10/18/2010
GLAAD forces Barney the dinosaur into advocacy, whether he likes it or not
A new GLAAD effort:
WEAR PURPLE ON OCTOBER 20 FOR SPIRIT DAY
How can you help show your support for the teens who took their lives because of anti-LGBT bullying?
-Wear purple on October 20!
-Click here to turn your Twitter profile pic purple now through October 20
-Click here to turn your Facebook profile pic purple now through October 20 - then click on the new photo and click "Make Profile Pic"
-On Wednesday, post this tweet: I'm wearing purple to end anti-LGBT bullying - make your profile pic purple today #SpiritDay http://glaad.org/spiritday
-On Wednesday, post this Facebook status: I'm wearing purple today to support LGBT youth - make your profile pic purple today for Spirit Day at http://glaad.org/spiritday
-Help promote by downloading this graphic for your blog or website
On Twitter? Use the hashtag #SpiritDay in your tweets - let's make #SpiritDay a trending topic!
WHAT IS SPIRIT DAY?
The idea behind Spirit Day, first created by teenager Brittany McMillan earlier this month, is a simple one, not dissimilar to the idea of "Spirit Week" held in many high schools, and can be summed up in three words: Everyone Rally Together.
Spirit Day honors the teenagers who had taken their own lives in recent weeks. But just as importantly, it's also a way to show the hundreds of thousands of LGBT youth who face the same pressures and bullying, that there is a vast community of people who support them.
Purple symbolizes 'spirit' on the rainbow flag, a symbol for LGBT Pride that was created by Gilbert Baker in 1978.
As one of the event's Facebook pages says: "This event is not a seminar nor is it a rally. There is NO meeting place. All you have to do is wear purple."
Wearing purple on October 20 is a simple way to show the world that you stand by these courageous young people and a simple way to stand UP to the bullies. Remember those lives we've tragically lost, and show your solidarity with those who are still fighting. 'Go Purple' today!
WEAR PURPLE ON OCTOBER 20 FOR SPIRIT DAY [GLAAD]
Or, alternately, you can sleep with someone from an opposite-colored state than yourself (Red+Blue = Purple). Whatever tickles your pickle eggplant.
------------------
------------------
10/18/2010
Gallagher advises future Bucks; we advise you to hear what else she's said
After saying that she sees nothing "substantively wrong" in U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck's answer that being gay is essentially a choice (with a possibly birth component, like alcoholism), professional backer of marital bias Maggie Gallagher posits the following as a suggested answer for any politico who may be presented with the same "choice" question in the future:
“I don’t think anyone knows for sure how an orientation develops. I do think we know how sex happens: People choose to do it, or not, according to their personal moral value systems. Twin studies are increasingly pointing away from genetics as the major explanation for same-sex attraction, and the answer to the question of how orientation develops may turn out to be different for different people, and for men and women. But we can safely leave the debate to scientists who are competent to conduct it. I hope we can all agree that we are all responsible for our own sexual behavior, whatever our orientation, and that in a free society under current conditions people are not going to all agree on the underlying moral values.”
-Maggie [National Review Online]
Typical PR speak. But the thing is: Maggie has already given far more insight into her true feelings than she'd ever admit on the mainstream conservative forum that is National Review Online. She did so on Janet Parshall's radio show, where she recited the same kinds of lines about people choosing to have sex, but (a) with all of it framed around Janet's "ex-gay" setup, and (b) with a direct mention from Maggie that she finds homosexuality to be "an unfortunate thing":
8/9/10:
*AUDIO SOURCE: In The Market with Janet Parshall -- 8/9/10 [Moody Radio]
Or there was Maggie's August '09 appearance on the same show, when the National Organization For Marriage chairman again invoked her own sense of biblical morality in claiming that both the Iowa Supreme Court's decision and, by extension, gays are not only condemned by Leviticus but are also "striking at the heart" of Genesis:
(click to play audio clip)
*AUDIO SOURCE: Janet Parshall's America
Then check out Maggie's June '08 appearance on the "Catholic Answers Live" radio show, where she discussed the "several kinds of sins" that committed gay couples are supposedly committing. Or actually in this instance, it wasn't only same sex couples that Mags went after -- she brought all straight supporters of marriage equality into the sinful mix too:
*Source: Catholic Answers Live -- 6/30/08
Plus there's the fact -- the FACT! -- that Maggie regularly surrounds herself with a movement that's never met a piece of junk science that they won't twist so that it sounds as thoughtful as Einstein's (like Maggie's mentioned twin studies, for instance, which are constantly twisted by groups like NARTH in ways that ignore the perfectly scientific reasons why even monozygotic twins sometimes have discordant sexualities, the anecdotal elements that could skew results, the hormonal "activator" factor, the fact that things like lefthandedness also don't hold 100% concordance, etc.).
So it's understandable why Maggie would want to craft the perfect non-answer: One that stops short of revealing any sort of substance while still hitting certain dog whistles that cede no ground to the vast majority of LGBT people who experience no sense of "choice" about their attractions, capacities, and desires. Ms. Gallagher is a political person with a political goal, and too much freeform thought might actually break the conversation beyond the "protect marriage" talking point machine!
Video: Gays are like Godzilla's wealthier cousin, and other Parshall/Perkins myths
Craig Parshall: Gays, who've been part of this nation's fabric only since the day Judy Garland died, are all rich and powerful and connected. In fact, they all have direct lines to the White House. And it doesn't even matter if that call to 1600 Pennsylvania is long distance, because they all poop gold flakes. So no, these god-like, gainful gays don't need to have their fundamental rights protected in the exact same way that heterosexuals do.
Tony Perkins: Right, Craig, my fellow heterosexual who spends an inordinate amount of time deceiving about an issue that would not change our reality one iota. In fact, it's precisely because the homosexual are so powerful that I can make an issue out of a judge's sexuality, intimating that he's incapable of doing his job accurately since his worldview could never be as lucid or as critical as a nice, normal heterosexual judge. No way is my compulsion to make hay out of his reported gayness further demonstration of just how far society still has to go. Nope. Not even a little bit.
And now, the movie version of our script:
Iowa For Freedom: Comment moderation perfect metaphor for campaign itself
Well of course they still haven't posted either of the two (perfectly fair, in no way inflammatory) comments that we have left in their supposedly open forum. But the so-called "Iowa For Freedom" coalition has, in a completely separate post, put forth three of their readers' arguments for voting out judges who did nothing more than join the unanimous opinion that removed gender discrimination from the state's civil marriage laws:
Last week we asked, “why do you oppose judicial activism?” Below are a few great responses:
Bret V. writes, "Because judges are not elected. Therefore they can't be held accountable to the people. The judiciary is not supposed to represent one side or the other. They are to look unbiased at the law, period."
Ed B. writes, "Somehow, we've been convinced over the years that there are not three equal branches of government. We've forgotten that the judiciary isn't superior to the executive or legislative. Their function is NOT to make law! Fortunately, Iowa has a mechanism to remedy judicial appointees that don't understand this fact."
Bev S. writes, ""The end of the rule of law is the beginning of tyranny." quote from west wall of Iowa Capitol Rotunda."
Why Do You Oppose Judicial Activism? (a new post where they've posted these supposed comments, rather than let them play out in the old post's open comments section the way true "freedom" would) [IFF]
Okay, let's see here:
Bret V.: By "represent one side or the other," you must mean decide on cases on the bases of the arguments and evidence presented to the courts. Because that's all the seven member Varnum panel did. And yes, it's EXACTLY what the court is supposed to do! To a tee.
Ed B.: No, you who carelessly toss around the "judicial activism" claim have just undermined the role that one certain co-equal branch of government plays in civil rights. Nobody is saying that the judiciary should be superior. Nobody is asking the judges to make marriage law. We are simply asking the judiciary to play the exact same role that is has throughout civil rights history. A role that disallows the other branches of government from passing or executing laws that don't mesh with constitutional guarantees, and proudly prevents "the people" from overstepping the bounds of responsible citizenship!
Bev S.: The rule of law is exactly what the Iowa For Freedom coalition is lashing out against! Those who oppose civil marriage equality for LGBT couples do not want equal protection and due process to apply to same-sex duos. Period. True tyranny would be allowing a minority group's civil marriage right to be definitively decided by one, largely faith-based majority vote.
Oh, and Iowa For Freedom: It's pretty ironic that you all are so aggressively lashing out against judges and making this all about "the people" and "democracy," when you have appointed yourselves the judge and jury of what kinds of comments you will allow to weigh in on this matter, even though a democratic forum with only the most fair and understandable of limitations would be easier, more transparent, and more in the spirit of the national dialogue that you pretend to crave!
***
*UPDATE: Now IFF has allowed one other comment to go up on their old post (the one where both our and the above three comments should have appeared). But not our response to it:
Trust ÷ as far as we can throw them = 'pro-family' marriage warriors
We've of course noted the glaring hypocrisy pertaining to the way social conservatives use domestic partnerships and/or civil unions at their convenience, acting as if they support such recognition when it serves their needs (i.e. during anti-marriage equality ballot initiative campaigns) but then coming out against these very same arrangements when there's no political interest to do otherwise (i.e. the rest of the calendar year). And in a recent column for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, writer Lisa Dziadulewicz made note of the same situational reality, this time as it pertains to Wisconsin's head "pro-family" voice Julaine Appling:
Four years ago, one of the hottest issues in Wisconsin was the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions. While opponents worried that such a measure would hurt any efforts to grant gay and lesbian couples a minimal amount of legal protections through other means, such as domestic partnerships, supporters pooh-poohed these naysayers.
"If the state Legislature wants to take up adoption or inheritance rights, it can do that," said Julaine Appling, head of one of the primary organizations supporting the amendment, Wisconsin Family Action. "Nothing in the (amendment) prohibits that." Ban supporters avowed they were only trying to "protect marriage" and "protect the family," not penalize same-sex couples.
Flash forward to 2010. The governor and the Legislature, taking Appling at her word, passed legislation last year providing for a domestic partnership registry in Wisconsin. This measure gave same-sex couples a mere 43 of the over 200 rights given to married couples, primarily in the area of inheritance rights, hospital visits and medical leaves of absence.
Appling then countered this measure with an action whose breathtaking hypocrisy was only exceeded by its predictability: She became a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the state to overturn this legislation. And when the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to hear the case last year, WFA returned in August with yet another lawsuit to block the registry.
KEEP READING: There's no threat to marriage [Journal Sentinel]
Dziadulewicz is absolutely right: Stuff like this is even more predictable than it is phony. As a generalized movement, the anti-equality team has one determined goal: To make the world as heterosexist as possible. The ultimate treasure trove would be a world where only heterosexuals marry before having their requisite 2.5 kids, and where variance from this supposed norm ranges from Presbyterian-Catholic (at most). But even they know that this is not a real world possibility, so the organized players read the tea leaves of the particular moment in whatever geography they happen to be contending in, then shape their talking points around whatever is instantly achievable.
If our opposition does one thing well, it's that they never make their perceived perfect the enemy of their determined good: Instead, they position full equality for LGBT people as the enemy of their team's hearts and minds, then gladly adapt a "good enough" public strategy to cover the harsh realities underlying their pushes while they strategize ways to reach the hetero-topia that they truly crave. We might respect the politicking, if not for the punishment that this lack of principle lays on our lives and loves.
'Why do you oppose judicial activism?' (*And by 'you' we mean only those who jibe with our preconceived narrative)
A comment we tried to leave on the so-called "Iowa For Freedom" coalition's blog:
For NOM and Andy Pugno, anti-equality is still king (&king;)
Andy Pugno -- general counsel for Proposition 8's "Protect Marriage" coalition and sayer of things like, "there is no doubt that re-defining marriage to include homosexual relationships would ipso facto divorce the institution itself from its fundamental, biological foundation" -- has spent the last few of years of his adult life using personal faith-based convictions to get the word out about gays and their supposed inability to stand on equal CIVIL footing. So it's really no surprise that Andy's allies at the National Organization For Marriage are putting him on the air in an attack ad that quite literally barks out the phrase "gay marriage":
Oh, that old stock photo of a little girl reading King & King. The anti-LGBT side has been using that fear nugget so long, the kids in these photos are likely now more concerned about Medicare than they are the dating and mating habits of gay monarchy!
But the interesting (read: intensely frustrating) thing? Dr. Pan hasn't even knocked Pugno on the marriage issue! Here, check out Pan's two ads:
Not even a passing mention, in script or image, of any Kings or Queens or Props or ring fingers or little girls being brainwashed in a rainbow water bath. It's just that NOM, being of a one-tracked, highly discriminatory mind, needs an angle to justify their continued "culture war" shenanigans, so all of a sudden Dr. Pan becomes a "radical" who wants to "indoctrinate" children into thinking peace and equality are acceptable things (quelle horreur!), while professional backer of discrimination Pugno becomes the white knight who's going to slay the two kings' royal reception. Same false and uncreative meme, new political campaign.
So okay, fine. Because while Pan's ads don't even talk about marriage equality the way NOM claims they do, we will GLADLY talk about Pugno's record on the Prop 8 issue. We'll talk about how in the days following the Prop 8 vote, Andy repeatedly invoked the word "desperate" to discredit the hurt, stunned pro-equality side's rights and subsequent (and ultimately successful) legal efforts:
We'll talk about the 2008 letter in which the Prop 8 side tried to bully a local anti-Prop 8 business, Abbott & Associates, into either donating an equal contribution or suffering public rebuke. A letter to which Pugno lent his name:
10/17/2010
Video: Ken Buck's most credible science: Ken bucks most credible science
Republican tea drinker Ken Buck really, really, wants to unseat Democratic incumbent Michael Bennet to become Colorado's next U.S. Senator. And he just might win, as long as doesn't start hitting the bottle of Jack or Jim a little too hard. Or, alternately: The bottle of potion that makes Jack and Jim hard for each other:
Oh yes: The "it's a choice because one chooses one's partner" explanation of sexuality. Which would of course mean that Ken Buck is just one relatively minor choice away from grabbing David Gregory and making him his love pundit. Sitting there, looking in each other's eyes, when suddenly Mr. Buck sees a tuft of grey drop down from Gregory's perfectly styled coif. "Ooh, let me get that for you, Dave," purrs a coquettish Buck as his hand drifts past Gregory's furrowed brow. Gregory, having his own choice to make, keeps his cards close to his pocket square. But there's a commercial break coming up and choices. must. be. made. gentleman. Does Ken act? Does Gregory buck his way? Do the two invite Bennet in for a nonpartisan menage? If next week's "Today" show interview is via satellite, might Matt an/or Meredith choose to engage in a sexy cam session with the GOP challenger?
What did Ken choose? When did he choose? Why did he choose what (and who) he did? How is he so certain about his choices, unless his own story is filled with a constant stream of Option A and Option B decisions, wherein attractions involve either soft lips or razor stubble, depending on the wind (with a little bit of bithin' thrown in)?
Only Ken knows the answers to these questions. Our more important concern: Whether or not Colorado voter will demand some explanation, or if they'll just go ahead and send to the Senate a man who may boil up a fury in order to make TEA, but who surely boils down sexuality in order to brew division.
***
*HRC responds:
