Chick-Fil-A President Denies Company Has An Anti-Gay Agenda

Pennsylvania Chick-Fil-A Sponsored Anti-Gay Group's Marriage Event. In January, a Chick-fil-A restaurant in Pennsylvania donated food to the group Family Life to put on an event called the "Art Of Marriage" Both Chick-fil-A and co-sponsor Pennsylvania Family Institute (PFI) were originally listed as sponsors of the "Art Of Marriage" event, although Chick-fil-A scrubbed its name from the event's advertisements after the controversy began. [New York Times, 1/29/11; Joe. My. God., 1/4/11]

Co-Sponsor Of Event Has Long History Of Anti-Gay Activity. PFI has a history of anti-gay activism. For instance, in 2010, the group worked to kill a state bill that would have prohibited discrimination against LGBT people in housing, employment, and public accommodations, and a lawyer for PFI, argued that discrimination against gay and lesbians was a "moral choice." [Delaware County Times, 12/23/10]

Chick-Fil-A's President Released A Statement Denying The Company's Ties To Anti-Gay Groups. In response to the controversy, Chick-fil-A president and COO Dan Cathy released a statement denying that Chick-fil-A's donation was an endorsement of traditional marriage, arguing that Chick-fil-A has "no agenda against anyone," and that the company would not "champion any political agendas" relating to marriages or families. [PR Newswire, 1/29/11]

Analysis: Fox News Underreported Suicide Of LGBT Teen

Fox Almost Completely Ignored The Suicide Of An LGBT Teen. According to an Equality Matters analysis*, Fox News almost completely ignored the September 18 suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer, a bullied gay teen from New York. In the two weeks following Rodemeyer's death, CNN mentioned the story nine times, and MSNBC mentioned the story five times. Fox mentioned it just once, while discussing proposed anti-bullying legislation in New York. Fox never mentioned Rodemeyer by name.

CNN, MSNBC Have Extensively Covered Anti-LGBT Bullying

CNN, Anderson Cooper Have Been Active In Raising Awareness About Anti-LGBT Bullying. CNN has been actively involved in raising awareness about the problem of anti-LGBT bullying, covering the issue extensively over the past several months.

• CNN Launched A "Stop Bullying: Speak Up" Page. CNN launched a "Stop Bullying: Speak Up" page to serve as a resource about school bullying, including anti-LGBT bullying. [CNN.com, accessed 10/24/11]
• Time Warner, Facebook Launch Anti-Bullying App. Time Warner, CNN's parent company, worked with Facebook to launch a "multiplatform campaign" against bullying, including an app that "will allow users to make a commitment to stop bullying and recruit others to join the cause." [CNN.com, 7/13/11]
• CNN Hosted A "Town Hall" Conversation On Bullying. CNN hosted and aired a special "Town Hall" meeting on bullying at Rutgers University. The special featured interviews with a number of bullied students, as well as experts on school bullying. [Daily Targum, 10/10/11]
• CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 Commissioned Study On Schoolyard Bullying. CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 commissioned a study on schoolyard bullying and reported on the study's results during a week of episodes dedicated to the topic. [CNN, 10/12/11]
• CNN's Anderson Cooper Extensively Covered LGBT Teen Suicide. CNN's Anderson Cooper was active in Rodemeyer's death. Cooper interviewed Rodemeyer's family, documenting the harassment targeted at Jamey even after his funeral. [CNN, Anderson Cooper 360, 9/21/11 via TV Eyes, 9/27/11]

MSNBC, Thomas Roberts Devoted Multiple Segments To Anti-LGBT Bullying. MSNBC devoted several segments to the problem of anti-LGBT bullying in September.

• MSNBC Invited Kathleen Sebelius To Discuss Anti-Bullying Efforts. As part of its "Education Nation" series, MSNBC invited Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to discuss government anti-bullying efforts. [MSNBC, MSNBC Live, via Equality Matters, 9/26/11]
• Thomas Roberts Covered Rodemeyer's Story. MSNBC host Thomas Roberts spent several segments to discussing the Rodemeyer's death. In the days following the suicide, Roberts interviewed Nadin Khoury, a student activists working to stop school bullying. Roberts also interviewed TV host Steve Wilkos, who discussed the problem of cyber-bullying and anonymous harassment. [MSNBC, MSNBC Live, via TV Eyes, 9/27/11, 9/26/11]

Fox Criticizes Anti-Bullying Efforts, Promotes Anti-Gay Narratives

Fox's Routinely Criticizes Anti-Bullying Efforts. Fox has a history of criticizing anti-bullying efforts as overreaching and unnecessary.

• Fox Ran Five Segments In September Attacking New Jersey's Anti-Bullying Law. According to an Equality Matters analysis**, Fox News devoted five segments in the month of September to criticizing New Jersey's new anti-bullying law for allegedly being too expansive.
• Fox Ran Multiple Segments Attacking California Gender Diversity Lessons. Fox News ran multiple segments criticizing a California public school for introducing students to lessons on gender diversity. One Fox guest objected to the lesson by stating: "Bullying is such an excuse because kids do not bully each other based on gender." [Equality Matters, 5/27/11]
• Fox Repeatedly Attacked California's FAIR Education Act. Fox News repeatedly attacked California's FAIR Education Act, which requires public schools to recognize the contributions of LGBT historical figures. Fox guests called LGBT history lessons "irrelevant" "propaganda." [Equality Matters, 7/15/11]

Fox Promoted Stories That Depicted Anti-Gay Groups And Individuals As Victims. Fox News promotes stories that depict anti-gay groups and individuals as victims of alleged intimidation and bullying by gays and lesbians.

• Fox Ran Nine Segments On Vanderbilt's Non-Discrimination Policy. According to an Equality Matters analysis***, Fox News was the only major network to criticize Vanderbilt University's non-discrimination policy, which prohibits religious groups from excluding LGBT students. Fox ran six segments about the university's policy between September and October.
• Fox Interviewed A Texas Student Who Was Suspended After Stating That Homosexuality Is Wrong. [Fox News, America's News HQ, via Equality Matters, 10/4/11]
• Fox Interviewed Anti-Gay New York Town Clerk. Fox interviewed Rose Marie Belforti, a New York town clerk who refused to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs. [Fox News, Happening Now, via Equality Matters, 9/29/11]

*Equality Matters searched news transcripts provided by TV Eyes and Nexis for the terms "Jamie," "Jamey," and "gay, suicide" between September 18 and October 1.

**Equality Matters searched news transcripts provided by TV Eyes and Nexis for the terms "bully," "bullying" and "gay, suicide" between September 1 and October 20.

***Equality Matters searched news transcripts provided by TV Eyes and Nexis for the terms "Vanderbilt" between September 1 and October 20.