At 12:01 a.m., the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy will expire under the bill President Obama signed in December, allowing gay and lesbian servicemembers to serve openly in the armed forces.
As required under that legislation, President Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen all certified in July that the repeal would not adversely effect military readiness or unit cohesion.
During the extensive debate over whether DADT would be repealed, Media Matters identified and debunked several falsehoods about the policy:
Credible media outlets should see to that as the discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy expires, so do these myths.
In a September 16 Washington Times op-ed titled, "Congress resists rush for an LGBT military; Obama Pentagon tries to impose homosexual service unilaterally," Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness wrote:
Enter pseudonymed J.D. Smith, director of an "underground" military activist group called Outserve. Mr. Smith told The Washington Times that he wants targeted recruitment of homosexuals, just like other minorities, and representation at homosexual pride parades. Outserve is publishing a special-interest magazine for distribution on military bases, and the group is planning an October "summit" in Las Vegas to discuss what LGBT personnel want from the military.
Separatism in the military invites trouble. Some European forces have labor unions that negotiate benefits, but our military does not permit active-duty unions or factions that would disrupt unity of purpose in the ranks.
President Obama made a political promise to LGBT activists, and Defense Department appointees have created a shaky house of cards that is about to collapse. Congress has the right to review regulations defining the president's "San Francisco military." Tactics used to pass and enforce theLGBT law should be made public, and the next president and Congress should resolve to take our military back.
Fox News "Medical A-Team" expert Dr. Keith Ablow has repeatedly used his Fox platform to launch unscientific and prejudicial attacks on Chaz Bono and his appearance on Dancing With the Stars. The president of the American Psychiatric Association and one of its specialists in gender identity have rebutted Ablow's attacks, calling them "opinions, scare tactics, and inflammatory language."
Fox News has consistently given its "Medical A-Team" member Dr. Keith Ablow a platform to promote paranoia and fear about transgender people. Back in April, he wrote a FoxNews.com column freaking out about a J. Crew ad showing a mother painting her son's toenails pink.
Then in May, Ablow began his campaign against Chaz Bono's appearance on Dancing With the Stars. His May 17 FoxNews.com column, which alleged that Bono suffered from a "psychotic delusion," attracted so much criticism that Fox actually pulled the piece.
In his August 11 FoxNews.com column, Ablow promoted a raft of misinformation about sexuality, including gender identity. As Think Progress noted, Ablow wrongly suggested that gender identity is a choice.
On September 2, Ablow used his FoxNews.com column to return to his attacks on the inclusion of Bono, and then on the September 6 edition Fox Business show America's Nightly Scorecard, he alleged that the gender identity of "tomboys" in the Dancing With the Stars audience could be affected by watching a transgender man in the competition.
Yesterday, FoxNews.com posted a response to Ablow's September 2 column from Dr. Jack Drescher, who is a "Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association and a member of the DSM-5 Workgroup on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders" -- an expert in the field at issue. Drescher asked of Ablow's column, "Wouldn't it be more helpful to offer scientific data rather than sensationalized, detailed descriptions of sex reassignment surgery or metaphors about double amputees to support the views Dr. Ablow 'believes to be true?' "
Today on Fox News' America Live, host Megyn Kelly confronted Ablow about his history of attacking Bono's Dancing With the Stars appearance. She repeatedly challenged Ablow on the merits of his argument, citing Drescher's post and pointing out Drescher is a specialist in the area, unlike Ablow.
Kelly told him, "There's so much hate out there. There's so much hate for gays and lesbians and transgendered people." She added, "The thing is, Doc, you seem to be adding to the hate."
Fox News contributor Keith Ablow recently appeared on Howard Stern's program to defend his criticism about the participation of Chaz Bono -- who is transgender -- on ABC's Dancing With The Stars. Ablow repeated his claim that Bono would hurt children by convincing them to become transgender. Ablow also analogized the situation to "if a person came to me tattooed as a zebra," adding, "I'm not going to have my kids watch a show in which people pretend to be farm animals."
In a recent statement, American Psychiatric Association president John M. Oldham reportedly debunked Ablow's argument, stating that there "is no evidence that viewing a television game show with a transgender contestant would induce Gender Identity Disorder in young people":
"The American Psychiatric Association (APA) recognizes gender identity disorder (GID) as a psychiatric disorder that involves significant distress or impairment in functioning. The APA supports access to appropriate diagnosis and treatment for persons with GID and recognizes that the decision to undergo gender transition is a deeply personal one. The APA opposes all forms of discrimination against persons with GID. There is no evidence that viewing a television game show with a transgender contestant would induce Gender Identity Disorder in young people."
Ablow called in to Stern's SiriusXM program last Thursday (note: as it is Howard Stern, audio of the segment contains nsfw language). Stern opened the segment by calling himself a "fan" of Ablow but wondered, "what's going on ... you're becoming a -- it seems a little bit silly with this homophobic stuff. ... you're getting a little off the wall."
In a September 9 Washington Times column, Robert Knight compared the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to "the devil," suggesting both are attempting to "corrupt innocent children." Knight further complained the ACLU goes "far beyond promoting tolerance and openly promote[s] homosexuality." From the Times:
If you were the devil, what would be your most important mission, other than inventing false religions? It would be to corrupt innocent children.
I'd cloak sexual promiscuity in terms of self-fulfillment, mix it up with junk science and lobby the teachers unions to openly promote the Kinsey sex education model of children as "sexual beings" whose "orientation" has no moral relevance.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is running around the country, shaking its fists at school districts and demanding that kids be exposed to whatever the homosexual movement deems appropriate. In Prince William County, Va., after an ACLU threat, school officials removed the filter blocking homosexual websites. The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, has sent letters to eight school districts, including Prince William, advising them that they have every right to keep the filters. But Prince William has caved, at least for now.
Having lost the library fight, the ACLU is concentrating on schoolchildren. The websites for the gay groups that the ACLU is representing are not porn sites, but they are gateways to a world of temptation for vulnerable children unsure about their sexuality. They go far beyond promoting tolerance and openly promote homosexuality.
From the September 8 edition of ABC's The View:
Loading the player reg...
National Review Online blogger Ed Whelan attacked the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division for assigning two gay attorneys to the team of attorneys working on Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, a case in which the Supreme Court will address the extent to which religious organizations can engage in discrimination without running afoul of sex discrimination law.
In a blog post, Whelan quoted discredited research from Pajamas Media to attack one of the attorneys, Aaron Schuham, for his previous position with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization dedicated to preserving the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
But Whelan then went a step further, stating that Schuham has a "same-sex partner [who] is ... Chris Anders, federal policy director for the ACLU's LGBT Rights project." Whelan further reported that another Justice Department attorney working on the case, Sharon McGowan, "was also a staffer on the ACLU's LGBT Rights project" and that she is married to a woman who is "the Family Equality Council's 'federal lobbyist on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender family issues.' "
Whelan then used this information to spin a conspiracy theory about the Justice Department possibly using the discrimination case as a step in their agenda to "have gay causes trump religious liberty":
Thus, insofar as personnel is policy,* it may well be that the Obama DOJ's hostility to the ministerial exemption in the Hosanna-Tabor case is part and parcel of a broader ideological agenda that would have gay causes trump religious liberty.
So, in Whelan's opinion, should all gay lawyers have been barred from working on a case that deals with the application of anti-discrimination laws to religious freedom, or just the ones who were previously gay-rights activists or have same-sex partners who are gay-rights activists? Or is it OK to assign gay lawyers to the case, but only if the Justice Department takes a position more to Whelan's liking? Whatever Whelan meant, it's a ridiculous argument.
From the September 6 edition of Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard:
Loading the player reg...
From the August 31 edition of CBN's The 700 Club:
Loading the player reg...
Glenn Beck announced that to follow up his rally in Jerusalem, he will be appearing at High Point Church in Arlington, Texas, on Sunday. That church is notable for a particularly horrific example of anti-gay bigotry: its decision to cancel a memorial service for a Gulf War veteran because the deceased man was gay.
In 2007, the church volunteered to host a memorial service for Cecil Sinclair, a Navy veteran who served in the Gulf War. However, the day before the memorial service was to be held, the church withdrew its invitation. The Associated Press reported at the time that family members said that the church knew Sinclair was gay, but canceled the service "after his obituary listed his life partner as one of his survivors."
According to the AP, High Point pastor Rev. Gary Simons said that "no one knew Sinclair, who was not a church member, was gay until the day before the Thursday service, when staff members putting together his video tribute saw pictures of men 'engaging in clear affection, kissing and embracing.' " The AP continued:
Simons said the church believes homosexuality is a sin, and it would have appeared to endorse that lifestyle if the service had been held there.
"We did decline to host the service - not based on hatred, not based on discrimination, but based on principle," Simons told The Associated Press. "Had we known it on the day they first spoke about it - yes, we would have declined then. It's not that we didn't love the family."
Simons said the decision had nothing to do with the obituary. He said the church offered to pay for another site for the service, made the video and provided food for more than 100 relatives and friends.
"Even though we could not condone that lifestyle, we went above and beyond for the family through many acts of love and kindness," Simons said.
[Simons' sister Kathleen] Wright called the church's claim about the pictures "a bold-faced lie." She said she provided numerous family pictures of Sinclair, including some with his partner, but said none showed men kissing or hugging.
Beck has a pattern of associating with virulently anti-gay figures.
For the past couple of weeks, Pajamas Media (PJM) has been pushing what they believe to be is a profound disclosure of personal information about new employees at the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. PJM contributors Hans von Spakovsky and J. Christian Adams have been struggling to make the case that the Obama administration is politicizing the DOJ the way the Bush administration was found to have done, and now that they've gone through the trouble of filing a lawsuit to obtain the resumes of everyone hired at DOJ's Civil Rights Division since 2009, they are desperate to make their investment worthwhile. As a result, PJM has decided to run with the theme that "every single one" of the new hires is a "far-left" liberal.
Their arguments have so far provided no evidence whatsoever that qualified, similarly-situated conservative applicants to the Civil Rights Division were turned away for a lack of liberal credentials. Instead, they rely on the assertion that because all of the new hires are liberal, it defies probability that conservatives weren't rejected for political reasons. Despite the logical inadequacy of this argument, it relies on a definition of "liberal" that is completely constructed by von Spakovsky and Adams. Their frantic attempts to make a case of politicization against Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama administration results in a broad, and at times ridiculous, characterization of what activities and affiliations constitute sufficient evidence of one's liberal worldview.
Here are just a few of the previous employers and affiliations that PJM believes are liberal (which by contrast reveals a lot about what von Spakovsky and Adams must believe conservative values do or do not encompass):
Glenn Beck's "Restoring Courage" rally in Israel features religious figures who espouse anti-gay bigotry.
This afternoon on America Live, Megyn Kelly interviewed Rick Santorum, the long-shot Republican presidential candidate with barely any support who, according to the segment's premise, isn't getting enough media attention.
Like any "hard news" journalist would, Kelly told Santorum how she thinks he is "an incredibly nice guy" who "look[s] out for other people," and contrasted her sunny opinion of the Republican politician with that of her gay and lesbian friends, who apparently don't care for Santorum because he called gay marriage "wrong" and "destructive of the family." So, said Kelly: "I want to give you the opportunity to speak to those people now to explain why they should not feel that way about you."
If only gay people knew Rick Santorum like objective journalist Megyn Kelly knows Rick Santorum. Perhaps they might not be so quick to judge the man who likened them to zoophiles and sex offenders.
From the August 19 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player reg...