Today DADT, tomorrow DOMA?

Some thoughts for the new year from the LA TImes

Today the military, tomorrow the marriage altar?

In an era when gay Americans have seen stunning progress and many setbacks in the quest for equality under the law, many believe 2010 will go down in history as a watershed that will lead inexorably to more legal rights.

Saturday's vote in the Senate to allow the repeal of the federal law banning gays from openly serving in the military is "one of the greatest, if not the greatest, victory in the history of the movement for gay and lesbian equality," said Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a UC Santa Barbara think tank that studies the issue of gays in the military. "Going back thousands of years, the marker of a first-class citizen has always been someone who's been allowed to serve in the military."

Most countries that allow gay marriage, he added, lifted their military bans on gays first.

After all, those soldiers are going to have dependents. Is it in any way justifiable that Pfc Smith has benefits for his wife and children, while Pfc Jones has no coverage for his husband and children?

LA Times Editorial: Obama and marriage

Entitled, Enough agonizing, Mr President:

[I]t's irrational, once same-sex couples are given the practical advantages of marriage, to deny them married status. Civil unions, while a vast improvement over the absence of any recognition of same-sex relationships, are almost by definition second-class arrangements.

The temptation is to think that Obama knows this, and that his reluctance to endorse marriage equality is more political than personal. When he ran for the presidency in 2008, it was the conventional wisdom that supporting gay marriage would be politically fatal. With shifts in public attitudes, that probably will not be the case in 2012. According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 42% of adults now favor same-sex marriage, compared to 37% in 2009. The trend seems clear.

We'd prefer to think that such considerations wouldn't be uppermost in Obama's mind. What should determine his position is logic and the fact that same-sex couples across America, not just those in his circle, yearn for recognition of their relationships. Enough agonizing, Mr. President. Support marriage equality.

The normalization, and moralization, of Teh Gay

A couple of different commentators have responded to the DADT repeal by thinking of what this may change about society's general views of homosexuality and sexual morality.

First, Gabriel Arana, in The American Prospect, sees this as a normalization of the gay identity.

The true fight has been about what it means to say, "I am gay" -- whether the affirmation is cause for social -- and in the military, literal -- ostracism and exclusion or whether it's a neutral means of describing yourself.

....To religious conservatives, allowing gay people to say who they are is a dire threat to society and the military. … Allowing service members to know their gay colleagues is so threatening to religious conservatives because, as studies have shown, actually knowing a gay person is the best predictor of how one views homosexuality. Once service members can utter the words "I am gay" without an official state sanction, the culture-war battle has largely been won.

Sounds nice, kinda like the HRC representative who was quoted as saying

"If you can fight and die for your country, there's absolutely no reason why you can't be granted the full set of rights" that others have, including the ability to marry a same-sex partner….Americans will deduce that on their own. We won't have to say a thing."

(Keep thinking those happy thoughts, which are yet another example of the disconnect of the HRC from reality. But I digress).

I think it's too simplistic to assume that the awareness of LGB people in the military will make the entire LGBT community somehow validated. It's not all going to get better instantly. It'll help, sure, but it's not enough just to normalize Teh Gay. We are arguing to MORALIZE Teh Gay.

Writing in Slate, Will Saletan tackles this, beginning with confronting the slippery slope argument. We have to "de-sex" who we are, to distinguish this battle from a general loosening of sexual morality.

Shouldn't someone who risked their life for this county be able to marry someone of the same sex, or more than one person, or a biological relative? Or at least share a life with the person(s) he or she loves without a fear that their own government will be against them? Is bravery and valor negated if a man loves another man, or his long lost sister?

Laugh or snort if you want to, but it's a serious question. If DADT repealers are correct that sex is a matter of personal liberty and it doesn't matter "who you love," why shouldn't that defense cover polyamory and sibling couples? Switzerland is proposing to drop its incest law on exactly this basis. …

You can argue that homosexuality is quite different. But to make that case, you have to go beyond privacy and consent. You have to draw moral distinctions. Homosexuality isn't just a matter of who you love. It's a matter of who you are. And it's compatible with traditional sexual values.

The conservative assumption about homosexuality, freely vented in the DADT debate, is that it's a "behavior" and "lifestyle." But nobody who's gay experiences it that way. You don't choose to be gay. You just are gay. …

If homosexuality is an orientation rather than a preference or choice—if it's a matter of who you are, not who you love—then it's detachable from other kinds of sexual deviance. In fact, it isn't deviant. A gay person can be just as faithful and monogamous as a straight person. And military rules of sexual propriety can apply just the same….

If the fall of DADT is ultimately interpreted this way—as a rethinking of homosexuality, not of sexual morals generally—it won't satisfy libertines or libertarians. But culturally, it might prove easier to digest. Is homosexuality about who you love or who you are? That debate, unresolved by the fight over DADT, will rage on.

I agree with Saletan. I don't think that the LGBT community should be reduced to a sex act. The conservatives constantly attack us with participating in a "if it feels good, do it" hypersexualized culture. But that's not what I'm fighting for. I'm actually quite conservative on issues of sexual morality, which is why the fight for MARRIAGE matters.

(A further take-down of the "slippery slope" argument is here, which distinguishes the potential harm and societal benefits of each. Worth a read.)

What do you think?

Maggie Gallagher meets St Peter (video Sunday)

May your Christmas be merry and gay

Comments from Obama about marriage

First, President Obama gave an interview to Kerry Eleveld of the Advocate, where he admitted his views on marriage are evolving.

The sentiment I expressed then is still where I am — which is, like a lot of people, I’m wrestling with this. My attitudes are evolving on this. I have always firmly believed in having a robust civil union that provides the rights and benefits under the law that marriage does. I’ve wrestled with the fact that marriage traditionally has had a different connotation. But I also have a lot of very close friends who are married gay or lesbian couples.

And squaring that circle is something that I have not done yet, but I’m continually asking myself this question, and I do think that — I will make this observation, that I notice there is a big generational difference. When you talk to people who are in their 20s, they don’t understand what the holdup is on this, regardless of their own sexual orientation. And obviously when you talk to older folks, then there’s greater resistance.

And so this is an issue that I’m still wrestling with, others are still wrestling with. What I know is that at minimum, a baseline is that there has to be a strong, robust civil union available to all gay and lesbian couples.

Then, he made a similar comment to Jake Tapper of ABC news at a Press Conference.

With respect to the issue of whether gays and lesbians should be able to get married, I've spoken about this recently. As I've said, my feelings about this are constantly evolving. I struggle with this. I have friends, I have people who work for me, who are in powerful, strong, long-lasting gay or lesbian unions. And they are extraordinary people, and this is something that means a lot to them and they care deeply about.

At this point, what I've said is, is that my baseline is a strong civil union that provides them the protections and the legal rights that married couples have. And I think -- and I think that's the right thing to do. But I recognize that from their perspective it is not enough, and I think is something that we're going to continue to debate and I personally am going to continue to wrestle with going forward.

Then, Vice President Biden commented that marriage equality is "inevitable":

Biden said there is "an inevitability for a national consensus on gay marriage."

"I think the country's evolving," he said. "And I think you're going to see, you know, the next effort is probably going to be to deal with so-called DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). He said he agreed with Obama that his position in gay marriage is "evolving."

However, this article in the WaPo points out that marriage will be a tough sell--right now, anyway.

Much more likely is some movement on DOMA, however, for those who ARE legally married. Expect resistance on that, too. The Right Wing is all for state's rights, except when they don't like the rights the states give.

Still, I'll take these comments by Pres Obama and VP Biden as a nice little lift for my Christmas!

New LGBT advocacy site: Equality Matters

Equality matters is a new "communications war room for gay equality" from Media Matters featuring heavy hitters like Kerry Eleveld (Washington DC correspondent for the Advocate) and Richard Soccarides (former Clinton advisor and LGBT activist)


They also have a blog, which is frequently updated and keeping track of the media. Particularly the "free pass" given anti-gay talking heads by main stream venues like the WaPo. There's also commentary:

The key issue President Obama and other policymakers face now is gay marriage. In the civil rights community, it has become a litmus test of sorts on whether one supports full equality. …While some policymakers still exist in both parties who think that support for marriage equality is too much to ask, positions on this issue are changing rapidly as the culture of the country progresses. ….Supporting full equal rights is no longer out of the political mainstream, nor should we let our elected officials fail to seize this moment in history to embrace the dignity of each and every human being. Anyone who misses the opportunity will undoubtedly find themselves on the wrong side of history.

I've added them to the advocacy links on the sidebar. Putthem in your reader--you want to keep up with them.

UN votes to condemn gay executions

Remember a few weeks ago when the UN narrowly voted to eliminate condemnation of execution on the grounds of sexual orientation? From UN Ambassador Susan Rice (my emphases)

Today, the United Nations General Assembly has sent a clear and resounding message that justice and human rights apply to all individuals regardless of their sexual orientation.

Several weeks ago, on November 16, the General Assembly’s Third Committee voted by a narrow margin to eliminate any mention of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals from a resolution condemning extrajudicial killing of vulnerable people around the world. The United States fought hard for that reference when it came to a Committee vote, and we lost. As I have said before, I was incensed by that vote.

In the weeks following that setback, the United States was proud to introduce an amendment to restore this critical language to the biennial resolution on Extrajudicial, Summary, and Arbitrary Execution before it came for a final vote of the full UN General Assembly. On December 10, at an event marking Human Rights Day, I announced our effort and said, “We’re going to stand firm on this basic principle, and we intend to win.”

The U.S built a broad coalition of partners and together we galvanized member states to support this effort – and to win.

Today, the General Assembly voted by a significant margin, 93 to 55, to approve the U.S.-led amendment and condemn the extrajudicial killing of people around the world due to their sexual orientation.

The voices of civil society and human rights defenders around the world have been heard today, and for that my delegation is especially proud. Less than two weeks after we celebrated the 62nd anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, today’s vote ensures that the principles enshrined in that Declaration are put into practice – and indeed live on – in the 21st Century.

That's good news. But let's not forget that being gay is a capital crime in many countries around the world, particularly in the third world. A sobering list of punishments can be found at the website Foreign Policy. And this report from NPR talks about how the violence against LGBT people in Uganda is traceable directly to American evangelicals.

DADT consigned to history--almost.

The DADT repeal was signed today, which will allow LGB service members to be open about who they are. (Transgenders are in a different category, militarily speaking, and are not covered by DADT nor by the repeal).

As the NY Times noted, the Defense Dept plan for repeal (PDF) was released at the same time as the survey of the troops, to little attention. It makes it clear that there is a plan for implementation that has thought through the common concerns. The theme is Leadership-Professionalism-Respect.

Regarding religious freedom:

Service members are not expected to change their personal religious or moral beliefs; however, they are expected to treat all others with dignity and respect, consistent with the core values that already exist within each Service.

Service members do not have the right to refuse duty or duty assignments based on a moral objection to another’s sexual orientation.

Service members remain obligated to follow orders that involve interaction with others who are gay or lesbian, even if an unwillingness to do so is based on strong, sincerely held, moral or religious beliefs. As expressed in the Manual for Courts-Martial regarding a Service member’s obligation to obey orders: “the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order .”

Those who disagree:

The views and beliefs of those who are opposed to “open” service by gays and lesbians on well-founded moral or religious grounds are not being rejected, and leaders have not turned their backs on them. We do not expect individual Service members to change their personal religious or moral beliefs about homosexuality, but we do expect every Service member to treat all others with dignity and respect, consistent with the core values that already exist in each Service.

Chaplains:

The Service should reiterate the principle that chaplains, in the context of their religious ministry, are not required to take actions inconsistent with their religious beliefs, but must continue to care for all Service members, and that evaluation, promotion, and assignment of chaplains will remain consistent with these long-standing principles.

What about sexual behavior?

Service standards of conduct must be sexual orientation neutral. All members are responsible for upholding and maintaining the high standards of the U S military at all times and in all places.

And those benefits...

The Defense of Marriage Act and current benefit laws do not allow the Department of Defense to extend many key benefits—including dependent medical coverage, dependent-rate BAH, and dependent-based travel and transportation allowances—to a Service member in a relationship with a same-sex partner …

For the time being, all Service members not in a Federally-recognized marriage will be treated as “single” for the purposes of benefits eligibility. The Department of Defense is studying ways to extend additional benefits to Service members to improve personal readiness, especially during deployments and other stressful times.

Of course, the backlash has begun:

• Mitch McConnell tried to block the repeal with a poison amendment to the Defense bill.
• A Virginia state Delegate wants to bar gays from the Virginia National Guard (what do we expect from the State of Hate?)
• And several antigay groups pledge to repeal the repeal.

As many pundits have noted, having gays serve openly in the military will scuttle many of the arguments the opposition has used to keep us demonized as "the other." It's a big crack in the wall of "normalcy." And it's hard to see how DOMA can last if a brave lieutenant can't have benefits for his legal husband.

Still, expect the shrill hysteria to get louder before it gets better. And of course, the repeal may be signed, but DADT is still the law until it is "certified" properly. That could take months or longer. LGB servicemembers will continue in the closet till then.

Photo from NY Times

A new DOMA case

On Friday, a new DOMA case began: Golinski v OPM. I've told you previously about the ongoing effort of Karen Golinski, an employee of the Ninth Circuit court of appeals, to get medical coverage for her wife. (The Ninth Circuit is hearing the Prop8 appeal.)

Chief Judge Kozinski, who heard Golinski's employee grievance, agreed, because the Ninth does not allow discrimination on the basis of orientation. But the Office of Personnel Management refused to comply because of DOMA. (It's a great irony that OPM is headed by John Berry, the highest ranking gay appointed by President Obama.)

Now, Ms Golinski is suing OPM in US District Court. The Advocate reports,

Part of Lambda's argument against OPM in this case is that DOMA is unconstitutional, specifically because it discriminates based on sex and sexual orientation and it infringes on the right to privacy. Lambda is arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which in 2003 overturned laws against sodomy, set a precedent for the federal government respecting one's familial relationships.

Lambda Legal also plans to tell district court judge Jeffrey White that he need not find DOMA unconstitutional to rule that Golinski's spouse is entitled to health insurance. "OPM, under the authority of President Obama, is part of the Executive Branch of the federal government, and lacks authority to override internal personnel decisions made by the Judicial Branch as it works to end discrimination against lesbian and gay court employees," says a press release from Lambda Legal.

It's worth reminding you that OPM has already been sued twice on DOMA: First in Gill v OPM. In this case, a legally married Massachusetts resident sued for a federal work benefit for her wife. Federal Judge Joseph Tauro found that the clause of DOMA that prevents federal recognition of legal same sex marriages was unconstitutional. Obama's Department of Justice is appealing the ruling. (The appeal is necessary if it is to extend beyond Massachusetts--it has to get into the Circuit courts of appeal and up to the SCOTUS).

The second case, currently pending, is Pederson v OPM, which challenges state and private entities that rely on DOMA to deny benefits to married same sex couples.

Now we can add Golinski v. OPM. As always, I will follow these here..

Picture from the Advocate

Civil Unions: A love Story (Video Sunday)

Voices of Faith Speak Out: taking on Leviticus

Writing in the Washington Post, Bishop Gene Robinson on misuse of the Bible:

First, and most famous, of the scriptural texts used to condemn homosexuality are the two references in the Holiness Codes of Leviticus... 

In practice, we modern day Christians have regarded most of the injunctions in the Holiness Codes of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as culturally bound to the ancient times of the Hebrews--but not binding on us. These same purity codes forbid eating shellfish, planting a field with two different kinds of seed or wearing simultaneously two kinds of cloth. They would prohibit us from ordaining to the priesthood any handicapped person - not to mention women. We cannot, then, isolate these passages about homosexual acts and impute to them the kind of enduring authority which we ascribe to nothing before or after these passages. One has to wonder why the biblical literalists who cite this passage against homosexuality don't seem to go all the way and advocate for death as the punishment for homosexual behavior! We cannot have it both ways.... 

Given these changes in our modern understandings and contexts, it is no longer appropriate for us to condemn men who have intimate sexual relationships with other men based on this proscription in the Leviticus Holiness Code. Either all of these proscriptions must be tossed out as binding on us, or they all must be adhered to. Biblical "literalists" cannot have it both ways, picking and choosing which proscriptions are still appropriate.

DADT passes the Senate 65-31

Now the Pentagon can move ahead with plans to end this stupid policy. But LGBT servicemembers can't leave the closet just yet. NY Times story here.

But the Senate is still broken. B efore the DADT vote, the DREAM act got 55 votes, in the modern Senate, but that isn't enough to move it ahead. This act would give young people who grew up with illegal status a path to citizenship through the military.

DADT news

Having torpedoed the Defense bill because of Teh Gay, John McCain continues his attacks.

So they took the not-quite-repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" out of the big bill, and made it a stand alone bill.

Challenge One: get the House to pass this new bill. Which they did, bless 'em, at even higher rates than before: 250-175.

Some cover might be provided by this new ABC/WaPo poll showing 77% of Americans support DADT repeal .

Now, it's back to the Senate. Harry Reid filed cloture and it will come up for a vote tomorrow (Saturday).

Amazingly, enough REpublican Senators agree that it might actually pass.

Whether the votes are in place no longer appears in doubt. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) endorsed repeal on Wednesday, and Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) was even stronger in his support yesterday morning. By mid-day, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) confirmed that she's a "yes" as well.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) announced late yesterday that he will be treated for prostate cancer today, but he also expects to be on the floor to support DADT repeal.

By my count, that's 61 votes, and if passage appears assured, I wouldn't be surprised if a few other Republicans jumped on the bandwagon when all is said and done.

But don't be complacent. The Republicans are still capable of great mischief. If your Senator is a Republican, even if they say they support repeal, they STILL need to hear from you to prevent their spine from wavering.

Meanwhile, activist Dan Choi, removed from the Army for being gay, has been hospitalized for a nervous breakdown-- a reminder of the many human costs of this policy.

From a gay soldier:

The silence is the hardest part. I listen intently as my fellow soldiers talk about facing the reality of leaving their loved ones for a year and all the life events that will be missed. I don't talk about my own experience at all, because it's easier to come across as cold and removed than to risk slipping and mentioning that my loved one is of the same gender. For all I know, there are other gay soldiers in my unit, ones who understand what I'm going through. My gay friends in civilian life are supportive, but they don't often understand the military or soldiering. That camouflage is another burden I carry as I prepare to leave.....

]I'm reminded of the moral courage of my partner, who encourages me everyday to continue to put on that uniform; who believes that some things are worthy of our energies; who quietly plods along and prepares for my deployment as I do the same. I know as a soldier, it is the people we leave behind who bear the real brunt of deployment, who hold it all together, who send the care packages and pray for our returns. He'll have to do it on his own though. There are no support groups for the gay partners left back home.

In the meantime, gay soldiers who are still serving in silence will continue to put on our rucksacks and do what our country asks of us –- and wait.

Cartoon from Mike Luckovich

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.

Just a word? the prop8 appeal

Technically, lesbian and gay Californians who get a domestic partnership get all the rights the state provides married straight couples.

(How you get it is rather different, of course: you download your DP form from the internet, rather than go personally to the county clerk; notarize it at Kinko's, rather than have a JP, marriage commissioner, or minister perform a marriage, and then you mail in to the state with a check, rather than file with the county to be sent a proper copy. But i digress.)

So, there is really nothing that marriage in the state of California confers that is different than a DP.

And that may be the crux of the appeal. Because with Prop8, the voters did not take away any of those RIGHTS associated with marriage--the California Supreme Court ensured that. They simply took away the WORD marriage, which is freighted with symbolic meaning. As Attorney Therese Stewart argued for the plaintiffs, the only reason to do that was to deny lesbian and gay Californians access to the symbolism: they wanted them to be treated as a separate, lesser class.

The questioning by the judges in the district court suggest that this affirmative act of taking away the symbolism of the word, and not anything of substance, may make Prop8 particularly vulnerable on Constitutional grounds.

Taken further, this viewpoint would suggest that once you give LGBT people any partnership rights, then you are creating them as a second class by denying them marriage. By this argument, states with DPs may indeed be on the "slippery slope" to marriage equality, while those states that deny their LGBT citizens any protections may be inoculated.

This does not get into the thorny area of "strict scrutiny" of LGBT people as a class or equality issues overall. While that's the question Ted Olson wants to litigate (one that could have nation-wide significance to the equality movement), that may not be the question upon which these judges will rule.

Instead, it may all hinge on the fact that we had the right to get married--and 18,000 of us did. And then the voters took it away.

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?”

How to recognize a lesbian (video Sunday)

Voices of Faith Speak Out: Fan the Flame of Love

Excerpts from sermon by the Rev Ed Bacon, Episcopal Priest

Selective Science

One of the features of the conservative movement is a suspicion of the educated. As David Frum recently pointed out, it's an odd characteristic of American populist movements that it's the educated elites that they attack, rather than the economic elites that actually oppress them. THis leads to suspicion, where as Frum says

many refuse to believe that the so-called experts care for the interests of anyone beyond their narrow coterie and class.

. Little wonder that educated people continue to move away from the Republican culture of ignorance.

In the case of LGBT rights, those opposed to equality refuse to believe myriad findings that homosexuality is a normal human variant and not a pathology, that kids of gay parents do just as well as kids of straights, and they peddle such endless lies and propaganda that the Southern Poverty Law Center labels many of them "hate groups."

The media plays into this, in an aberrant expression of "balance" that gives the most perverse minority view equal standing with actual mainstream thought.

In fact recently Dan Savage called out CNN for giving Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council "equal time" to peddle his lies.

The Southern Poverty Law Center labels these groups as hate groups and yet the leaders of these groups, people like Tony Perkins, are welcomed onto networks like CNN to espouse hate directed at gays and lesbians. And similarly hateful people who are targeting Jews or people of color or anyone else would not be welcome to spew their bile on CNN.

They invent official sounding organizations, like the so-called College of Pediatrics, which is really about a hundred conservative malcontents founded by George "lift my luggage" Rekers, who dislike the fact that the mainstream medical community accepts gay people. The American Academy of Pediatrics, which is the real organization of 60,000 pediatric professionals, is supportive of LGBT people and of same sex marriage.

Last week, Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball, had to clarify that this group cited by Perkins as a justification for his bile is a fringe offshoot.

Notorious anti-gay activist Paul Cameron, who has been thrown out of the mainstream groups and willfully misrepresents the facts, actually says

“We can no longer rely — as almost all pro-family organizations do today — on gleaning scientific ‘bits’ from those in liberal academia… . [W]e must subvert the academy by doing original, honest research ourselves and use this to advance the historic Christian faith"

Remarkably Cameron continues to get away with this. He out and out lies, but still manages to provide a veneer of respectability to the other side, despite the fact he has been soundly repudiated by a vast majority of physicians. And he keeps at it: this from a recent interview

God’s 11th Commandment is “Thou shalt not corrupt boys,” Cameron told me. He celebrated the Ugandan anti-gay bill, in which the penalty for gay activity could be death. “Whatever they decide, I’m OK with,” he said.

Cameron believes homosexuality should be criminalized in America. He proposes heavily taxing single American adults and homosexuals because of their failure to procreate. He would also like to see gays undergo a “public shaming,” though he offered no specifics.

Amazingly, he still gets an outlet for this crap.

They do it with official sounding words, but examination of the data shows that they focus on small reports and on mis-stating the findings of actual papers to the dismay of the authors.

The same sort of selective facts are characteristic of the conservative attacks on climate change, evolution, as well as other issues. Do you remember the cigarette company CEOs standing in front of Congress, each stating "I do not believe smoking causes cancer"? An excellent book documenting this is The Republican War on Science.

In a world where knowledge drives economic growth and development, this legitimization of fringe viewpoints as somehow "equal" to the mainstream is a dangerous step into willful ignorance.

So how do we counter this gullibility of the media and calculating abuse by the opponents of actual facts? One way is to be ever vigilant. The bad guys are good at sounding "official," which is why Chris Matthews fell for the College of Pediatrics But he was called to task and corrected it. Now it would have been more effective if he had been aware enough to challenge it when it started--but expecting our media to be informed and responsible appears a pipe dream. (Except for Anderson Cooper, who is pretty on the ball).

Another way is to work to get the facts out there. Of course, people must be susceptible to the facts, which leaves out the tea party persuasion, but there are still reachable people in the middle.

It's why I keep writing, and sourcing this stuff, in hopes that I can give my readers the resources needed for vigilance.