DOWNLOADS: (160)

PLAYS: (1531)

Embed

The Jim Henson Company announced on Friday that it was ending its relationship with the Christian restaurant chain, Chick-fil-A, and would no longer be offering The Muppets toys in kids' meals.

"The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years and we have notified Chick-Fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors," the company wrote on its Facebook page. "Lisa Henson, our CEO is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to [The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation] GLAAD."

Equality Matters reported earlier this month that the restaurant chain had given over $1.9 million in 2010 alone to groups that oppose marriage equality and other LGBT rights.

During an interview with the Baptist Press, Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy insisted the company was "guilty as charged."

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit," Cathy said. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

About three days later, the company appeared to distance itself from its owner's comments.

"The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender," a statement on Chick-fil-A's Facebook page said. "Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena."

But some Chick-fil-A fans are already threatening to boycott The Muppets.

"Ok... so any and all Muppet products are now boycotted from this home and everyone I can talk to and into doing the same," Facebook user Mark Edwards told The Jim Henson Company. "You want to yank your stuff because the Chik something company owners do not support gay marriage.. feel free.."

"Mark Edwards, don't forget to boycott microsoft, ibm, google, facebook, apple computers... welcome to your own personal stone age," Joaquín A. Sarite-Pérez replied to Edwards.

"The irony and hypocrisy of the sentiments of those opposing equal marriage + rights is always delicious," Catticut Palich wrote. "Not concerned by those of you 'boycotting' The Muppets now, as you obviously didn't get Jim Henson's message when you were growing up - otherwise you wouldn't be actively trying to oppress another human being."

(h/t:Think Progress)

DOWNLOADS: (341)

PLAYS: (1026)

Embed

A member of the Fox News Medical A-Team on Thursday warned that legalizing polygamy was inevitable if "narcissistic" LGBT couples were allowed to adopt children.

During a discussion about President Barack Obama's recent "evolution" on marriage equality, psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow wandered off topic to tell Fox Business host Lou Dobbs that there was "some psychology in the background of this issue" that had to do with children being adopted by same sex couples.

"Children in same sex households, unless the donor of sperm or ova -- eggs -- is known, which is unusual, unless that's the case, these kids don't know their biological parents," the Fox News "expert" pointed out. "Now, we don't know the psychological impact of that at all and we need the data, we really do."

"We are making public policy, as you suggest here, on the adoption of children without an understanding of the psychological impact that effect will have on their conduct and behavior," Dobbs agreed. "And we seem to be doing so as though we've been inspired on high to do so. It's really been remarkable the manifestation of our disregard for successive generations."

"And it's the opposite of inspiration on high, which suggests that you would empathize and care for others," Ablow replied. "This is narcissistic. I feel like it so I'm going to do it -- no matter what the science might show. And we need the data."

He added: "But the bottom line is, how did we decide that kids are just fine to grow up absent their biological parents? Because why? Because we love each other. Well, three people can love each other so polygamy has to be close behind. How can you have same sex marriage and not believe that three people can fall in love, which they absolutely can?"

While Ablow obviously has a low opinion of LGBT people (he compared a transgender reality star to an anorexic and heroin addict last year), his problem with adoption is not limited to same sex couples.

In February, the psychiatrist suggested that Media Matters founder David Brock was "dangerous" because he "is an adopted boy."

"He’s a dangerous man, because having followers and waging war," Ablow explained to Fox News host Steve Doocy. "This is an adopted boy who needs to plumb the depths of his psyche. He was adopted. Many adopted children are tremendously well-adjusted, but for some reason, this man feels he’s unloved and unloveable, shunted to the side, and that’s the antidote he feels: unlimited power."

According to the American Psychological Association, "there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised."

But Ablow has also accused American Psychological Association of being "infected" by "manipulations of the truth on a scale never before known."

(h/t: Media Matters)

DOWNLOADS: (308)

PLAYS: (989)

Embed

A Virginia lawmaker who recently led the fight to block an openly gay man from becoming a judge General District Court judge in Richmond insisted on Thursday that the move had nothing to do with nominee's sexual orientation, but he was concerned about "bias" in cases between "a homosexual and heterosexual."

During an interview on CNN with Republican Virginia state delegate Robert Marshall, host Brooke Baldwin compared the struggle for LGBT rights to discrimination against African Americans and asked the lawmaker why he voted to block Richmond prosecutor Tracy Thorne-Begland from becoming a judge in a misdemeanor court.

"Dr. Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks never took an oath of office that they broke," Marshall explained, claiming that Thorne-Begland lied about his sexuality to join that military in the late 1980s.

"Sodomy is not a civil right. It's not the same as a civil rights movement," Marshall insisted.

"You bring up sodomy," the shocked CNN host noted. "Is the reason why you voted against him because he's gay, pure and simple?"

"Sorry, you're mischaracterizing that," Marshall replied. "I said sodomy is not a civil right, and there's an effort by homosexual lobbyists to equate the two. That's wrong. It's a pattern of behavior."

"From what I understand, this would have been a misdemeanor court," Baldwin countered. "In fact, one of your own Republican colleagues there in the House sponsoring his nomination, sponsoring Thorne-Beglan's nomination said this -- quote -- 'It is without question that Thorne-Beglan is extremely qualified.' The type of issues, social issues that would touch upon someone's constitutional interpretation, these things do not even come up in district court. Still, you feel that he would be unqualified to sit on that bench?"

"We don't accept everybody who is nominated. Moreover, he would preside -- he could preside as a district judge for a marriage of two guys if he wanted to, in violation of the law," Marshall opined. "Moreover, if you have a bar-room fight between a homosexual and heterosexual, I'm concerned about possible bias."

"Why would a homosexual - why would a gay person be more likely to be biased in the bar room example than say, you would?" CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill wondered. "I mean, to be quite frank, I would be more concerned you would be biased against the gay or lesbian person in that case."

"I wouldn't apply to be a judge," Marshall explained. "I am an advocate."

"But you are writing law," Baldwin pointed out.

"That's my job," the lawmaker quipped. "When I was in public school, we all went through a ritual. I know you may find it strange, that said keep us from temptation. This was because we said the Lord's Prayer. Nobody - nobody should go where they'll be tempted. That includes me, that includes you, that includes a prospective judge."

In its 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that so-called sodomy laws in Texas and 13 other states, including Virginia, were unconstitutional.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that there was "no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."

But Section § 18.2-361 of Virginia Code, which bans sodomy, has never been repealed.

"If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony," the law states.

Last year, the Supreme Court was asked to hear the case of a North Carolina man, William S. MacDonald, who was convicted of sodomy in Virginia in 2005 for oral sex.

Marshall is currently battling former Sen. George Allen and tea party activist Jamie Radtke for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate.

"I've got strong beliefs, I can't change them like a coat," he told the Richmond Times-Dispatch last week.

(h/t: Politico)