via JMG: WaPo Picks Up My FRC Post

The Washington Post's David Weigel has picked up my post about the Family Research Council lobbying against Uganda's "kill gays" bill.

Gay City News and blogger Joe My God dug into the lobbying records of the Family Research Council and found that among the "Civil Rights/Civil Liberties" issues that the FRC's Tom McCluskey and David Christensen lobbied on was HR 1064, a resolution condemning Uganda's proposed anti-homosexuality bill. That's the bill that would assign a seven-year sentence for "homosexuality" and a possible death sentence for "aggravated homosexuality."

Should this come as a surprise? Well, it's the only issue under the "Civil Rights/Civil Liberties" heading that doesn't actually touch on a change to American laws. The resolution, proposed by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Ca.), spends most of its length arguing that Uganda's efforts to fight AIDS would be impeded by the law and proclaims that "all people possess an intrinsic human dignity, regardless of sexual orientation, and share fundamental human rights." In the FRC's report, this resolution is short-handed as "pro-homosexual promotion."

Weigel has posted the FRC's lobbying report in full, as well as the wording of the House resolution. He is waiting for the Family Research Council to respond.

a post lifted from Joe

Via another list: JUST A RANDOM THOUGHT....

the writer says:

I was walking through my midtown neighborhood of Lavendar Heights a little while ago, and since this section of Midtown is the "gay ghetto" of Sacramento, how come there aren't any rainbow flags or gay-related events posted on lightposts, stop lights, etc, you know kind of similar to what it's like down in the Castro. I think it would be a great idea to show our presence in this great neighborhood, other than just walking down or driving through the area streets. I was thinking how interesting it would be if the city did decide to put up those rectangular rainbow flags up and down the major thoroughfares, like 21st St, 19th St, P St, N St, K St, J St, etc, you know like you see in San Francisco. Since Sacramento has the sixth largest gay and lesbian population (percentage-wise) in the United States at around 33,000 or so, why not go for that idea?

Via JMG: Quote Of The Day - Admiral Mike Mullen

"The law needs to change. Fundamentally, it’s an issue of our values. It’s very critical for us as an institution, and I’m hard-pressed not to support policy and a law that forces individuals to come in and lie everyday. I have every expectation that not only we will do this, but we will lead in a way [so] it gets done. That doesn’t mean we won’t have challenges. I want to understand what the possibilities are … what it’s going take to implement this and, in that regard, address the leadership challenges and implementation with expectations that at the small-unit level, not exclusively, it will be led and led well. I have a lot of faith in you that that’s doable." - Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen, speaking to soldiers yesterday at Fort Bragg.

Perhaps referencing the ridiculous claim by the Family Research Council that openly gay soldiers will lead to rampant male rape, one soldier asked Mullen if repealing DADT wouldn't lead to increases cases of sexual harassment. Mullen responded: "Certainly any change in the laws is not an excuse for anything like that to ever happen. We are a disciplined force. We have standards. Maintaining those standards, sustaining that discipline is our job, no matter what happens."

(Tipped by JMG reader Matt)reposted from Joe

Quote of the day (via JMG discssion):

To know a person’s religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance.

— Eric Hoffer, The Passionate State of Mind, aphorism 215 (1955)

Via JMG: CHRISTIAN LOVE: Family Research Council Lobbied Congress Against Resolution Denouncing Uganda's Kill Gays Bill

It's time for the Southern Poverty Law Center to reclassify the Family Research Council as an official hate group, not merely anti-gay as they are now listed. According to the FRC's official lobbying report for the first quarter of 2010, they paid two two of their henchmen $25,000 to lobby Congress against approving a resolution denouncing Uganda's plan to execute homosexuals. The resolution passed in the Senate on April 13th, but remains languished in the House almost four months after being referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Did the FRC's lobbying kill it? As we learned last week with Malawi, international pressure CAN sway even the most virulently anti-gay government.

Below are three screencaps of the 20-page Family Research Council lobbying report supplied to me by Duncan Osbourne at Gay City News. Among the other items they lobbied against are the overturn of DADT and DOMA, which is to be expected. But it's almost astounding, almost, that they would lobby the members of Congress against denouncing the death penalty for LGBT people. THIS needs to fucking THROWN in Tony Perkins' and Peter Sprigg's smirking faces the next time they appear on cable television to speak in soothing voices about the FRC's godly gentle love for homosexuals. The proof is right below on official United States government stationery. The Family Research Council wants you DEAD. Glory! Praise His Name! Also: Die, faggots, die!
reposted from Joe

T-shirt of the day

Via Stuart Gaffney on Facebook: IRS adopts state domestic-partner property law

"In a significant move for same-sex couples, the Internal Revenue Service has decided to recognize California's community property law and treat the income earned by California registered domestic partners as community property income for federal income tax purposes."

IRS adopts state domestic-partner property law

www.sfgate.com

In a significant move for same-sex couples, the Internal Revenue Service has decided to recognize California's community property law and treat the income earned by California registered domestic partners as community...

Via Belirico:Obama shifting responsibly for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Filed by: Rev Irene Monroe

June 3, 2010 8:30 AM

Last week, with a vote of 230 to 191, the House of Representatives voted to repeal former President Bill Clinton's 1993 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy that bars lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer service members from serving openly in the military. On the same day the House passed to repeal DADT, so too did the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"This legislation will help make our armed forces even stronger and more inclusive by allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve honestly and with integrity," President Obama told the Associated Press.

But at the end of the day of all this historic voting, last week, the plight of our LGBTQ service members remained unchanged.

Investigations and discharges for being an openly LGBTQ service member will continue on as usual. Why? Because the Pentagon has not completed its study, reviewing how to maintain the military's "unit cohesion" while integrating LGBTQ service members.

December 1 is the day the country will know the results of the Pentagon study. We will also know if the welcoming mat will truly begin to unfold for our LGBTQ service members.

So, with the military having the real power to either overturn or to uphold DADT, what was last week's voting in the House and the Senate Armed Services Committee really about?

Pressure? Posturing? Or both?

Continue reading "Obama shifting responsibly for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"" »

Via Belirico: New Rules For The Barracks

Filed by: Father Tony

June 3, 2010 10:30 AM

According to recent studies, most soldiers are OK with the idea of gay comrades in arms, but the generals would have us believe that straight military personnel are trembling with fear at the thought of the elimination of DADT. I am not the only one who has occasionally asked a homophobe "What on earth are you afraid of?" I usually frame this heartfelt question with the explanation that homophobia is irrational. Gay marriage won't destroy straight "traditional" marriage. It won't destroy the "family". Letting gay men and women become ordained priests will not dilute the leadership of churches, nor would it pollute the pristine waters of heaven to affirm the presence of gay post-mortem angelic souls (for them that find comfort in fairy tale endings.) Openly gay military personnel won't cause weak links to form in the chain of command and within the ranks of those who have each other's backs.

Last week, I finally got an answer to my wondering about the basis of fear in the hearts of military brass. The rarely uttered truth is that some generals think that ditching DADT will mean that gay male soldiers will boldly creep into the beds of snoring straight soldiers and fellate them in their sleep.

There you have it. I knew that if we pushed hard enough, we'd eventually get the homophobes to blurt out the ridiculous fear that is at the root of their anxiety about the functioning of the military post-DADT.

Obviously, the real homophobic fear is not that a sleeping soldier will orgasm in the mouth of a gay soldier but that the straight soldier will enjoy gay sex, awake or otherwise. In the minds of homophobes, anti-gay rules constitute a dam that keeps their own guilty desires in check just as much as it keeps gay people in check. Homophobes tremble with fear at what is in their hearts. Let's help them out of their fear by suggesting some new rules for the barracks.

Continue reading "New Rules For The Barracks" »

Via Belrico: Some benefits extended to federal employees

Filed by: Alex Blaze

June 3, 2010 1:00 PM

Some progress:

The same-sex partners of gay and lesbian federal workers can start applying next month for long-term health-care insurance, the Office of Personnel Management said Tuesday.

That's great, because long-term health insurance can be incredibly expensive. The more people who have quality long-term health insurance, the better.

Of course, there'll be some who say this isn't enough, and it isn't. Regular health care benefits aren't extended here, although the bill to extend those to same-sex partners has already made it through committee and is expected to make it to the floor of the Senate this month (we'll see, of course).

What's been surprising is the number of queer commentators saying how this only affects a small number of people, as if that's ever been a reason for the LGBT community not to advocate for something. Marriage only affects those LGB people in long-term relationships who choose to participate in the institution, which isn't most of us. DADT only affects those of us in the military or who plan on enlisting if it gets repealed, which really doesn't account for the swaths of people who'll never enlist discussing DADT.

Nothing's stopped us before from celebrating progress that benefits only a sector of the community, and federal workers are great people to celebrate.

Continue reading "Some benefits extended to federal employees" »