"If you're gay, lesbian, or bisexual, would you sacrifice for your trans neighbors and siblings? If you're trans, would you sacrifice for your gay, lesbian, or bisexual neighbors and siblings? It's something worth knowing about yourself and those around you." --Autumn Sandeen, 4/19/2010, the night before GetEQUAL's DADT repeal protest at the White House
Public Calendar
Press/media, organizations, and individuals send your time-based event info to: calendar@phblend.net
The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
He claims "divine providence" set the date of his "Restoring Honor" rally for August 28 on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial: the same date and place as Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech.
Social activists and civil-rights leaders, among them the Rev. Al Sharpton, are planning marches and demonstrations - including the unveiling of a nearly four-story-tall original sculpture on the Mall - on Aug. 28 to coincide with a rally organized by Fox News personality Glenn Beck.
Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally, with former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin among the scheduled speakers, will take place on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, 47 years to the day after Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech there.
The conservative talk-show host announced in November that he wanted to reveal a "100 year plan for America" at the Lincoln Memorial. More recently, he said that the purpose of his Aug. 28 event is to restore the country's "values" and to pay tribute to military families.
"There will be absolutely no politics involved," he said. "This rally will honor the troops, unite the American people under the principles of integrity and truth, and make a pledge to restore honor within ourselves and our country."
"Absolutely no politics involved," my rear end. I mean, it is GLENN "CRYBABY" BECK who is behind this; you can bet Aunt Matilda's farm that it will be nothing but politics. His version of "support the troops" means: Denounce President Obama. Cry and say that US deaths are caused by insufficient troops. Demand that more people be sent into Afghanistan and Iraq, even if you have to recruit violent offenders out of prison. Denounce the Democratic Party. Cry while denouncing Islam as a violent, hate-filled religion. Demand a crusade of God-fearing Christian Americans to purge the world of evil.
The only "values" he will be honoring will be his far right wing extremism. And do so on the date and at the place this was planned is outrageous, a slap in the face of everything Dr. King stood for and believed.
I am saddened, I am disappointed, I am frankly depressed that this will be allowed to happen. What I am not, is surprised.
Yesterday, I documented The Big Commit, and chronicled at Daily Kos, the diversity, good humor, fun and unapologetic calls for equality that characterized the LGBT's community's counter-protest of NOM's Summer of (Straight People-only) Marriage tour.
Thank god for Courage Campaign and Freedom To Marry who have spent the summer trailing NOM and exposing the hateful underbelly that props up these marriage equality opponents. They released this video of a conversation their crew had with a couple of NOM supporters.
Friend of the Blend, former special assistant and senior advisor to President Bill Clinton Richard Socarides, has a piece at The Politico, where he notes that President Obama missed an opportunity with the Prop 8 ruling last week to shift his hardline "God is in the mix" opposition to marriage equality. Obama is backed into a corner now (he supported it in 1996, so he's politically regressed), and he's going to be forced into accepting the truth that he knows as a constitutional scholar quite soon.
First, where you stand on the issue of marriage has become a kind of political litmus test for gay voters on whether you support full or partial equality. It is now seen as a proxy for whether you believe gays and lesbians are entitled to full dignity, respect and inclusion in every aspect of American society. And whether, in essence, our struggle for equality is worthy as a civil rights movement. Just saying you are for equal rights will no longer cut it.
...Support for equal benefits, but not for equal status - a gay "separate but equal" rule - is contrary to what Obama stands for, both as a person and as a symbol of expanding freedoms and opportunities. Continuing on this course will lose him and his fellow Democrats the support and enthusiasm of a large block of his base voters.
...People understand that most public officials who now support gay marriage once opposed it. It wasn't until after they left office that Bill Clinton and Al Gore (and, most recently, Laura Bush) said that they favored marriage equality. As Nate Silver recently wrote on his blog FiveThirtyEight.com: "Does anyone really believe, in a country that is becoming close to evenly divided on gay marriage, that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Kerry are among the half who oppose it? "
The sooner Obama changes his answer on this most important equal-rights issue of the day, the better off he will be. The Perry ruling provides the right opportunity to shift his emphasis and provide real leadership, reminding people that in this country, we look to the courts for direction on what our Constitution requires.
Maybe it's just me, but I see a failure to buy into the term "normal" when it comes to the human condition. I see failures in how some people build frameworks around "normal" for which the purpose is exclusion -- and that has implications for civil rights movements.
Quite a number of the "us" in our broader, western societies draw circles around our "me," defining oneself as "normal." Then as an extension from that personal self-defined "normal" that's found as one's circle of "me," I see many having a tendency to draw a slightly larger circle around that "me" that is only slightly larger than oneself, and declaring that slightly larger circle as what is "normal."
Outside of that small circle of normal is where "different" is found, which sometimes is expressed as "abnormal" or "deviant, "bizarre," "freakish," and "aberrant."
When those in our society -- when even we ourselves -- draw small circles of normal around ourselves, those "different" spaces outside the small circles of normal is where the unequal is found. Where unequal is found, so is, othering, harassment, and discrimination.
To be sure, we all discriminate. If we make purchases based on a preference for cabbage over lettuce, or cherries over grapes, we engage in discrimination. If we prefer potential partners based on a preference for those with long hair over those with short hair, or those who are taller than ourselves over those who shorter than ourselves, we engage in discrimination. Discrimination is part of life.
Yet in the marketplace of society, not all discrimination is legal. A business can discriminate in hiring someone based on their skills and qualifications, but, for example, it's not legal to discriminate in hiring someone because of a someone's ethnicity, sex, or disability status. In the United States, we have protected classes -- small islands in the sea of "different." These are islands that society has created to protect certain groups of people who've been discriminated against for reasons not involving their skills or qualifications.
And of course, one can be discriminated against not just for identifying as a member of a protected class, but for being perceived as a member of a protected class. For example, a dark-haired caucasian woman may be perceived as Latina is she has a deep tan; a man on crutches for a sprained knee may be perceived as disabled -- one can be discriminated not just because of how one identifies oneself, but how others perceive one to be identified -- with all of the requisite perceived negatives that of being a member of a particular protected minority class.
In the marketplace of society, the diversity is the model we use we create the legal framework for those small islands of protected classes. With great effort, freedom, equality, and justice for minority groups is won, and protected classes are carved out, based on the simple concept that people should be judged by their character, and not by factors such as ethnicity, gender, disability, or veteran's status.
In the United States, we've seen in the creation of these protected classes a low, consistent movement for more expansive language. We didn't create islands of protections just for African-Americans at the exclusion of Asian Americans, but saw laws wrote to protect on the basis of race and ethnicity. We didn't create islands of protections for the those in wheelchairs to the exclusion of those with depression (or other mental health conditions), but created protections on the basis of disability.
We in the United States have slowly moved to legally limit how "different" is used to discriminate against people when the discrimination isn't based on the character of individuals. But again, it's taken great effort to protect the "different" in society.
The fight is never about grapes or lettuce. It is always about people.
~Cesar Chavez
For the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community civil rights movement of the United States, we're now seeking to create islands of protections not just for gay people, but create protections on the basis of sexual orientation -- which creates protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual, and heterosexual people. We're now seeking to create islands of protections not just for transsexuals, but on the basis of gender identity and expression -- which creates protections for transsexual, cross-dressing, genderqueer, agender, people, as well as for effeminate males and masculine women. We, as a civil rights movement, seek to create the largest islands of protection for our community members, because, Adam Clayton Powell Jr. stated:
Unless man is committed to the belief that all mankind are his brothers, then he labors in vain and hypocritically in the vineyards of equality.
Drawing small circles of normal gets in the way of creating the largest islands of protections that advantage those who are deemed "different" or "abnormal"; the drawing small circles of normal around ourselves is a way to look for differences that is inconsistent with seeing all of humanity as our siblings in humankind -- our siblings that deserve freedom, equality, and justice.
In other words, drawing small circles of normal is the wrong thing; creating large islands of protections for minority populations that are treated as unequal with others in broader society for reasons other that personal character is the right thing -- and the right thing will last.
Another video courtesy of the National Organization for Marriage's failed summer tour. Mercy, this is a good one from Washington D.C. Did you know that this fight is about "species" and that Satan is behind gay marriage?
One day, someone has to put all of these lovely videos together in a neat package.
More posts about those "Godly" protectors of marriage:
Dr. Laura Schlessinger announced tonight she is ending her radio show, a week after she broadcast a five-minute-long rant in which she used the N-word 11 times.
The radio doctor used racial epithet eleven times in five minutes. Schlessinger said on "Larry King Live" tonight that she has decided "not to do radio anymore" so she can say the things she wants to say.
"The reason is, I want to regain my First Amendment rights," she said. "I want to be able to say what's on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special interest group deciding this is the time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates, attack sponsors. I'm sort of done with that."
Kudos to Rachel! News legend Walter Cronkite, who passed away at 92 in July 2009, would be proud of this recipient of the award in his name. Rachel Maddow joins the company of Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Larry King, and Bill and Judith Moyers.
The Interfaith Alliance announced Monday that it would award its 2010 Walter Cronkite Faith & Freedom award to the MSNBC anchor in honor of her work covering religion and politics. Maddow will receive the award alongside Chautaqua Institution Department of Religion Director Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell.
The award, which will be presented at a gala dinner in New York in October, "recognizes individuals who courageously promote democratic values, defend religious freedom and reinvigorate informed civic participation," according to the announcement.
Interfaith Alliance President Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy: "Rachel's passionate coverage of the intersection of religion and politics exhibits a strong personal intellect coupled with constitutional sensitivity to the proper boundaries between religion and government."
***
I was always a big fan of Walter Cronkite. I would ask my mom if we could have Walter Cronkite over for dinner because I wanted to ask him about the news. She said that was the only person on TV that I ever asked that about. That never came to pass, of course, but I watched him cover the news of the day with rapt attention.
And there's probably some little girl out there watching Rachel Maddow each night, dreaming the same dream about having her over to dinner to discuss politics.
So, you have a problem. You set up a poll and then it got freeped.
Now, it seems rather than supporting your position, it's thorough repudiation of your position. So what do you do? Maybe rethink your position, consider there are other perspectives? That you might be wrong?
Not if you're the whacko religious right. If you're one of them, you just rewrite the questions afterward to support the conclusion you hoped you'd get. (And doubtless declare "the people have spoken!")
Looks like it worked. Because at Monday at 6 pm, the poll looked like this:
What do you think about Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop. 8 banning same-sex "marriage" in California?
I support the decision.
84.5%
It is an irrational decision denying the nature and purpose of marriage.
9.2%
It was a slap in the face of California voters.
4.3%
It did not surprise me.
1.4%
Democracy does not apply in these cases.
0.5%
Undecided.
0%
Big fail for them to solicit data to support their talking points, 84.5% of voters supported Judge Walker's finding that denying same-sex couples the right to marry was unconstitutional.
But wait, by Monday at 7 pm, the poll looked like this:
What do you think about Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop. 8 banning same-sex "marriage" in California?
It is an irrational decision denying the nature and purpose of marriage.
84.5%
Undecided.
8.8%
It was a slap in the face of California voters.
4.2%
It did not surprise me.
1.6%
Democracy does not apply in these cases.
0.9%
Suddenly, 84.5% of voters consider his decision "irrational!"
The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) is an organization of lay Catholic Americans concerned about the moral crisis shaking the remnants of Christian civilization. Its origins date back to January 1971, when the first TFP members started to group around the publication Crusade for a Christian Civilization. Today, with over 120,000 active members, volunteers and donors, the TFP is on the front lines of the Culture War, peacefully defending the values of tradition, family and private ownership.
If you want to looking into "moral crisis," in America, you might look into yourselves, TFP.
I'm always curious how these Godly organizations justify, in their own minds, the ends runs they're always making around the Ninth Commandment.
My momma may have raised a homo, but she raised me right. I don't cheat and lie.
Now, it appears they've had a change of heart, and the poll has reverted to a more gay-friendly version. I wouldn't expect to see them touting these stats anytime soon.
We're pleased to bring former West Point Cadet Katherine Miller to the Blend for a liveblog. Miller resigned last week, stating that she was unwilling to 'compromise her Integrity' under the discriminatory policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Fortunately, I haven't seen Pat Buchanan on the air talking about Prop 8 recently, but this article gives every bit of the insight of this man's view that civil rights should be up for a vote and Judge Walker is part of the judicial tyranny destroying American society.
Walker declared Proposition 8, by which 5.5 million Californians voted to prohibit state recognition of gay marriage, null and void. What the people of California voted for is irrelevant, said Walker; you cannot vote to take away constitutional rights.
If the Walker decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court, homosexual marriage will be imposed on a nation where, in 31 out of 31 state referenda, the people have rejected it as an absurdity.
This is not just judicial activism. This is judicial tyranny.
This is a perversion of what the authors of the Constitution wrote and what the states approved. Through such anti-democratic means, the left has imposed a social and moral revolution on America with only the feeblest of protests from the people or their elected leaders.
...Walker says the only motivations behind Proposition 8 had been "biases" and "moral disapproval," and "moral disapproval ... has never been a rational basis for legislation."
But what else is the basis for laws against polygamy and incest? What else was the basis for the Mann Act, which prevented a man from taking his girlfriend across the state line to a motel?
What is the basis for prohibiting prostitution, a free exchange of money for sexual favors, if not "moral disapproval"?
What the judge is saying with this opinion is that the majority cannot define morality, and, even if it does, it cannot impose it. We are defenseless against what we believe to be moral decadence.
But not even a judge can change the meaning of words. In every language known to man, marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.
Walker may call such pairings marriages, but that does not make it so. As Lincoln said, "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
Oh god, it goes on and on...special bonus points for referencing the Declaration of Independence and what Thomas Jefferson thought about homosexuality. Is this a prescription, Pat?
The author of that declaration, Thomas Jefferson, equated homosexual acts with rape and wrote that male homosexuals (they used the term sodomites in that time) should be castrated and lesbians should have a hole cut into their noses.
UPDATE: This hubbub was picked up by Mediaite: "The White House Takes Aim at Gay Bloggers For Complaining Too Much." Geez, please can you use one of my new photos at least (http://ow.ly/2r1v5)? Michael Triplett's piece does get a fact wrong - Aravosis was not invited to the WH press briefing (he's that reviled by the WH). His co-blogger Joe Sudbay represented Americablog.
Seriously, at the end of the piece Triplett gets to my bottom line point - the WH either needs to declare LGBT bloggers relevant or not - if we're mere gnats on the political landscape then what me worry, why waste your time on us. But don't expect us to be quiet for doing as the President asked - "hold me accountable."
From Americablog, word that a closed-door meeting with the President, Brian Bond, the Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement and state equality organization leaders generated some interesting comments:
Bond asserted, "There is still a lot of work to do" before DOMA will be repealed. "Look at the trouble we're having with ENDA." he added. But Bond conceded that there are inconsistencies in President Obama's positions. In response, Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director of Equality Maryland, stated, "Respectfully, we need President Obama to push for full inclusion of the LGBT community on ENDA, on marriage- we need the full get, not the lesser get. The highest office in the land sets the tone for the whole country." Bond agreed, but expressed frustration at the often intense criticism levied, particularly by bloggers, against an administration that is "99 percent supportive of your issues." [emphasis added]
I'm kind of nonplussed; does that include your blogmistress, or do lesbian bloggers not rate in the same category of frustration for Brian Bond? I'm the only "gay blogger" he's had a sit-down interview with, so I'd love it if he gave a shout-out by name. I was quite generous to him in my interview.
I think perhaps they only mean John Aravosis, no? But Brian used the plural, so the White House must have a LIST. I'll have to ask John (and maybe even Joe Sudbay) what it feels like to be on a White House hit list.
Anyway, I know the WH, at least Shin Inouye (director of specialty media), reads the Blend and pings me from time to time, but who are these other peeps in power who are hand-wringing over the people on THE LIST of angry, frustration-inducing, Cheetos-stained P.J.-wearing bloggers...
John said this in response to Bond's comments:
It's great that you're "supportive." But it's the same argument gay Republicans used to describe George Bush. He was secretively supportive of us, they'd say, even if he didn't help us a whole lot legislatively. I'm not saying you're George Bush, but the empathy thing is wearing thin. We don't want your support in words, we want you to keep your promises. And you're not.
I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to see the point of view many of us hold - that promises were made, quite publicly to the community to both garner votes and generate cashflow, and now the bill has come due and we are seeing all sorts of shenanigans by those in charge. The delays and slow-go on DADT repeal that ends in a poor compromise and a freepable, embrarrassing "study"; inaction on ENDA, tossing the hot potato between the WH and Congress as to whose responsibility it is to take the lead; Gibbs having amnesia and feeble follow up skills at the podium. Come on. If you're 99% supportive, that is a helluva 1% left over.
I can't quite figure out what the people in the White House really think about new media/citizen journalists/bloggers. The equality orgs got to meet with the President, but Barack Obama has not given an interview to any LGBT media since he took office. That has to be purposeful. He certainly didn't do a drop in when a few reporters and citizen journalists were invited to meet with Melody Barnes, who is an ally, but still gave little information and would not discuss political matters at all, nor did the WH offer anyone on the political side to attend that meeting. And, you might recall, Brian Bond was in that room, was referenced by name, yet he said not one word during the 58-minute meeting. I did get a bear hug from him, though. Perhaps I'm still not on the SH*T LIST...we have to read between the lines.
We're not the enemy, the "gay bloggers" have just been treated in a bizarre fashion (and sadly, at times the traditional LGBT media's apparently placed in the doghouse with us by association), it's not like we sit around thinking how to screw over the WH. On the other hand, we're not an extension of the WH PR machine. We just represent many voices, and many outside the Beltway, of course, that haven't been heard or dealt with before. Does that make it challenging to navigate these relationships? Yes, and that's on both sides.
The bottom line is that I want my civil rights, and I see time and effort frittered away as it is treated like a political football -- we're Charlie Brown and Jim Messina et. al. are Lucy. It sure doesn't feel like 99% supportive if it's all theoretical, as we saw in that hilarious DNC video of Tim Kaine yesterday, chock full of win like:
"I promise you, we're going to do everything in our power to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act."
I think that's absurd. Who wrote that? What a position of weakness that sounds like. One commenter, Lev Raphael, was quite spot on:
"steps to promote"
"beginning to address"
These are weaselly constructions. What's happened isn't insignificant, but why should, for instance, Federal workers have it better off than the rest of us? Why such baby steps? And the steps aren't what we were promised.
His prologue also did not acknowledge the anger. It's not frustration. I'm frustrated if I have to reboot my computer. I'm frustrated if my dogs won't stop barking. I'm frustrated if I have a bad workout at the gym. I'm frustrated if I screwed up my DVR and didn't record the show I intended to.
I'm not frustrated about the lack of hard progress, I'm angry, disappointed, and disgusted. I think Obama is turning into Clinton. Promise, surface dazzle (at times), but no follow-through, and weak at the core.
The very choice of the word "frustrated" by Kaine (or his writers), the way it's balanced with "some of you/some of you" as if we're split down the middle, all show they don't get it.
My earlier post on ABC's experiment about discrimination against Muslims went live a bit ago, but then I found this horrific video from last night's AC360 (Dr. Sanjay Gupta hosting), with homobigot and Islamophobe Bryan Fischer of American Family Radio Talk Network (one of the arms of Don and Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association), who really pares it down to the basics -- "No More Mosques, Period." You have to see it to believe it. Remember, this is the same man endlessly spouts homophobic crap. But he's versatile -- there's always someone else on the list for these people to persecute.
We're joined now via Skype by Bryan Fischer; he's the host of Focal Point on the American Family Radio Talk Network. . We should point out that he's also issues director for the American Family Association. While he says his views are his own, not the association's, the American Family Radio Network is, in fact, listed as a division of the AFA, just to get that all clear. Thanks for joining us, Mr. Fischer.
BRYAN FISCHER, HOST, "FOCAL POINT" AMERICAN FAMILY RADIO TALK NETWORK: You're welcome, Dr. Gupta, good to be with you.
GUPTA: Thank you. I want to be clear on your viewpoint here because you've made quite a bit of waves lately. You don't want any mosques built in the United States, is that correct? You want a moratorium?
FISCHER: I think the reality Dr. Gupta is, that when we look at Islam, we're looking at a totalitarian ideology that is anti-Christian, anti-Semitic. The values that are at the core of Islam are contrary to every single solitary western and American value. I think communities ought to have the liberty to reject building permits.
Each one of these mosques is either a potential or actual recruitment center for Jihadism or training center for Jihadism.
GUPTA: You said quite a bit there already. Let me just start with one thing, freedom of religion. You've been asked this question before; it's one of this country's founding principles.
The First Amendment says, Congress shall make no law respecting (ph) an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
How can you say that that potentially applies to all religions except Islam?
FISCHER: Well, the reality, Dr. Gupta, is that no one could claim First Amendment religious protections if their ideology and their activities are subversive.
All you've got do is ask the Christian militia, the Hutaree how much First Amendment protections they had when they set out to attack federal officers. They have Bible verses plastered all over their Web site. Everything they did, they did in the name of Jesus Christ. They are right now pondering the limits of the First Amendment from the inside of a jail cell, which is where they should be.
Though this ABC Primteime experiment is from 2008, the political outrage over the Islamic Community Center planned to be opened near Ground Zero has raised the ugly head of discrimination and bigotry that is boldly displayed against those of Muslim faith. It's always bubbling beneath the surface (as in the case of race and homophobia), and explodes when enough people start bleating what they said only behind closed doors. Take a look at this video and see how rank people can be to one another because of ignorance and fear. Bonus points for the bigot in the video who questions reporter John Quinones' heritage as an American.
ABC's production crew outfitted The Czech Stop, a bustling roadside bakery north of Waco, Texas, with hidden cameras and two actors. One played a female customer wearing a traditional Muslim head scarf, or hijab. The other acted as a sales clerk who refused to serve her and spouted common anti-Muslim and anti-Arab slurs.
The polarity of reactions was shocking, from support to seething disapproval. Never did we expect customers to be so passionate or candid.
Our actor, Sabina, walked into the bakery in search of apple strudel. When she reached the counter, an actor posing as a sales clerk was quick to greet her with hateful anti-Muslim language.
"Get back on the camel and go back to wherever you came from," he said. "You got that towel on your head. I don't know what's underneath your dress. Just please take your business and go elsewhere with it."
"Sir, I am an American, I was born and raised here," she said.
The other customers seemed to hear the exchange but they barely looked toward our actors. When no one came to her defense, Sabina made a direct appeal to one customer.
"Sir, would you mind ordering me an apple strudel? That's why I am here," Sabina said.
Though visibly shaken by the hateful words, the man gave Sabina the cold shoulder, completed his purchase, and walked out of the bakery. "I really think that a person who owns his own business should be able to say who they sell to," he said after we told him about the experiment.
...A little while later, Sabina again entered the bakery, and again our sales clerk refused to serve her. This time, one man spoke up, but not on behalf of the Muslim woman. He was adamant that our sales clerk did the right thing. "She wasn't dressed right," he said. "If I was running the place I'd do the same thing."
...Even though people seemed to have strong opinions on either side, more than half of the bystanders did or said absolutely nothing. This is a familiar reaction for many Muslims such as Javed. "I was shocked because when these things happen to me in real life ... I never see what happens after I walk out of that store," she said. "I would try to justify ... that they probably didn't hear it ... when I watched it, I realized, no, they hear it and they see it and they're okay with it."
Sometimes it's hard not to recognize that the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community, as well as our friends, family, and allies, don't seem as good at organizing as those on the religious right -- as least with regards to phone and letter campaigns.
California's Capitol Resource Institute (CRI) sent out an email blast yesterday, entitled "Defend Prop. 8!" It's a call to their conservative, religious base to call the Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to get on their phones and start calling. How CRI framed the issue in their e-blast:
Jerry Brown is not appealing. Put another way, Jerry Brown has refused to file the appeal of the recent federal trial court decision declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Yes, it is his responsibility as the Attorney General (AG) to defend voter-approved measures, but he does not agree with Proposition 8.
And his failure to do his duty may end this battle right here.
As John Eastman points out in the Flashreport, unless the official government defendants file a notice of appeal the issue may end with the decision of one judge in San Francisco. The proponents of the measure may not have standing to file the appeal.
But, as Eastman also points out, the Governor can file this appeal. While the Governor also opposes Proposition 8, we hope that he is fair minded enough to realize that the people of California deserve a full hearing in the courts on this important measure.
Governor Schwarzenegger, under Government Code (GC) Section 12013 has the authority to direct AG Jerry Brown to appear on behalf of the State. If the Attorney General refuses, then the Governor has the right to and should file the notice of appeal. He may also employ additional counsel, as he deems expedient. The lawsuit against Proposition 8, Perry v Schwarzenegger, even includes the Governor's name because the lawsuit is against the State. GC Section 12013 further reads that the Governor has the right to demand the AG's appearance and supply additional counsel when suit or legal proceeding is pending against the State.
We join John Eastman and the 7 million Californians who voted in favor of marriage in 2008 in strongly urging the Governor to file the notice of appeal and allow committed counsel to continue to defend Proposition 8.
Their call to action:
we need your help to pressure Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown to do their jobs; We have created a website asking them to defend Prop. 8.
Please sign our online petition, call and fax the Governor and Attorney General, and join our Facebook page. And forward this e-mail alert to family and friends and ask them to do the same.
We need to flood the phones/faxes all day long.
It is time we stand up and tell those who represent us to do their job and defend Prop 8
Call the Governor!
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160
Talking Points When You Call the Governor:
• You were elected by the same people who amended our State Constitution to define and recognize marriage between one man and one woman. Please represent us by defending Proposition 8.
• If you are not going to enthusiastically defend Proposition 8 in the courtroom then file the appeal so the supporters of Proposition 8 can do so.
• Even though you don't agree with Proposition 8, it is only fair that you give the 7 million Californians who voted for this measure an opportunity to defend marriage in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Call the Attorney General
Phone: 916-324-5437
Fax: 916-445-6749
Talking Points When You Call the Attorney General:
• It is your Constitutional duty to defend Proposition 8. Please do you job as California's top law enforcer.
• If you choose not defend the Constitutionality of Proposition 8, then at least file an appeal and move out of the way.
• You are running for governor. How can voters expect you to do your job as governor if you do not even do your job as attorney general?
In all the calls and faxes that went to California's Governor and Attorney General's offices yesterday, I know I asked myself "How many calls went to these offices in support of California's stand not to appeal Prop 8?"
Well, I was in communication with a staffer from Equality California yesterday. That staffer informed me that when someone from their organization asked the Governor's office that question regarding calls there, the answer to how many who called the Governor's office California's Governor and Attorney General's position on not challenging the Prop 8 ruling made by Judge Walker, the answer was one...one phone call.
Yee-ouch. Maybe we all need to make some calls too.
One thing that has been deliciously excellent about the National Organization for Marriages' failed marriage tour is it showed NOM supporters in their true homophobic light.
Yesterday, we saw the "state-sanctioned sodomy" guy. Today, its another NOM supporter in Harrisburg.
Watch the entire thing, especially his comparison of gay marriage to pedophilia. But keep a special eye out on his nasty words about gay families and single mother families.
Social activists and civil-rights leaders, among them the Rev. Al Sharpton, are planning marches and demonstrations - including the unveiling of a nearly four-story-tall original sculpture on the Mall - on Aug. 28 to coincide with a rally organized by Fox News personality Glenn Beck.
Friend of the Blend, former special assistant and senior advisor to President Bill Clinton Richard Socarides, has a piece at 
Then as an extension from that personal self-defined "normal" that's found as one's circle of "me," I see many having a tendency to draw a slightly larger circle around that "me" that is only slightly larger than oneself, and declaring that slightly larger circle as what is "normal."
Fortunately, I haven't seen Pat Buchanan on the air talking about Prop 8 recently, but 
From 
Anyway, I know the WH, at least Shin Inouye (director of specialty media), reads the Blend and pings me from time to time, but who are these other peeps in power who are hand-wringing over the people on THE LIST of angry, frustration-inducing, Cheetos-stained P.J.-wearing bloggers...
