Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Papa Frankie Not As Hateful to the Gays, World Freaks Out

Pope Francis threw the Earth off its axis this weekend when he spoke about gays in terms that were less than hateful.

Returning to Rome on his private jet after a trip to Brazil, Papa Frankie responded to a reporter's question about gay priests, saying “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”

The radical pontiff drew a massive crowd of 3 million to Copa Cabana beach, with nary a thong in site.

Predictably, gays around the world are hailing this news as some sort of about face on the Catholic Church's two thousand year old anti-gay doctrine. Just as predictably, the Vatican is working overtime to correct God's infallible messenger on Earth.

The NY Times reports:
Vatican experts were quick to point out that Francis was not suggesting that the priests or anyone else should act on their homosexual tendencies, which the church considers a sin. But the fact that he made such comments — and used the word “gay” — was nevertheless revolutionary, and likely to generate significant discussion in local dioceses, where bishops are divided over whether to accept priests who are gay but celibate.
“It’s not a great opening in terms of contents, but the fact that he talked about it that way is a great novelty,” said Paolo Rodari, a Vatican expert at the Italian daily La Repubblica. Francis would probably agree with Benedict’s writings on homosexuality, he added, “but it doesn’t interest him.”
“It interests him to say that the problem in the end isn’t if someone has this tendency, the important thing is to live in the light of God,” Mr. Rodari said. “Said by a pope, it’s enormous.”
By using the word "gay", the pope has, unwittingly, dragged the church, kicking and screaming, into the pre-Stonewall 1960's. Now that's what I call progress!

But make no mistake. The Vatican is making it clear that it runs the show - not the Pope - and being gay is still a "problem" to be overcome, despite what he has to say about it. Don't expect to see Frankie leading the Vatican City Gay Pride parade in his tricked out Popemobile any time soon.

So keep it in your pants and grovel for forgiveness for being made in the Lord's queer image and you can still be a good Catholic, even a priest. Catholics love a good martyr, so go suffer away, boys and girls. Well, maybe not the girls. You still have no rights in the church and can't be priests, so please continue being subordinate and shut up and sit down.

As for all you gays who aren't Catholic, or have any shred of self respect, you're still going to Hell.

Friday, July 26, 2013

Russian Gay Rights Activist Responds to Stoli Boycott: "LOL"

Russian gay rights activist Nikolai Alekseev responded to Dan Savage's call for a worldwide boycott on Russian vodka today on his FaceBook page. 

"I think all this bullshitting about boycotting Russian vodka only makes outsiders (heteros, authorities, media) think that all gays are real alcoholics that their boycott can have impact on Vodka sales and that they have nothing else to boycott except Vodka. LOL." 

As usual, Savage is taking credit for kicking off a boycott that was actually the brainchild of someone else. In this case, LGBT activist Cleve Jones.

Alekseev elaborated in a post on Gay Star News:
Nikolai Alekseev, a regular Gay Star News contributor, has said it will have little effect on the ‘gay propaganda’ law.
US gay rights campaigner Dan Savage pioneered the boycott, telling gay bars to ‘dump Russian vodka’.
Alekseev, in the heart of fighting against the homophobic law, described the boycott as a ‘symbolic gesture doomed to failure’.
‘To be honest, I don’t see the point in boycotting the Russian vodka,' he said.
'It will impact anyone except the companies involved a little bit. The effect will die out very fast, it will not last forever.’
Alekseev added: ‘And what is the aim of this boycott? The producers, even if they become bankrupt because of the boycott (which is unlikely) will not be able to influence Russian politics and President Putin as well as the decisions of the State Duma.’
The human rights campaigner said if people around the world want to do something that will actually help Russian gays, then they should target the homophobic lawmakers.
He said: ‘Just three or four persons on the visa ban list of the EU, USA, UK and several other countries will dissuade other Russian politicians to follow this path.
‘This is the only thing which can effectively work.

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Has Cleve Jones Jumped the Shark with Stoli Vodka Boycott?

As many in the LGBT community have heard by now, Russian president, Vladimir Putin, signed some of the the most draconian anti-gay legislation into law this summer. In Russia, "homosexual propaganda" is now considered pornography and is punishable by imprisonment. This includes any public mention, even by judges, that homosexuality is anything other than evil. Gays are forbidden to adopt and natural born children of lesbians and gays can be taken away by the state.

Foreign visitors found to be in violation of any of Russia's anti-gay laws can be arrested and detained for up to 14 days. This last bit is especially problematic, considering that Russia will be hosting the 2014 Winter Olympics, which will draw LGBT's from around the world as competitors and spectators.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has issued a statement affirming its commitment to nondiscrimination. Via The Windy City Times :
"The International Olympic Committee is clear that sport is a human right and should be available to all regardless of race, sex or sexual orientation," said the statement. "The Games themselves should be open to all, free of discrimination, and that applies to spectators, officials, media and of course athletes. We would oppose in the strongest terms any move that would jeopardise this principle.
"As you know, this legislation has just been passed into law and it remains to be seen whether and how it will be implemented, particularly as regards the Games in Sochi. As a sporting organization, what we can do is to continue to work to ensure that the Games can take place without discrimination against athletes, officials, spectators and the media. Wider political issues in the country are best dealt with by other international organizations more suited to this endeavor."
There is a growing sense of discontent in many gay-friendly countries, where discussions of boycotting the games are growing.

Meanwhile here in the good old US of A, talk of another kind of boycott has been making it's way around social media. Veteran activist Cleve Jones, who fought alongside Harvey Milk, created The Names Project, AIDS Memorial Quilt, and - with activist and former advisor to President Bill Clinton, David Mixner - organized The National Equality March on Washington in 2009, which I attended, thinks boycotting Stoli vodka will show the Ruskies who's boss.

That's right, by merely switching your cocktail, you can show Vladimir Putin that Russia's queers will not be denied their cock and tail. It's just that simple.

There's just one little problem. The Stoli vodka sold outside of Russia is not made in Russia. In fact, it's made by a completely different company. When confronted with news of a potential queer boycott on their FaceBook page, Stoli released the following statement:
"Stolichnaya Premium Vodka continues to be fervent supporter and friend to the LGBT community. This is true in all the countries the brand operates in around the world. SPI, the owner of Stoli, does not own the Stolichnaya brand in Russia. The Stolichnaya made in Russia for the local market is owned by a State controlled entity that has absolutely no connection to SPI. Stoli firmly opposes the beliefs supported by the Russian Government in relation to the treatment of the LGBT community. If SPI were to manufacture, market and sell Stoli in Russia, the brand would actively demonstrate support for the LGBT community as it does throughout the rest of the world where Stoli is available."
Being the little shit-stirrer that I am, I began posting about this on FaceBook and calling out Cleve Jones on his misguided endeavor. I pointed out that switching the vodka you drink while you party down this summer will have as much impact on Vladimir Putin as Freedom Fries did on France, when they refused to let George W. Bush use their airspace to invade the wrong country. The official French response was none at all.

I have also begun to see other postings on FB about boycotting Russian vodka in general. Queer Nation has already jumped on the train to nowhere and started posting anti-Stoli graphics on social media sites.

I did some checking (it only takes a couple of clicks on Google) and found that most so-called Russian vodkas sold in the US and around the world are not distilled in Russia at all. I mentioned that in some of my postings. While Stoli was the only brand name Cleve specifically mentioned, the fire has been lit and the distinction, as I pointed out to him when he contacted me, will be lost on most people.

The single word that best describes this Stoli boycott is "silly". It is silly to think that the Russian government will become gay friendly if America's queers stop drinking a vodka that isn't even made in Russia. Even if it were made there, it's still just plain silly. Why should they care? Cleve thinks the bad press will help sway them. I guess he forgot who controls the Russian press. Silly.

It is extremely silly that when confronted with the statement from Stoli, which I forwarded to him, Cleve Jones told me,
"You seem singularly focused on defending Stoli. You're entitled to your opinions. I've attempted a civil dialogue despite the rude and dishonest representation in your original post. As for Stoli, it is one of the most recognizable Russian brands in the world and one of the few Russian consumer goods available to ordinary folks. I'm going to continue to support the boycott of Stoli among other tactics. If you have ideas of your own on how to help, you should put them out there. But I've given you more than enough of my time on this issue." 
As I told him in response, I am singularly focused on the truth.

Cleve, you've done a lot for our community, but one of the things we cannot do if we hope to secure true equality, is to stoop to the level of those who work against us by spreading lies. If we can't win with the truth, then we don't deserve to win at all. It makes us no better than Brian Brown, Maggie Gallagher, Fred Phelps, Brian Fischer and all the rest who lie about LGBT people for a living. You are better than that.

You want ideas? How about doing something constructive, like pressuring Secretary of State John Kerry to come out with a statement condemning Russia's war on gays? How about pressuring the US Olympic Committee to boycott the Olympics next year? How about petitioning the United Nations Human Rights Council to issue a condemnation?

Personally, I don't drink and I don't care what anybody else drinks. Just don't drink Cleve's Kool Aid. You'll only end up looking silly.

Monday, April 29, 2013

Today in Sports: Jason Collins vs. Tim Tebow, Substance Over Fluff

Jason Collins
I never -- and I mean NEVER -- talk about sports, except when it's about how hot some of the jocks are and what assholes they were to me in high school. Today is a special exception because two major events have happened on the same day.

First, the-too-cute-to-be-straight, spontaneously genuflecting, darling of the religious right, Tim Tebow, got cut from the NY Jets after only one season. I honestly don't care about this story at all. Honestly, the only other Jet I can name is Tony, from West Side Story.

I thought I might just mention it, because I find it funny and ironic and all sorts of cosmically fitting that this story has been totally overshadowed by the Sports Illustrated cover story about NBA center Jason Collins coming out of the closet.

Collins writes in the May 6 issue of SI, "Imagine you're in the oven, baking. Some of us know and accept our sexuality right away and some need more time to cook. I should know - I baked for 33 years." 

Except for the Holocaust mental imagery, which Collins might know about if gay history was included in, well, history class, this is a powerful statement about coming out. We in the LGBT community each come out in our own time, when we feel comfortable enough in our own skin and strong enough to stop giving a shit about what others think about us.


Of course it's different in the testosterone filled, close quarters of professional sports. It's one thing to know that there may be gay men or women sharing the showers with you after the game, it's quite another to know who they are. We've long wondered how the professional sporting world would react to an out and proud male athlete. We're about to find out.

The reactions have been mostly supportive. Kobe Bryant tweeted, “Proud of @jasoncollins34. Don't suffocate who u r because of the ignorance of others #courage #support #mambaarmystandup #BYOU.”

Ellen DeGeneres is "overwhelmed by your bravery."

Meanwhile over at ESPN, the Fox "News" of sports, the reactions by those who have mastered the art of reading, have been mostly snarky and insulting. Fuck them. Stuff your fat faces with Hardee's 3000 calorie bowls of fat covered in glop until your inevitable heart attack. You won't be missed.

It's better to come out fully cooked than half-baked.


Sunday, May 20, 2012

NAACP Board: "We Support Marriage Equality"

Citing the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the NAACP  announced its support for marriage Equality as a civil right in a press release Saturday:
(Miami, Florida) The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People today released a resolution supporting marriage equality. At a meeting of the 103-year old civil rights group’s board of directors, the organization voted to support marriage equality as a continuation of its historic commitment to equal protection under the law.
“The mission of the NAACP has always been to ensure the political, social and economic equality of all people,” said Roslyn M. Brock, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the NAACP. “We have and will oppose efforts to codify discrimination into law.”
“Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law. The NAACP’s support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people” said Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP.
The NAACP has addressed civil rights with regard to marriage since Loving v. Virginia declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional in 1967. In recent years the NAACP has taken public positions against state and federal efforts to ban the rights and privileges for LGBT citizens, including strong opposition to Proposition 8 in California, the Defense of Marriage Act, and most recently, North Carolina’s Amendment 1, which changed the state constitution’s to prohibit same sex marriage.
Below is the text of the resolution passed by the NAACP board of directors:
The NAACP Constitution affirmatively states our objective to ensure the “political, educational, social and economic equality” of all people. Therefore, the NAACP has opposed and will continue to oppose any national, state, local policy or legislative initiative that seeks to codify discrimination or hatred into the law or to remove the Constitutional rights of LGBT citizens. We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Further, we strongly affirm the religious freedoms of all people as protected by the First Amendment.
This statement by the oldest and largest civil rights organization in America goes a long way to dispelling the lies put forth by groups like the National Organization for Marriage that strive to drive a wedge between the African American community and the LGBT community.

While surveys have shown that the African American community has been slower to accept LGBT equality than the general population, increases in tolerance continue to be made. The strong leadership shown by the NAACP this week is in accordance with the argument we've been making all along that marriage is a civil right.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Obama Evolves: Welcome to the 21st Century, Barry!

As you've all heard by now, President Obama has come out in full support of Marriage Equality in an interview with ABC's Robin Roberts.
"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."
This is an historic event in the history of the LGBT rights movement. This is the first time a sitting president has made such a statement of support for full marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.

We all have reason to celebrate this morning, but I have to say that this news is bitter sweet, coming a day after the passing of Amendment One in North Carolina. I can't help but wonder about the timing of this announcement.

On Sunday Joe Biden made a statement on Meet the Press that he supports Marriage Equality, only to have the White House spin doctors go ape shit trying to back peddle and say that Biden didn't say what we all heard him say. Meanwhile, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said at a Monday news conference that he agrees with Biden's position.

The official off-the-record explanation from unnamed White House sources is that "The Big O" evolved earlier this year, but chose not to make it public until this week, on the heals of Biden's and Duncan's statements and increased pressure from LGBT critics and high dollar donors.

The question now is whether or not this will hurt or help the president in the lead-up to the fall elections. Naturally Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, as well as Tony Perkins of the hate group Family Research Council and other professional bigots have jumped all over this story claiming that the battle lines have been drawn and that the president's words now match his actions.

Gallagher seems to think this is a good thing for the anti-gays and is happy that the president is "no longer lying" about his support for marriage equality.

CNN's Soledad O'Brien went head-to-head with Perkins this morning, grilling him about the "redefinition of marriage" argument. O'Brien pointed out that marriage has changed over the years as society has changed, but Perkins would have none of it. Via Mediaite:

“You’re talking about redefinition,” Perkins said. “There is no rational reason to keep people of different races that were of opposite sex to marry. They met the qualifications of the definition of marriage. What we’re talking about here is a further redefinition of marriage…”
“But hasn't marriage been redefined and redefined?” O’Brien interjected.
“It’s going to intentionally create environments where you have children growing up without a mom and a dad,” Perkins argued.
“But we have environments where children grow up…” O’Brien countered. “Forgive me for interrupting, but we have environments already in heterosexual couples where they grow up without a mom or dad. You’re certainly not arguing gay marriage is fine as long as the couples don’t want to have kids because you will avoid that problem, kids growing up without a mom or a dad, or an older couple who aren’t going to have kids?”
All I can say is haters gotta hate and people who don't believe in evolution never evolve.

The anti-gay folks were never going to vote for Obama anyway, or should I say the anti-gay white folks. It remains to be seen whether or not black and Latino voters, who turned out in record numbers for Obama in 2008, will shift their support to Romney over this, or just say home. It's hard to believe that anybody is a single-issue voter any more. The bigots are betting that they are enough of them left to unseat the president.

Although Obama says this was a personal decision, not a political one, there can be no doubt that he considered every angle before making his statement to ABC, which, according to those same anonymous sources, was recorded on Monday, on the condition that it not air until Wednesday. We are left to wonder whether influencing the NC vote was a consideration.

For now, let's be glad in the moment. Welcome to the 21st century, Mr. President!

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Thoughts on Amendment One

Homophobia won the day on Tuesday as NC voters turned out to cement bigotry and discrimination into the state constitution by a vote of 61% - 39%.

Maggie Gallagher and the rest of the trolls at NOM are gloating over their victory. Comment wars are raging on news sites all over the web and the culture wars have received a jump start in the lead up to the presidential election.

There are petitions making the rounds on the web calling on the Democrats to move their convention out of Charlotte to a more tolerant state. That's not going to happen. The hall has been booked, security checks have been done and Obama needs a swing state, even a bigoted one like North Carolina.

There was a lot of discussion from the Anti-Amendment side saying that the wording of the ballot measure was too broad and that people didn't understand what they were voting for. That may be so, but exit polling showed that the misinformation campaign waged by anti-equality side was successful. They were better funded by seasoned veterans like NOM, who receive a great deal of their funding from their founders in the Catholic and Mormon churches.

The White House released the following statement Tuesday night,
“The President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples," Obama's North Carolina spokesman Cameron French said in a statement.

"He believes the North Carolina measure singles out and discriminates against committed gay and lesbian couples, which is why he did not support it. President Obama has long believed that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and legal protections as straight couples and is disappointed in the passage of this amendment," French said.
Sorry, Mr. President, but your words ring a little hollow your when surrogates like Joe Biden come out in full support of marriage equality, as you straddle the fence in your slo-mo evolution. We know you have an election to win, but the folks who would be swayed to vote against you if you came out in full support of marriage equality aren't going to vote for you anyway.

Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry released this statement Tuesday night:
“As momentum for the freedom to marry continues to grow in the rest of the nation, today’s vote is a painful reminder of what happens when a preemptive ballot-measure is stampeded through before people have had enough time to take in real conversations about who gay families are and why marriage matters to them.  This amendment is a last gasp of discrimination that will cause real harm to families, communities, and businesses in North Carolina, but says little about the prospects for a better outcome in battles to come in states where there has been greater visibility for loving and committed couples and those who get to know them.   And even in North Carolina, the long-term effect of this nasty attack will be to spur more conversations and open more hearts, helping more people rise to fairness and support for the freedom to marry.”
Evan, dear, pull your head out of your ass and take a look around, you self-serving, sanctimonious, toad. North Carolina does not live in a vacuum and the debate over marriage equality is hardly anything new. The Amendment One ballot initiative was approved by state legislators six months ago. Your organization could have provided much needed funding and led the charge in this fight, but you chose not to. You wrote it off as unwinnable and threw us under the bus. You don't get to say DICK about this loss!

We are down, but not defeated. We can take heart in the knowledge that California's Prop 8 is working its way through the courts and will hopefully be decided once and for all, with nationwide implications. Lower courts have already ruled that Prop 8 violates the US Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process. SCOTUS could hear the case within the next two years. All eyes are now on California.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Uninformed Voters Could Help Defeat NC Amendment One

A new survey conducted by Public Policy Polling shows that support for Amendment One, the anti-gay constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage and all domestic partnerships has hit an all time low, coming in at 54%.
The Raleigh News-Observer reports:
The constitutional amendment on marriage appears poised to pass, but a new poll shows support slipping two weeks before the May 8 primary. 
The Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday shows 54 percent of primary voters support making marriage between one man and one woman the only legal union recognized in North Carolina -- a four-percentage-point drop from a month ago.Black voters favor the amendment two-to-one and even Democratic primary voters are split evenly. The referendum needs a majority for approval. 
Opposition increased slightly to 40 percent from 38 percent, a nudge within the poll's 2.9 percent margin of error, according to PPP, a left-leaning polling firm based in Raleigh.The survey shows more primary voters are starting to understand the amendment would ban gay marriage and civil unions. But 10 percent still erroneously  think it legalizes gay marriage and another 27 percent are unsure what it would do.
So what exactly does this mean? Although the News-Observer seems to think that passage is a foregone conclusion, the devil may be in the details. As both pro and anti-Amendment One ads have begun airing across the Tar Heel state over the last week, voters are becoming more aware that it simply goes too far, impacting unmarried straight couples, as well as gay couples and will cost those families their employer-provided health insurance and endanger unmarried victims of domestic violence, by taking away their ability to obtain a protective order against the abusive men in their lives.

The trend over the last six  months has been decidedly against passage, once voters become informed about the implications. When you look at those last figures about uniformed voters, what you see is that 10% could vote against the amendment for the "wrong" reasons and that 27% are still reachable. But the question remains, once unmarried opposite-sex couples understand that their families are at risk too, will they vote against their own best interest just because they are against marriage equality? We'll find out in less than two weeks.

Education is key but it costs a lot of money. You can donate to help fight Amendment One here, at Protect All NC Families.

Home 

ead more h
ere: http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/new_poll_support_for_consititutional_marriage_amendment_slipping#storylink=cpy

Friday, April 13, 2012

Dear Hilary Rosen, Please Shut the F*** Up.

Democratic Strategist Hilary Rosen (public domain photo)
Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, in an effort to regain some lost ground with women voters who have been turned off by attacks on reproductive choice waged by his misogynistic party, said earlier this week that his wife Ann keeps him informed about women's economic concerns.

This was yet another feeble attempt by the bazillionaire/former Massachusetts governor to show the commoners that he feels their pain during these difficult economic times. Gotta give the guy an A for effort, even if nobody is buying the crap he's selling.

Enter talking head/Democratic strategist/out lesbian, Hilary Rosen, who set the 24/7 news cycle and the interwebs ablaze when said told CNN's Thursday morning viewers that Ann Romney, "has never worked a day in her life".

In response, Mrs. Romney made a statement pointing out that she has raised five sons and that being a stay-at-home mom is, in fact, hard work. From this point it got uglier and uglier, as each camp fired salvo after ridiculous salvo and the story took on a life of its own.

Rush Limbaugh weighed in, spending the majority of his three-hour show on a tirade about liberals driving a wedge between working and nonworking mothers:
Via Politico:
"This is big because it’s such a teachable moment. It’s such an illustration of who these people are, the left. It’s such an illustration of phonies of feminism. It is an illustration of the absolute hostility that the left has for women who stay at home."
Naturally, Sarah Palin, the Fox "News" answer to Snooki, offered her own bumper sticker opinion, saying Rosen's comments had "wakened the Mamma Grizzlies". Mamma Grizzlies sure do sleep a lot.

Coming to Rosen's defense is her former partner and power lesbian, Elizabeth Birch, former executive director of The Human Rights Campaign. Birch, who has two children with Rosen, wrote a piece for the Huffington Post Friday morning, where she wrote in part, "There is something just wrong with people twisting concerns for women and jobs into mom-on-mom conflict". 

Really, Liz? I hope that's what you told your ex-wife as you were picking up/dropping off the kids last night, because that's exactly what she did.

It strikes me as the ultimate hypocrisy that two women, Rosen and Birch, who value and defend the right of women to make their own reproductive choices, to have the right to marry the one they love and raise their children as they see fit could be so disrespectful of a woman who exercised her own right to do the exact same thing. 

According to Rosen, freedom of choice is only worthy of respect and protection when we all make the same choices. If you ask me, that sounds more like a conservative Republican mindset than a liberal Democrat one. It's getting so you can't tell them apart any more.

Women work for the same reasons men work, to support themselves and their families. Most working moms don't have much of a choice in the matter. If a woman, or a man, is fortunate enough to have a spouse that makes a good enough salary that she/he can be the primary caregiver for their kids, isn't that a good thing? Isn't it better than turning them over to a stranger to raise? 

For the average married working mother, who is typically just getting by financially, when you factor in the cost of childcare, it's often less expensive for her to not work outside the home. 

But aside from all of this, as a gay man I have to ask, do we really need two prominent members of the LGBT community jumping into the War On Women and dragging the rest of us along with them? It's bad enough that Rosen's insensitive comments have made the Democrats look bad, but the antigay forces out there have already started using this incident to bolster their arguments that gays are a threat to traditional families.

Think Progress reports that Bill Donohue of the Catholic League sent out the following tweet on Thursday morning:
@CatholicLeague: Lesbian Dem Hilary Rosen tells Ann Romney she never worked a day in her life. Unlike Rosen, who had to adopt kids, Ann raised 5 of her own.
Naturally, TP's Zack Ford, who reported on this, took the bait and made much of Donohue's implication that Rosen's children and parental credentials were somehow less than Romney's because her kids are adopted and the pissing contest goes on and on. So much for thinking and for progress.

Before the end of the day, Rosen shot off an unconvincing "my bad", saying, "I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended. Let's declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance."

Too late, Hil. That horse is out of the barn, has jumped the fence and is rolling around in the pig slop. 

The Republican War on Women is very real. The LGBT community has steadfastly fought alongside our straight and gay sisters to defeat every draconian attempt made by Republicans nationwide to strip away women's reproductive rights, including the demeaning and unwarranted, state-sanctioned rape known as  Trans-vaginal Ultrasound, proposed by legislators in Virginia and other states as a means of intimidating women who seek legal abortions. 

Ms. Rosen, you have trivialized political misogyny by participating in it and you've dragged your party and the LGBT community into the mud with you. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Disgraced Prop 8 Witness Opposes NC Amendment One

David Blankenhorn leaving 9th District Court
in January, 2010 after being ripped a new one. 
This one is just too good to pass up. In an Op Ed piece in this morning's Raleigh News and Observer, David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values and his wife, Elizabeth Marquardt, a NC native, have once again contradicted themselves on the subject of marriage equality by opposing Amendment One.


Blankenhorn, played with buffoonish perfection by John C. Riley in Dustin Lance Black's stage production "8", was one of only two so-called expert witnesses called by proponents of California's Prop 8 in the court challenge, Perry vs. Schwarzeneggar (now Perry vs. Brown).  The LA Times reported on the trial back in January 2010:
Under cross-examination by David Boies, an attorney for challengers of the ballot measure, Blankenhorn admitted he knew of no study that showed children reared by gay couples fared worse than those raised by heterosexual parents.
Blankenhorn also conceded that same-sex marriage would probably "improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children."
A spokeswoman for proponents of Proposition 8 said she did not know the context in which Blankenhorn made the statement in his book that same-sex marriage would make the United States "more American."
Yes, you read that right. In 2007 Blankenhorn wrote in a book that the U.S. would be "more American on the day we permit same-sex marriage than we were on the day before."


This morning, The Raleigh News and Observer published a piece by Mr. and Mrs. All-Over-The-Map called, "Amendment goes too far", wherein they state their opposition to NC Amendment One. While they still maintain that marriage should be a heteros-only club, the self-contradicting duo writes:
"We believe that marriage is a uniquely important institution that unites mothers and fathers to their children.
But as marriage advocates, we oppose the state marriage amendment now being debated in North Carolina. We hope that when North Carolinians go to the polls on May 8 they will defeat this measure."
So despite being ripped to shreds on the witness stand and having no credible research to back up their claims, Blankenhorn and Marquardt continue to make their discredited arguments, under the guise of fairness. They are against Amendment One because it would ban domestic partnerships, which they see as a more "humane compromise". 

Humane? Really, Dave? What's next, mandatory spay and neuter laws for the gays? 

Thanks for your self-serving support, Dave and Liz, but we can do this without your help. 


Enhanced by Zemanta

With Mr. Frothy out of the mix, will Amendment One fail?

Don't forget to flush on your way out.
As most of you have heard by now, Rick "Google Me" Santorum has "suspended" his presidential campaign after yet another disappointing round of primaries. Give the man some credit for finally realizing what we all knew from the get go, that he never had a snowball's chance in hell.

America is tired of extremism. In an era where even Liberals aren't liberal any more and the mainstream GOP refusing to use Marriage Equality as a wedge issue, are we beginning to see a hint of a glimmer of rationality in politics?

The Raleigh News and Observer reports today that Santorum's exit from the presidential race could mean trouble for the anti-gay Amendment One, which would cement bigotry into the NC constitution.
Michael Bitzer, a political expert at Catawba College in Salisbury, said North Carolina voters can still make a statement when early voting for the May 8 primary begins on April 19. Santorum and Gingrich – as well as Ron Paul – will appear on the ballot and may draw a protest vote.
The question is how bad Romney limps into the Tampa convention with the base of the Republican Party still not behind him,” Bitzer said.
At the state level, Santorum’s departure may also influence voter turnout in other campaigns. The former Pennsylvania senator’s social conservative voters would have boosted support for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages and civil unions. Likewise, other far-right conservative candidates could have drawn more votes.
“Without a driving factor of a presidential race at the top of the ticket, will (social conservatives) have a motivation to come out?” Bitzer asked.
What Bitzer fails to take into account is that exit polling and public opinion research throughout the GOP primary season has consistently shown two things. First, that Republicans, in general aren't thrilled with any of the choices they've been presented with this year. Voter turnout at the GOP primaries has been at record lows. Romney is too bland and he's got that whole Mormon thing scaring the hell out of the evangelicals and other extremists.

Second, that the other contenders, including the two that are left, are far too extreme, even for extremists and aren't electable. There is speculation that the Gingrich and Ron Paul campaigns might see a slight boost via protest votes from the folks who find Romney and his magic underwear just too icky, but not enough to make a significant difference. There is also the possibility that disillusioned GOP voters may just stay home.

When you take into account the rapidly declining support for Amendment One (60% are now opposed), plus Democratic Governor Bev Perdue's announcement earlier this year that she will not be seeking re-election, voter turnout among Democrats will be greater than NC Republicans anticipated when they approved the referendum back in September. Factor in the disaffected Republican base and the likelihood of passage seems less and less plausible.

While the defeat of Amendment One is far from guaranteed, it's safe to say that the tide has shifted in the Tarheel state and now is the time to keep the momentum going and fight harder than ever. Check out Protect All NC Families to see what you can do to help defeat Amendment One. Make a donation, pick up a yard sign, or volunteer.


Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

New Elon Poll: 60% Oppose NC Amendment One

A new Elon University poll released Monday shows that 60% of North Carolinians oppose Amendment One, the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban any legal recognition of same-sex relationships. With just over a month left before the vote, the poll reveals not only a majority of opposition to Amendment One, but a marked shift in support for either marriage equality or civil unions.
"...support for full marriage rights for same sex couples (38%) or support for civil unions or partnerships for same-sex couples (29%) among the state’s residents continues to increase over the four cycles since September 2011 that we have asked the question. Opposition to any legal recognition for same-sex couples continues to decrease and is now at 29%."
This is great news for LGBT's living in the south. North Carolina is the only southern state without a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heteros-only club. While same-sex marriage is already illegal in the Tar Heal State, defeating this ballot measure at the polls, with a Republican majority running the state for the first time in ten years, would send a message that same-sex marriage is not the wedge issue it once was.

Politico reported Friday that mainstream Republicans don't seem to have the stomach to fight gay marriage any more.
"It’s not like the GOP has become a bastion of progressiveness on gay rights, but there has been an evolution in the political approach — and an acknowledgment of a cultural shift in the country. Same-sex relationships are more prominent and accepted. There are more gay public figures — including politicians — and it’s likely that many Washington Republicans have gay friends and coworkers. Just as important — there’s also a libertarian streak of acceptance on people’s sexuality coursing through the House Republican Conference."

Just three weeks ago, polling showed only 54% opposition, but also revealed that a lot of voters don't understand exactly what Amendment One would do, if passed. Once they understood, they were opposed to it.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

The NOM Papers: Glamorous Non-cognitive Elite

Probably the most revealing tidbit of information gleaned from the newly released (by court order) confidential files of the National Organization for Marriage is the disdain they feel for their celebrity supporters are and how stupid they think they are. That's probably why they have so few of them.

I have to say I agree with Maggie Moo on this point, but talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

"Hollywood with its cultural biases is far bigger than we can hope to be. We recognize this. But we also recognize the opportunity - the disproportionate potential impact of proactively seeking to gather and connect a community of artists, athletes, writers, beauty queens and other glamorous non-cognitive elites across national boundaries. (This is applying the Witherspoon and IAV model to non-intellectual elites.)"


This comes directly from NOM's own Files.

You can't make this shit up.

Home
Enhanced by Zemanta

John "Snooki" Boehner Taking Heat From Both Sides Over DOMA Defense

It's not easy being orange.
Republican Speaker of the House John "Snooki" Boehner just cant get a break these days. Liberals have been harassing Congressman Spray Tan over his decision to take up the legal defense of DOMA. Taxpayers are on the hook to the tune of $1.5 million in legal fees payable to attorney Paul Clement, who quit his job with a prestigious law firm to take the case after they turned it down.

Meanwhile, right-wing fanatics, like the certified hate group Family Research Counsel, are complaining that the bronzer-addicted politico isn't pounding hard enough on our sinful gay asses. Congressional Quarterly reports:

While the Family Research Council and other conservative groups applaud Boehner’s unusual courtroom intervention, the council would like to hear more vocal support of the measure signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
“They hired Paul Clement, and they think their job is done. While the Obama administration ignores DOMA, Speaker Boehner has forgotten that the checks and balances also include Congress,” said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the Family Research Council.
The council sees a challenge of the law’s definition of marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman” as a threat to religious freedom — a potent political argument Republicans used to criticize the Obama administration’s recent requirement that health insurers, including those of religiously affiliated organizations, provide contraceptive coverage.
“I wish that our allies would do more. They are being intimidated into silence by Republican leaders,” McClusky said.
So, now it's the Republicans that are intimidating the Republicans? Sounds like a kinky case of political masturbation.

Well, what can we expect? When you're so blinded by your own hate, it's hard to see the world passing you by. What the myopic McClusky doesn't understand, that the rest of the GOP is beginning to, is that gay-bashing doesn't pay off politically they way it used to. Marriage Equality may still be a wedge issue, but groups like FRC and NOM are increasingly finding themselves alone on their side of the divide.


Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

NAACP Chair, Julian Bond Speaks Out Against NOM's Race Baiting

In response to the disclosure of the NOM Papers, which detail the hate group's plans to divide and conquer by exploiting homophobia in the African-American and Latino communities, veteran civil rights leader and NAACP Chairman, Julian Bond, released the following statement Tuesday, via HRC.
“NOM’s underhanded attempts to divide will not succeed if Black Americans remember their own history of discrimination. Pitting bigotry’s victims against other victims is reprehensible; the defenders of justice must stand together.”
Bond spoke at the National Equality March in Washington, DC in 2009, where he called on African-Americans to support LGBT Equality. I happened to pass him on the steps as he made his way to the podium that day. What an inspiring speaker. 




Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

DOJ orders OPM to Begin Insurance Coverage for Lesbian Spouse

In an unprecedented move, the Department of Justice told the Office of Personnel Management to begin insurance coverage for the wife of OPM employee Karen Golinski, who is suing to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

DOJ notified OPM in a letter dated March 9, to abide by a lower court ruling in February that found section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional. The letter became public on Monday. (via Metro Weekly):
A March 9 letter to Blue Cross Blue Shield, from Shirley Patterson, assistant director of federal employee insurance operations for the Office of Personnel Management, said that “OPM hereby withdraws any outstanding directive regarding the enrollment of Ms. Golinski’s wife, Amy C. Cunninghis, in her family health benefits plan.”
OPM previously said the wife of Karen Golinski, a federal court employee in California, could not be covered.
DOJ has also requested an en banc ruling by an 11-judge panel:
On Monday, DOJ filed two motions in the appeal before the Ninth Circuit, both of which were agreed to by Golinski. The first asks the court to expedite the appeal and the other seeks to skip over the first stage of appellate review, in which a three-judge panel considers the case, in favor of moving directly to en banc consideration by an 11-judge panel of the court.
WHY THE REQUEST: In 1990, the Ninth Circuit had decided that discriminatory government treatment based on sexual orientation -- brought as a claim of "equal protection" violations under the Fourteenth or Fifth amendments -- is subjected to the lowest form of scrutiny, rational basis review. That case, High Tech Gays v. Defense Indus. Sec. Clearance Office, was decided four years after the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick.
Twenty-two years later, and several Supreme Court cases -- most notably the 1996 case of Romer v. Evans and the 2003 case overturning Bowers, Lawrence v. Texas -- call into question the ongoing validity of High Tech Gays. DOJ argues that heightened scrutiny should apply to such claims.
Although Golinski's wife may ultimately lose her spousal insurance coverage when the case is finally ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court, should it reach them, the Obama DOJ has affirmed that she may keep her coverage for the time being. Snooki Boehner's BLAG has not yet filed a response, but have indicated they they intend to.


Now, my question to all those activists who are pushing for the president to come out with an immediate, full-on, unequivocal, verbal statement that he supports marriage equality, at the risk of losing the election, is, what more do you need?


The Administration has ordered OPM to honor spousal benefits for the wife of a lesbian employee. They have requested that Golinski vs. OPM be expedited, which means it could be ruled on before the November election. You are free to demand a clearer statement of support from the Big O, but my advice to you is, don't hold your breath.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, March 26, 2012

Court Documents Prove NOM's Plan to Divide Gay and Black Communities

By Alvin McEwan
Cross-posted from Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters.


The National Organization for Marriage's unsuccessful fight to skirt Maine's financial disclosure laws just backfired majorly on the group by revealing a  distasteful part of its game plan to stop marriage equality.


According to a court document that was uploaded online, NOM specifically worked to drive a wedge between the black and gay community on the subject of marriage equality:


According to page 11 of this document called Marriage: $20 Million Strategy for Victory:



3. Not a Civil Right Project 
The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks - two key democratic constituencies. We aim to find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; to develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; and to provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party.
NOM has portrayed whatever African-American opposition to marriage equality its spotlighted as spontaneous attempts by leaders and members of the black community to keep its civil rights legacy from supposedly being "tainted" by a comparison to gay equality.


But now we see that there was nothing spontaneous about this. It was a cynically planned effort by NOM - which the organization continues to exploit - in order to drive a wedge between blacks and gays.


And notice how NOM says that one of the purposes of creating this division was to create a negative reaction from gay equality supporters against the African-Americans speaking out against marriage equality.


One doesn't have to spell out how this benefits NOM's efforts. The two sides attack each other with extreme anger causing magazine articles to be written about the division, news programs to focus on the division, and venomous chats to occur on places like Facebook and Twitter.


Some heterosexual African-Americans will let loose with homophobia against the gay community.  And some white lgbtqs will express racist comments about the black community. Both communities will be at each other's throats. There will be no intelligent conversations on the matter and neither community will benefit an iota.


And NOM wiill sit back and reap the benefits of causing this chaos.


It reminds me of an Aesop fable I once posted:
An Eagle had made her nest at the top of a lofty oak. A Fox, having found a convenient hole, lived with her young in the middle of the trunk; and a Wild Sow with her young had taken shelter in a hollow at its foot. The Fox resolved to destroy by her arts this chance-made colony. She climbed to the nest of the Eagle, and said: "Destruction is preparing for you, and for me too. The Wild Sow, whom you may see daily digging up the earth, wishes to uproot the oak, that she may, on its fall, seize our families as food." Then she crept down to the cave of the Sow and said: "Your children are in great danger; for as soon as you shall go out with your litter to find food, the Eagle is prepared to pounce upon one of your little pigs." When night came, she went forth with silent foot and obtained food for herself and her young; but, feigning to be afraid, she kept a look-out all through the day. Meanwhile, the Eagle, full of fear of the Sow, sat still on the branches, and the Sow, terrified by the Eagle, did not dare to go out from her cave; and thus they each, with their families, perished from hunger.
Moral - Gay folks and black folks can argue all day as to who gets to be the "sow" and who gets to be the "eagle." But both groups better damn well recognize who the hell the fox is.


Editor's note - There are a lot of court documents and I'm sure that in the coming days, we will learn more about NOM's exploits. Stay tuned not only to this blog but several others.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Breaking: Obama May or May Not Endorse Marriage Equality Before Election

Hold onto your hats, boys and girls! There's a 50-50 chance that something might, could, possibly, but not likely, happen and the LGBT acti-verse is all atwitter about it.

The argument rages unabated in the LGBT community as to whether President Obama should finish evolving on marriage equality and make a public endorsement before the November general election. Opinions are split and very passionate on both sides of the debate.

First Lady Michelle Obama didn't help matters much on Monday night when she spoke at a fundraiser in New York, hosted by actor Robert DeNiro at his restaurant in TriBeCa. Mrs. Obama told the $5000 a plate crowd, "And let us not forget what their decisions — the impact those decisions will have on our lives for decades to come -– on our privacy and security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly, and, yes, love whomever we choose."

Naturally, the gay press has jumped all over the First Lady's words in an effort to glean some clue about the president's evolution.

Enter the inside source. The Washington Blade spoke an anonymous someone who claims to have knowledge of what's happening behind the scenes at he White House. The insider says that discussions are just as heated and divided in the Executive Mansion as they are in the real world. According to the latter day Deep Throat, the president is likely to announce something significantly pro-LGBT before the election, but it may or may not be what impatient activists want to hear.
According to the source, the administration would like to unveil another major pro-LGBT initiative before the November election, and an endorsement of marriage equality could fit the bill. But concerns persist on how an endorsement of same-sex marriage would play in four or five battleground states.
“We’re talking about the Michigans, the Ohios, the Illinois of the world; the real battleground states in which voters are already conflicted and may factor this into their judgment,” the source said.
Moreover, the administration may only want to expend political capital on one measure. It could come down to a choice between an endorsement of marriage equality and something else, such as the executive order requiring federal contractors to have LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policies.
“My feeling is you’ll get one, you won’t get both before Election Day,” the source said. “There is a great timidity in terms of their dealing with the gays, right? In many ways, they kind of consider our issues to be the third rail.”
In other words, one of two things could happen. One could blow the president's chances of re-election and the other probably won't.

So what do we make of this? For one thing, from the use of the words,"our issues", the insider is one of us. For another, the administration still sees LGBT issues as problematic, especially during an election year. That's about all we can know for sure.

But that doesn't keep queer politicos from weighing in on the subject.

Jeremy Kennedy, campaign manager for Protect All NC Families, one of the major NGO's leading the fight to defeat North Carolina's Amendment 1, told The Blade, “I think what the president said on Friday specifically on North Carolina was probably more helpful than coming out for same-sex marriage would be for us because this isn't a same-sex marriage fight here. Regardless of whether this amendment passes or fails, it’s not going to change the state of marriage in North Carolina.”

Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry was more adamant, saying, “Americans want their president to show moral leadership and stand up when the freedoms and rights of Americans are at stake.” 

While Wolfson is right, I think he's being shortsighted. As long as the president doesn't officially change his position on marriage equality, Republican conservatives will continue to say that his position on same-sex marriages is the same as theirs. I say let them think so if it means swing voters will support the rest of Obama's policies and help him get re-elected.

We have to accept the fact that Obama coming out with a grand announcement of support for marriage equality before the November election is unlikely.

It seems more likely that the president will continue to try to give us reason to believe that he supports us, by denouncing state anti-marriage equality initiatives, as he did last week and by passing an executive order banning discrimination against LGBT employees of government contractors, which could potentially effect millions of people in a significant way.

Love him or hate him, Barack Obama has done more for the LGBT community than any other U.S. president in history. If any of the Republican candidates win, one of the first things we can expect is a major rollback on all the progress we've made over the last three years. Of course Obama can do more for us, but only if he gets a second term. Why risk that now? It doesn't make sense.

Enhanced by Zemanta