From the July 10 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player reg...
Right-wing media are mocking proposed legislation that would make the language in the federal marriage code gender-neutral, following the Supreme Court's decision earlier this month making same-sex marriage legal in every state.
A segment on Fox News' Special Report attacked a law in Oregon that allows transgender individuals to receive medical treatments according to their gender identity by calling teens who can seek the treatment "fickle" and falsely claiming that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has labeled gender dysphoria as a mental disorder. But studies show that medical care for transgender individuals is important for their mental health and the APA stopped classifying "gender identity disorder" as a mental disorder in 2012.
In January, Oregon's Medicaid began covering medical treatments for transgender individuals as young as 15 -- the age of medical consent in the state -- to alleviate depression and suicide." Teens 15 and older can receive the treatment without parental consent.
On the July 9 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Bret Baier reported on the law by commenting that 15-year-olds are impressionable and fickle. Fox correspondent Dan Springer then falsely argued that gender dysphoria is classified as a mental disorder by the APA.
A January psychological study that was published in the journal Psychological Science "found that young people who claim a different gender than what was assigned at birth identify as consistently and innately with that gender identity as other kids their age that are not trans." And in 2012, the APA removed "gender identity disorder" from The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. ThinkProgress noted that the APA has issued statements in support of medical care for transgender individuals and their civil rights:
Following up on guidelines generated by a report on transgender healthcare last month, the American Psychiatric Association has issued official position statements on the care and civil rights of transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. The new statements reflect this year's editions to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the DSM-V) that will identify being transgender as "Gender Dysphoria," removing the classification of "Gender Identity Disorder." The APA explained the importance of standing up for the trans community, citing the "significant discrimination, prejudice, and the potential for victimization from violent hate crimes, as well as denial of many basic civil rights, protections, and access to health care, to the severe detriment of their mental health.
Studies found that the rate of suicide attempts in the transgender community are "staggering." According to the LA Times, a "whopping 41% of people who are transgender or gender-nonconforming have attempted suicide sometime in their lives, nearly nine times the national average." The same study also found that "78 percent who experienced social and family rejection attempted suicide, as did 65 percent who experienced work-based violence and over half who experienced anti-trans bullying at school."
CORRECTION: The original post stated that the APA stopped listing "gender dysphoria" as a mental disorder in 2012. In fact, the APA stopped listing "gender identity disorder" as a mental disorder, replacing with with the term "gender dysphoria" to describe the clinically significant stress a person experiences when their gender identity does not align with their biological sex.
Just minutes after the Supreme Court issued its historic ruling on marriage equality, Fox News began its campaign to portray the decision as a threat to "religious liberty."
Since the June 26 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which found that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, Fox News has repeatedly warned viewers that the ruling threatens religious liberty. Fox personalities have peddled long debunked myths about churches and religious organizations being forced to celebrate same-sex weddings:
Fox's fear mongering is part of the network's broader religious liberty misinformation campaign, which has helped build support for discriminatory "religious freedom" laws across the country by highlighting horror stories about anti-gay business owners. Fox's reaction to the Obergefell decision is a preview of what we can expect from the network now that marriage equality is the law of the land - using "religious freedom" as their new rallying cry in the fight against LGBT equality.
Video by John Kerr.
From the July 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Loading the player reg...
Conservative media are falsely claiming that an Oregon bakery that discriminated against a same-sex couple was given a "gag order" prohibiting them from expressing their religious beliefs. In reality, the bakery was ordered to "cease and desist" publicizing that it would violate state law by discriminating against gay customers.
On July 2, Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries ruled that Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery in Gresham, Oregon, must pay $135,000 in damages to Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer. In 2013, Sweet Cakes refused to bake a cake for Rachel and Laurel's commitment ceremony, after which the couple filed an anti-discrimination complaint using the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which prohibits private businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
In the July 2 ruling, Bureau of Labor and Industries commissioner Brad Avakian found that the Kleins had discriminated against the couple on the basis of their sexual orientation. Additionally, Avakian ordered the Kleins to "cease and desist" from publishing or advertising that they would refuse services "of a place of public accommodation... against any person on account of sexual orientation." As reported in USA Today, "The Kleins will not be penalized for speaking about the issue on Christian television and radio programs."
Conservative media, led by an article in the far-right Daily Signal, falsely portrayed the "cease and desist" as a "gag order," implying that the Kleins are barred from discussing the case or their personal religious beliefs. This misinterpretation of the order was echoed by the National Review, Breitbart, Weekly Standard, The Daily Caller, FoxNews.com, and during a segment on the Fox News Channel.
During the July 5 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Shannon Bream discussed the case, asking her guest whether he was concerned "as an American" about the "gag order:"
Charlie Burr, Communication Director for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, debunked the "gag order" talking point in an email to Media Matters:
Our Final Order against Sweet Cakes by Melissa did not contain a gag order (as reported by Fox's Todd Starnes, National Review, Daily Caller and others). It does contain damages for the same-sex couple denied service based on sexual orientation and also includes a cease and desist order directing the business to refrain from discriminating against future customers. That does not mean that the owners are prohibited from talking about the case or their opposition to Oregon anti-discrimination laws.
This cease and desist order is based on enforcement of Oregon's non-discrimination law, which prohibits advertising that services of a public accommodation will be denied on the basis of sexual orientation. It's the same language that makes it illegal for a business to place a "whites only" sign in their window. As Slate's Mark Joseph Stern explained, this is not the same as a gag order (emphasis added):
There is nothing in Avakian's order that bars the Kleins from talking about the ruling. They can rail against it, march against its injustice, and pen Facebook screeds complaining about anti-discrimination law. What they cannot do is proclaim (publicly!) that their business will not serve gay couples.
From the July 6 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
From the July 1 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
From the July 1 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
Equality Matters' Rachel Perclay appeared on Huffington Post Live's Queerview to discuss this issue:
In the wake of the Supreme Court's historic marriage equality ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, media outlets have a chance to break new ground in their coverage of the fight for LGBT equality. In the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, journalists should be asking questions that advance the national conversation about LGBT equality while avoiding the pitfalls that plagued coverage of the debate over marriage equality.
For the past several years, media questions about LGBT equality during presidential election seasons have largely focused on where candidates stand on same-sex marriage. These questions typically elicit rehearsed and uninformative sound bite responses; candidates appeal to religion and tradition, which tends to end the discussion about LGBT issues before it even begins.
Now that the Supreme Court has effectively rendered the legal debate over marriage equality moot, news outlets should be prepared to ask the 2016 presidential candidates smarter, tougher questions about the fight for LGBT equality:
The list of important LGBT issues doesn't end there: transgender military service, LGBT youth homelessness, detention of LGBT immigrants, etc. These issues raise important questions about a candidate's support or disdain for the LGBT community without devolving into predictable tropes about tradition and religion.
Political candidates often cite their religious beliefs as a means to avoid being branded as homophobic or transphobic when they hold anti-LGBT policy positions. But citing faith as a way to sidestep tough questions about LGBT equality should be a non-starter; most religious people actually support LGBT equality. Given that media outlets have historically had trouble separating anti-LGBT animus from sincere, mainstream religious beliefs, journalists should be prepared to press candidates who cite religion as their reasons for opposing LGBT equality. What exactly about a candidate's faith motivates him or her to oppose protections for LGBT people, and why does the candidate disagree with the majority of religious Americans?
Candidates who oppose legal protections for LGBT people typically cite concerns about religious liberty or a reluctance to bestow "special rights," among other popular conservative talking points. These concerns have been debunked time and time again, contradicted by the experiences of states and cities that have had similar protections in place for years. Rather than letting candidates get away with their anti-LGBT talking points, journalists should be prepared to ask follow-up questions that force candidates to provide evidence or examples of their horror stories.
In the post-Obergefell media landscape, the fight for LGBT equality will turn its focus to the broader issue of discrimination against LGBT people. Journalists who want to advance the story and avoid rehashing tired debates about same-sex marriage have an unprecedented opportunity to ask smart questions that cut through polished talking points and get to the heart of candidates' positions on LGBT equality.
Photo via Flickr.com user Tony Webster
In response to the Supreme Court's recent marriage equality ruling, Fox News contributor Erick Erickson claimed that many people become gay because of "abuse" and "parental issues."
On the June 29 edition of The Erick Erickson Show, Fox's Erickson claimed that it's "not really true in most cases" that people are born gay. Instead, "if you go back to it there's parental issues, there's abuse, and that has a lot to do with it":
ERICKSON: First of all, you're only talking 3 to 5 percent of the population. Now I know a lot of people, a lot of people the thought is that you're born gay. That's actually not really true in most cases. In some cases I think it probably is, but in a lot of cases if you go back to it there are parental issues, there's abuse, and that has a lot to do with it. And as you see a collapse of family - I don't think that it's a coincidence that a collapse of family is - is directly inverse proportional or inversely related to the rise in people who identify as being gay. [Emphasis added]
Erickson has a history of extreme anti-LGBT comments. He has previously said that countries with marriage equality are "bent on suicide," compared gay people to terrorists, and agreed that the "homosexual movement" is "destroying America." Erickson also regularly solicits support for an extreme anti-gay legal group working to criminalize homosexuality internationally.
On August 6-9, Erickson will be hosting the RedState Gathering - a conservative political conference - in Atlanta. A number of GOP presidential hopefuls, including Gov. Jeb Bush and Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, are slated to speak at the event.
Fox News contributor and First Baptist Dallas Rev. Robert Jeffress told his congregation that the recent marriage equality ruling was "the greatest, most historic, landmark blunder in the history of the United States Supreme Court."
Jeffress made his remarks during his June 28 Sunday prayer service, as reported by Dallas' KTVT and the Dallas Observer. Several conservative pundits have had unhinged reactions to the June 26 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which found that states must recognize same-sex marriages.
Los Angeles Times Supreme Court reporter David G. Savage wrote in January 2009 that when it comes to determining the worst Supreme Court decisions, "Historians and court scholars agree on a pair of 19th century opinions":
Historians and court scholars agree on a pair of 19th century opinions: Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 ruling that upheld slavery even in the free states, and Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, which condoned segregation as "separate but equal."
The World War II decision Korematsu v. United States (1944) is usually cited as well. There the court upheld the detention of more than 110,000 Japanese-Americans.
Jeffress also compared the Supreme Court's marriage decision to Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews. He told the Christian Post in a June 26 interview: "I think today's decision is just one more step in the marginalization of conservative Christians. I made this argument and have been ridiculed for doing so, but I think it is very legitimate. The Nazis did not take the Jews to the crematoriums immediately ... The German people would not have put up with that. Instead, the Nazis begin to marginalize the Jewish people, make them objects of contempt and ridicule. Once they changed the public opinion about the Jewish people, then they engaged the [Holocaust]."
Fox News employs Jeffress as a contributor despite his long and controversial history of bigotry against LGBT individuals and members of certain religions.
During the 2012 campaign, Jeffress created controversy when he denounced Mitt Romney's Mormon faith as a "cult." Then-Romney challenger Rick Perry was forced to distance himself from Jeffress, who had introduced Perry at an event.
He's said that "religions like Mormonism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism ... lead people to an eternity of separation from God in Hell." He's called Islam an "evil, evil, religion," referred to Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism as "false religions," and said Catholicism is a "counterfeit religion" that rose from a "cult-like, pagan religion." Jeffress said of Judaism: "Judaism, you can't be saved being a Jew, you know who said that by the way, the three greatest Jews in the New Testament, Peter, Paul, and Jesus Christ, they all said Judaism won't do it, it's faith in Jesus Christ."
Video of Jeffress' June 28 remarks is below:
Fox News' Bill O'Reilly lashed out at President Obama for the June 26 illumination of the White House in rainbow colors following the Supreme Court's historic ruling in favor of marriage equality.
On the June 29 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly asked of the display, "what about all the Americans who believe that a redefinition of marriage is not the job of the Supreme Court?" He later said that President Obama "did an in your face to traditional Americans" by putting a display there.
A tease earlier in the show asked whether the illumination was a "White House insult?"
From the June 29 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
Media outlets have repeatedly turned to an extreme anti-gay hate group to comment on the Supreme Court's recent marriage equality decision, needlessly exposing audiences to misinformation while failing to hold the group accountable for its track record of dishonesty.
Following the Supreme Court's June 26 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges -- which found that bans on same-sex marriage violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution - several media outlets invited representatives from the Family Research Council (FRC) to offer their reactions to the decision.
FRC has been labeled an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) because it propagates "known falsehoods" about the LGBT community, including linking homosexuality to pedophilia and accusing gay people of trying to "recruit" children. The group has a long track record of making wildly inaccurate policy predictions about the consequences of basic protections for LGBT people.
Spokespersons from FRC were also invited to react to the decision on national television. ABC's This Week invited FRC's Ken Blackwell - who previously blamed same-sex marriage for a mass murder - to discuss the court's decision. On Fox News' The Kelly File, Megyn Kelly offered a platform FRC president and frequent guest Tony Perkins, who has called pedophilia a "homosexual problem." As usual, none of these outlets identified FRC as a hate group or informed their audiences about the organization's history of misinformation.
And during the June 29 edition of CNN's New Day, host Chris Cuomo invited FRC's Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies, to discuss the decision in Obergefell. Sprigg, whoseprofessional experience before FRC includes serving as a Baptist minister and 10 years as a "professional actor," has previously suggested he'd prefer to "export homosexuals from the United States." But despite his extremism and lack of expertise, Sprigg was given a platform to fearmonger about the consequences of country-wide marriage equality: