You see, according to some people, gays who don’t support politicians who are anti-gay, and say so publicly, are the “gay thought police.” Because, you see, some people read 1984 and totally didn’t get it. If they were able to comprehend words and sentences, or use literary references correctly, they might not make such asinine statements as this:
…[A]s I learned in a post linked by Glenn Reynolds, [Harold Ford, Jr.] has attracted the animus of New York’s “Angry Gays.” And we know they’re not easily placated. ”Their beef seems to knows no bounds: Ford’s dismal anti-gay voting record back in Tennessee.” Yet, the post provides no details of said voting record. Still, gay activists in the Empire State have been quick to condemn this young man, with their “rapid-fire” response to his talk of challenging Gilibrand confirming “the potency of their furor — and newfound commitment to taking on politicians deemed enemies of the gay state.”
(…)
Guess it’s not enough for the gay thought police if someone changes his mind on gay marriage (as Ford has done, now supporting it). There is no placating some gay activists who demand complete subservience to a set ideology, including adherence to the social justice code of the “progressive” elites.
All right, ding-dongs who don’t know how to use Google, let’s see if we can fix this. Let’s see…oh lookie:
While his two votes backing an amendment to the US Constitution that defined marriage as “only the union of a man and a woman” and effectively barred any state or federal constitutional claim to marriage for same-sex couples might be enough to cost him gay support, earlier votes cast by Harold Ford in the House may further alienate gay and lesbian voters.
(…)
In addition to the marriage votes, Ford supported a 1998 amendment to a District of Columbia appropriations bill that banned gay adoption in the nation’s capital, according to a scorecard from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation’s leading gay lobby. He also opposed using federal funds to pay for needle exchange programs that year.
(…)
Ford compiled a mixed record during his five terms. In his first three, HRC gave him a 75, 90, and 100, but those scores fell to 44 and then 25 in his final two terms. His rankings were hurt most by his 2004 and 2006 votes for the marriage amendment, but he also opposed a federal hate crimes bill in his final term (after earlier supporting it) and declined to sponsor some legislation that HRC supported but never came to a vote.
Oh, dear. I guess we’re not just making stuff up. And yes, he now says he has changed his mind. Perhaps that’s because he knows that he would have no chance in New York if he didn’t. But we, the Gay Thought Police, weren’t born yesterday, and we know how to follow the arc of a politician’s career to get a handle on his overall record on issues. And Ford comes up sorely lacking.
And what some call “adherence to the social justice code of the progressive elites,” others simply call “support for full equality for LGBT Americans.” It’s sad that this has to be spelled out, repeatedly, but when you have a tiny subset of gay conservatives who hate themselves so much they’re willing to surrender their dignity in support of politicians who consider them to be approximately 3/5 human, who don’t consider themselves to be worthy of full equality, and who are simply excited that they get to eat at the big boy table as long as they agree not to talk, I guess you just have to keep correcting them.
They’re only children, after all.
UPDATE: And just seconds after I hit post on this one, another one from the same source came up in my news feed that really, I think, sums it all up, so instead of weeding through the self-loathing yet again (twice in the same night is unhealthy), we’re just going to dispense with this one with a Shorter.
I’m really mad that now even Cindy McCain says that people who vote against gay people are motivated by hate, because supporters of traditional marriage have some really good points, and they definitely don’t say the same thing over and over again, because really, people who don’t view us as equal citizens don’t hate us or anything, I mean, only a few gay people have been beaten or killed in the past year, and how can you call that hate? I think the real haters are the gay people who think they deserve rights, unlike us gay conservatives, who KNOW. OUR. PLACE! And besides, it’s really fun back here at the back of the bus, you guys!
Here’s a round-up of reactions to and accounts of the first day of the historic federal trial against Proposition 8:
Karen Ocamb at LGBT POV wrote a great piece on the news that really didn’t get reported, including some of her own observations about the general mood of the proceedings. Her entire blog is actually a great resource.
“Judge Walker: If the President’s parents had been in Virginia when he was born, their marriage would have been unlawful. Doesn’t that show a tremendous change in the institution of marriage?”
“Cooper: Racial restrictions were never a feature of the institution of marriage. [Laughter in our courtroom.]
Wow. Choire goes so far as to say that, based on that exchange alone, Cooper “is going to get his ass handed to him.” We’re crossing our fingers! The actions of the opposition (going insane over the proceedings being recorded, witnesses dropping like flies, losing it over the discovery process, etc.) lead me to believe that we’re about to see just how unprepared our opponents really are, in attempting to defend their indefensible positions in grown-up court. It’s one thing to use lies and insinuations to scare people, but being under oath and being asked to prove your assertions, is a different animal.
Also, from what I can see, the testimonials from the plaintiffs, i.e. the actual couples involved, were quite powerful. It would be amazing to see them on, AHEM!, YouTube.
What makes the suit even more unique is that the state of California is a defendant in name only. California refused to defend Prop8’s validity, and the attorney general filed an amicus brief… for the plaintiffs. The suit’s only real defendants are intervenors, private citizens with a glancing bystander’s interest in the litigation, from an organization calling itself “Protect Marriage.” They’re fighting tooth and nail, to the point of tossing out television cameras forcefully(query why they think that little bit necessary), to preserve their right to be free, apparently, from squeamishness about other peoples’ relationships. The intervenors have no real stake in the outcome of the case. If they win, they get nothing but a sense of satisfaction. If they lose, they may, one day, shiver to see two men, hand-in-hand and wearing wedding bands.
Elsewhere in his piece, we find that he’s a bit queasy about the idea of taking this case all the way to the Supreme Court. I agree and, yet, I disagree. But that’s just me, being of two minds again.
If you’d like to read what the anti-gay “thinkers” have to say to this, Maggie Gallagher is holding court in the bathtub with K-Lo, occasionally spittling out a few words at The Corner at National Review Online.
And that’s all I’ve got for now. If you want to follow today’s proceedings in real time, here are the key people tweeting the trial:
Dan Levine, a reporter for legal news publication The Recorder can be followed @FedcourtJunkie. Also NCLR’s Ilona Turner @ilona, The Advocate @TheAdvocateMag, American Foundation for Equal Rights,@AmerEqualRights , and the ACLU of Northern California@ACLU_NorCal are all live tweeting. The Courage Campaign is also tweeting the trial at @CourageCampaign.
Today, the big federal marriage case in California, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, begins. In a San Francisco courtroom, ideological opposites David Boies (liberal) and Ted Olson (conservative) will team up to overturn the insidious Proposition 8. So far, they have made a persuasive case in the media, pointing out that:
a) Same-sex marriage does not harm heterosexual marriages.
b) The procreation argument does not hold up and allowing people to marry the same sex does not limit population. People marry for a variety of reasons, not necessarily to create an extended family. It is interesting that our opponents never bring into the procreation argument hetero older married couples or younger married couples who are unable to have or choose not to have children. Why do they not have the same problem with those marriages as they do with GLBT marriages.
c) The current prohibition is discriminatory, fueled by animus and exacts harm on LGBT individuals and their families.
d) The only argument that supporters of Proposition really have is that such discrimination is part of our tradition. Boies and Olson have articulated in eloquent fashion that just because a tradition has gone on for a long time does not make it right or just. They point to discrimination against Jews, interracial couples and women – all of which had gone on (and continues to) for centuries. As I have pointed out in the past, there is a difference between “traditional values” and “valueless traditions.”
To win Proposition 8, our opponents resorted to fear tactics and outright lies using despicable, negative attack ads. Without this fear-mongering tool to trick the masses, our foes are realizing they may not do well in court. They understand that they have no rational arguments and that they are intellectually bankrupt.
To make up for this coherency deficit, Proposition 8 supporters are claiming “bias” because the trial is opening in San Francisco. Interestingly, these whiners had no problem claiming home field advantage when the our marriages were put up for a vote in ultra-conservative states. One might call having places like Arkansas, Kentucky and Alabama changing their state constitutions to prohibit gay couples from marrying a gratuitous and cowardly act of bullying by a majority. So, I really don’t want to hear about the trial being held in San Francisco. Wing nuts must realize that they can’t always have all the advantages.
Social conservatives are also regurgitating the lie that because the trial will be filmed and made available on the Internet, it may cause potential harm to witnesses.
“To top it all off, Judge Walker has determined that this case will be the first in the Ninth Circuit to allow cameras in the courtroom, with the proceedings posted on YouTube” writes Edwin Meese III in today’s New York Times. “This will expose supporters of Proposition 8 who appear in the courtroom to the type of vandalism, harassment and bullying attacks already used by some of those who oppose the proposition.”
Of course, this is hogwash. Perhaps, Meese confused the “plight” of these witnesses with another Times story today discussing the opening of Scott Roeder’s trial – the religious zealot who murdered Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in his church. However, opponents of Proposition 8 have never displayed the violence committed by religious extremists, as much as the Prop 8 supporters try to make it appear to be true. (Even today there is a “debate” over whether killing Tiller was morally justified)
In reality, all that was ever hurt were the feelings of Prop 8 supporters who were rightfully confronted by their neighbors who asked: “Why did you vote to take away my rights? Why did you leave our children in limbo without married parents?”
The truth is, Proposition 8 supporters do not want this trial televised because deep down they are ashamed by their own bigotry. They are allergic to the TV lights, because it will expose their inner-darkness. I really don’t blame them for not wanting their views exposed to a national audience. Not only will it look like they formed their discriminatory ideas with their heads in their posterior, but they will look quite awful for posterity. They realize, on some level, that history will not judge them well. Their grandchildren will regard them with great embarrassment and shame.
I wish Boies and Olson much luck and Truth Wins Out thanks them for the strong case they have made so far. They have undeniably shown that LGBT equality is not a liberal or conservative issue – but an American one. This trial is about the values of our nation, who we are and will we live up to our creed of liberty and justice for all people.
As the political battle over same-sex marriage plays out in state capitals across the country, several California companies have emerged as the go-to players for opponents of the marriages, according to The New York Times. Many of these companies are doing their anti-gay work in secret.
The truth is, these people know in their hearts that what they do for a living is sleazy. They have sold their souls and wake up each morning with the mission to deny people equal rights. Even though they use religion to justify their activities, they are clearly not proud of their work and go to great lenghts to hide direct involvement of their immoral actions.
Who can blame them? If I were participating in such a despicable industry, I’d hide and cower behind a PO Box in shame and embarrassment too.
Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin reports today that San Diego hotelier Doug Manchester, whose $125,000 donation to support California’s Prop 8 sparked a boycott against his Manchester Hyatt and San Diego Marriot hotels, is divorcing his wife of 43 years. He cited his Catholic faith to justify his large Prop 8 contribution.
Perhaps, he thought that the clunker program meant he could return his wife for a newer model? It could be only a matter of time before we see Disco Dougie cruising the nightclubs in San Diego, while zooming to the valet in an exciting, new convertible red Corvette.
As Burroway pointed out, the Pope would frown upon his sinful lifestyle and his wanton disregard for the sanctity of marriage. But why let a little thing like religion stand in the way of doing what feels good?
Be warned: Those new National Organization for Marriage anti-GLBT actor auditions videos Wayne reported about this week are gone. NOM noticed that its evil ruse had been exposed and demanded that YouTube take them down. Even a clip of a recent MSNBC Rachel Maddow clip that included the audition tapes is gone. NOM’s reason: copyright infringement.
YouTube has to develop a bigger pair. The fact that a national organization is working to deny equality under law to millions of certain citizens makes the story newsworthy. Showing at least excerpts is fair use — under law.
Why are people so afraid of the anti-equality crowd? It’s so obvious that the organized fundies are the ones to fear. NOM was willing to lie, manipulate, and terrify the ignorant segment of the public, low-info types who can be compelled en masse to do what is right for their brand of Christianity, but wrong for anyone who really believes in basic American ideals. The tactic is cynical, selfish, immoral, and destructive. And it works: Remember Proposition 8?
At HuffPo, Lambda Legal’s Evan Wolfson provides a description opf the ads and refutes their vicious claims, so that at least some of those unable to view the outrage can see clearly the threat with which we are dealing. It’s a long excerpt, but it is an important one:
Consider what the actors in the NOM ad pretend to be:
A doctor who wants to discriminate against her patients, despite civil rights laws and medical ethics that the California Supreme Court upheld – in a case having nothing to do with marriage.
An officer of a New Jersey group that for years voluntarily operated a beachside pavilion with special tax-breaks that required it be open to the public – but then tried to turn down a lesbian couple. The case did not turn on marriage, since New Jersey doesn’t yet allow gay couples to marry, but, rather, basic civil rights laws about open access to public accommodations.
A Massachusetts parent who sought to dictate public school curriculum about the diverse families children will need to be aware of to thrive in a diverse world, and then wanted to remove her child from classes in a way that would have disrupted class and imposed unreasonable burdens on the school and other kids.
The law in California, as elsewhere, is that doctors can’t discriminatorily refuse to treat patients — Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, gay or non-gay; that has nothing to do with marriage, and yet NOM incites fear. The law in New Jersey, as elsewhere, says that organizations running public accommodations such as restaurants or rental halls cannot discriminatorily exclude people — African American, Latino, or Asian, gay or non-gay; that has nothing to do with marriage, and yet NOM says that the discriminators are somehow the victims. The law in Massachusetts, as elsewhere, of course allows parents to teach their kids whatever they want, and even to send them to private schools or do home-schooling. The law also rightly sets rules for determining public school curriculum without having every parent, or special interest with an agenda, coming in and imposing their views on everyone else’s kids — yours or mine, gay or non-gay.
I encourage you to read Wolfson’s entire piece — he has worked on the front lines of this fight and knows the terrain. And he’s a lawyer.
National Organization for Marriage may believe that its copyright trumps our right to know the truth, but the group is wrong. Here is an opportunity to dtake action and do some good: Anyone with a thirst for a truly equal US will share descriptions of the ad — along with the truth about marriage equality and the fact that is is no threat to anyone, save those who need legal supremacy — with everyone they know. It is particularly urgent that we talk with those who question the need for civil-marriage equality. If we can’t trust YouTube to stand up to transmit the truth, we must do it.
Here is a debate between NOM’s Maggie Gallagher and Human Rights Campaign Joe Solmonese on CNN’s “Hardball,” where the HRC chief handily obliterates his opponent’s position using truth and fact.
One day after State Senator John Campbell announced he is going to introduce a gay marriage bill this legislative session, Campbell received a threat.
The Windsor County Democrat says he got a call at the Statehouse from a woman who threatened to blow up his house.Police are investigating the threat.
Where are all the conservatives who complained about the “violence” in the largely peaceful gay rallies? Why aren’t they up in arms about this?
And what about the hinting-at-violent threats made today by Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families. He said that the California Supreme court is, “playing with fire by threatening to destroy the people’s vote on marriage.” And that “if the court disobeys the constitution by voiding Prop. 8, it will ignite a voter revolt.”
So, if the court does its duty and protects a minority from discrimination, what kind of “revolt” and “fire” does the fanatical fringe have planned?
On Nov. 8, Truth Wins Out and the Gay Liberation Network joined a coalition of local, state and national groups to protest Focus on the Family’s James Dobson’s induction into the Radio Hall of Fame.
A crowd of several hundred people came out to demonstrate on a frigid night in Chicago. They were also energized by Proposition 8 being passed in California, which prohibited same-sex couples from marrying.
In a startling turn of events, writer David Benkof – formerly David Bianco – has closed down his blog, Gays Defend Marriage, and vowed to stay out of the fight in California. In a statement to Truth Wins Out, Benkof said the following:
“I no longer feel comfortable being allied with the people running the Prop. 8 campaign, and the same-sex marriage movement in America in general, with a few exceptions – most notably Maggie Gallagher. I have made a tentative decision not to publicize the disturbing information that caused me to end my promotion of man-woman marriage in the United States. But there is very little that I know about those subjects that a journalist, blogger, or activist cannot find out through diligent googling and asking the right questions of the Prop. 8 campaign.”
Benkof had made waves in recent weeks with a string of high-profile anti-gay op-eds in major mainstream newspapers, including the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the San Francisco Chronicle.
We are pleased that Benkof has decided to do the right thing and step aside. It is also helpful that he has raised the red flag about the people running Prop. 8.
