Via JMG:

PhoboQuotable - Mike Huckabee

"I think there’s been a real level of being disingenuous on the part of the gay and lesbian community with their goal of civil unions. You don’t go ahead and accommodate every behavioral pattern that is against the ideal. That would be like saying, well, there are a lot of people who like to use drugs, so let’s go ahead and accommodate those who want who use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, so we should accommodate them.

"I think this is not about trying to create statements for people who want to change the basic fundamental definitions of family, And always we should act in the best interest of the children, not in the seeming interest of the adults. Children are not puppies. This is not a time to see if we can experiment and find out, how does this work?” - Fox News host and former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, speaking at the College of New Jersey.

another repost from JMG

Sarah Palin Wins "Worst Mother in America" Award

The Sarah Palin Network

Via JMG:

HomoQuotable - Greg Quinlan

"We now know that Pepsi has given over a million dollars to the Human Rights Campaign and to another hate group called PFLAG, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays -- an organization that tells parents that their children are born homosexual. Therefore they must accept them and that the only way to love them is to accept, embrace that homosexual lifestyle. This is extremely troubling because now what is happening is that the PepsiCo Corporation is using our money -- whether you're a shareholder or whether you're a customer -- [they're] using your money to promote hate against Christians and other people of faith. " - PFOX "ex-gay" spokesdouche Greg Quinlan, who plans on confronting Pepsi executives at their annual stockholders meeting.

a repost via JMG

Adam and Andy

Via Belirico:

Conservatives hate that our families count on the 2010 Census

Filed by: Joe Mirabella

April 8, 2010 5:00 PM

The Arkansas News reported:

LITTLE ROCK -- An advertising campaign by the U.S. Census Bureau directed toward same-sex couples isn't sitting well with some conservatives in Arkansas.

State Sen. Cecile Bledsoe, R-Rogers, a candidate for Arkansas' 3rd District congressional seat, said Wednesday she opposes the campaign "not only because it's an improper message, but because it's an incredible waste of taxpayer dollars."

Whenever a politician starts talking about "wasting taxpayer dollars" my ears perk up. Really State Senator Cecile Bledsoe? Let's take a look at some of the projects you thought were worthy of your state's money, and the time the state paid you to work on those projects.

Continue reading "Conservatives hate that our families count on the 2010 Census" »

Myth of the 'gay lifestyle' justifies bias

(CNN) -- On most mornings, my better half wakes up around 5:30, throws on some sweats and heads to the gym before work.

About a half hour later, I wake up my 13-year-old son, go downstairs to the kitchen to make his breakfast and pack his lunch. Once he's out the door, I brew some coffee and get to work.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you the "gay lifestyle" -- run for your heterosexual lives.

I understand opponents of gay rights must highlight differences in order to maintain the "us against them" tension that's paramount to their arguments. But this notion that sexual orientation comes with a different and pre-ordained way of life -- as if we're all ordering the No. 3 at a drive thru -- only highlights how irrational groups such as Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the American Family Association and others like them are in this whole debate.

jump here to read the full article

Via JMG: Marching Orders

Anti-gay groups are issuing their final directions for Christian students to walk out of any school that participates in this year's GLSEN Day Of Silence next Friday. The below is a joint message to parents from evil twin vipers Laurie Higgins (Illinois Family Institute) and Linda Harvey (Renew America).

Explain to your children why you’re taking a stand:
a. Homosexual behavior is not an innate identity.
b. No matter what factors may influence homosexual feelings, freely chosen homosexual behavior is immoral and should be resisted.
c. Homosexuality is not equivalent to race.
d. Disapproval of homosexuality is not equivalent to racism; nor is it hatred; nor is it bullying; nor does it constitute an incitement to violence. It is permissible and ethical to express disapproval of homosexuality. Just because someone may feel bad when hearing that someone disapproves of homosexuality does not mean that disapproval is cruel or wrong.
e. No school should support a view of homosexuality that is unproven and controversial, and that is physically, emotionally, and spiritually destructive to individuals and society.
f. No school should allow instructional time to be politicized.

Encourage your church leadership to follow the bold example of Pastor Ken Hutcherson who vocally opposed “Day of Silence” in his community in Redmond, Washington. He led the Walkout in his community, and over 600 out of 1,400 students were called out of school on the Day of Silence. Let your light shine by spreading the word to your church and neighbors. Explain that school districts lose money for every absence, which may help convince administrations and school boards that it is not merely unethical but fiscally irresponsible to allow the classroom to be used for political purposes.

Contact: Linda Harvey,

lpharvey@missionamerica.com;

Laurie Higgins,
847-948-7889,
hlaurie@illinoisfamily.org

Feel free to contact Evil Power Twins Linda & Laurie and let them know how you feel about their endorsement of anti-gay bullying and harassment.reposted from JMG

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