Frank Schubert

Frank Schubert is the media guru behind all four anti-marriage equality campaigns currently underway, and despite the myths his ads regularly reinforce, he doesn’t believe he’s causing that much harm. In an interview with Michelangelo Signorile, he proved that he can’t even justify that arguments that he makes in his ads, demonstrating that he is motivated more by anti-gay animus and heterosexual supremacy than any real concern for “marriage.”

Toward the end of the segment, Signorile cornered Schubert about why he isn’t campaigning against same-sex adoption instead of marriage. Since the most prominent theme of his efforts are the supposed threat posed to children by same-sex marriage (like in the infamous Proposition 8 “Princess” ad), it doesn’t make sense that he would be opposing marriage in Maine, for example, instead of Maine’s two-parent adoption laws. The exchange (abridged below) shows how little substance anti-equality arguments actually have:

SCHUBERT: I will say that the issue here is not about adoption or whether gay couples love their children or should be able to have children. They have that right. I’m not objecting to it. What I’m objecting to is redefining marriage to accommodate that desire. [...]

SIGNORILE: You keep arguing that children do best in a heterosexual marriage…

SCHUBERT: This is not a controversial statement… I’m saying children do better with a mother and a father…

SIGNORILE: But you have a sister with children — who is a lesbian — and you should be trying to stop her from having children then.

SCHUBERT: I’m not! That’s ridiculous. You’re making a silly argument. Having children, by itself, is not a reason to redefine marriage. It’s just that simple.

Listen to Signorile’s full interview with Schubert:

Reflecting on the interview, Signorile observes that Schubert’s motivation doesn’t seem to be the issue of marriage itself:

But why isn’t he on that crusade if he truly believes that children do better in heterosexual households, as his campaign rhetoric claims? The only answer is that his money is coming from the folks trying to ban gay marriage, not from those trying to ban gay adoption. And that’s what it seems to be all about for Schubert: money.

In fact, a report released today from the Human Rights Campaign shows that Schubert has netted nearly $3 million for his work with the National Organization for Marriage on the campaigns in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington, plus almost another $1 million for his work in North Carolina earlier this year. He seems prepared to polish whatever message will keep the money flowing, but it’s clear from this interview that there’s no weight to the foreboding threats made in the ads he produces.

Tammy Aaberg hugging a gay graduate of Blaine High School (Photo: Richard Marshall/Pioneer Press.)

Since the suicide of her son, Justin, Tammy Aaberg has been an outspoken advocate against bullying in his school district, Minnesota’s Anoka-Hennepin School District, and the surrounding communities. She started an ever-growing organization in his name, Justin’s Gift, to provide safe spaces and resources for LGBT teens. Given her direct involvement and awareness on the issues, it would make perfect sense for her to be a part of the district’s new anti-bullying task force, as mandated by the Department of Justice. Instead, a member of the anti-LGBT hate group was appointed, and Aaberg received a canned rejection letter, which she shared with Truth Wins Out.

The canned letter does not reference the loss of her son that was largely influenced by the school’s toxic climate, nor her work advocating to improve that environment over the past two years:

Unfortunately, we could not appoint everyone who applied. We reviewed the applications thoroughly and worked hard to select committee members who would represent a broad cross-section of the community, being especially mindful of protected classes, gender balance, and religious affiliation.

We will keep your name on file as a person interested in this topic. If at some point in their work the task force wishes to seek additional input, we will invite comment from you and the other applicants who were not appointed to the group. We will also send you a link to the final report when it is posted online.

How committed can the district be to improving the safety of its school when it so coldly rejects one of its community’s biggest advocates? The faculty advisor for the local gay-straight alliance was also rejected. But the task force does want to hear from an advocate of ex-gay therapy who wants children to learn that homosexuality directly causes AIDS. For a school mandated by the government to do better by its students, its priorities certainly seem misplaced.

Today marks the third annual Spirit Day, on which individuals wear purple (the color of “spirit” from the Pride Flag) to show solidarity against anti-LGBT bullying and harassment of any kind. It was created in 2010 by a Canadian teenager named Brittany McMillan in response to a spate of suicides that gripped national headlines. ThinkProgress and our colleagues at the Center for American Progress Action Fund are again proud partners of today’s event and have worn purple today to show that bullying does not have a place in a peaceful, progressive society:

A note from Zack Ford, editor of ThinkProgress LGBT:

It’s hard to believe that two years have already passed since we were all first ravaged by the tragic suicides that served as our wake-up call about bullying, and yet it seems like just yesterday. That’s only two years that we’ve had “It Gets Better” as part of our vernacular, only two years that names like Seth Walsh, Justin Aaberg, and Tyler Clementi have been known to us, and only two years that we’ve really taken stock of just how negative our school climates have become. The advent of new technology is not without its consequences, and social media has created a venue for bullying to persist 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for some young people. Such constant negative messages can reinforce depression, lower self-esteem, and create environments devoid of joy, with repercussions for both those inclined to bully and their victims. Given how little we still understand about the full impact of bullying in the modern era, it is likely that we still grossly underestimate the lasting harm it causes for young people when it goes unaddressed.

This was most apparent two me two years ago when I attended the funeral of 14-year-old Brandon Bitner. Brandon’s death hit close to home — literally. He lived just a few towns away from where I grew up in central Pennsylvania, and was a musician studying at the same university where I, too, had taken lessons in high school. Bullied repeatedly for his perceived sexual orientation, Brandon took his own life in the wake of other suicides that had made national news. It was clear from the reactions I witnessed and discussions I heard at his funeral that his community was none the wiser on the issue of bullying from his death, at least not in the immediate. In fact, the pastor’s eulogy did not even mention how Brandon had been treated at school, choosing instead to blame his depression and ignore any of the factors that might have exacerbated it.

Bullying is a very real part of our culture, and it is an injustice to all people of all ages if we try to hide, ignore, or downplay it. Claims that bullying is just a part of growing up are defenses of bullying that allow its torment to persist. Wearing purple for a day might seem like a small act that doesn’t accomplish much, but any opportunity to refresh and refocus our awareness of the bullying epidemic is an important occasion indeed. Promoting respect and understanding is a very long journey that will surely extend beyond any of our lifetimes, but one day of progress toward safer schools and healthier young people is progress nevertheless. I couldn’t be more proud to be part of a team that supports that mission.

The political action committee for the Family Research Council, a group designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-LGBT hate group, has released its endorsements for the 2012 elections.

Predictably, they endorsed a slate of candidates with a record of opposing LGBT equality. Of the 118 U.S. Representatives the group endorsed for re-election all are Republicans. The group also endorsed three Republican Congressmen for promotions — Montana Senate candidate Denny Rehberg, Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin, and Indiana gubernatorial candidate Mike Pence. Rehberg and Akin were both highlighted among ThinkProgress’s Anti-LGBT “Dirty Dozen” Senate candidates.

Of those 121, their average score in the new Human Rights Campaign (HRC) scorecard of the last three Congresses was 0.69 percent. That means that the group, on average, voted against equality more than 99 percent of the time.

113 of the 121 voted against equality 100 percent of the time. The highest score was 15 percent, earned by seven of the Representatives.

On its website, the Family Research Council notes that it “believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed.” Their endorsement list reads like a who’s-who of politicians who share that hateful view.

The HRC’s scorecard for the 112th Congress found that as more Republicans won in 2010, support for LGBT equality declined. While 115 Representatives (all Democrats) received a perfect 100 score, a significantly larger 215 earned a “0″ score — 211 of those Republicans.

The above cartoon, making light of a parent who would murder a child just for being gay, appeared Tuesday in the University of Arizona’s Daily Wildcat, a student newspaper. The entire staff, as well as editor-in-chief Kristina Bui, apologized for running it:

On Tuesday, the Daily Wildcat staff made a serious error in judgment in printing a cartoon that some readers felt was homophobic and inappropriate. We heard from several readers who expressed their disappointment and hurt over the comic strip.

The Arizona Daily Wildcat is now reviewing its editorial policies and has terminated the employment of the cartoonist as of Wednesday. His views do not represent the views of the Wildcat staff, nor does the Wildcat represent the views of the university.

The “etc.” cartoon in question illustrated a parent threatening their child if he ever came out, and the two characters joke about the threat. We agree with the criticism we’ve met, and we apologize. The comic was not funny.

Printing the comic strip was a failure to weigh the perspectives and experiences of others. We regret our mistake, and that we cannot take back the damage it has caused. We’re sorry.

It is an understatement to say that “some readers felt” the cartoon was homophobic and inappropriate. It is an essential fact that the cartoon is homophobic and inappropriate — it serves no other purpose but to find humor in the murder of LGBT youth. The Wildcat staff has responded in seemingly every way that it can, but the damage has been done. That such a cartoon would ever be drawn by a newspaper staff member, let alone be printed, is a harsh reminder that violently anti-gay attitudes persist throughout schools and society.