Sunday, September 11, 2011
Via Belirico: LGBT Media Shrinks Further: 365gay to Close
As the LGBT online world continues to refocus, consolidate, and reorganize, longtime queer news site 365gay.com has become the latest casualty. 
Editor-In-Chief Jennifer Vanasco brings us the details:
When I complain about the trouble large-scale popular independent bloggers are having lately, keep in mind that these corporate sites have more ability to attract advertisers and financial backing than we do. Pam's House Blend was forced to consolidate with FireDogLake to relieve pressure from owner Pam Spaulding; I'm the only full-time editor left here at Bilerico Project. Some other site owners are quietly discussing further changes that will shrink the LGBT online media even more.
Interestingly enough, the sites that seem to be having problems most are those who do original reporting and long-form opinion or analysis pieces while short-form bloggers who clip quotes from other sources and include a basic rewrite of some facts or a witty remark continue to grow readership and attract advertisers. I'd be interested to hear Projectors' thoughts on why the trend is happening and where it'll end.
make the jump here to read the full article
Editor-In-Chief Jennifer Vanasco brings us the details:Some of you have been reading since 365gay was started as a Canadian publication in the 1990s. Some of you have been reading since Logo took over, in 2006. Some of you are newer - last year, last month, last week.365gay.com is one of the many corporate-owned sites that have also struggled financially as the economy continues to flounder. LGBT social media site connexion.org recently announced it will be closing up shop on Sept 14.
...
Now, it's coming to an end.
September 30 will be our last day of operations. Logo has shifted its online strategy and so the site is closing and I am moving on to other things.
When I complain about the trouble large-scale popular independent bloggers are having lately, keep in mind that these corporate sites have more ability to attract advertisers and financial backing than we do. Pam's House Blend was forced to consolidate with FireDogLake to relieve pressure from owner Pam Spaulding; I'm the only full-time editor left here at Bilerico Project. Some other site owners are quietly discussing further changes that will shrink the LGBT online media even more.
Interestingly enough, the sites that seem to be having problems most are those who do original reporting and long-form opinion or analysis pieces while short-form bloggers who clip quotes from other sources and include a basic rewrite of some facts or a witty remark continue to grow readership and attract advertisers. I'd be interested to hear Projectors' thoughts on why the trend is happening and where it'll end.
make the jump here to read the full article
Todays WTF: "Gays are bigger threat to America than 9/11" Really?
GOP state legislator again says gays are bigger threat to America than 9/11
And of course, Oklahoma GOPer Sally Kerns met with a known hate group to discuss her wacko theories.
Reposted from AmericaBlogGay
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Via JMG: GOProud On 9/11 Anniversary
GOProud wants to step up the fight against radicalized Islam abroad, but continues to lick the jackboots of American Christianists who would gleefully put us all in prison. Brown fundamentalists: bad. White fundamentalists? Fantastic. 
Via AmericaBlogGay: GOP uber-conservative prez candidate Rick Perry signs name with heart over the "i"
Lots of not flamingly homosexual men
sign their name with little hearts.
No, they
really don't.
You might
not be surprised to hear that rather detailed gay rumors have dogged Perry for years.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Via HimalayaCrafts:
Overcome anger by peacefulness: overcome evil by good.
Overcome the mean by generosity; and the man who lies by truth. ~ Buddha
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Via JMG: Christian Group: We May Hate Gays But At Least We Aren't Executing Them
"Liberal
activists in America deride churches for upholding traditional marriage
but seem mostly silent when Islamist regimes execute homosexuals and
adulterers. Enshrining parts of Shari’a into Western legal codes, as the
Archbishop of Canterbury has suggested, or accommodating it by social
custom, opens a door to manifold dangers that churches and human rights
organizations cannot ignore."Multiculturalism and political correctness sometimes argue for accommodating Sharia in the West. But Christians and others concerned about human rights must defend Western legal traditions of equality before the law. Liberal activists so quick to accuse traditional Christians of homophobia and Islamophobia might give a little more attention to how the Islamic Republic of Iran treats its people." - Faith McDonnell, spokesperson for the Institute of Religion & Democracy, responding to news of gays executed in Iran.
RELATED: In January the IRD slammed the U.S. State Department for working to prevent the abuse and executions of LGBT people in foreign countries. Everybody got that? If the United States tries to help foreign gays, that is anti-Christian meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations. But if the IRD can propagandize the very murders the State Department is working to stop? WAHOO. What filthy, transparent, hypocritical motherfuckers.
ALSO FUCKING RELATED: It should be noted that America, too, executes its homosexuals. Only we mostly do it at the hands (and baseball bats) of self-identified Christian civilians.
2 from AmericablogGay:
It can
be difficult to read the tea leaves of which way a judge is thinking of ruling,
but this would be bad news, as it would permit the anti-gay bigots to appeal
the Prop 8 case even if the state of California refused to do so. LA Times:
The
California Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to rule that the backers of
Proposition 8 and other ballot measures have the right to defend them in court,
a stance that would give opponents of same-sex marriage the chance to champion
the initiative all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
During an hour of oral arguments,
several justices appeared skeptical that only elected state officials may
defend measures passed by voters, as gay-rights lawyers claimed.
The seven-member court will decide
within 90 days whether ProtectMarriage, the sponsors of Proposition 8, have the
right to represent the state in litigation. That ruling will clear the way for
the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether ProtectMarriage had
standing to appeal U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker's ruling against the
2008 ballot measure.
More on the Prop 8 hearing in California
More on the Prop 8 hearing in California
John provided a link to the live oral
hearing below. If you missed it, you can see the archived video here. CNN also has a
good rundown of the arguments and questions posed by the various justices.
In response to a question posed by Chief
Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, the attorneys from both sides sparred over whether
or not the state's interest "evaporates" when there is no one to
defend it in court.
Charles
Cooper, attorney for the ballot sponsors, said California specifically allows
voters to directly enact this kind of legislation, and that its official
sponsors should be allowed to step in when the state refuses to defend such
measures. But he was pressed hard by several justices over whether Prop 8
proponents could ultimately prove actual injury if same-sex marriages were allowed
to resume in the state.
However, Theodore Olson, a former
solicitor general in the Bush administration and a leading conservative lawyer,
said only state officials can defend state laws. He is defending a coalition of
same-sex couples and several civil rights groups.
"There is ample authority that
individuals do not have a right to defend a law unless they would suffer a
direct and immediate harm from its invalidation," Olson said. "The
proponents of Proposition 8 will not suffer any harm from a decision that
grants gay and lesbian Californians their fundamental civil right to
marry."
The
defender's of Prop 8 would have one believe it is all about protecting the
voter's rights, but I would argue there is no inherent right to vote on other's
civil rights, period.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Via JMG: David Barton: If You Vote In Support Of Gay Rights, God Will Curse You
"I will tell you where this becomes very significant politically, it Romans 1:27-32, the scripture says not only does God not approve homosexuality, it says He does not approve those who do approve of homosexuality. So I’ve got a ballot, I’ve got a vote, I vote for somebody that approves homosexuality, God doesn’t approve me if I approve those who approve homosexuality. The Bible is so good about helping us know how to vote, because what you said is exactly right. The reason homosexuality will kill the blessing and I’ll tell you why, if I support someone who supports homosexuality, it will kill the blessing on me whether I’m a homosexual or not." - Dominionist David Barton, speaking on Christian television.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)