If you are gay, you can just grow your own food

In case you were in any doubt that the Republican party line is relentlessly anti-gay, there's this story from Washington state.  First, the back story:  A florist is in trouble for refusing to sell flowers to gay men for their wedding.  It's not because marriage is legal in WA, it's because there's an anti-discrimination statute. So the Republicans want it to be legal to deny ANY service on "religious grounds".  Anything at all.

From Think Progress:

A bill introduced in Washington state last week would allow people to use their “sincerely held religious beliefs” to justify discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation. One activist started calling the bill’s sponsors to find out more about why they supported such a negative bill. His primary question was, “What are rural gays supposed to do if the only gas station or grocery store for miles won’t sell them gas and food?” 

A staffer at state Sen. Mike Hewitt’s (R) office had a unique reply:

Well, gay people can just grow their own food.

The staffer refused to identify himself, and when others called Hewitt’s office, no further comment was offered. The staffer later backpedaled a bit, claiming “patience was lost, mistakes were made, and that’s it,” but still had no comment on behalf of Hewitt. 

The question is a perfectly valid one. Conservatives often argue that if a florist, photographer, baker, or other business refuses service to a same-sex couples, there are plenty of others champing at the bit to support marriage equality. In urban areas, this may generally be true — but it’s not an argument that justifies discrimination. In rural areas, it may very well not be true. What if there is no local alternative? What if the only alternative is more expensive, of a lesser quality, or further away? The proposed bill doesn’t merely exempt those who provide services that might be related to weddings; it exempts all businesses. So it’s quite possible that a rural grocery store might be Christian-owned and attempt to refuse service to a same-sex family, and were this bill to become law, that would be perfectly legal. 

If a lawmaker’s staffer is willing to suggest that the alternative for same-sex families is to be self-sufficient and cut off from society, that should be a clear indication that this bill’s sole intent is animus.

The FRC shooting

By now you know that a disturbed man shot a guard at the Family Research Council in Washington DC. (Thankfully, the guard will be fine). News suggests that the shooter was opposed to the FRC's anti-gay policies.

Brian Brown of the National Organization (against) Marriage (Equality) immediately complained that this is because FRC is called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center because FRC opposes marriage equality. in fact, he suggested that the obviously shooter was carrying out a political agenda.

No, Brian. It is you with the political agenda. The FRC is called a hate group because it tells lies and demonizes LGBT people.

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, anti-bullying programs and the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

Thanks to the GLAD Accountability Project, you can see exactly what people like FRC spokesmen Tony Perkins and Peter Sprigg say about LGBT people.In fact, Sprigg thinks that gay behavior should be criminalized. And you can read more quotes from the FRC at the SPLC site.

Aside: you can also read posts here at my other blog (one, two, three) about the language of violence employed by so-called "Christians" against LGBT people.  And don't get me started on their claim that gay people are anti-Christian.  The right doesn't own the term "Christian" and there are plenty of gay Christians out there.

Meanwhile what about the shooter? He is no more representative of the gay community than the man who shot up the Sikh temple is representative of the Christian community, or the man who killed people at the Batman movie is representative of Neuroscience PhD students.

Although some conservative groups accuse the pro-gay blogosphere of "celebrating" this, the response was not that at all. In fact, 41 pro-gay groups immediately released a statement condemning the violence and sending their prayers and best wishes to the FRC and the victim for healing.

Funny, the conservatives ignore that, instead preferring to demonize the gay community further.

What is the conservative response to disturbed acts of anti-gay violence? In fact, 2011 saw a record high rate of murders motivated by anti gay bias. And what did this conservative pseudo-"Christian" groups have to say about that? what did they say about Bible-verse shouting street preacher  at Grand Rapids GayDay, who threatened to rape a woman attending?

::Crickets::

As Zack Ford writes at ThinkProgress,

Violence is not the answer to solving any conflict and nothing justifies the actions taken Wednesday by Floyd Corkins. But any attempt to use the shooting to justify reinforcing the inequality LGBT people experience everyday is intolerance at its most basic.

Update:  Excellent commentary from Pam's House Blend :

The fact is that the political discourse in this country is at rock bottom — dehumanizing people so that it is easier for those who are filled with rage to act out violently. We see it with the numerous rage-filled hate crimes against LGBTs all the time, race-based preposterous acts claiming to be religious freedom, and comments from public figures like Joe the Plumber’s recent guidance on immigration reform to “Put A Damn Fence On The Border Going To Mexico And Start Shooting.”

Anti gay, anti child,and anti-minority: Amendment 1 supporters

Item:  A minister preaching in favor of Amendment 1 (the drastic North Carolina amendment that would outlaw not only same sex marriages but any form of domestic partnership) advocates beating Teh Gay out of your kids:

"So your little son starts to act a little girlish when he is four years old... Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male."

Because nothing says "parental love" like beating the crap out of your gay kids--and turning them into their own little self-loathing homophobes while you're at it. 

   

Susan Russell, Episcopal priest and outspoken advocate for LGBT justice, takes this guy on,

We're not going to compromise on having the Good News of God's love, justice and compassion that are the core values of our Judeo-Christian heritage hijacked by those who want to turn our religion into a weapon of mass destruction aimed at LGBT people. ... 

Finally, we are most certainly not going to stand by and let the opponents of marriage equality argue that they are "protecting children" while advocating violence against children. You cannot have it both ways.

Jesus said, "Suffer the little children to come to me." He did NOT say "make the little children suffer in order to come to me." Jesus said, "Love your neighbors as yourself." He did NOT say "Love your neighbor unless he has a limp wrist - then give him a good punch."

Violent words beget violent actions and it is long past time for those misusing their bully pulpits to perpetuate bullying behavior against our LGBT youth to be called on it. 

Preach it, sister!

Item: the wife of an Amendment 1 author says its real purpose is to "support the Caucasian race"  From the HuffPo,

According to the alternative Yes! Weekly, writer and campaigner Chad Nance spoke to a pollworker who told him that Jodie Brunstetter said, "The reason my husband wrote Amendment 1 was because the Caucasian race is diminishing and we need to uh, reproduce."

Because apparently if gays marry, well, then white folks won't have babies. or something.  I tell you, the dog whistle is clear:  increasingly, I think anti-gay is code for racist.

Item: Amendment 1 supporters nakedly appeal to religion as the sole justification for denying rights to their fellow citizens. They aren't even pretending there is a rational civil reason for it.

 (One of these days, these guys will realize that putting stuff up on YouTube makes a permanent record that will follow them.  Meanwhile, it makes it easier to see what they really think.)

Calling the commentators to task

It happens all the time. Some neatly dressed conservative is interviewed to represent the anti-equality side of the marriage argument.  They are reasonable sounding, quite earnest, and almost convincing that they  have nothing against gay folks, it's not personal, they just want to protect the traditional definition of marriage.  It's a matter of religious freedom.

But when they aren't on the main stream media--when they are talking to their own true believers, then the gloves come off, the vicious comments come out, the lies, the smears, and the slanders.  It's this behavior that has earned some of them "hate group" status at the SPLC, because they are knowingly, and calculatedly, attacking LGBT people.

GLAAD has started a great initiative called the Commentator Accountability Project  to link these two aspects of the common anti-gay commentators.  Interviewers need to KNOW that  Tony Perkins, frequent guest on MSNBC, calls gay people hateful, spiteful, pedophiles, and terrorists.    Interviewers need to KNOW  that Bryan Fischer considers gay people to be Nazis, and the single biggest threat to American survival.  They need to know that Peter Sprigg thinks gays should be imprisoned, or deported.

Of course, the commentators don't say admit on MSNBC or the BBC.  But they should be taxed with it nonetheless.

This isn't about censorship. This is about transparency.

Naturally the commentators are protesting.  But as ThinkProgress writes, 

In every case, these anti-gay voices are claiming to be victims, but they are only victims of their own quotes....The mere fact that they feel the need to respond by condemning GLAAD’s effort validates the value of this project. Now there is an accessible hub for these quotes — albeit not a full archive (by design) — to ensure that pundits don’t get away with being conservative standard-bearers without taking responsibility for the many dangerous lies and offensive values that define them. The jig is up. 

The genius of CAP is that it creates a lose-lose situation for these would-be pundits. They can try to compensate by doubling down on their most offensive talking points and how loudly and widely they share them. Or, they can proceed with their typical media appearances and attempt to use the victim mentality to obfuscate responsibility for their own views. Either way, they stand to lose public favor, and no matter how they condemn GLAAD, that’s surely why they’re so perturbed.

Debunking anti-gay myths

I have discussed in several places the antipathy of the right towards science, and how they get away with dismissing scientific consensus if it doesn't conform to their views.

THe site LIveScience dismisses 5 prominent myths about LGBT people, pointing at data to show that these are false. THese myths are the misperception that homosexuality doesn't exist in animals, that gay people aren't capable of long-term relationships, claims that gays are pedophiles and vv, or bad parents, or that sexuality is purely a choice. Each of these is demonstrably false. But the right-wingers persist in believing them.

What's depressing is the comments, some of which dismiss the findings as "pro-gay propaganda" and one which strikingly calls for "incurable" gays to be locked up in camps.

They really hate us, don't they?

SPLC report on anti-gay hate groups

You can read the report “The Anti-Gay Lobby: The Family Research Council, the American Family Association and the Demonization of LGBT People” here (PDF).

Attempt to repeal marriage in New Hampshire passes committee

Although New Hampshire now has marriage equality, opponents are trying to pull a Prop8 and repeal it.  From Standing up for New Hampshire Families:

With great disregard for what more than 60% of voters want, the House Judiciary Committee today approved a legislative proposal sponsored by Rep. David Bates (R-Windham) that repeals New Hampshire’s popular marriage law. Today’s vote didn’t pass with even the majority necessary to override the governor’s veto, meaning this effort to undermine New Hampshire families lacks momentum as Republicans and Democrats are united in bipartisan opposition.

Meanwhile, one of the leaders of the effort to repeal cheerfully admits that he wants to repeal civil unions and deny all protections to LGBT couples, but he'll settle for repealing marriage....for now:

While some people may want a complete restoration of marriage, and also having no civil unions or anything like mutual beneficiaries, the political reality is I don’t think that’s possible at this time. The bill isn’t perfect — no bill is — but I still think this is a step in the right direction.

At this time....he fully intends to attack our families further.

Clearly this is a fringe view -- a narrow majority of Americans favor marriage equality, and a much larger majority favor civil unions. But just as they have been able to elevate fringe views into Congress, they are working hard (and one must concede, doing so efficiently) to elevate fringe views into law in the states as well. We have to continue to shine a bright light on the hatred.

Let's be clear. The gloves are off. Because it's not just about the word marriage. It never was.

SPLC debunks 10 common anti-gay myths

Check it out here. I'll have more to say about the SPLC report when I have a chance to read it.

NOM no longer about marriage, but about anti-gay hate

The National Organization for (straight) Marriage is an implacable foe of marriage equality. Up till now it has largely operated as a shadowy money-laundering machine for conservative Roman Catholic and Mormon donors.

 It is well known for its legal efforts to avoid compliance with campaign finance laws in many states--reasoning that opposition to marriage equality is deserving of special protections.

 But it's no longer about marriage equality. NOM is now attacking and demonizing gay people for being gay. The gloves are off.  Equality Matters actually reads NOM's website, and points us to many recent posts there that expose NOM's new strategy.  NOM now says Homosexuality Is “Immorality,” “Evil,” “Darkness Parading Around As Light”. There are many other examples  (also here). As Equality Matters notes,

NOM continues to claim that its “battle is not with an orientation” and that it works with “the love of God and our neighbor in our hearts.” Is this what NOM’s “love” looks like?

Well, I always knew they were hypocrites. As the numbers edge slowly into support for marriage equality nation wide, our foes will become more strident, more vicious, more angry, and more hate-filled. And that's what they are doing.

It therefore becomes even more important for us as a community to challenge the hate groups (NOM, FRC, FotF, ADF, etc etc) every time they lie.  too often their lies are reported by the media as facts. We need to take them on every time, so that it becomes clear that indeed, these people are no different from geocentrists or flat earthers, living a realm of fiction.

Hate crimes: why it matters

There was an horrific crime in MIssissippi this summer. A group of drunk, white teenagers robbed a black man, beat him, and then ran him over while shouting racist slurs.

The victim, James Anderson, was also gay. Which does not appear to have played a part in this particular hate crime.

So why am I mentioning it? Mr Anderson's family has filed a wrongful death suit against the accused teenagers. But, as the NY Times tells us,

James Bradfield, Mr. Anderson’s partner of 17 years, is not a plaintiff. Under Mississippi law, same-sex partners have no claim in civil actions like this, Mr. Dees said.

Got that? Together 17 years, and thanks to a Mississippi hate law, legally invisible.

That's why it matters.

Yes, the FRC is a hate group

Here's a video compilation of the Family Research Council spewing the hate that got them listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. It's as well to remember what they really think of us.

H/T AmericaBlog Gay

Criminalizing The Gay in Montana

Where do these people get off? From The Missoula Independent:

Fourteen years ago the Montana Supreme Court ruled that a state law criminalizing gay sex violates Montana's constitution, yet the Montana Legislature has repeatedly failed to scrub the language, which places homosexuality in the same legal category as bestiality, from the books. ...

In fact, at least one lawmaker, Rep. Ken Peterson, R-Billings, an attorney, argues that the archaic law may still apply in certain situations.

Which situations? According to Peterson, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, there are at least two prosecutable offenses—felonies punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine. One is the "recruitment" of non-gays. "Homosexuals can't go out into the heterosexual community and try to recruit people, or try to enlist them in homosexual acts," Peterson says. He provides an example: "'Here, young man, your hormones are raging. Let's go in this bedroom, and we'll engage in some homosexual acts. You'll find you like it.'" Peterson hasn't actually seen this happen, he says, because "I don't associate with that group of people at all... I've associated with mainstream people all my life."

The other offense, in Peterson's legal opinion, is the public display of homosexuality, since he believes the Supreme Court's decision only applies to private acts behind closed doors. Being gay in public, he says, is a wholly different matter:

"In my mind, if they were engaging in acts in public that could be construed as homosexual, it would violate that statute. It has to be more than affection. It has to be overt homosexual acts of some kind or another... If kissing goes to that extent, yes. If it's more than that, yes."

Words fail. Someone should hold a kiss-in.

Look, this is unlikely to get anywhere. But it exposes the pure and very ugly hatred that underlies much of the opposition.

The nature of violence

The talented blogger Rob Tisinai points out the bigotry of NOM . Brian Brown, NOMs director, writes,

Even I, who’ve heard pretty much everything at this point, was a little shocked to hear one gay marriage supporter say:

“It would be less harmful to me if you would just beat me up in a dark alley. It would be less hurtful to me if you would just spray paint the word f—-t on my garage door. Nothing you could do to me physically would be more hurtful to me than the action you are proposing to take with this resolution.”

If you and I disagree with him about marriage, we are hurting him as much as–more than–if we insulted and beat him?

Does Brian Brown REALLY not get it? As Tisinai writes,

So let me ask Brian: Which would hurt you more — getting beaten up in an alley or having your marriage declared invalid? Having a nasty word spray-painted on your garage door, or never being allowed to marry the one you love?...

See, Brian, the words that so shocked you feel less like emotion-driven unreasonableness and more like a plain and sensible statement of fact.

But you know what really struck me, Brian? You listened to this man’s words — his perfectly reasonable words — and heard in them an accusation of hatred and bigotry. But the man said no such thing. You did. You made that connection all by yourself.

So perhaps now you understand why some of us view you this way.

If that's where Brian is, that he doesn't understand how vile and vicious it is to deny someone the love of their life, how beyond brutality, then he doesn't understand anything. It is further proof that he is unable to see us as fully human, in any way the same as he. Or perhaps he's just too fond of his lucrative business.

Legalizing Discrimination in Utah

From the Salt Lake City Trib, a discussion of a representative who things religious liberty is a valid reason for discrimination. We no longer link to the SLC Trib.

Legalizing Discrimination in Iowa

From the Des Moines Register:

It would be legal for an Iowa business owner who cites religious beliefs to refuse to provide jobs, housing, goods or services to people involved in a marriage that violates his or her religious convictions, according to a bill an Iowa House subcommittee will consider on Wednesday.

House Study Bill 50, called the Religious Conscience Protection Act, would allow a person, business or organization such as a charity or fraternal group to deny services without fear of facing a civil claim or lawsuit if they think doing so would validate or recognize same-sex relationships.

The same-sex exclusion is by itself constitutionally troubling, several legal scholars and civil rights activists said.

However, the bill is so broad that it would legalize a wide spectrum of other discriminatory acts, they said. They raised questions about whether services could be denied if, say, a Christian were married to a Jew or if a woman who is 60 married a man who is half her age and the couple could not procreate.

So far this bill is not moving, which is something, I suppose. Tomorrow: a similar bill in Utah that could ban Mormons. Really......

Gays disproportionately affected by hate crimes

From The Southern Poverty Law Center, which recently declared some of the most prominant anti-gay groups as hate groups, a review of hate crime data.

Although the rash of student suicides drew major media attention for a few days, the reality, gay rights advocates say, is that the LGBT world has been plagued by hate violence for years.

But that’s not the way a hard core of the anti-gay religious right sees it.....anti-gay leaders instead blamed those who sought to protect students from bullying.... Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel said those activists want “to use the tragedies to increase pressure on the real victims: Christians.”

....[B]ullying is only the beginning of the violence experienced by gays in American society. The reality is that homosexuals or perceived homosexuals are by far the group most targeted in America for violent hate crimes, according to an Intelligence Report analysis of 14 years of federal hate crime data. The bottom line: Gay people are more than twice as likely to be attacked in a violent hate crime as Jews or blacks; more than four times as likely as Muslims; and 14 times as likely as Latinos.

A Changing Landscape
Remarkably, most Americans today seem to have a sense of the violence that the LGBT community is regularly subjected to, or in any event are increasingly rejecting extreme religious-right narratives about the alleged evils of homosexuality. An October poll by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute found that 65% of Americans believe “places of worship contribute to higher rates of suicide among gay and lesbian youth” (33% said “a lot” and 32% said “a little”). Seventy-two percent said places of worship “contribute to negative views of gay and lesbian people” (40% said “a lot” and 32% said “a little”).....

Digging In
It is in just such situations — when long-held societal notions about blacks, Latinos, Catholics, homosexuals or other minorities are shifting — that violent backlashes often set in. As groups like Focus on the Family have moderated their positions on homosexuality, a hard core of anti-gay groups, sensing they are being politically marginalized, seem to be growing angrier and more radical still....

A leading criminologist and sociologist of hate crimes, Jack Levin of Northeastern University, sees evidence of the growing radicalization of the fringe in other ways. He says perpetrators of anti-gay hate crimes appear to be getting older. No longer are they dominated by teens engaging in thrill-seeking with predatory gangs of their peers. More and more, he says, lone adults are committing what Levin calls “defensive hate crimes” — crimes carried out in reaction to sweeping social changes that they see as threats to their home, family, religion, culture or country.
...
[T}he hard core of the anti-gay religious right is digging in.

Marriage Repeal Bill Introduced in NH

From the Concord Monitor (my emphases)

A bill repealing the state's gay marriage law would use the same statute to prohibit both incest and same-sex marriage.

...

It [states], "The vast majority of children are conceived by acts of passion between men and women - sometimes unintentionally." Because of that, the bill states, the state has an interest in protecting the union of men and women to increase the likelihood that children will be born and raised by their natural parents.

Bates's bill lists the marriages that would be prohibited to all men and women. Besides same-sex partners, they include marriages to their children, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews.

The bill states that any marriage recognized by New Hampshire before the adoption of the law would remain intact. But any same-sex marriage performed out of state after the law is passed - for example, a marriage performed in Massachusetts - would not be recognized as valid in New Hampshire.

...

Gay marriage became legal in New Hampshire in January 2010. Since then, nearly 1,000 same-sex couples have married.

House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt said recently that repealing gay marriage is not a priority for House leadership, and he will ask the House Judiciary Committee to retain Bates's bill until 2012. The final decision will be up to the committee, which is led by Amherst Republican Rep. Robert Rowe. A public hearing has not yet been scheduled.

Making health decisions for your partner? We can't have that!

Rob Tisinai points out a video from the American Family Association (which SPLC calls a hate group), where the AFA disagree with letting LGBT partners into the hospital to make decisions about their loved ones, because that's like marriage!

they want to recognize domestic partners as the same as marriage. So, eventually, what I think [uh] Health and Human Services is going to do, is gonna ramp this policy up a little bit, and go beyond merely visiting in a hospital room . . . to who’s allowed to make decisions with regards to treatments, if [if] a [uh] person is in the hospital unconcious, those kinds of things. I think where this will eventually head is a domestic partner is the same as a spouse, and they will have equal rights in determining [uh] what those decisions should be.

What's spectacularly missing of course is whom the AFA thinks SHOULD be making decisions when a partner is in the hospital.

What they want is us to die alone. They really do hate us. Really.

Remember, it's not just about "Marriage". It's about ANY recognition at all of us as equal citizens.

The talking points from the hate groups

From the Southern Poverty Law Center, about that tactics from extremist groups who oppose LGBT rights (like the American Family Association or the Family Research Council):

They have gravitated toward three particular tactics: “love the sinner” rhetoric; secular validation; and depicting gays as a global threat.....

Not long ago, anti-gay propaganda was remarkable for its vulgar and wild-eyed tone — depicting homosexuals as immoral, feces-eating, disease-ridden pedophiles. And some of that tone, particularly the idea that gays seek to “recruit” children in school, remains in certain quarters. But that kind of approach doesn’t resonate much with younger audiences, who grew up with positive images of openly gay actors, musicians, artists, politicians and business leaders. As gays came out of the closet, others increasingly found they had gay friends and relatives.

Now, more and more groups on the religious right are framing their arguments with words that are meant to show respect for gays and lesbians. There is no better example of that than the Manhattan Declaration...

Another emphasis has been in seeking secular validation for anti-gay arguments — scientific evidence of the alleged pitfalls of homosexuality. Many on the religious anti-gay right now frame their arguments almost entirely around the idea that homosexuals present various dangers to children, that they will live short and unhappy lives, that they are more vulnerable to disease, and so on.

....There’s just one trouble with this approach. Almost all the “facts” trotted out by the religious right about gays turn out to be false or misleading....

A final new emphasis being used by many of the hard-core anti-gay groups is the charge that homosexuals make up, in effect, an active conspiracy whose agenda includes the destruction of Christianity and, ultimately, Western civilization. Sometimes, their propaganda sounds noticeably like Nazi descriptions of Jewish plots....

...The upshot, in all likelihood, is that violence, hatred and bullying of those perceived as homosexual will continue into the foreseeable future. Although leaders of the hard core of the religious right deny it, it seems clear that their demonizing propaganda plays a role in fomenting that violence — a proposition that has sparked a number of Christian leaders to speak out in the wake of the latest series of tragedies.

“The recent epidemic of bullying-related teen suicides is a wake-up call to us moderate Christians,” the Rev. Fritz Ritsch, pastor of St. Stephen Presbyterian Church, wrote in October in the Fort Worth, Texas, Star-Telegram. “To most unchurched Americans — meaning most Americans — the fruit of the church is bitter indeed. … [T]he bullying crisis has put a fine point on the need for moderates to challenge the theological bullies from our own bully pulpits. We cannot equivocate. Children are dying. We need to speak up. If not now, when?”

SPLC declares AFA, FRC and others are "hate groups"

The American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and other such conservative groups claim to have a principled objection to the reality of homosexuality. But their rhetoric is based in lies, propaganda and hatred--so much so that the Southern Poverty Law Center has declared these groups as "Hate Groups".

For example, regarding the AFA, the SPLC reports,

In 2009, it hired Bryan Fischer, the former executive director of the Idaho Values Alliance, as its director of analysis for government and policy.... Fischer claimed in a blog post last May 27 that “[h]omosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and 6 million dead Jews.” .... Fischer has described Hitler as “an active homosexual” who sought out gays “because he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough.” He proposed criminalizing homosexual behavior in another 2010 blog post and has advocated forcing gays into “reparative” therapy.

Then there's the Faithful Word Baptist Church and its pastor Steven Anderson

Much of his venom was aimed at homosexuals, who he suggests should be killed (“The biggest hypocrite in the world is the person who believes in the death penalty for murderers but not for homosexuals”). In an August 2009 sermon, he attacked the United Methodist Church, saying “10% of their preachers are queers” and adding, “they got a dyke and a faggot behind the pulpit.” He has described gays as “sodomites” who “recruit through rape” and “recruit through molestation.”

And of course, the lying Family Research Council:

[T]he FRC has been a font of anti-gay propaganda throughout its history. It relies on the work of Robert Knight, who also worked at Concerned Women for America but now is at Coral Ridge Ministries (see above for both), along with that of FRC senior research fellows Tim Dailey (hired in 1999) and Peter Sprigg (2001). Both Dailey and Sprigg have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia ...

More recently, in March 2008, Sprigg, responding to a question about uniting gay partners during the immigration process, said: “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them.” He later apologized, but then went on, last February, to tell MSNBC host Chris Matthews, “I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior.” “So we should outlaw gay behavior?” Matthews asked. “Yes,” Sprigg replied. ...

Tony PErkins of the FRC also has links to white supremicists.

The AFA can complain as much as it likes about this designation, but John Aravosis (Americablog) has collected examples of their bile over the years.

The SPLC also debunks 10 of the most prominent anti-gay myths these groups tell--a useful resource.

Update: naturally, the AFA and others aren't happy with this. But their attempt to recycle their lies and propaganda is soundly slapped down by the SPLC here.