"Is the SPLC, by its own criteria, the real hate group? It still carries weight in plenty of circles here in America, and so when it categorizes an organization as a hate group, many people of good conscience are influenced by that designation, one which is quite stigmatizing and destructive, as evidenced by the recent events involving FOTF and AFA mentioned above. Yet it is the leaders of the SPLC who are either irresponsibly attacking other fine organizations, or worse still, knowingly defaming them. Who then deserves the title of 'hate group,' Focus on the Family or the Southern Poverty Law Center? Who has been guilty of demonizing others and spreading hurtful, inaccurate information? Whose actions and words have been hateful? The record speaks for itself." - Anti-gay Christianist author Michael Brown, writing for Human Events.Sunday, July 31, 2011
Via JMG: Brown: SPLC Is The Real Hate Group
"Is the SPLC, by its own criteria, the real hate group? It still carries weight in plenty of circles here in America, and so when it categorizes an organization as a hate group, many people of good conscience are influenced by that designation, one which is quite stigmatizing and destructive, as evidenced by the recent events involving FOTF and AFA mentioned above. Yet it is the leaders of the SPLC who are either irresponsibly attacking other fine organizations, or worse still, knowingly defaming them. Who then deserves the title of 'hate group,' Focus on the Family or the Southern Poverty Law Center? Who has been guilty of demonizing others and spreading hurtful, inaccurate information? Whose actions and words have been hateful? The record speaks for itself." - Anti-gay Christianist author Michael Brown, writing for Human Events.
Via AmericablogGay: Did Obama just come out for same-sex marriage on Facebook?
Check out the ad the Obama campaign is running on Facebook. If you didn't know any better, you might think the President is for marriage equality (he's not).
What's actually going on is that the Obama campaign, and White House, have been trying to pull the wool over the community's eyes with a little bit of rhetorical trickery. The president is for equal rights for all couples, gay and straight, they keep telling us. And the proof they use is that he's for repealing DOMA (and that Facebook ad lands on a page about DOMA). What they don't say is that the only way to get those equal rights is for us to get married, and the President isn't for that (he was for it, then decided to run for federal office and suddenly his position changed).
So the President says he supports equal rights for all married couples, and refers to gay couples as married in the ad, even though he opposes our marriages, which will stop us from getting the very equal rights he claims to support.
Someone in the White House and the Obama campaign thought they were mighty smart using this "I'm for equal rights" language in order to trick you into thinking he is. He's not.
Though this ad does beg one further question: Does President Obama consider gay couples married in Massachusetts or Iowa or Washington, DC "married"? Are they "married," Mr. President?
make the jump here to read the full article
make the jump here to read the full article
Quote of the day: Discussion > Is my friend untrustworthy?
"Thank you for posting this, Peyam ! Fundamentalist Christians can prove any point of view they want to, no matter how glaringly at variance with spiritual principles, through their narrow (literal) reading of the Bible. The same is being done by the majority of Baha'is, who condemn as "spiritually sick" and "immoral" a significant portion of the diverse human family based on guidance given in a time and social condition where for the Guardian or his secretaries to have said otherwise would have been unacceptably inflammatory and well outside mainstream thought in psychological and even scientific circles. My work is in the gay community, and I am a proud member of that community. I know in my heart that as long as the Baha'i community continues to exclude, marginalize and actively discriminate against ("oppress" might be a better word) the vibrant and spiritually alive gay community, they are dashing into a thousand pieces the spiritual principles which are the pillars of the Kingdom of God. By their own hands, they rip apart the fabric of World Order."
DW on GayBahai.net
DW on GayBahai.net
Via JMG: On The 4 Year Old Killed For "Acting Gay"
Joe says, "More details have emerged about the horrific killings that I reported on several weeks ago."
reposted from Joe
reposted from Joe
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Via JMG: Gay Weddings In Central Park!
On a gorgeous cloudless day, today dozens of gay couples married in the shade of two "pop-up chapels" in Central Park, with our own Father Tony officiating at two of the ceremonies. Above are newlyweds Jen and Rose, moments after Father Tony made it legal. Below, John and Rob exchange rings. Also on hand were hair and make-up artists who donated their time and materials. The day was emceed by openly gay television personality Dave Holmes. (Lots and lots of photos from today are here.)
RELATED: As informal a day as this was, I was especially struck by how respectful passersby became once they groked what was going down. Throngs of tourists lined the barricades at all times, quieting down when the chapels were active, then erupting in cheers when they could see that each ceremony was complete. It was a beautiful thing to witness.
Via AmericaBlogGay: Pelosi: Bachmann needs to break silence on youth suicides in her MN district
Andrew Harmon spoke to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi -- and Pelosi had some words for Michele Bachmann about bullying and youth suicide:
Over the past two years, nine teens have committed suicide in Minnesota’s largest school district, resulting in federal investigations, lawsuits from advocacy groups, and the morbid designation of a “suicide contagion area” by state public health officials. At least four suicide victims, as Mother Jones noted in a feature published Monday, had been reported victims of bullying because they were LGBT or perceived to be LGBT.
But Bachmann has yet to speak out on the suicides within the state's 6th congressional district and appears to have chided anti-bullying legislative efforts in the past.
Pelosi told The Advocate of Bachmann’s silence on the issue, “I would think that if she wanted to be the President of the United States, she would understand that this is a larger issue than whether someone is gay or not, but as to whether someone is harassed and bullied to the point of seeing no way out.”
“Obviously it’s an issue bigger than Michele Bachmann’s district, so maybe we should all be speaking out about it, and not just leaving it to her,” Pelosi added.
But, it's a very big issue in Michele Bachmann's district. Scarily big.
Via AmericablogGay: Pelosi to Bachmann: Address the teen suicides in your district
Republican presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann’s failure to address a disturbing trend of teen suicides within her own congressional district does not reflect well on her White House ambitions, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told The Advocate Thursday.
Over the past two years, nine teens have committed suicide in Minnesota’s largest school district, resulting in federal investigations, lawsuits from advocacy groups, and the morbid designation of a “suicide contagion area” by state public health officials. At least four suicide victims, as Mother Jones noted in a feature published Monday, had been reported victims of bullying because they were LGBT or perceived to be LGBT.
But Bachmann has yet to speak out on the suicides within the state's 6th congressional district and appears to have chided anti-bullying legislative efforts in the past.
Pelosi told The Advocate of Bachmann’s silence on the issue, “I would think that if she wanted to be the President of the United States, she would understand that this is a larger issue than whether someone is gay or not, but as to whether someone is harassed and bullied to the point of seeing no way out.”
“Obviously it’s an issue bigger than Michele Bachmann’s district, so maybe we should all be speaking out about it, and not just leaving it to her,” Pelosi added.
Related posts on AMERICAblog Gay:
Friday, July 29, 2011
Via JMG: Cindy Jacobs: My First Biblical Vision
Whackdoodle televangelist Cindy Jacobs, whom you probably best know for claiming that God killed millions of birds to show his displeasure with the repeal of DADT, relates her first biblical vision:Around three a.m., I was awakened by a voice, "Wake up! I want to talk with you! I am Gabriel and I am here to give you a message from God.” I did not see him; nonetheless, I had no doubt that he was who he said he was. The next thing I knew, I was having a vision of mounting and riding a huge chestnut horse and my friend Julie was mounting and riding a white stallion. She was part of a vast army of women. As the Lord showed me country after country, I saw thousands of women on horseback behind me to march across the earth. In the vision, I was wearing armor and carried a sword.Gabriel told me that the women in the vision comprised a great company of women who would march across the planet, preaching the gospel, doing miracles, and transforming the nations.Jacobs says that God frequently speaks to her personally. That's when he reveals the various reasons that he routinely kills millions of people with earthquakes and tsunamis. Usually, it has to do with the gays. Gay marriage in Mexico City? Kill 50,000 Japanese! So sayeth Cindy.
Via JMG: New York Marriage Poll
The above is a new poll by ABC News/WaPo. Democrats and Republicans react in opposite ways to the new law, each facing stark internal divisions that may present challenges to building a winning coalition in 2012. Among Democrats, the divide is between the liberal base and those with conservative or moderate stripes. Liberal Democrats view the law positively by an overwhelming 74 to 25 percent margin. A smaller 54 percent majority of moderate and conservative Democrats say the same. Among African Americans, another loyal segment of the Democratic party coalition, more than six in 10 say the law is a negative development, while roughly one in three see it positively. Republicans broadly reject the law by a 2 to 1 margin, but alignment with the tea party movement complicates political calculations concerning the issue. More than seven in 10 Republicans who support the Tea Party movement view the New York law as a negative development.(Via - Towleroad)
Via AmericaBlogGay: Judge orders Boehner’s lawyers to answer DOMA questions, calls argument "disingenous"
Last week, we wrote about the request from Edie Windsor's lawyers for an order compelling John Boehner's lawyers to answer questions. Today, the Judge issued that order, telling Paul Clement that he must answer two of the key questions. I've posted the order here.
Here's the key passage from the order:The two interrogatories pressed by the plaintiff ask "What, if anything, do you contend are the compelling justifications for section 3 of DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 77" (Interrogatory no. 1) and "What, if anything, do you assert are the legitimate government interests rationally advanced by section 3 of DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 7?" (Interrogatory no. 3). BLAG objects to both on the ground that, to the extent they are construed as contention interrogatories, they are premature. That argument is disingenuous; at the time BLAG responded, the discovery deadline was three days away, and it is now closed. (emphasis added)
BLAG also objects to Interrogatory no. 1 because "it assumes the legal conclusion that Congress required a compelling justification to enact Section 3 of DOMA." In fact, the interrogatory assumes only that, if the Court finds st ct scrutiny to be the appropriate standard of review, BLAG may wish to proffer compelling justifications for DOMA. The plaintiff is entitled to know what those justifications are, and BLAG is there directed to answer Interrogatory 1.
In response to Interrogatory no. 3, BLAG sets forth authority for the proposition that under rational basis analysis, there is no need to demonstrate the basis on which the legislature actually chose to create classifications. That may be an accurate summary of the law, but it misses the point. BLAG will presumably suggest to the Court potentially rational grounds for the enactment of DOMA, and it must disclose those to the plaintiff in response to a proper contention interrogatory. Accordingly, BLAG shall answer Interrogatory no. 3 as well.
So, Boehner and Clement must answer those two very important questions.
Yes, the court called BLAG's argument "disingenuous." Yikes. That's very strong language for a judge to use. It's accurate, but that has to sting Mr. Paul Clement.
Anyway, we're keeping a close eye on this case. It's the first one where we've seen Boehner's legal team in action. And, they're not doing so well.
Disingenuous, indeed.
Here's the key passage from the order:The two interrogatories pressed by the plaintiff ask "What, if anything, do you contend are the compelling justifications for section 3 of DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 77" (Interrogatory no. 1) and "What, if anything, do you assert are the legitimate government interests rationally advanced by section 3 of DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 7?" (Interrogatory no. 3). BLAG objects to both on the ground that, to the extent they are construed as contention interrogatories, they are premature. That argument is disingenuous; at the time BLAG responded, the discovery deadline was three days away, and it is now closed. (emphasis added)
BLAG also objects to Interrogatory no. 1 because "it assumes the legal conclusion that Congress required a compelling justification to enact Section 3 of DOMA." In fact, the interrogatory assumes only that, if the Court finds st ct scrutiny to be the appropriate standard of review, BLAG may wish to proffer compelling justifications for DOMA. The plaintiff is entitled to know what those justifications are, and BLAG is there directed to answer Interrogatory 1.
In response to Interrogatory no. 3, BLAG sets forth authority for the proposition that under rational basis analysis, there is no need to demonstrate the basis on which the legislature actually chose to create classifications. That may be an accurate summary of the law, but it misses the point. BLAG will presumably suggest to the Court potentially rational grounds for the enactment of DOMA, and it must disclose those to the plaintiff in response to a proper contention interrogatory. Accordingly, BLAG shall answer Interrogatory no. 3 as well.
So, Boehner and Clement must answer those two very important questions.
Yes, the court called BLAG's argument "disingenuous." Yikes. That's very strong language for a judge to use. It's accurate, but that has to sting Mr. Paul Clement.
Anyway, we're keeping a close eye on this case. It's the first one where we've seen Boehner's legal team in action. And, they're not doing so well.
Disingenuous, indeed.
Via AmericaBlogGay: To defend Scott Brown, Senate GOP campaign committee attacks Dan Savage - while Brown pals around with known hate group
Ben Smith has the details. Basically, to deflect criticism from Scott Brown for not appearing in the Massachusetts' delegation "It Gets Better" video, the NRSC's spokesperson, Brian Walsh, attacked Dan Savage. Here's an excerpt:
It’s truly reached a new level of desperation in their efforts to tear down Scott Brown, but we look forward to hearing whether state and national Democrat leaders agree with Dan Savage’s long history of lewd, violent and anti-Christian rhetoric. Given their press conference call today, one has to presume at this point that they do.
That's pretty darn sanctimonious coming from the NRSC, which includes David Vitter (who was caught frequenting numerous prostitutes (a crime) while married) as a member. It's also pretty hypocritical of Brown, who had no problem associating himself with a known hate group last year.
Has anyone at the NRSC googled "Santorum" lately?
Ben also has an email response from Dan, which reads, in part: It is interesting, though, that not a single GOP elected official can bring himself or herself to make a video, or participate in the creation of one. No GOP elected can risk being seen letting bullied LGBT kids know that life isn't high school and that it will get better for them. it doesn't require signing off on the entire gay agenda (the president made a video, and he doesn't support gay marriage). No GOP elected can back the seemingly radical notion that LGBT kids shouldn't kill themselves, that they should have hope for their futures.
No GOP elected official can do even that -- David Cameron, meanwhile, made a video months ago.
Which tells us a lot about the noisiest part of the GOP's base -- lewd (have you seen their websites?) hate groups like focus on the family and Americans for truth about homosexuality -- and how feared they are by even "moderate" senators like Scott Brown.
Seriously, the "It Gets Better" videos are about saving kids. Clearly, that's not a GOP priority.
Seriously, the "It Gets Better" videos are about saving kids. Clearly, that's not a GOP priority.
Maybe Dan should just redefine Republican, or at least Scott Brown.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Via JMG: GOP Denounces Dan Savage
Following the release of an It Gets Better video made by (almost) the entire Massachusetts delegation to Congress, Sen. Scott Brown has come under fire for not participating. Today the National Republican Senatorial Committee today issued this statement in response:
If, as the old saying goes, you’re known by the company you keep, than the voters of Massachusetts deserve to know who Democrat party operatives are teaming up with to spread outrageous attacks on Scott Brown’s character. It’s truly reached a new level of desperation in their efforts to tear down Scott Brown, but we look forward to hearing whether state and national Democrat leaders agree with Dan Savage’s long history of lewd, violent and anti-Christian rhetoric. Given their press conference call today, one has to presume at this point that they do.Savage has noted numerous times that so far not one GOP elected official has been brave enough to make an It Gets Better video denouncing the bullying, beatings, and suicides of LGBT children. Not one. Savage: "No GOP elected [official] can back the seemingly radical notion that LGBT kids shouldn't kill themselves, that they should have hope for their futures."
Labels: bullying, Dan Savage, GOP, Scott Brown
Via JMG: Crazy Eyes Dodges "Ex-Gay" Questions
Again, Bachmann refuses to answer questions about her husband's "ex-gay" torture clinic, which she co-owns.
reposted from Joe
reposted from Joe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)