FRC gets Called Out by SLDN

The Service Members Defense League has gotten lots of publicity over their suit to overturn the DADT policy in federal court. Bay Windows has more.

The SLDN has called out the FRC. This is good.... This is exactly the debate we want to have. From the FRC Daily Bleating:

To: Friends of Family Research Council
From: Tony Perkins, President
December 9, 2004 - Thursday

Sexual Chaos in the Military

This week's news illustrates a perfect storm of sexual chaos that has descended upon virtually all institutions in American society--including the armed forces. First, a group of former service members sued to overturn the military's ban on homosexual conduct--a cause they believe was aided by an Army court decision overturning the criminal conviction of a soldier who engaged in a heterosexual sex act "in a military barracks." Meanwhile, the judge advocate general of the Air Force may lose his job for "fraternization" with various women, and sexual harassment and assaults are reported to be rampant at the Air Force Academy. All these stories suggest that Congress acted wisely when it codified the military ban on homosexual conduct on the grounds that putting people with sexual attractions to one another in conditions of "forced intimacy with little or no privacy" had the potential to undermine "morale, good order and discipline." The last thing the military needs right now is to inject yet more sexual tension into the ranks. The current crisis is a good illustration of what happens when you loosen the bonds which once limited legitimate sexual relations to the marriage of one man and one woman. (FRC Daily Bleating)

There's good reasons to prohibit fraternization in the military because that does undermine unit cohesiveness. However the FRC is not able to make their case that Gays shouldn't be allowed to serve. This policy actually puts military women at higher risk of sexual harrassment, because Lesbian baiting can be used as a means of sexual blackmail.

Allowing gays to serve openly in the military doesn't do anything to change the military rules about sexual harrassment.

I predict we will see more nonsense like this from the FRC Bleaters.... I've gotten Tom Prichard of the Minnesota Family Council on record saying that he believes there ought to be an oral sex exemption in the Minnesota Sodomy Law for married couples. I wonder if Prichard thinks there should be a similar exception in the sodomy provision of the UCMJ.

Developing.....

Michigan Democratic Governor Punts on defending State Contracts

Kind of the way the Democrats in Minnesota did two years ago. Log Cabin Republicans of Michigan comments.

Gov. Granholm’s action in agreeing to the terms of the resolution prior to any vote by the legislature is also nothing more than political tactics in its worst form. Open debate would have demonstrated the resolutions as yet another mean-spirited attack on GLBT families, but by quietly submitting to the demands of Rep. Bradstreet and his extremist allies, Gov. Granholm has shown that she lacks the vision, integrity, and courage to lead Michigan for another term. Gov. Granholm and Rep. Bradstreet have both shown that they’re bad for Michigan. The result of all of this political pandering will be a loss to the citizens of Michigan, both in terms of lost productivity of state employees, but also the millions of dollars the state could shell out in legal fees defending this action, especially if the case is lost at trial. We at LCRM had hoped for better, and the people of Michigan deserve better value from their political leaders.

The Log Cabin Republicans of Michigan have issued this statement both to condemn Rep. Bradstreet for his betrayal of Republican principles and for Gov. Granholm’s eleventh-hour pandering to the forces of bigotry. We also call upon all of the fair-minded legislators in the Republican Party to rise in opposition to these punitive and discriminatory resolutions.

Great press release.....

Britain's ExGay Ministry Renounces Goal of Converting Gays to Being Straight

They explain here. Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan.

FRC on the Defensive about UCC Ads

Their Daily Bleating weighed in today:

Pro-Gay Ads Bumped for Being Slanderous, Not "Controversial"

Pro-homosexual activists and the United Church of Christ are now howling about the decision of the NBC and CBS television networks not to air a new ad for the liberal denomination. The ad shows two muscular bouncers working a rope line outside a church, denying entry to two men holding hands. They also turn back black, Hispanic, and disabled worshippers. An on-screen message then declares, "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we." Ads shouldn't be rejected by TV networks merely because they address "controversial" issues--our freedoms of speech and of the press require the airing of all kinds of viewpoints. However, this ad is offensive because it falsely implies that conservative churches would exclude homosexuals from their worship services. Indeed, most churches would welcome them--where better to hear a gospel message offering the promise of forgiveness and eternal life to all who repent of their sins? And it is also false to equate disapproval of homosexual behavior with racism. It's because they defame conservative Christians, not because they are "controversial," that these ads have no place on TV.

Additional Resources
The Bible, The Church, and Homosexuality

Under this definition, CBS and NBC shouldn't be taking ads from FRC that promote the Federal Marriage Amendment on the grounds that the ads defame gays.

In other words, we can't have Churches ministering to gays who decide not to repent, and make fruitless efforts to change from gay to straight.

The more these ads get the discussion going, the better. This is a very important debate for Churches to have. Too many gays turn away from Christianity because the Church all too often turns on gays.

So-called "Pro-Family" Activist Calls on RNC to Fire Gays

From the Agape Press....

...A pro-family activist from Virginia says voters who put Republicans in office should demand that politicians not employ key personnel who don't hold the conservative views that the party promotes. That activist says the Capitol Hill office of Virginia Senator George Allen is a good example. Senator Allen is head of the Republican Senatorial Committee and was a key figure in the GOP's big victories in November. But Joe Glover, president of the Virginia-based Family Policy Network, says something is very wrong. Glover says homosexual publications have outed at least six members of the senator's office as homosexuals. He says one homosexual activist even went so far as to say Allen had the "gayest office on Capitol Hill." Pro-family conservatives, he says, need to make sure Senator Allen hears their voices. "If someone is going to run the day-to-day operations for the Republican apparatus to elect U.S. senators across the country, then dog-gone-it, it better not be somebody who practices a lifestyle that is diametrically opposed to the evangelical Christian base that delivered George W. Bush and the Republicans in the Senate the victory they saw in November," he says. Glover says Allen's executive director recently resigned because he was outed as a homosexual.

John Aravosis comments:

I had to laugh when I read the religious right bitching that Senator George Allen's staff is too gay. Allen is being replaced as the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee by Elizabeth Dole, and the reports I've been hearing say her staff is as gay as Allen's. And Dole herself even reportedly had a meeting with her staff to let them know she wouldn't fire any of them for being gay. That sounds like she's already staked out a position opposite of what the religious right is now demanding.

To this one, I commented:

Good for Liddy Dole for doing that.... I can't imagine Dole's opponent for this job, Norm Coleman doing the same.

Do you really want Republicans to fire gay staff? Is that what you are advocating?

I remember a while back the Quistanistas in Minnesota (so named because they followed the anti-gay Republican, Alan Quist), were up in arms because former Senator Rod Grams had a gay staff member. They wanted this guy fired. Grams to his credit, paid no attention to this nonsense. Log Cabin Republicans of Minnesota had offered to do a press release praising Grams for his courage, but for some reason, the Grams campaign wanted none of that.

Aravosis has claimed to me, that he sees the need for a bipartisan strategy for gay rights activists. However posts like this suggest otherwise.

Good Legal Blog

Here....

Does Masturbation Cause Pregnancy?

Henry Waxman's report on the Abstinence Only programs has gotten alot of attention. This report exposes how the curriculum in these programs lies on many points. Among the lies: AIDS is spread through sweat and tears and that pregnancy can be caused by mutual masturbation. James Carville rips this one on Crossfire here.

CARVILLE: One of the things that they teach is, is that you can get pregnant through masturbation. I don't know how to say this, but it's something I have some familiarity with.

(LAUGHTER)

CARVILLE: And I have never gotten pregnant.

(LAUGHTER)

CARVILLE: I have never known anybody to get pregnant through masturbation.

(APPLAUSE)

GENEVIEVE WOOD, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Well, James, I frankly think it's a waste of time to spend time on this show trying to debate mis -- half-truths, misleading information, which is exactly what the Waxman report is. Let's be clear.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: But you can't get pregnant through masturbation, can you?

WOOD: Well, hold on. Well, hold on.

Look, everything in that report that Waxman put out there is taken out of context.

CARVILLE: Right.

WOOD: I have spoken to people who have talked to all the individuals who do those programs in the schools. They say it's -- they are lying about some of the things they say and much of it are mistruths. Waxman has an agenda. Come on. Waxman...

CARVILLE: Can we agree that masturbation does not cause pregnancy, just -- it's simple enough. Yes or no?

WOOD: I'm not going to debate that thing -- no, I'm not talking going to talk -- that's not what this is about.

CARVILLE: Well, can you...

WOOD: That's not what this is about. What this is about is a political agenda.

(CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: Why are you going tell kids that they can get -- why do you lie to kids?

WOOD: Why is it, for 30 years, the -- quote, unquote -- "comprehensive sex-ed movement," those who want to pass out condoms in schools, for 30 years, have gotten all the federal dollars? They have had 30 years in the classrooms having their way with our kids. What's happened from that? Sexually transmitted diseases among teenagers have skyrocketed.

(CROSSTALK)

(APPLAUSE)

CARVILLE: Teenage pregnancies are down. Teenage pregnancies are down. Actually, it's working. I don't know how to tell you this, but it's working.

WOOD: Pregnancies are down.

CARVILLE: Right.

WOOD: But STDs have skyrocketed, which shows you, yes, condoms may help...

CARVILLE: Well, can you catch an STD through masturbation?

WOOD: In some cases, yes. Hold on, James.

CARVILLE: Would you like to teach people not to masturbate? Is that -- what is that, the agenda? You want to teach them that with creationism and all that other nutty stuff you got?

WOOD: I think we ought to be giving our kids the full truth. And for 30 years, the establishment in this country has not been doing that. You've been passing out condoms, saying you're going to be safe.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: So we should lie to them.

WOOD: You've been lying for 30 years.

CARVILLE: We should tell them that condoms can't work and that they can get pregnant through masturbation and all that other goofy stuff?

WOOD: James, well, maybe you don't care about this because you are a man.

CARVILLE: I don't care if they masturbate. They're going to do it anyway, whether I tell them to or not.

WOOD: Maybe you don't care about this because you are a man, but the HPV virus, which is the leading cause of cervical cancer in this country, you are not protected from that by a condom. That hurts a lot of women in this country. And when you tell teenage girls that, using a condom, being with a boyfriend who uses a condom is going to keep them safe, that's a lie. And you guys have to own up to that.

CARVILLE: I'm all for telling people the truth.

FALWELL: Patricia, let me tell you why I believe we ought to teach abstinence in the schools.

I believe that, first of all, what James said earlier is right. Godly parents ought to practice abstinence outside the marriage bond, ought to teach it to their children. They ought to also hear it from the pastor and the Sunday school teacher at the church. They ought to also hear it at the school from the schoolteacher and the counselor. They ought to also hear a little of it on television and from Hollywood, that the only way to guarantee no teen pregnancy, no pregnancy -- here, I'm agreeing with James -- is no sex outside of marriage.

And whether it's premarital or extramarital, God's plan is still the best plan. Why is it such a silly thing that George Bush wants to teach the millions of boys and girls of this country in the school, augmented at home in the church and in the community, that all sex outside marriage is wrong, wrong, wrong?

IRELAND: Well, the Bush administration...

(APPLAUSE)

IRELAND: There's nothing wrong with wanting to teach abstinence in the schools. It's wrong to teach abstinence only, just as it was wrong for the Bush administration to take down accurate information from the government Web sites that showed, for instance, that abortion is not tied to a higher rate of breast cancer, that effective sex education programs include not only abstinence, but also comprehensive...

FALWELL: Well, let me shock you and tell you that I would not be opposed to comprehensive sex education in the public schools at the proper age level and the proper age presentation, if a value system is presented alongside that. Anatomy, sexual activity, the process of reproduction, that's all -- for me, that's fine. I have no problem with sex education if we teach them that...

IRELAND: Is there a question here?

(LAUGHTER)

FALWELL: Yes. The question is -- I'm going to ask you in a moment if you disagree. I realize that you disagree, because you once were president of NOW, and that is their main thing. But I want to ask you, what is wrong, what is wrong with teaching young people the facts with also a value system alongside saying, don't do it?

IRELAND: Well, I think that's fine. And, as I say, I don't oppose abstinence programs, but only abstinence-only. And why? Because the kids who take a virginity pledge, for instance, 88 percent of them end up having premarital sex.

(CROSSTALK)

IRELAND: You can't put your -- 88 percent of the kids who take premarital virginity...

(CROSSTALK)

IRELAND: I want to finish. And I'm going to tell you...

FALWELL: And I'm going to tell you, we do our polls, and that is not true.

IRELAND: Yes, well, you don't keep after them until they're married. And I will tell you that 88 percent of them break their vow.

FALWELL: I do...

(CROSSTALK)

FALWELL: I've been pastoring them for 49 years. And I say that from 49 years.

(CROSSTALK)

IRELAND: Wait a minute. I'm just telling you that -- and I am going to tell you also that the...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Who was abstinent for 49 years?

FALWELL: And I've been chancellor 34 years at Liberty University.

(CROSSTALK)

(APPLAUSE)

CARVILLE: Let me ask you, in all honesty, do you really believe that your student body is abstinent out there?

FALWELL: No, but I'll tell you what. They're far more abstinent than they would be if I didn't teach it properly and our teachers and our...

(APPLAUSE)

WOOD: And the fact is, look, if you guys were really -- if you are so sure that your side is right on this, why don't you want to have a level playing field? The fact is nonabstinence teaching programs, those that pass out condoms...

CARVILLE: They don't teach people facts.

(CROSSTALK)

WOOD: ... government funding. They get a majority of it.

CARVILLE: You don't lie. Genevieve, Genevieve, you don't lie to kids. You don't get kids by lying to them.

WOOD: Who is lying?

CARVILLE: Of course you lie.

WOOD: Who is lying?

CARVILLE: And when you are tell them that they can get pregnant by masturbation, when you tell them that half the homosexual males under 18 are HIV positive -- you are lying when you tell them that condoms fail 50 percent of the time.

(CROSSTALK)

WOOD: But, James, you are not looking at these studies.

CARVILLE: You know what? I'm telling a young person, you can not get pregnant if you don't have intercourse. I promise you that. If you...

(CROSSTALK)

(APPLAUSE)

WOOD: If you really care, why don't you ask for a real government study on this?

CARVILLE: Because we are for the truth. You all want to lie to people, like you all want to lie to them about Iraq, you all want to lie to them about sex.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: You are not going to get young people to -- you are not going to get young people to believe them by telling them they will get pregnant from masturbation.

It seems that Senator Bill Frist agrees. He is now calling for a review of the Abstinence Only - Condoms Don't Work sex ed programs.