Showing posts with label Family Research Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Family Research Council. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Oops: Franklin Graham moves bank accounts from gay-friendly bank to one that sponsors gay pride events

I'm sorry but this to me is just priceless. Obviously Graham has forgotten who helped found FRC, George 'Rentboy" Renkers.  But as this comment points out, we have this to consider:
Graham said he thinks banks should stick to banking. Well, that goes for the other shoe, too - Chik-fil-A should stick with unhealthy and unchristian junk food and Hobby Lobby should stick with arts and crafts.
Evangelist Franklin Graham has found a new bank to handle his organization’s financial needs after pulling his money out and calling for a boycott of Wells Fargo Bank because he felt they were promoting a “godless lifestyle” by using gay couples in their ads.

Unfortunately for Graham, his new bank is a major sponsor of the Miami Beach Gay Pride Parade as well as sponsoring a “Legacy Couples” program that celebrates committed relationships between same-sex couples.

As Right Wing Watch reports, Graham went on a radio show sponsored  by the Family Research Council and told host Craig James that he was moving his accounts to North Carolina-based BB&T.

Saying he only wants a bank that tells him what interest rates they will pay and what his service charges will be, Graham said he thinks banks should stick to banking.
,,,
BB&T is listed as a sponsor of the Miami Beach Gay Pride Parade,  as well as a major sponsor of the Legacy Couples program in South Florida, honoring committed gay couples.
Oops: Franklin Graham moves bank accounts from gay-friendly bank to one that sponsors gay pride events

Monday, June 8, 2015

David Barton’s Unreal Appearance on Family Research Council’s Washington Watch


David Barton was on Family Research Council’s Washington Watch Live yesterday to talk about his version of America’s founding. The host sitting in for Tony Perkins was Craig James.

As I was listening to Barton rattle off some of his usual distortions, it occurred to me again how far apart Barton and the Family Research Council are from Christian academia and the real world of scholarship. For instance, James introduced Barton as “one of the most respected historians in America.”

In what universe does Craig James’ America exist? James works for the same Family Research Council that once entered the real world and removed one of David Barton’s Capitol Tour videos from view because they acknowledged numerous historical errors. Now FRC hires Barton to give the tour again and James lauded the tour.

Respected historians don’t have their books removed from publication by their Christian publisher; nor do they have the same book voted least credible by other historians.

Barton again botches the Donald Lutz study of quotes from the Founding era. Barton made it seem as though Lutz studied the founders’ quotes when that was not the case (see this post for what the study actually did). Barton never tells his listeners that the Federalists didn’t cite the Bible in their defense of the Constitution.
Something that struck me was Professor Throckmorton's response to the credibility of FRC, a question posed in the comments:
Do you see FRC as a credible organization in any way? You point to distortions here. We know they use serious distortions regarding people who are gay to "fight the normalization of homosexuality". Their ostensible raison d'ĂȘtre may be noble (i.e., to encourage the flourishing of families), their strategies and tactics are insidious. They completely lack integrity and use "the sanctity of the family" as an excuse to advance specific narrow religious beliefs.

They are incredible. They are professional fear-mongerers. Is the fact that they give Barton a platform really the only thing that gives you pause?
To which
No, not at all. But it is the thing that this post is about. I don't pay any attention to FRC anymore as a source of information or advice or credibility for many reasons, not just Barton. However, in this case, it just struck me how out of touch this interview was. And the amazing thing to me from a social psychological perspective is that I think Craig James really things he is right. He is in such an echo chamber; social reality has been so controlled and shaped that he believes Barton really is a respected historian.
And that sums up the feeling I got out of listening to the 10 minutes of said interview.  Although to be blunt, it was more of a WTF moment for me.


David Barton’s Unreal Appearance on Family Research Council’s Washington Watch

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Meet the Christian right’s new doomsday prophet — and his insane, apocalyptic “blood moon” theory - Salon.com


In 2015, there is a United States congressman who believes that the so-called blood moon prophecy determines the fate of the Middle East and, because of some more prophecy, the fate of the world, of all of us. In 2015. Common Era.

“Blood moons,” which is a gussied-up way of naming your garden-variety lunar eclipse, “have preceded world-changing, shaking-type events,” says Rep. Jody Hice of Georgia, a man constitutionally permitted to vote in one of the world’s most powerful legislative bodies. Legislation, accords, Security Council Resolutions, military aid packages — why consider this mere terrestrial ephemera when you can just go out into your backyard and consult the moon?

While the prophecy may seem fringe — like something a hooded Nostradamus type from the Dark Ages would wheeze in dim and flickering firelight — it’s gaining surprising traction in conservative media, and is being adopted as legitimate by prominent figures, including Hice in Congress and the Family Research Council, the powerful social conservative lobbying group in Washington. Mega-pastor John Hagee, the leading purveyor of blood moon prophecy talk, is powerful in Washington, able to command the attendance of influential conservative politicians to his events.

Meet the Christian right’s new doomsday prophet — and his insane, apocalyptic “blood moon” theory - Salon.com

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Conservatives Seize On Hugely Flawed Study About Same-Sex Parents | ThinkProgress

Although dating to Febraury, Sullins research is important to note as he has in the past defended the Regnerus study, which is in the news again.  What it boils down to, "Conservatives praise these studies for their large samples, eagerly highlighting their negative results while ignore the distortions required to arrive at them."

Think of this as a precursor of what is to come.
Conservatives are excitedly promoting a new study that supposedly reveals negative outcomes for the children of same-sex parents. Like the infamously flawed Mark Regnerus study rushed out two years ago, the new study seems timed to impact the Supreme Court’s upcoming consideration of marriage equality for same-sex couples. It suffers, however, from some of the same flaws and biases as Regnerus’ study, and doesn’t actually support the argument against marriage equality that it tries to make.

The new study comes from Donald Paul Sullins, a Catholic priest and sociology professor at Catholic University of America. Sullins is a fellow of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute, a project of the anti-LGBT Family Research Council, and a Fourth Degree member of the Knights of Columbus, which has funneled millions of dollars into fighting marriage equality over the past decade. In 2010, he co-wrote a study suggesting that female homosexuality was somehow connected to growing up in a broken home, and when he has written about same-sex marriage, he uses scare quotes around the word “marriage.”

Sullins conducted an analysis of data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) that had been collected from 1997-2013. He concluded that information about the 512 same-sex parents identified in the study demonstrates that their children have more emotional problems compared to couples raised by their biological different-sex couples. That these children fare worse, he concludes, “justifies social and policy concerns about differences between family structures, including between opposite-sex and same-sex families.” In other words, same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry because they make inferior parents.

One of the first major flaws, however, is the fact that Sullins has no information about whether the same-sex couples were actually married.  As he notes, “Almost all opposite-sex parents who are raising joint biological offspring are in intact marriages, but very few, if any, same-sex parents were married during the period under observation.” The same-sex couples were instead defined as “those persons whose reported spouse or cohabiting partner was of the same sex as themselves.” No conclusions can actually be drawn about the impacts of legalizing same-sex marriage because the study, by its own admission, collected no data about same-sex marriage or its effect on children.

Regnerus himself provides an overview of the research.  In his attempt to defend it, however, he in turn reveals that it also has the very same flaws as his own study. In particular, the NHIS similarly contains no information about family formation. Sullins notes that many of the children had a biological connection to one of the same-sex parents, but it’s unknown if these are from prior relationships, which would suggest their negative outcomes are related to a broken home instead of having two parents of the same sex. Regnerus used the same conflation; only two of the children in his study were actually raised from birth by same-sex couples and they did not exhibit the same negative outcomes as those children who had parents that separated before one entered a same-sex relationship. Incidentally, Sullins has likewise defended Regenerus’ conclusions about the supposed  inferiority “gay and lesbian families,” ignoring the significance of this flawed conflation.
Conservatives Seize On Hugely Flawed Study About Same-Sex Parents | ThinkProgress

Monday, December 22, 2014

Audio: AFA Radio caller calls for executing gays; FRC-employed host doesn't even challenge him, much less condemn - Good As You:: Gay and Lesbian Activism With a Sense of Humor

For those that may think that individual, know nothing preachermen like Steven L. Anderson do not influence the populace at large, think again,,,
When a caller phones in to your radio show and calls for the execution of gay people, you should be sure to repudiate that call for genocide in the firmest way possible. Right? And this is particularly true if you are an employee of one of America's most anti-gay organizations, yes?

Well not according to Craig James. While filling in for FRC's president, Tony Perkins, on last Friday's edition of his AFA Radio show, the former sportscaster, onetime US Senate candidate (he lost to Sen. Ted Cruz in the 2012 Texas Republican primary), and current Family Research Council employee couldn't even condemn a caller who admitted he'd like to execute gay Americans. James only gave the caller a mealy-mouthed "I don’t know about the executing" before proceed to build on the caller's thoughts, saying that he does believe people who oppose LGBT rights "have to be bold and firm and much stronger." Chilling audio below,,,
Audio: AFA Radio caller calls for executing gays; FRC-employed host doesn't even challenge him, much less condemn - Good As You:: Gay and Lesbian Activism With a Sense of Humor

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Report Debunks Right-Wing Claims of Military Persecution of Christians | Advocate.com

Firing back at the anti-LGBT Family Research Council, the organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State has compiled a report to debunk claims about religious persecution in the military.

“The AU report,  ‘Clear and Present Falsehoods: The Real State of Religious Freedom in the Military,’ responds to an earlier report by the Family Research Council (FRC) that purported to list widespread instances of religious liberty violations in the armed forces,” reads an Americans United press release. “In fact, AU says, the FRC report (titled 'A Clear and Present Danger: The Threat to Religious Liberty in the Military') is merely a list of overblown and inaccurate claims that often don’t provide context or the whole story.

“Many examples of religious liberty 'violations' listed in the FRC report were in reality efforts by military officials to enforce separation of church and state or were ambiguous policies that were quickly fixed. A final category included examples of private individuals being critical of military policy.”

Not every one of the Family Research Council’s 61 claims, each followed in the report by Americans United analysis and response, is related to LGBT people. However, several do reference same-sex marriage and other LGBT issues. Here's an overview of the LGBT-specific items, along with the Americans United's (paraphrased) findings:

Report Debunks Right-Wing Claims of Military Persecution of Christians | Advocate.com

Sunday, December 14, 2014

Religious Right’s latest lunacy: Change the Constitution to eliminate ‘myth’ of trans people

Christian conservative activists have staked out a possibly new front in the culture wars by suggesting a constitutional amendment to regulate gender identity.

Peter Sprigg and former NFL player Craig James, who are spokesmen for the Family Research Council, said Monday on the “Washington Watch” radio program that transgender rights were the next battlefield in the religious right’s ongoing battle with LGBT people, reported Right Wing Watch.

“I think the ideal policy for government with respect to [transgender rights] is that your sex is your biological sex,” Sprigg said. “My view is, that if your biological sex is unambiguous at birth — if your internal sex organs, your external genitalia, and your chromosomal makeup all are unequivocal in declaring you to be of one sex – then that is your sex for life, and that is your only sexual identity that the government will recognize.”

Religious Right’s latest lunacy: Change the Constitution to eliminate ‘myth’ of trans people

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

‘Warrior for God’ | Southern Poverty Law Center

“In fact, the Republicans tried to get me to run for Senate this year. I said, ‘I can’t run [on the GOP ticket] because I’m an independent. And until you become the conservatives I expect you to be, until you start standing for my values, I’m not going to call myself a Republican.’”
__
Retired three-star general William “Jerry” Boykin is the executive vice president of the anti-LGBT, archconservative Family Research Council, the FRC. He isby in charge of its day-to-day operations, but he is no desk jockey.

White-haired and 66, Boykin is an old soldier who refuses to fade away. A popular speaker on the conservative Christian speaking circuit, Boykin is constantly on the road, crisscrossing the country from pulpit to pulpit, recruiting a Christian army to battle the forces of Satan, hell-bent, he says, on destroying America with such weapons as same-sex marriage, radical Islamists, gun control, abortion, and a “Marxist model” for world conquest.

“You wonder why there’s so much religious persecution in America today,” he asked a Texas church audience two years ago. “It’s because we’re becoming a Marxist nation.”

[,,,]
“I’ve been outspoken about my concerns about radical Islam and I’ve been hammered for it,” he said in the Christian Summit Church sanctuary. “The interesting thing is there are more and more Americans who are beginning to wake up and realize there really is a threat from the Muslim Brotherhood inside America. Don’t think they aren’t here. They are here.

“I’m not talking about every Muslim,” he quickly added. “But I’ve been outspoken about the fact that we’ve got to stand up to the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”

Somewhere, Sen. Joe McCarthy is smiling.

When it comes to gay issues, Boykin’s is a softer, gentler, hate-the-sin, love-the-sinner form of bigotry. “I believe homosexuality is wrong biblically, but it’s no greater than my sins,” he told a Texas audience two years ago. “I’ve sinned, too. It’s just a sin like the sins I’ve committed.”

‘Warrior for God’ | Southern Poverty Law Center

Saturday, September 6, 2014

ADDENDUM::OH this is absolutely PRICELESS!!

 From FRC’s Facebook (‎Family Research Council) aka Tony Perkins

Hi Tony, I was listening to your broadcast today August 27. You had mentioned you took the ice bucket challenge and you challenged others. Please think about this. I was awakened to this several days ago by an evangelist preacher. This is a worldly thing. It seems innocent but it is not. You are becoming part of this world by doing this and I ask you to look at the list of people who took this challenge. Lady GAGA, Ophra Winfrey, Hilary Clinton, Basically every liberal and demonic rock star. Think about this, the terror group name is ISIS, When you do the ice bucket it is, ice us. We are not to be conformed to this world but to be transformed. I urge you to look at the list of celebrities who took part in this. Even Sarah Palin is deceived. Kathy A

To which FRC responds,,,

Kathy,
You can participate in the ice bucket challenge in an ethical way. Please read FRC's Dr. David Prentice's blog post at http://frcblog.com/.../send-your-ice-bucket-challenge.../. You can also watch Tony's ice bucket challenge at http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=RADIO.

A surprisingly rational response from FRC with suggestions for those that are opposed to embryonic stem cell research.  A "thumbs-up"  to FRC for not pandering to the bullshit of  evangelista Anita Fuentes.

[Sorry my screen shot came out a we bit small.]

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

FRC Blog » Robin Williams, Rehab, and Reorientation

There is just so much wrong with this I dont even know where to start,,,
"Then just last month, news broke that Williams had again returned to rehab, this time at a Hazelden center in Minnesota. A spokesman for Williams said that he had not relapsed into substance abuse, but was “simply taking the opportunity to fine-tune and focus on his continued commitment [to sobriety], of which he remains extremely proud.” That was on July 1 — but six weeks later, he was dead."
First Sprigg, in a backhanded way, is stating the Williams' death is due to his return to drug/alcohol rehab; a mental health service that is for the most part a generally accepted (by consensus) form of treatment. He then continues to equate rehab to reparative therapy. Notice his choice of words, "sexual orientation change efforts."
"In light of this history, I have only one question for socially liberal political activists — why aren’t you trying to outlaw rehab?

"I ask the question because such activists are trying to ban a form of mental health treatment — not drug and alcohol rehabilitation, but “sexual orientation change efforts” (“SOCE”), also known as “sexual reorientation therapy.” Such therapy involves assisting people with unwanted same-sex attractions to overcome them."
What Spriggs leaves out, homosexuality has not been consider a mental disorder since 1973; and, reparative therapy as a whole has been debunked. (Seriously, do not even think for a moment that the Regnerus study lends any credibility to the FRC's stance.) Not only by ex ex-gay bigwigs but as Anderson Cooper points out in  his response to the Texas GOP's adoption of support for reparative therapy.
“It’s really just not accurate to say that doctors are evenly divided,” Cooper told state Rep. Bryan Hughes (R). “I could give you a list: the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselors’ Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers. They represent half a million mental health professionals, [and] they all say this is not a mental disorder. It’s not something that needs to be cured.”
Personally I think Spriggs is a pissed off little man because their golden girl of the movement, Yvette Cantu Schneider told FRC to go fuck off

My snark aside, J. Bryan Lowder over at Slate sums up the reality of what Spriggs misses:
"The reason addicts seek or are referred to rehab for substance abuse is because addiction is clearly inhibiting their ability to live their lives. Meanwhile, the only thing inhibiting gay people from living openly and happily is people like Sprigg, people who suggest that homosexuality is anything other than a natural, perfectly healthy variation of human sexual expression. When critics of ex-gay therapy—including the large majority of the medical establishment—advocate for its elimination, it is not because we, as Sprigg puts it, are “holding such therapies to a standard of ‘effectiveness’ and ‘safety’ that is impossible for any mental health treatment to meet.” Rather, it is because we recognize that being gay is not a mental health issue in the first place.
This isn't the FRC stooping low, this is the FRC standing proud. This is what they are, and they're proud of it.

FRC Blog » Robin Williams, Rehab, and Reorientation

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

ADDENDUM::Former anti-gay activist: "I've never met an 'ex-gay' man I thought was not still attracted to men" | GLAAD

Part 2,,,
,,,But once I became a Christian and was told that my sexuality was deviant and sinful, I felt ashamed about it. This may sound bizarre to some people—how I so quickly went from pride to shame—but when you’ve had a spiritual experience and seek to understand it by finding pastoral help, it’s easy to fall into the trap of seeing them as the experts, and believing their interpretation of certain Biblical passages without taking the larger picture into consideration. And without knowing that their interpretation is not the only interpretation.

[,,,]
I think you’re seeing the result of how stifled I felt. According to the dogma of conservative Christian churches, we have to believe that homosexuality is sinful and wrong. Period. The problem for me was that I had to turn away from what I witnessed and experienced in my day-to-day life; I couldn’t allow myself to acknowledge what was glaringly obvious, which was that I saw an abundance of healthy homosexual relationships. My uncle has been with his partner for nearly 30 years. My ex-girlfriend from years ago recently married her partner in California after having been in a committed relationship with her for close to 20 years. They’re normal people, living normal lives. They have jobs, and hobbies, and families. There isn’t anything perverse or abhorrent about how they live.

A favorite tactic of certain sectors of the pro-family movement is to highlight the sexual behaviors of gay men. You never hear anyone talk about the sexual practices of lesbians. Women are rarely mentioned unless you’re talking about smoking or excessive alcohol consumption. The assumption is that the general public is disturbed by sexual situations in bathrooms, parks, or other public places, or by men acting flamboyantly during pride parades and celebrations. News of these types of situations could be used as fodder to demonstrate the supposed inherent depravity of homosexual men, implying that all gay men have it within their nature to lurk in bushes waiting to hook up with someone.
Former anti-gay activist: "I've never met an 'ex-gay' man I thought was not still attracted to men" | GLAAD

ADDENDUM::Change is possible: Former 'ex-gay' activist Yvette Schneider 'celebrates the worthiness and equality of all people' | GLAAD

Part 1 of Scheider's GLAAD interview,,,
Yvette Cantu Schneider has one of the most robust pedigrees of anyone who has ever worked in the so-called "ex-gay" movement. From the late nineties right through to the second decade of the twenty-first century, Yvette managed to find herself laboring for and with just about every top anti-LGBT group and activist you've heard of. From her high-profile start at the Family Research Council to her work with California's Proposition 8 campaign—with many stops, at many different groups and campaigns along the way—Yvette became one of that movement's most visible faces and certainly one of the most known women in a line of "work" known mainly for its male spokespeople.

To this day, Yvette remains one of the key people who anti-gay voices like to cite in order to prove that "change" works. In a December 19, 2013, press release concerning the Duck Dynasty brouhaha, notorious anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera, who was a colleague of Yvette's during their shared time at the Family Research Council, cited Schnieder as an example of a person who has "ovecome homosexuality through faith in Jesus Christ." "Ex-gay" websites continue to list her as among their ranks and push her story as a source of inspiration. The American Family Association continues to sell a video, "It's Not Gay," in which Yvette appears as a talking head. They all still claim Yvette as being both an example and a worker bee for their side.

That all changes today. Yvette has reached out to GLAAD, exclusively, to share her story—one that will come as a shock to her former colleagues and allies.

In a nutshell: Yvette no longer wishes to identify with the "ex-gay" or anti-LGBT movement; is sorry for the pain she caused as part of that world; is highly questioning of the idea of "ex-gay" itself; and is now fully supportive of LGBT people, our truths, and our families. Yvette has made her sincerity clear to me, saying "as opposed to when I was doing things for the Christian Right out of duty and obligation, I'm doing it because I want to and feel it's the right thing to do." She hopes that by speaking out, she can start to undo any damage she might've helped to impart.

[,,,]
 "I had entered the Church and become a Christian for a sense of community, to belong to a family that would love and accept me unconditionally, the way Jesus did. I was told, along with everyone else, that I would be used by God to accomplish His purposes, that my life would have purpose and meaning. If I played by the rules. When I developed feelings for a female friend at church, a superior pulled me aside and said that my roommates sensed this attraction, and it would be better, according to the Bible, for a millstone to be hung around my neck and for me to be flung into the sea (Matthew 18:6 NIV). I quickly learned to toe the line."
__
Although I never even remotely "tried" to change my sexuality beyond the use of  fervent prayer,/fasting and biblical studies (I was already part of "the church").  I can so relate to the, "I would be used by God to accomplish His purposes,,," bullshit.  I even had the millstone crap thrown at me as well, especially after years of study my conclusion(s) led me to the belief and understanding that there is no biblical justification for condemning our 20th/21st century understanding of homosexuality.

Change is possible: Former 'ex-gay' activist Yvette Schneider 'celebrates the worthiness and equality of all people' | GLAAD

Leading ‘ex-gay’ Yvette Schneider comes out to back bans on ‘ex-gay’ therapies | Gay Star News

The mighty continue to fall!!

I have said, and I will continue to say till my last breath on this earth, there is no such thing as an ex-gay or ex-lesbian. Next in line is Anne Paulk. Any takers?
__
Yvette Schneider, one of the most prominent poster children for the American ‘ex-gay’ movement, has come out in favor of LGBTI rights and as bisexual and has joined the call for so-called 'reparative therapies' that aim to change people’s sexualities to be banned for minors.

Schneider made the revelation via a series of blog posts with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) – an organization she herself once volunteered for in the early 1990’s while identifying as a lesbian.

However a conversion to Christianity in the late 1990’s lead to her rejecting her same-sex attraction and joining the ex-gay movement, eventually working for the virulently anti-LGBTI Family Research Council and speaking on behalf of campaigns by the American Family Association.

[,,,]
‘Not only is the efficacy of change therapy dubious at best, but the type of therapy this legislation bans is specifically for minors. It’s damaging to take a child who is questioning his or her sexuality, or who may display qualities that are not in line with what our society considers normative for their gender, and communicate to the child - and parents - that there is something wrong with him, that in some way he or she is deficient.

Leading ‘ex-gay’ Yvette Schneider comes out to back bans on ‘ex-gay’ therapies | Gay Star News

Monday, June 9, 2014

Tony Perkins Says Gay Rights Advocates Want Anti-Christian Holocaust, Will 'Start Rolling Out The Boxcars' | Right Wing Watch

So Tony, are you talking up a Vietnam type setting where one spends upwards of 3+ years under government controlled conditions? Or are you speaking of what occurred in Europe during WWII? You see your friend Richard Mourdock is of the belief that we are headed the way of Nazi German:
“The people of Germany in a free election selected the Nazi Party because they made great promises that appealed to them because they were desperate and destitute. And why is that? Because Germany was bankrupt. The truth is, 70 years later, we are drifting on the tides toward another beachhead and it is the bankruptcy of the United States of America.”
By your by use of "re-education camps" you are implying the latter.. Are you studying history under Barton again?
__
Perkins reacted to the discrimination case by offering a comparison to the Holocaust: “I’m beginning to think, are re-education camps next? When are they going to start rolling out the boxcars to start hauling off Christians?”

Tony Perkins Says Gay Rights Advocates Want Anti-Christian Holocaust, Will 'Start Rolling Out The Boxcars' | Right Wing Watch

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Tony Perkins, Arbiter Of Christianity, Says Pro-Gay Christians Don't Have Same Religious Rights As Conservatives | Right Wing Watch

A prime example of the "Us vs. Them" mentality that is prevalent amongst those who espouse a theocratic or dominionist POV
__
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins implied today that Christians who support gay rights don’t have the same religious rights as conservative Christians because “true religious freedom” only applies to “orthodox religious viewpoints.”

Last month, a group of North Carolina ministers and same-sex couples, along with the United Church of Christ denomination, filed a lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

The clergy argue that because of a law that makes it a misdemeanor for a member of the clergy to perform a marriage ceremony without a state license, the same-sex marriage ban violates the religious rights of clergy who wish to perform such ceremonies.

When a caller on Monday’s edition of “Washington Watch” asked Perkins about his views on the case, Perkins replied that the ministers don’t have the same religious rights as others because they aren’t real Christians and therefore aren’t protected by the “true religious freedoms” given to Christians.

As we know, only Tony Perkins gets to decide who is and isn’t a Christian and has religious rights under the law.

Tony Perkins, Arbiter Of Christianity, Says Pro-Gay Christians Don't Have Same Religious Rights As Conservatives | Right Wing Watch

Friday, May 2, 2014

Ex-Ex-Gay Pride

Far-right groups including the Family Research Council and the American Family Association pooled $600,000 to place ads promising the effectiveness of reparative therapy in The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Tribune. Anne and John Paulk smiled from full-page newspaper spreads.

In front of the crowds and cameras, Paulk was the image of certainty. But backstage, he was faltering. More than that, he knew he was lying.

“It’s funny, for those of us that worked in it, behind closed doors, we knew we hadn't really changed,” he says. “Our situations had changed—we had gotten married, and some of us had children, so our roles had changed. I was a husband and father; that was my identity. And the homosexuality had been tamped down. But you can only push it down for so long, and it would eke its way out every so often.”

When Paulk walked into that gay bar in 2000, someone recognized him and phoned Wayne Besen, a gay rights activist who now runs the nonprofit Truth Wins Out. Besen rushed over and snapped a picture. In the ensuing scandal, Paulk initially claimed he just went in to use the bathroom, and didn’t know it was a gay bar. But really, he was aching just to be in a welcoming environment.

“I went to a gay bar—not looking for sex, which is what people thought—but because I was missing my community. I was looking to sit in a place with people I felt comfortable with, and that was other gay people,” Paulk says. Though he continued to take speaking engagements, by 2003, he was burned out.

“I would be in hotel rooms, and I would be on my face sobbing and crying on the bed,” he says. “I felt like a liar and a hypocrite. Having to go out and give hope to these people. I was in despair knowing that what I was telling them was not entirely honest. I couldn’t do it anymore.”

Even in its earliest days, Exodus’s philosophy—that same-sex attraction meant a person was “broken” and could be “fixed”—was undermined by the reality of its members’ actions. Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, two of the co-founders, left the movement in 1979 to be in a committed relationship with one another. (Bussee has spent the decades since actively fighting Exodus’s message.) John Evans, one of the founders of Love in Action (LIA), an early ex-gay ministry that helped establish Exodus in 1974, left LIA after a friend committed suicide over his distress at being unable to change his sexual orientation. "They're destroying people's lives,” Evans told The Wall Street Journal in 1993. “They're living in a fantasy world.” (LIA has since changed its name to Restoration Path.)

[,,,]
First came the photo of Paulk in the gay bar. Then in 2003, Michael Johnson, founder of “National Coming Out of Homosexuality Day,” was revealed to have infected men he’d met on the Internet with HIV through unprotected sex. John Smid, who joined LIA in 1986 and eventually became its executive director, left the organization in 2008. Three years later, Smid wrote on his blog that he "never met a man who experienced a change from homosexual to heterosexual," and that reorientation is impossible, because being gay is intrinsic.

Then it crumbled further. In 2012, psychologist Robert Spitzer—one of the leaders of the successful push in the 1970s for the American Psychiatric Association to declassify homosexuality as a disease—retracted a controversial study, published in 2003, often cited by the ex-gay community that had concluded some “highly motivated” individuals could change their sexual orientation. Spitzer wrote an apology to LGBT people who “wasted time and energy” on reparative therapy.

[,,,]
Lastly, there’s the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), founded in 1992 by psychologist Joseph Nicolosi. NARTH considers itself the foremost secular proponent of conversion therapy; it counts hundreds of well-credentialed mental health professionals among its ranks and has issued a number of white papers on the subject. It too, however, has suffered in the public eye in recent years: In 2007, NARTH therapist Chris Austin was convicted of sexually assaulting a client, and sentenced to 10 years in prison; in 2010, NARTH board member George Rekers was found to have employed a male prostitute as a companion for a two-week European vacation; and in 2012 the Internal Revenue Service revoked NARTH’s nonprofit status for not properly filing its paperwork.

Paulk left Exodus in 2003. He cautions against “speaking for everybody,” but says in his more than two decades of watching people undergo ex-gay therapy, the “large majority” of people he met “did not change one iota.” Paulk remained silent for a decade, until he issued a formal apology last year. "I know that countless people were harmed by things I said and did in the past, " Paulk wrote in a statement. "I am truly, truly sorry for the pain I have caused.”


Ex-Ex-Gay Pride

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Conservatives aren’t just fighting same-sex marriage. They’re also trying to stop divorce. - The Washington Post

What is highlighted here is only the first tentative volley in the Reich's ubiquitous war on American life. Keyes with his report is bringing this attack to the front lines outlining the roles of Family Leader, Family Research Council and NOM.

For years, social conservatives have been fighting to prevent certain people from getting married. But they’re waging a parallel battle, too: Trying to keep married couples together.

In cooperation with the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage, socially conservative politicians have been quietly trying to make it harder for couples to get divorced. In recent years, lawmakers in more than a dozen states have introduced bills imposing longer waiting periods before a divorce is granted, mandating counseling courses or limiting the reasons a couple can formally split. States such as Arizona, Louisiana and Utah have already passed such laws, while others such as Oklahoma and Alabama are moving to do so.

If divorces are tougher to obtain, social conservatives argue, fewer marriages will end. And having more married couples is not just desirable in its own right but is a social good, they say. During his presidential campaign, former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) emphasized finishing high school and getting married as cures for poverty. “If you do those two things, you will be successful economically,” he declared at a 2011 event in Iowa.

A legislative movement against divorce may seem like a non-starter in a country where half of married couples avail themselves of this right, but as with legal challenges to Obamacare and the rise of the tea party movement, today’s fringe idea can quickly become tomorrow’s mainstream conservatism.

[,,,]
Yet the conservative push for “divorce reform” is finding sympathetic ears in statehouses, where Republican lawmakers have regularly introduced bills to restrict the practice. Their rationales range from the biblical (God bemoans divorce in Malachi 2:14-16) to the social (divorce reduces worker productivity) to the financial (two households are more expensive to maintain than one). Leading conservatives such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) have also argued that marriage is a solution to poverty.

The cause earned national support in 2011 when three Republican presidential candidates — Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Santorum — signed a pledge from the Family Leader, a conservative organization in Iowa, that urged “ ‘cooling-off’ periods” for people seeking what it called a “quickie divorce.”

[,,,]
At least a dozen other states since 2011 have tried to make divorce more difficult. Along with Iowa, New Hampshire and Oklahoma have tried to eliminate no-fault divorce for parents. In Oklahoma, lawmakers are also considering a bill that would virtually prohibit no-fault divorce but preserve divorce as an option in cases of “impotency.” Other states are pushing legislation to lengthen the waiting period before a judge can grant a divorce, including up to two years in North Carolina. Currently, most states have a two- or three-month waiting period before a divorce is finalized, though it is longer in a handful of mostly Southern states, including Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia.

Conservatives aren’t just fighting same-sex marriage. They’re also trying to stop divorce. - The Washington Post

Friday, January 24, 2014

Republican Insiders Fret That Right-Wing Crazies Will Upset GOP's Election Chances | Alternet

With the Republican Party being torn apart by its internal civil war, an ideological battle that pits establishment Republicans against the no-compromise Tea Party/Christian Right, party backers are doing their best to suppress the craziness as the 2014 midterms approach. But are they succeeding?

[,,,]
The establishment wing is discovering that it’s hard to keep the crazy quiet when your party’s voter base consists of neo-confederates, white supremacists, know-nothing libertarians, and evangelical theocrats. Moreover, social conservatives are no wilting wallflowers when it comes to raising campaign money. A recent Politico piece reported that roughly 25 socially conservative groups combined to pull in more than $280 million in 2011 and 2012. Notwithstanding the fact that much of the Koch brother’s political spending goes to the ideologically insane, too.

[,,,]
"This election is when the Tea Party movement will professionalize how it engages in politics," says Drew Ryun, the political director of the Madison Project, a conservative campaign group. "We are getting a game plan."

All in all, seven of the 12 GOP senators up for reelection in 2014 are facing primary opponents, which is a record number of challenges. The far right also plans to target 25 House races, highlighting the deep divisions within the Republican Party. Tea Party Express says, “The false narrative continues to be written that the Tea Party is dead and that 2014 will not be like 2010, but every month we see a strong example to the contrary.”

Republican Insiders Fret That Right-Wing Crazies Will Upset GOP's Election Chances | Alternet

Monday, January 20, 2014

How Marriage Equality Opponents' Three National Strategies All Contradict Each Other | ThinkProgress

2013 represented a significant turning point in the marriage equality fight with the Supreme Court’s overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but the next — and possibly last — phase of that effort is already taking form. What’s left is for the Supreme Court to address whether state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage violate the rights of gay and lesbian couples, and with cases in Nevada, Utah, Ohio, and Oklahoma already headed to the appellate level, that could happen within the next few years. In the meantime, opponents of marriage equality are doing their best to slow the momentum and limit the recognition of same-sex marriages as much as possible.

At the federal level, opponents currently have three proposed strategies for rolling back some of the recognition that same-sex couples now have. Particularly in the wake of the Utah and Oklahoma decisions, groups like the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and Family Research Council (FRC) have been emphasizing two talking points: that states should have the right to establish their own definition of marriage and that the religious views of people who oppose marriage equality should be protected. Each of the three proposed strategies would limit same-sex marriage to a certain extent according to these talking points, but the principles that inform each strategy are in conflict with each other.

While none of the three plans seems to be politically viable, here’s a look at how conservatives are tripping over themselves to stem the tide of marriage equality.

How Marriage Equality Opponents' Three National Strategies All Contradict Each Other | ThinkProgress

Monday, October 21, 2013

Perkins: Christians Who See A Role For Government In Reducing Poverty Are Wrongheaded Theocrats | Right Wing Watch

Scratching head a bit on this one as I try and understand the (lack of) thinking on Perkins part,,,

Let's say Perkins is correct, that the bile does not address this so-called redistribution of wealth (as he likes to characterize the social welfare programs) how then should one proceed? According to Perkins:
"The government has a responsibility to care for the poor? That’s not what Scripture says. The Scripture handed that responsibility to you and I as members of the faith, as followers of Jesus Christ; not the civil government." 
So please explain how he plans to lift 47 million people out of poverty?

If the Family Research Council put as much effort into feeding the poor as they do preventing gays from getting married, then maybe his argument wouldn’t be so easily scoffed at.

Perkins: Christians Who See A Role For Government In Reducing Poverty Are Wrongheaded Theocrats | Right Wing Watch