Today's Double Post

Dear friends,

The Internet has made amazing things possible, like freeing the Jena 6 and electing President Obama. None of it could have happened without an "open" Internet: one where Internet service providers are not allowed to interfere with what is seen and by whom.

Now, Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon -- the most powerful broadband providers -- are trying to fundamentally change the way the Internet works. They're seeking to make even bigger profits by acting as gatekeepers over what we see and do online. If they succeed, the Internet would be more like radio and television: a few major corporations would control which voices are heard most easily, and it would be much harder for grassroots groups, individuals, and small businesses to compete with large corporations and well-funded special interests.

The FCC wants to do the right thing and keep the Internet open, but the big providers have been attacking their efforts, with help from Black leaders who have financial ties to the industry. And a recent court ruling just made the FCC's job even tougher.^[1] If the FCC is to preserve an open Internet, they will have to boldly assert their authority and press even harder. It's why they need to hear directly from everyday people about the importance of an open Internet, now.

Will you join me in sending a message to the Federal Communications Commission supporting their effort to preserve an open Internet? It takes only a moment:

http://colorofchange.org/opennet/?id=2190-1129750

The FCC is working to create rules that would protect "net neutrality," the principle that protects an open and free Internet and which has guided the Internet's operation since it began. It guarantees that information you put online is treated the same as anyone else's information in terms of its basic ability to travel across the Internet. Your own personal website or blog can compete on equal footing with the biggest companies. It's the reason the Internet is so diverse -- and so powerful. Anyone with a good idea can find their audience online, whether or not there's money to promote the idea or money to be made from it.

AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon are spending millions of dollars lobbying to create a new system where they can charge large fees to speed up some data while leaving those who can't afford to pay in the slow lane.^[2] Such a system could end the Internet as we know it -- giving wealthier voices on the Internet a much bigger megaphone than poorer voices, and stunting the Internet's amazing equalizing potential.

Buying the support of Black organizations?

President Obama strongly supports net neutrality, and so do most members of the FCC. With so much at stake for Black communities, you would expect Black leaders and civic organizations to line up in support of an open Internet.

But instead, a group of Black civic organizations is challenging the adoption of net neutrality rules. Some of the groups are nothing more than front groups for the phone and cable companies. Others, however, are major civil rights groups -- and all of them have significant financial ties to the nation's biggest Internet service providers. For example, AT&T donated half a million dollars last year to the NAACP, and led a drive to raise $5 million more^[3], and boasts of donating nearly $3 million over the last ten years to a number of Black-led organizations.^[4] Verizon, meanwhile, recently gave The National Urban League and the National Council of La Raza a $2.2 million grant.^[5] Comcast is one of the National Urban League's "national partners" (Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen now sits on the NUL's Board of Trustees)^[6], and the NUL's 2008 annual report notes that Comcast donated over $1 million that year.^[7] Many of these groups have now filed letters with the FCC opposing or cautioning against net neutrality,^[8,9,10,11] and the Internet service providers are using the groups' support to promote their agenda in Washington.^[12,13]

The main argument put forth by these groups is that net neutrality rules would widen the digital divide. They say that unless we allow Internet service providers to make bigger profits by acting as gatekeepers online, they won't expand Internet access in under-served communities. It's a bogus, trickle-down argument that has been thoroughly debunked.^{[14, 15]} Expanding access to high speed Internet is an extremely important goal. But Internet service providers are already making huge profits,^{[16, 17]} and if they believed that investing in low-income communities made good business sense, they would already be doing it. Allowing them to make more money by acting as toll-takers on the Internet won't change that. When these civil rights groups have been asked to back up their arguments, none have been able to do so without appealing to discredited, industry-funded studies.^[18] Nevertheless, the FCC has taken notice of what these civil rights gro ups are saying about net neutrality, and is wary of going against them for fear of being perceived as insensitive to minority concerns.^[19]

Now it's up to you

The FCC wants to do the right thing and implement net neutrality rules. FCC commissioners know, as we do, that the anti-net neutrality arguments coming from civil rights groups are bogus. But they don't want to appear to be on the wrong side of Black interests.^[20]

We need to demonstrate that there's support among Black folks and everyone else for protecting an open Internet. Please join me in telling the FCC that we support net neutrality.

You can add your voice here:

http://colorofchange.org/opennet/?id=2190-1129750

Thanks.

References:

1. http://bit.ly/drWbQ3
2. http://www.savetheinternet.com/threats-open-internet
3. http://bit.ly/akyXZS
4. http://bit.ly/aGOz89
5. http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/54262/
6. http://bit.ly/93zDr6
7. http://bit.ly/dnqyq4
8. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020141807
9. http://mmtconline.org/lp-pdf/NatlOrgs%20NN%20Comments%20011410.pdf
10. http://colorofchange.org/opennet/jan-letter.pdf
11. http://colorofchange.org/opennet/naacp-letters.pdf
12. http://colorofchange.org/opennet/usindustry-letter.pdf
13. http://bit.ly/d8GdOu
14. http://www.freepress.net/files/nn_fact_v_fiction_final.pdf
15. http://bit.ly/ay0dx7
16. http://bit.ly/9JQSDk
17. http://nyti.ms/cZaGq8
18. http://bit.ly/cpPA51
19. http://huff.to/awKtvk
20. http://huff.to/awKtvk

Gibbs: Obama Would Agree Its Odd The DOJ Cited Powells Old Views To Defend DADT In Court

Via JMG:

CNN Asks: Does Gayness Need A Cure?

Masked in a story about the move to delete an archaic California law requiring the state to seek a cure for homosexuality, CNN unbelievably handed the issue off to the wildly insane "ex-gay therapist" Richard Cohen, who infamously recommends beating your gay away with a tennis racket and a pillow. In 2002 Cohen was ejected from the American Counseling Association, yet he continues to present himself as a "psychotherapist." In Twitter speak: WFT@CNNfail?

via JMG

Via JMG: Anti-Gay Family Research Council Sees CA$H In Fight Against ENDA

The Family Research Council has launched a fund-raising drive based on their claim that all good Christians will be forced...FORCED!...to hire men in dresses if ENDA passes.

Do you think it's right for liberals running the government to ...

* Force a Christian bookstore to hire a man . . . who dresses in women's clothing?
* Force your child's religious school to hire homosexual instructors?
* Force your employer to fire or censure you for what they call "anti-gay harassment" . . . for simply keeping a Bible on your desk?

That's the nightmare you could face if the Obama/Pelosi/Reid Congress passes the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). And that's why it must be exposed. This law would change America forever by allowing all of the outrages I've stated above-and more. Most chilling, liberals in Congress almost passed ENDA in 2007! Will you stand with Family Research Council (FRC) now by sending a generous tax-deductible contribution to help us support our national effort to expose the disastrous consequences of this bill -- again? There is hope-if we act now.

You are standing in the way of the Left's immoral vision for America. And laws like ENDA are intended for one thing-to silence your "obsolete" Christian morality and tear down all boundaries to unhealthy sexual behavior. By sustaining your prayers and generous support of FRC, you're not only investing in the long-term health of faith, family, and freedom in America You're also strengthening the leading social conservative organization in Washington, D.C. Our respected team has decades of experience developing and blocking legislation, voicing the truth in and through the media, and mobilizing Americans.

Note the unattributed "obsolete" in the last paragraph. Somebody totally said that. Somewhere. Probably on the internet. The above press release closes with this scripture: "Ephesians 6:13 - Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand."a repost via JMG

Via JMG: Dancing With The Stars Contestants Advocate For Marriage Equality

Last night Dancing With The Stars contestants Niecy Nash and Louis Van Amstel performed a waltz depicting an interracial couple prevented to marry. In interviews shown before and after their performance, both expressed support for marriage equality, with openly gay Van Amstel mentioning how he was "still in that boat" depicted in the dance.


(Via - Towleroad)

posted by Joe

That's Gay: "Ex-Gay Conversion"

That's Gay: "Ex-Gay Conversion"

Bryan Safi's latest That's Gay piece shreds the "ex-gay" nutters, including Richard Cohen, who coincidentally appeared on CNN today where he was shamefully given airtime to spew his assholery. I'll have that clip as soon as it appears on YouTube.

posted by Joe

Via Fred:

If you haven't read the wonderful story by

Stephanie Mencimer in the March - April issue of

Mother Jones Magazine, it is now available online.

Click here: Mother Jones

It's titled: Of Mormons and (Gay) Marriage

He was one of the GOP's top dark-arts operators.

Now he's riding into battle to save gay marriage—and unmask the Mormon Church.

More JMG: Fred Phelps' Estranged Son Tells All

Fred Phelps' Estranged Son Tells All

Nate Phelps fled his loony family years ago, but is telling the world about the horror of growing up Phelps.

posted by Joe

Via JMG: HomoQuotable - Anthony Venn-Brown

"‘Situational heterosexuality’ is a term I’ve used for several years when people have asked how I could have been married for so many years and yet be gay. This term has also helped people gain a clearer understanding of what really happens when someone who is homosexual marries someone of the opposite sex and claims change. Confusion about what really happens in these situations still exists and often wrongly reinforces the ‘homosexuality is a choice’ and ‘homosexuals can change’ concept.

"How often have you heard someone say something like this ‘They couldn’t be gay, they’re married’. When someone says that to me, I just remain silent for a while with a smile on my face (having been a gay man in a heterosexual marriage) and wait for what I’m actually thinking to sink into the consciousness of the person who made the naive statement." - Former "ex-gay" evangelical minister Anthony Venn-Brown. Brown, now one of Australia's leading LGBT activists, compares the situational homosexuality found in prisons to the reverse situation faced by gay men in heterosexual marriages.

a repost via JMG

Via NoFo:

Every argument against marriage equality is horseshit

While it has yet to articulate a single argument against marriage equality that meets basic standards of plausibility or verisimilitude, the gay discrimination industry has coughed up a litany of anti-equality arguments designed to appeal to the gullible and the intellectually compromised. These arguments get parroted about so frequently that even thinking people start to become inured to their irrationality and ridiculousness.

Fortunately, none of these arguments could survive the academic scrutiny of a marginally sober third-grader. In the best light, they’re just hollow platitudes. In the worst, they’re vile, desperate lies. And if you ever get caught in a conversation with a discrimination parrot—or if you want to defend marriage equality in an angry blog post or a letter to the editor—feel free to steal the simple refutations below with complete impunity.


Gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of straight marriage
Wrong. Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage destroys the sanctity of straight marriage. Rush Limbaugh’s three temporary marriages destroy the sanctity of straight marriage. John McCain dating and proposing to his second wife while still married to his disfigured first wife destroys the sanctity of straight marriage.

We can’t redefine marriage
• The concept of “redefining marriage” is a linguistic distraction designed to pull the spotlight away from the underlying hatred behind “traditional marriage” propaganda. Giving gay people equal access to the rights and protections of marriage will not change the definition of marriage. Nothing about gay marriage alters heterosexual marriage. The definition of marriage between heterosexuals will remain exactly the same.
• If we hadn’t redefined marriage in the 1960s, Barack Obama would still be a bastard in the 19 states that wouldn’t allow the interracial marriage of his parents when he was born.
• Ronald Reagan, the divorced patron saint of the modern conservative theocracy, redefined marriage into something temporary and easily revocable in 1969 when as governor of California he signed the Family Law Act, leading the United States into an era of no-fault divorce.
• Other historical “redefinitions” of marriage involve the transition of marriage from a business relationship between families to a property relationship between a man and his wife and then to a relationship based on relative equality between a man and a woman.

Marriage is the foundation of society
One could argue that the true foundation of society is a successful public health policy. Or a working economy. Or an equitable system of education. Whether marriage—specifically heterosexual-only marriage as this argument goes—is also some kind of "foundation" depends on a broad range of definitions of foundation. In any case, this argument is little more than a hollow platitude designed to sound meaningful when other arguments against equality implode for lack of substance.

Homosexuality is not natural
Wrong. Since it occurs randomly in nature across all species without any identifiable outside influence, homosexuality is completely natural. Religion, on the other hand, is created entirely by the human imagination. Which makes it, by definition, unnatural.

Americans think gay people are gross
Americans think obese parents, pregnant teenagers and Rush Limbaugh are gross. And they’re allowed to marry as often as they want.

Gay marriage teaches children it’s OK to be gay
Exactly. Just as organized religion teaches children it’s OK to embrace the supernatural over the real. And there are no laws against that.

I shouldn’t be forced to explain gay marriage to my kids
An unwillingness to expose children to the diversity outside their family is no justification for denying adults equal access to financial and legal protections for their own families.

Marriage is designed to produce children
No it’s not.
• Straight marriage laws carry no reproduction requirements.
• If they did, infertile or menopausal people wouldn’t be allowed to marry.

Children deserve a mother and a father
That's how they're usually made, yes. But since marriage is not contingent on producing children—and vice versa—this argument is just an emotional-heartstrings-flavored distraction deployed to change the subject when other anti-equality arguments are exposed for their implausibility and desperation.

Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to men marrying dogs
No it won’t. And anyone who makes this imbecilic argument is not emotionally or intellectually fit to participate in any conversation that affects public policy.

If we allow men to marry men …
The slippery slope argument uses wild conjecture in place of reason and fact, making it the last vestige of the intellectually desperate. Since it’s based on nothing but imagination, the arguments can go in an infinite number of directions. And these arguments are easily trumped: If we allow people to vote on gay marriages, we’ll have to allow people to vote on marriages between adulterers and divorcees. If we allow Christian mythology to influence our laws, we’ll have to allow Wiccan theology to influence our laws as well. If we follow Christian mandates on marriage, we’ll also have to follow Christian mandates on adultery, divorce and the subjugation of women.

The institution of marriage is under attack by gay people
No it’s not. Gay people want to emulate marriage. The only people attacking the institution of marriage are the people currently allowed to be married: heterosexuals who divorce or commit acts of domestic abuse and adultery.

Marriage should be decided by the states
No it shouldn’t. Speed limits should be decided by the states. Sales taxes should be decided by the states. School calendars should be decided by the states. People’s relationships, legal protections and tax benefits shouldn’t change when they drive across state lines.

Marriage should be decided by voters
No it shouldn’t. Individual marriages should be decided only by the two people entering into them.

Gay people don't deserve special rights
Equality is not a special right. Calling it a "special right" is an ugly distraction tactic designed at best to pull focus from the underlying hatred behind anti-marriage-equality arguments and at worst to mislead and inflame the passions of gullible, low-information voters.

We should just agree to disagree
People “agree to disagree” about frivolous things like music or sports teams or religious beliefs. The active denial of legal equality is not frivolous; it has real consequences for real families. Either you’re for marriage equality or you’re against equality. There’s no room for friendly disagreement in the equation.

No offense, but I don’t think gay people should marry
Believing that one class of people does not deserve equal protections under the law is extremely offensive. Especially when there is no logical, rational or even plausible reason for your belief.

I don’t hate gay people—I just believe marriage should be between a man and a woman
Denying people equality for nothing more compelling than “belief” is a form of hate. If you work to marginalize gay people, it doesn’t matter whether you act out of malice or selective interpretation of religious dogma. Either way, you are endorsing a system designed to hurt people.

Defending marriage is not hate
Wrong. Calling hate "defending marriage" is the most vile, cowardly, deliberately misleading form of hate.

I don’t believe in the homosexual lifestyle
Good. Because there is no such thing as a universal homosexual lifestyle, just like there is no universal heterosexual lifestyle or Christian lifestyle or atheist lifestyle. The “lifestyle” argument is nothing more than a gross overgeneralization built on the implication that gay people are all whores, and it’s used to demonize us in an attempt to justify denying us legal equality.

Marriage is a religious institution
No it’s not.
• Marriage licenses and marriage certificates are issued by governments, not churches.
• If it were, we wouldn’t allow atheists to get married.
• If it were, we wouldn’t allow people to get married by a justice of the peace. Or a ship’s captain. Or an Elvis impersonator.

Gay marriage is not compatible with religious belief
Gay marriage may not be compatible with selective interpretations of some religious traditions. But that has nothing to do with marriage equality. People are certainly free to embrace any religious beliefs they choose. But those beliefs apply only to their believers, and they end the moment they begin to hurt people who choose not to embrace religious theories. An elective belief in a trendy mythology does not give anyone moral authority to deny basic equalities to other people.

Homosexuality is a sin
Only to those who choose to believe in religious dogma. And religious dogma—especially when it’s used to victimize an entire class of people—is not appropriate in a discussion of legal equality.

Churches shouldn’t be forced to perform marriages they don’t approve of
They won’t. Churches have always been free to refuse to marry anybody for any reason they dream up: divorce, adultery, religion, race, gender … even basic family snobbery. On top of that, most marriage equality legislation to date includes language specifically permitting churches to continue to engage in this discrimination.

Being forced to accept gay marriages is a form of discrimination
No it’s not. This meaningless argument is simply a distraction tactic designed to make bigots look like victims.

Domestic partnership is the same thing as marriage for gay people
No it’s not. Many rights bestowed on straight married people by institutions ranging from the IRS to insurance companies to private employers are denied to gay people in domestic partnerships. Marriage by any other name is simply not marriage

Make the jump here to read the full post at NoFo

Via JMG

PhoboQuotable - Michael Carroll

"I see no purpose in extending a societal imprimatur – and not insubstantial benefits – to folks whose relationships are of essentially no societal consequence. Taxpayers should not be in the business of subsidizing friendships, however close. Only when people enter into a relationship which presumptively involves the bearing and rearing of children does society have an interest in that relationship." - New Jersey Assemblyman Michael Carroll, explaining why he has joined the Alliance Defense Fund in their challenge to Lambda Legal's marriage equality lawsuit against the state.

reposted via JMG

Via JMG: The Real Life "English Patient" Was Gay

Newly discovered letters have revealed that Lazlo de Almasy, the Hungarian soldier who inspired the Best Picture Oscar-winning romance/drama The English Patient, was gay in real life. He never slept with a woman and he was in love with a Nazi.

Letters have surfaced in Germany proving that the World War Two spy who inspired the hero the the Oscar-winning film The English Patient was no womaniser but a gay man in love with a young soldier called Hans Entholt. The correspondence also indicate the Hungarian-born adventurer Count Laszlo de Almásy did not die of a morphine overdose after suffering terrible burns and dreaming of the woman he loved, the fate the befell the fictional hero played by Ralph Fiennes in the film. Instead Almásy succumbed to amoebic dysentry in 1951 never having once slept with a woman. While the Imperial War Museum in London holds reports he wrote for German intelligence in WW2 under lock and key, letters written by Almásy, who worked for Rommel's Afrika Corps, have been found in Germany, confirming the long-time rumours about his sexuality.

Almasy's lover Hans died when he stepped on a German land mine.reposted from JMG

From JMG: World Net Daily Lies About ENDA

The nation's most widely read conservative/Christian site issued yet another of its classic lies today, claiming in a headline that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act requires employers to hire gays. The site makes no substantiation of the claim in their story.

Now that the health-care fight has proven House Democrats can muscle through legislation without a drop of bipartisan support, plans are underway to resurrect a bill that would make employers susceptible to lawsuits for refusing to hire "gay" or transsexual employees. H.R. 3017, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009, or ENDA, makes it unlawful for government agencies or businesses with more than 15 employees to refuse hire or promotion of anyone based on "gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth." The bill does make exceptions for the U.S. military, religious organizations and some businesses with non-profit 501(c) designations, but makes no provisions for business owners' consciences. A small construction company that wanted to maintain a Christian reputation, for example, could be sued if it refused to hire transvestites. Openly homosexual members of the House, enthused by the health-care victory, are now looking to return from the congressional recess to begin work on ENDA.

ENDA, of course, would create no "requirements" or quotas for employers regarding LGBT employees. It merely says that sexual orientation and gender identity cannot be a factor in making hiring, firing, and promotion decisions. World Net Daily goes to the usual whiny asshats for quotes:

"This bill would unfairly extend special privileges based upon an individual's changeable sexual behaviors, rather than focusing on immutable, non-behavior characteristics such as skin color or gender," said Shari Rendall, director of legislation and public policy for Concerned Women for America. "Its passage would both overtly discriminate against and muzzle people of faith. "Former Secretary of State Collin Powell put it well when he said, 'Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument,'" Rendall quoted. "Over the years, the homosexual lobby has done a masterful job of co-opting the language of the genuine civil rights movement in their push for special rights," explained former CWFA Policy Director Matt Barber, who now serves with Liberty Counsel. "This bill represents the goose that laid the golden egg for homosexual activist attorneys."

World Net Daily previously claimed that the now-passed Hate Crimes Act would bar the prosecution of child molesters, dubbing the legislation "the Pedophile Protection Act."via JMG

We Give Damn

We Give a Damn Campaign

Give a Damn Campaign PSA
Uploaded by trentisthenewpink. - Explore more family videos.

VIA JMG: HomoQuotable - Dan Savage

"Three shark in attacks in Florida, million of sharks in the ocean, and no one will go in the water. Hundreds and thousands of children raped in churches and people still send their kids to church. It's crazy. You should be sending your kids to gay bars. There they will be be safe." - Dan Savage, speaking on his latest podcast.

reposted from JMG

Via JMG: Gen. Paul Eaton Endorses DADT Repeal

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Paul Eaton, who lead the invasion forces in Iraq, has strongly endorsed the repeal of DADT. "Discrimination based on sexual orientation is inappropriate in our society." Listen to the entire clip, the guy knows his stuff. Easton's son is a third generation West Point graduate now serving in the infantry.

a repost from JMG

What Kind of Planet Are We On?

Great Kids!