After last week's super-duper confusing and inaccurate discussion about Prop 8 on The View– Hassleback referenced Ake Green, a priest jailed under Sweden's hate speech law after calling homosexuality an "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society" and Sherri was all worried her (presumably homophobic hate spewing) pastor is going to get sent to the clinker as well, The View took on the issue again today.

Turns out the daytime ignorance bothered all the gays in the village, or at least Ellen and GLAAD, who called The View ladies to explain that gay marriages will not jail your preachers and force your children to go to reeducation camps. The bit about Prop 8. forcing men to wear eyeliner on Thursdays is totally true, however.

You think we should have made a stronger case that there is a big difference between religious marriage and legal marriage?

Judith Light and Gene Robinson were on hand last night to celebrate the release of Save Me, a flick that looks at the ever-dramatic ex-gay movement. In the movie, directed by Robert Cary, Chad Allen and Robert Gant play two gay men who battle with their gay demons, while Light encourages them to - well, see the light.

GLAAD's certainly thrilled about the movie's release and even sponsored last night's premiere to raise awareness of religious abuse. Because such things make them and their Religious, Faith, & Values division sad. And us, too.

The movie hits theaters tomorrow.

While we're on the subject of Robinson, the openly gay bishop penned a piece over at LGBT for Obama in which he says "it's time to get serious" about electing Barack Obama: "As LGBT voters, it’s time to put our differences and disappointments aside, and get behind the one candidate who has our interests at heart. If you’re still stinging over the unsuccessful bid for nomination by Hillary Clinton, it’s time to look forward, even if the disappointment still hurts."

Ann Coulter relaunched her campaign against John Edwards today.

You'll recall that the right-wing authoress took a shot at Edwards last year, when she called the politico a "faggot." Well, Coulter has done it again, this time calling him "faggy" while discussing his alleged affair. Said Coulter:

I just think John Edwards is an incredibly creepy individual and the very definition of faggy, with his whole two Americas — and remember when he was campaigning, one of his big things, oh, how people are so poor and they can't, they're starving at night, and, you know, he met a woman who couldn't buy a winter coat for her children… [He's] just, you know, living in this, like, Dickensian England that does not exist in America, and acting like you're the only person who cares.

CONTINUED »

American Broadcasting Company did it again!

For two years in a row ABC has topped GLAAD's list of the most queer inclusive network and cable channels. FX came in second, while basically every other channel received big, fat failing marks:

At the other end of the scale, NBC, Fox, A&E, Spike, TBS, USA Network and TNT all received fail grades from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).
…
ABC — led by "Brothers & Sisters," "Desperate Housewives" and "Ugly Betty" — was given a grade of "good," with the highest score among broadcasters. The report said 24% of ABC's programming hours was considered inclusive. The report praised "Brothers & Sisters" in particular for portraying the first gay marriage on television.

Isn't it a bit sad that 24% inclusivity counts as "good?"

CONTINUED »

There's more bent backlash for San Diego business man Doug Manchester.

GLAAD fired the first shot last month when they announced they would not hold their annual Pride Rocks event at Manchester's Hyatt hotel. The reason? Manchester donated $125,000 of his own money to an initiative aimed at reversing California's gay marriage ruling.

Now, equally furious at Manchester's contribution, a group of gay leaders are calling for a boycott of Manchester's hotels.

Fred Karger, who is helping to organize the boycott and is running an organization opposed to Proposition 8, said he is also urging the public to boycott Manchester's other hotel, the Grand Del Mar.

“This is someone who is giving an exorbitant amount of money to write discrimination into the constitution for the very first time,” he said.

Karger said he hopes the boycott will send a message to other potential contributors to the Proposition 8 campaign.

“Our goal is to create a business loss for people who contribute,” he said. “We want to make it a little uncomfortable.”

Karger and company made clear that they have no beef with Hyatt hotels in general, just Manchester. Manchester, meanwhile, insists he has nothing personally against gay people, just gay marriage, and still welcomes the homos in his hotel. We're sure he does…

Here we go again! The gay media watchdogs over at GLAAD are bent out of shape because Will Smith's titular character in Hancock uses the word "homo." Thrice!!

At approximately 24 minutes into the film, while Jason Bateman’s PR whiz works to rehabilitate the superhero’s tarnished image, he shows Hancock three comic book images in an effort to inspire him. But Hancock rejects the traditional image of costumed superheroes as he responds to each one: “Homo. Homo in red. Norwegian homo.”

The audience is prompted to laugh and there is no response to or retribution for Hancock’s remarks. Bateman’s character, the father of a young son, could have easily spoken up instead of giving Hancock a pass.
…
Rated PG-13, Hancock is being marketed to families, teens and young adults. This film certainly presents an opportunity for parents to explain to their kids that the usually entertaining character of Hancock is not modeling good behavior. But let’s get real: Hancock’s use of the slur sends a problematic message that it’s okay to discriminate using such hateful words.

But, wait, isn't the point that Hancock's being a repulsive prick? Isn't, as GLAAD admits, the superhero showing kids exactly what not to do? If so, isn't that praise worthy?

For the first time in quite a while, we're thinking about GLAAD. Or, rather, GLAAD has us thinking, which is even more rare.

The gay media watchdogs released an angry statement yesterday condemning cable network FX for not including a disclaimer with anti-gay activist Peter Sprigg's outlandish comments about the "homosexual lifestyle." The comments come on tonight's episode of 30 Days, which is basically a longer version of Wife Swap, on which a woman against gay parenting goes to live with - you guessed it - a gay dad. Shenanigans and bigotry ensue. And that makes GLAAD sad:(

FX has since released their own statement insisting they've done no wrong:

"The comments made by Peter Sprigg… show that not only do same-sex parents like Dennis and Tom face bigotry and ignorance from individuals like Kati, but that they also face discrimination and marginalization from organizations like the FRC," the statement reads.

“Much of the series’ strength is the willingness to let people of divergent views speak for themselves… and a willingness to trust that the audience will figure out for themselves where the truth lies.”

Even one of the episode's gays didn't mind FX's inclusion of the Sprigg remark.

We're inclined to agree with FX's argument, but we can also see some Americans interpreting Sprigg's statement as fact. Here it is again: "Homosexuality is associated with higher rates of sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, and child sexual abuse, and those are all reasons for us to be concerned about placing children into that kind of setting." If it's on TV, it must be true!

So, should FX have noted that Sprigg is, well, a raving lunatic, or is GLAAD simply making a stink? And, if they are just making a stink, could it be because their Media Awards are airing on Bravo this Friday? Will this scandal give 30 Days a ratings boost? Finally, is God a publicist?

Here's the video of the controversial clip. Thanks Joe.My.God!

The gay media watchdogs over at GLAAD have been watching an upcoming episode of FX's 30 Days - and they don't like what they see.

A forthcoming episode of the series, which transplants people into new lives for a month, features an anti-gay woman who trade places with a child-rearing gay. Cue dramatic music…

CONTINUED »

We have to say something: we're terribly offended by Family Guy's resident queer lecher, Herbert.

Seriously. Do we need a popular television show perpetuating myths about lonely old gays who feed on young teenage men? No. We don't. Where the fuck is GLAAD when you need them? Throwing some celebrity party, or something? Gawd! It's just such an affront to everything television stands for!

Psych! We love Herbert and all his horribly stereotypical, potentially cannibalistic behavior. We don't love him as much as we love the AIDS song, but Herbert's up there…