The Only Thing "Very Extreme" In This Scenario is MassResistance

One of the things I tried to do regularly back when we were following the debate over the expansion of hate crimes protections to cover things like sexual orientation was to point out the fundamental incoherence of the Religious Right's claims that such an expansion would gives gays "special protections" since, in reality, it was just granting equal protections by adding "sexual orientation" to the list of things like race and religion, which had already been protected by hate crimes legislation for more than a decade.  

In essence, it was Christians who had, for years, been protected by hate crimes laws while gays received no protections ... and the effort to grant such protections to gays was met with a coordinated outcry from the Right about how it was really an attack on their faith.

In that case, the Right's bogus claims didn't prevent this effort from becoming law, but it did become the framework for any similar fights moving forward, as we pointed out last year in noting the Right doing exactly the same thing in opposing anti-bullying legislation.

And which makes this WorldNetDaily article so eerily familiar

A measure in the Massachusetts statehouse to allow jail time for criticism of homosexuality has been pulled abruptly after a conservative group publicized the move by lawmakers.

The apparent precedent of criminalizing opinions about homosexuality had been predicted by opponents of the nation's "hate crimes" law before it was adopted as an amendment to a must-pass military bill in Congress and signed by President Obama last year.

According to Mass Resistance, which monitors the state legislature, the lawmakers added to a bill addressing schools an unrelated provision providing the jail time.

The planned addition to the Massachusetts General Laws would have been: "Whoever publishes any false material whether written, printed, electronic, televised, or broadcast with intent to maliciously promote hatred of any group of persons in the commonwealth because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, or disability shall be guilty of libel and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both."

Mass Resistance said the move would be "very extreme."

"Similar laws have been used in Canada and other countries to snuff out critical reporting on the homosexual movement and severely prosecute offenders. Note that the word 'hatred' is not defined and is thus completely subjective. And 'false material' lays the burden of proof on the accused, under the judgment of a court or tribunal. So even the threat of a long, expensive trial is enough to silence just about everyone," the group reported.

Spokesman Brian Camenker, however, reported to WND today that less than 24 hours after the issue was publicized, lawmakers removed the provision.

The bill in question came about in response to two recent suicides, but according to MassResistance, this language is nothing but an attempt to persecute and imprison Christians:

Whoever publishes any false material whether written, printed, electronic, televised, or broadcast with intent to maliciously promote hatred of any group of persons in the commonwealth because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, or disability shall be guilty of libel and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

Now compare that the existing Massachusetts lible law:

Whoever publishes any false written or printed material with intent to maliciously promote hatred of any group of persons in the commonwealth because of race, color or religion shall be guilty of libel and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

Obviously, it was just an expansion of existing law - which already protects people based on race, color or religion - to include, among other things, sexual orientation.

So apparently MassResistance has no problem with the possibility of fines and imprisonment for anyone who libels, say, Christians ... but expanding the law to cover gays would be "very extreme."

PFAW

Today In Gay News: No Tax Breaks for Florida Films, Forced Relocation in Utah

There are two posts from Joe.My.God today that deserve highlighting. 

The first is kind of funny in a pathetic way:

Like many states, Florida offers huge tax incentives to movie studios in order to lure big budget productions to film locally. The Florida GOP and state Rep. Stephen Precourt don't have a problem with that, they just want to make sure that no productions with gay characters get the tax break.

Movies and TV shows with gay characters could be ineligible for a “family-friendly” tax credit in Florida under a little-noticed provision tucked into a $75 million incentive package that Republican House leaders hope will attract film and entertainment jobs to the state. The bill would prohibit productions with “nontraditional family values” from receiving a so-called family-friendly tax credit. But it doesn’t define what “nontraditional family values” are, something the bill’s sponsor had a hard time doing, too. “Think of it as like Mayberry,” state Rep. Stephen Precourt, R-Orlando, said, referring to The Andy Griffith Show. “That’s when I grew up — the ’60s. That’s what life was like. I want Florida to be known for making those kinds of movies: Disney movies for kids and all that stuff. Like it used to be, you know?”

The second is downright unbelievable: 

Calling it "Utah's Fair Solution", a group called Patriots For A Moral Utah is holding a press conference today to announce legislation that would force all homosexuals to leave the state. The bill would create a transportation system for shipping all gays out of the state and would criminalize any Utah citizen who "harbors a remaining homosexual." Here's the press release they sent out yesterday:

Patriots For A Moral Utah are pleased to announce a press conference tomorrow, at which time we will announce a new bill which outlining a solution to the problem of homosexuality in Utah. In the past 5 years it has become increasingly difficult and troublesome for the stead-fast and moral citizens of Utah to live their lives and their faith in peace, while the homosexuals continually force their choices and behaviors on us. This new legislation, titled the "Utah Fair Solution," will offer a peaceful but effective end to the tribulation in our blessed state. Despite promises from the homosexual activists to be out in force at the press conference, our President Nora Young has scheduled the announcement for 1pm in the Capitol Rotunda (March 8th). Please Join us.

Sincerely;
Paul Jackson
Public Relations
Patriots For A Moral Utah
pauljackson2000@gmail.com

Joe has posted links to the proposed "Fair Solution Initiative" which calls for the "involuntary redistribution or relocation of homosexuals to municipalities outside state boundaries or, to their rehabilitation in state facilities."

PFAW

Lisa Miller's Supporters Praise Her Heroic "Civil Disobedience," Compare Her to Harriet Tubman

ABC 13 in Lynchburg, VA interviewed Lisa Miller's friends and supporters, who claim that they have no idea where she and Isabella have gone but says that they completely support her actions, noting that offers to hide Miller have come in from as far away as Israel.

They say Miller's kidnapping of her daughter and disappearance, calling it a necessary act of civil disobedience in the face of an unjust law and likening it to using the Underground Railroad to escape slavery: 

Friends of Lisa Miller say they don't know where she and her seven-year-old daughter are, but they say they support her decision to leave.

A Vermont court ordered Miller's ex-partner Janet Jenkins custody of their daughter in May, and now it's been six months since Miller's friends say they've had any contact with her.

The case has drawn national attention and has strong ties to Lynchburg. Liberty Counsel is working on filing an appeal to the latest court order, which included handing over Isabella.

Her friends say they understand why she decided to go into hiding. Miller's friends here may have had the last known contact with mother and daughter.

It was January 1 when Linda Wall said she knew for sure her friend Miller and her seven-year-old daughter Isabella had gone into hiding.

"Unbeknowing to any of us... she was doing something behind the scene," Wall said.

Wall has known the mother and daughter since 2004. She had been getting involved as a conservative Christian activist and a self described "former homosexual."

"I was able to leave homosexuality through a miraculous encounter with the Lord," Wall said.

She says about two years ago, she began talking to Lisa Miller about what would happen, if she was ordered to give up custody of Isabella. "Just knowing Virginia law wasn't going to defend her."

That school year Miller taught at Liberty Christian Academy. Wall says, while offers came in from as far away as Israel to hide Miller and Isabella, friends say Thomas Road Baptist church didn't play a part.

"There is nothing more outlandish than that," TRBC Pastor Tipton Killingsworth.

"I am supposed to be the number one suspect because I was so involved in this and I don't know where she is," Wall said.

Lisa Miller's friend Janet Stasulli also has no idea of her whereabouts. "We have no idea where she is."

The last time Wall says she had contact with Miller was in late September. Up to that point, she believes Miller was working behind the scenes on her escape. It’s a decision they support.

"I do support what she's done," Wall said. "When the law is wrong, what's a person to do?"

Likening the situation to the underground railroad during slavery, “Was it Harriet Tubman who risked her life for the underground railroad for the black community? Maybe I am committed to this for the children I might be that one voice."

PFAW

Matt Barber's Two Minute Hate

Via Good As You we see that Matt Barber got together with Concerned Women for America to discuss their mutual opposition to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell and discuss Barber's most recent column in which he asserts that the FDA's policy banning gay men from donating blood should, for some reason, be playing a central role in the debate.

The entire segment was just under fifteen minutes long, but I've edited it down to just over two minutes in an effort to demonstrate that, for all of Barber's supposed concerns about morality or safety or unit cohesion or whatever, he fundamentally just hates gay people, as he wonders if the military will have to "stamp a scarlet G" on the uniforms of gay men so that everyone knows they can't give blood and complains that nobody is willing to acknowledge the "pink elephant in the room," which is that a "radical, obnoxious President" is intent on appeasing "a loud and obnoxious minority of sexual anarchists who are trying to redefine what is or is not normal":

You know, now might be a good time to point out that when Barber released a collection of his rantings in book form last year, it was glowingly blurbed by both Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich.

PFAW

This Is What Happens When The Religious Right Takes Over Your State

When Ken Cuccinelli was running to become Virginia's Attorney General, he made it quite clear that he was a hard-core right-winger who didn't like gays:

"My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong. They’re intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that. ... They don’t comport with natural law. I happen to think that it represents (to put it politely; I need my thesaurus to be polite) behavior that is not healthy to an individual and in aggregate is not healthy to society."

So I guess it comes as no surprise that now that he is in office, he's using his position to press his anti-gay agenda:

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II has asked the state's public colleges and universities to rescind policies that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, arguing in a letter sent to each school Thursday that their boards of visitors have no legal authority to adopt such statements.

In the letter, Cuccinelli (R) wrote that only the General Assembly can extend legal protections to gay state employees -- a move the legislature has repeatedly declined to take, including as recently as this week.

"It is my advice that the law and public policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia prohibit a college or university from including 'sexual orientation,' 'gender identity,' 'gender expression,' or like classification as a protected class within its non-discrimination policy absent specific authorization from the General Assembly," he wrote.

Colleges that have included such language in their policies -- which include all of Virginia's leading schools -- have done so "without proper authority" and should "take appropriate actions to bring their policies in conformance with the law and public policy of Virginia," Cuccinelli wrote.

Last month, Gov. Bob McDonnell signed a decree taking away protections for gay and lesbian state workers in Virginia, so things are really looking up for equality in Virginia under its Republican leadership.

PFAW

Our Nation's Policies Will Now Be Determined Solely By The FDA

I have to ask just when it became standard procedure for anti-gay activists to justify their positions on any issue by pointing to the FDA's blood donation policy?

Peter LaBarbera did it when calling for a "comprehensive federal study on the health risks of homosexual sex" on the grounds that gay sex is more dangerous than smoking. Bryan Fisher did it when claiming that gays should be treated like drug users.  And now Matt Barber is doing it in defending his opposition to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

Reasons for incompatibility are manifold. They are firmly rooted in both common sense and in the "settled" anthropological, sociopolitical and medical sciences, as well as the theological arena. Taken alone, each provides ample justification for maintaining the status quo. Combined, they prove the case. For now – in the interest of brevity – we'll focus on but one: medical science.

Consider that current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM – aka "gays") from donating blood. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration categorically confirm that if MSM were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.

According to the FDA: "['Gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

The FDA further warns: "['Gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in ['gay' men] than in the general population."

A 2007 CDC study further rocked the homosexual activist community, finding that, although "gay" men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

Do the math: If "gays" are allowed to serve openly – as to appease leftists' euphemistic demands for "tolerance" and "diversity" – how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?

As I asked before, since when did the FDA's blood donation policy become the foundation for every other national policy?  And why does this only seem to apply to gays?  If the FDA's policy is so foundational, they why isn't Barber demanding that everyone who is barred from donating blood be likewise be barred from military service, including "people who have recently traveled to or lived abroad in certain countries ... because they are at risk for transmitting agents such as malaria or variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease"?

What is stopping these anti-gay activists from just citing this FDA policy as justification for barring gays from working in hospitals or anywhere in the medical profession ... or from working anywhere, for that matter?  In fact, what is stopping them from citing this policy as justification for instituting wholesale discrimination against gays in all aspects of life?

If the fact that gay men are not allowed to donate blood is enough to justify treating them as criminals and keeping them out of the military, then why not everything else? 

UPDATE: Well, what do you know? Sen. John Kerry is calling on the FDA to remove its ban on gay men serving as blood donors. What will anti-gay activists do if they can't cite this FDA policy to justify their calls for discrimination any more?

PFAW

Donohue: When It Comes to Gays, the GOP Gets All Jittery and Inarticulate

Religious Right activists are predictably upset that Congressional Republicans didn't make more of an effort to prevent Washington, DC's marriage equality law from taking effect:

"I'll be straight with you: I think they could have done more," Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, said of Republican leaders. "We needed a vote, and we didn't get one."

...

"I haven't seen any effort by Senator Bennett to push the legislation, or by the Senate [Republican] leadership," said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the Family Research Council Action.

There are obviously various reasons for why this happened, but Bill Donohue blames it on the fact that Republicans become "jittery" and inarticulate when it comes to speaking out against gays .... go figure: 

William Donohue, the president of the New-York based Catholic League, questioned the party's commitment to a traditional marriage agenda. "They have an inarticulateness about homosexuality that they don't have on economic issues," Mr. Donohue said. "They can talk on and on about the free market, but when it comes to gays, they're jittery."

You know who Republicans could learn from in overcoming their jittery inarticulateness when it comes to attacking gays?  Bill Donohue:

Honestly, is anyone surprised that a conservation between Pat Robertson and Bill Donohue discussing how "intellectually, morally, and spiritually bankrupt" liberals are trying to "tear down society" consists entirely of a five minute rant from Donohue declaring "we're not going to allow gay people to adopt children, that's against nature, it's against nature's god," saying that the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandal was due entirely to gays, and finally asserting that those who don't share his views are nothing but "termites" who are "no more Christian than the Man on the Moon"

PFAW

Concerned Women for America: Dedicated to Keeping Guys In Dresses Out of Montana's Swanky Restaurants

I always enjoy local press coverage that features state representatives of national Religious Right groups because the local leaders tend to be a far more open about their motivations and biases.

Case in point is this article about efforts to gather signatures in support of a proposed "Missoula City Council on a proposed ordinance barring discrimination against LGBT folks in the areas of employment, housing, and public accommodations" that would be the first of its kind in Montana.

Of course, the head of the state chapter of Concerned Women for America opposes it, because if it passes "homosexuals ... will go after people of faith" and "some guy dressed in a dress" would be able to dine at her "swanky restaurant," if she owned one: 

One group has come out in opposition to the Missoula ordinance. Concerned Women for America of Montana state director Patti Kanduch said such legislation will hurt religious business owners who don't want to serve people who are gay or lesbian.

"These homosexuals, once they get this passed, they will go after people of faith whether it's Muslims, Christians, Jews," Kanduch said.

Many churches, such as the University Congregational Church, United Church of Christ in Missoula, embrace LGBT folks. But Kanduch said she doesn't believe members of the LGBT community worship alongside her.

"If they are, then they're being disobedient to God," Kanduch said.

The Concerned Women is a national group that professes family values and religious liberty. Kanduch said it counts 1,200 to 1,500 members in Montana. She does not believe only a few people hold the group's views.

"Oh, no, no, no. We're in the majority, people who are against homosexuality," Kanduch said.

She said religious business owners have won battles in court but lost a lot of money in the fight.

She offered an example of someone she would want to keep out of a business.

"If I had a swanky restaurant, I wouldn't want some guy dressed in a dress just because he wanted to dress that way. I should have a right to say, ‘No. That isn't what I want,' " Kanduch said. "I want a man that's a man and a woman that's a woman. But you know what? There's other restaurants that wouldn't mind."

PFAW

Making a Federal Case Out of Perkins' Rescinded Invitation?

Last week we noted that an episode involving the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins having his invitation to speak at a prayer luncheon at Andrews Air Force Base rescinded was big news on right-wing outlets, with Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association even going so far as to declare it proof that the Constitution is on the verge of collapse and likening it to Dred Scott and McCarthyism.

The issue continues to outrage the Right and appears as if it is becoming one of those stories that right-wing media outlets will work covering diligently until they can blow it up into an all out "scandal ."

For instance, CNS News has a long article noting that conservative activists are livid about it which quotes no less than six separate leaders voicing their outrate, including Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center (which just so happens to be the parent organization of CNSNews,) Ron Robinson of Young Americans for Freedom, Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America, Alfred Regnery of Regnery Publishing, Elaine Donnell of the Center for Military Readiness, and Gary Bauer of American Values.

But it also quotes several Republican members of Congress, including Rep. Mike Pence who vows that Republicans will "be making appropriate inquiries" about the decision

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CNSNews.com that he’s “disappointed” the Air Force would “un-invite” Perkins because of his positions.

“These actions are out of line with the caution that the heads of the military branches have expressed with regards to this policy,” Inhofe said.

“Each one of them has indicated that it would be best for the Pentagon to finish its review before addressing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a manner that disrupts readiness and recruitment. I wonder if Tony Perkins would have received the same treatment if his views on repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell had matched those of President Obama.”

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, was outraged.

“I think many members (of Congress) are outraged,” Kingston told CNSNews.com. “The mainstream media hasn’t given this as much coverage as they would if they agreed with Perkins. This is something that I think that people will be asking a lot of questions--a harbinger of what may be out there to come, you know, if on a high-profile captain like Tony Perkins, they reject him. They may (start) doing it to everybody else."

Kingston said he thought the Air Force was "using" the incident to send a message to its own chaplains about what they could and could not say from the pulpit.

“(W)hat they were doing is using him to drive a message--that your brand of sermon is no longer welcome in the U.S. military,” he said.

He added: “I think it probably does go beyond the Air Force. They knew there would be a backlash to this, and I think they had a design about that: ‘OK, you know, we want other (chaplains) to understand and pipe down on your personal views on this biblical view, and you believe it, just keep it mellow; we want watered-down messages.’”

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the chairman of the House Republican Conference, said he would be looking into the incident more deeply.

“I hold Tony Perkins in the highest regard, as do pro-family Americans across this country,” Pence said. “And I would hope that the change in the speaking roster had nothing to do with his stated positions on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. But we’ll be making appropriate inquiries,” Pence said.

PFAW

Anti-Gay Diatribe Opens Huckabee, Vander Plaats Event In Iowa

Let's say you have several minutes to fill before your featured guests, Mike Huckabee and Iowa gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats, arrive at your event and take to the podium to speak.

What do you do?

Well you give that time to local radio host Jan Mickelson to spend several minutes railing against gay marriage, of course, just like the Iowa Family Policy Council did earlier this week:

Christians can’t “tolerate” same-sex marriage because to do so would be to give up beliefs and accept the homosexual lifestyle as “healthy and normal,” radio host Jan Mickelson said while introducing GOP gubernatorial hopeful Bob Vander Plaats and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at a public event Wednesday.

Mickelson was addressing a fundraiser for the Iowa Family Policy Center. The influential social conservative organization has formally endorsed Vander Plaats’ campaign and vowed to sit out the November election if he’s not the candidate.

“Personally, I think two guys pretending to be sexual mates are making a mistake,” he said. “More than that, they are violating the design of their bodies. More than that, they are sinning against their maker. More than that, they are likely to shorten their lives in this world and impair their destinies in the next.”

...

Mickelson quickly turned his attention to the current situation in Iowa, saying that because a “a liberal court, a liberal legislature and a liberal governor” are standing up for same-sex marriage, groups like the Iowa Family Policy Center, and candidates like Vander Plaats, must resist.

“I’m really up for it,” Mickelson said. “I’m really up for this ruckus.”

Then Mickelson turned the podium over to Huckabee and Vander Plaats.

PFAW
Syndicate content