Florida Family Association wants TV to be just as hateful as what’s in their heads.

Whenever a group has “Family” in its name, it has to be a hate group. There’s just no way around it. You may have heard about corporations such as Lowe’s pulling out of advertising on All-American Muslim because the Florida Family Association is pressuring them. Dodai Stewart went and read the FFA’s website so that we don’t have to, and here is what the assclams have to say:

Clearly this program is attempting to manipulate Americans into ignoring the threat of jihad and to influence them to believe that being concerned about the jihad threat would somehow victimize these nice people in this show.

They complained to Lowe’s about advertising on the show because, of all things, TLC is showing the lives of Muslims who aren’t trying to blow shit up. They think it’s a threat to American liberties to show non-violent, non-threatening TV. They think it’s a problem when a show discourages bigotry.

We wouldn’t want to celebrate the family values of people who use a different name for God, after all.


Anti-choice bill has idiotic name.

Our old buddy Rep. Trent Franks (R-idiculous) is riding that hobby-horse again, using his highly salaried time in Congress to write bills to combat problems that don’t exist.

The Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011

restricts sex-selection abortion and race-selection abortion, and the coercion of a woman to obtain either. The woman seeking an abortion is exempted from prosecution, while abortion providers are held to account.

Right. There’s a real epidemic of abortion providers rounding up pregnant women and coercing them into aborting their female and/or black fetuses. Sure.

The use of Frederick Douglass’s name in the bill’s title, however, is especially hilarious. From what I recall of his writing, the rape and forced breeding of enslaved women was one of the horrors of slavery that he set out to expose. I don’t think he would have been on-board with this legislative hand-wringing over black women having too much abortion access.

I’ll say it again: Trent Franks does not care about black people!


If you don’t want to be called racist, then don’t pull racist shit.

Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church has been given the smackdown by their denomination’s governing body and will just have to find other ways to promote the unity of their church body.

Did the church itself change its mind on the issue? Not really.

Stepp said the Sandy Valley Conference of Free Will Baptists declared the vote on Thompson’s resolution null and void during a meeting on Saturday.

The former pastor of Gulnare got the church members to pass a resolution that says, “We don’t have a problem with those people, we just don’t want them marrying our girls!” and the Sandy Valley Conference effectively took the matter out of their hands. It doesn’t matter if they’ve changed their minds, it doesn’t matter whether the sudden uproar from all four corners of the Earth has persuaded them that cross-racial marriage should not be considered a bad thing, and it doesn’t matter whether they’ve considered that the resolution they’d passed was a really crappy message to send to their church secretary about his family. In this case, it’s not their decision. Their church WILL NOT bar interracial couples from church membership, as long as they’re a member of the Sandy Valley Conference.

On the one hand, I don’t think they actually have to worry about any interracial couples trying to join their church any time soon. The message has already been sent that the church environment will not be a welcoming one. On the other hand, at least their current pastor has his head screwed on tight w/r/t race relations.

The response to having All the Internet gape in horror at them has been thus:

[Pastor Stacy Stepp] said he told church members on Sunday about the decision and proposed a resolution to promote “peace, love and harmony.”

Stepp said about 30 people who attended church services voted on a new resolution that welcomes “believers into our fellowship regardless of race, creed or color.”

Where were those 30 people, I wonder, when the anti-interracial-couples resolution was passed 9-6?

I would like to note that the new resolution is not exactly a reversal of the previous one. In spirit, yes, but in letter, not really. Former Pastor Thompson would probably argue that he’s not racist, and the effect of the resolution was not racist, because it wouldn’t have stopped people of color from joining the church—just as long as they’re not married to white people.

Realistically, if you actually believe that all racial groups are human first and foremost, and that all groups are equally good and worthy, and that it’s the variation between individuals that really means something, and that no one group needs to be protected from contamination by another, then you should have no problem with people of different colors getting married and having mixed-race kids together. And if you have no problem with their families, then you should not have any problem attending church with them.

However, the new resolution is about welcoming believers. It doesn’t say anything about their spouses. It shows that the church has been reprimanded, but not that it’s thinking differently.


One might get the impression that your org is all about self-promotion.

Listen, HRC, when a suburban LGBT group asks you to lend them a banner promoting MARRIAGE EQUALITY because they’re marching in their town’s Labor Day Parade at the last minute in order to balance out (read: PWN) a pro-patriarchy (I’m sorry: “protect marriage”) bunch from somewhere else in the state, it is really obnoxious to send them an HRC banner that has nothing to say about marriage.

If they carried your strictly HRC-promoting banner in the parade, it would sort of make them look like they’re just an affiliate of the HRC, as opposed to the neighbors of the people watching the parade. The message that you’re communicating to the group in question, meanwhile, is that you’re a pack of parasitic, self-promoting assholes. You wouldn’t want a nearby local LGBT group to think such a thing, now would you?

Fortunately, my Greenbelt-specific LGBT group had a banner with our name, and we had plenty of handmade signs to carry in the parade, so there was no need to provide free ad space to the HRC. By the time we reached the judges’ stand, our contingent had swelled to about 100 people carrying pro-equality signs, walking dogs, corralling children, and generally looking very colorful, happy and engaged in the event.

The protect-marriage bunch paraded around teenagers in wedding costumes, just in case they weren’t gross enough already. They got booed.

Rep. Bachmann, if you’ll just sign your name here…

According to RawStory,

When Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann signed a pledge that claimed black Americans were better off as slaves than they are today, she apparently hadn’t read it in detail.

Does she think this helps her case? I suppose it’s “less worse” if she isn’t on board with the idea that at least African-American children had the benefit of intact families under slavery, but it would have been better if she had read the fucking document before putting her name on it. I realize that Congressfolk tend not to read the bills they vote on, but that’s a habit she really ought to break, and fast.

However, she’s all about banning pornography, fighting the power of Sharia Islam (because that’s totally one of the main problems plaguing our nation today), and making sure same-sex couples can’t marry. I’ve no doubt she likes the part about promoting “robust reproduction,” too.

The FAMiLY LEADER issues a fauxpology:

“After careful deliberation and wise insight and input from valued colleagues we deeply respect, we agree that the statement referencing children born into slavery can be misconstrued,” group spokeswoman Julie Summa wrote. “We sincerely apologize for any negative feelings this has caused, and have removed the language from the vow.”

“Can be misconstrued”? Really, Julie Summa? Really?! “We sincerely apologize for any negative feelings this has caused”?

Rough translation: “We’re sorry we got caught! We would’ve gotten away with it if it weren’t for you damn gotcha journalists!”

Mr. Frothy-Mix: Maximum wrong in minimum word count.

Santorum gives us his thoughts on why liberals care about marriage equality:

The reason the left has gone after same-sex marriage is because it’s a two-fer,” Santorum said. “When you redefine marriage, you cheapen marriage. You make it into something less valuable, less special … [and] it is a sure bet that will undermine faith.”

Liberals advocate for marriage equality because it cheapens marriage AND it undermines faith?

That’ll be news to my local LGBT group who are full-throatedly in support of civil marriage equality and who are mostly church-going Christians.

Continue reading

Racism * (male insecurity + womb control) = Dennis Prager

There is just so, incredibly much stupid here that I can’t even hope to take it all on at once. Truthticker listened to Dennis Prager say this so that we don’t have to:

The welfare state corrupts family life. Even many democrats have acknowledged the horrific consequences of the welfare state on the black community. It has rendered vast numbers of black males unnecessary to black females who have looked to the state to support them and their children (and the more children, the more state support) rather than to their husbands. In effect, these women took the state as their husband. Whereas in the past, women sought out men for financial support, the welfare state enables women to stay single and get support from the government.

It’s like a whole pack of little Stupid goblins are all trying to jump into my brain at once, but they don’t all fit through the door so they’re stuck and I don’t know which one to let in first.

Jesse Taylor at Pandagon has already dealt with at least a couple of the little beasties:

It’s a painful phenomenon, this glut of well-employed men yearning to take care of their children but barred by the overwhelming appeal of several hundred dollars a month in temporary benefits.

So, there’s that. There’s also the little goblin of Welfare Dependency Doesn’t Happen to White Folks (its alter ego is But It’s Different When Black Folks Do It), its snot-nosed little brother They’re Having More Kids to Get More Welfare, their cousin It’s Black Women’s Fault When Black Men Don’t Stick Around, and their Pied Piper of Stupid figure, Everything Would Be Fine If Men Controlled the Family.

While all those little demons fight to be the first one though the door, I’m going to focus on this yearning for the good old days when women sought out men for financial support. Prager seems awfully invested in the idea that women should be financially dependent on men, first and foremost. The idea that maybe some women would like to be able to provide for themselves and their kids on their own power, or that they might like to pursue and develop relationships with men because they love the men as individuals, just doesn’t come into the picture. Either women need men to pay the bills, or we just shun them altogether. Running through all this yearning for the good old days when single mothers and their kids were left to starve, of course, is the assumption that it’s not a valid family unless there’s a man in charge. It all adds up to this idea that “the black community” (because they all march in perfect lockstep) would be so much better off if the government would just let those uppity bitches and their bastard spawn starve.

“The Handmaid’s Tale” was not intended as porn, just sayin’.

I would like to point out to Ross Douthat that, those nice wealthy couples who are so desperate for healthy (and white!) newborns to adopt? Yeah, some of them are gay. Sometimes, famous wealthy gay guys like to get married, and sometimes they also want kids, and that’s going to be part of the demand for those children whom Ross is so terribly distressed to say are not in such generous supply as they used to be. Now that contraception is available, abortion is legal, and single motherhood is not the life-ruiner that it once was, and therefore vulnerable women can no longer be tied down and forced to bear children for better-off families, Ross would have us believe that it’s so, so very unfair that well-off infertile couples have to wait for the babies they want. If only we selfish not-rich single young (and white) women would give up our birth control and abortion rights, then there would be plenty of healthy (and white) newborns for rich couples to choose from, and wouldn’t that be so much better? (Say nothing about all the brown babies in the system; no one gives a shit about them.)

Oddly enough, I don’t see new parents like Elton John or Melanie Thernstrom wailing and gnashing their teeth about how this cruel world of reproductive freedom unfairly denies them the steady stream of adoptable children their ancestors could choose from. If they need to find women who are (this is the part that Douthat finds offensive) willing to sign up to give birth to their children, with all the waiting, expense and risks of disappointment that it takes to become a parent through surrogacy, then they…buckle down and make it work. Douthat seems to think such people are treated unfairly, though I’m sure families like Elton John’s are not quite what he has in mind. They seem to be a mite too busy enjoying their kids to rail against the selfishness of women who keep their wombs to themselves.

You know, I’m starting to think that Douthat actually enjoys being the pro-choice blogosphere’s favorite fish in a barrel. There is so much wrongness in his new column that I won’t even try to address all of it. Amanda Marcotte has been generous enough to do that for us. I’m just pointing out to the under-control-of-fertility crowd, that some of those surplus babies they want us selfish women to be forced to create? Would go to gay couples. That tends to be the place where the “family values” movement isn’t so concerned about how many kids need families.

Fuck this “Miss Nice Queer” bullshit.



And if you don’t like to see me using all that nasty language in ALL CAPS, then you should have thought about that before you decided that other couples could be legislated straight to divorce via simple majority vote.  You should have thought about that before you decided to define “freedom” as your ability to interfere with other couples’ family lives.

Ireland makes progress while Real America throws tantrum

From the Irish Times:

Under the terms of the Bill, marriage-like benefits will be extended to gay and lesbian couples across a range of areas such as property, social welfare, succession, maintenance, pensions and tax.

Once the Civil Partnership legislation is fully enacted and implemented, gay and lesbian couples will be able to register their relationship before a registrar, as long as the partners are over 18 and not involved in any other unions.

Couples will be required to provide registrars with three months’ notice of a planned civil partnership, as is the case with civil or religious weddings. Any registrars who refuse to officiate may be prosecuted.

I can’t wait to hear what the Catholic hierarchy has to say about this.

Yay for Ireland!