Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 35

Wisconsin: womb controller arrested, charged with intent to kill abortion providers in the state

Good night, this was a close call. (RH Reality Check):

A man who drove to Madison, Wisconsin to kill an abortion doctor faces federal charges for intending to attack a Planned Parenthood office in Madison, Wisconsin and murder abortion providers. Ralph Lang, 63, was arrested Wednesday night when his gun went off in his motel room not far from the Planned Parenthood clinic that he planned to attack Thursday. According to a criminal complaint filed Thursday in U.S. District Court Lang said he had a gun "to lay out abortionists because they are killing babies."

From the Wisconsin State Journal:

Lang said he planned on shooting the clinic's doctor "right in the head," according to the complaint. Asked if he planned to shoot just the doctor or nurses, too, Lang replied he wished he "could line them up all in a row, get a machine gun, and mow them all down," the complaint said.

Teri Huyck, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, said the organization's primary concern "today and everyday" is the health and safety of its patients, staff and volunteers.

The current anti-choice radicals threatening access to a legal procedure are spurred on by one of North Carolina's finest, the bigoted womb controller Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-ignoramus). In her wisdom she recently led the House in passing a pet bill that would defund any medical programs that teach medical students on how to perform legal abortions. (Dkos):

And, in case we didn't get the message the first gazillion times Republicans mentioned it, the amendment re-reiterates that taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund abortions. Which they aren't.

But despite the endless parade of bills to make it really, really, really clear that taxpayers should not pay for abortions, Rep. Foxxxxxxxxxx still wanted to make it "crystal clear." In case the bill they passed three weeks ago didn't quite get the message across.

The measure is an amendment to H.R. 1216, the Republicans' latest never-gonna-happen attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Because nothing creates jobs like passing ideologically-driven symbolic measures to appease teabaggers and woman-haters everywhere.

Related:
* NC Congresswoman Virginia Foxx - evil to the core
* Foxx tries to backtrack on Shepard comments: 'hoax' was a poor choice of words
* Judy Shepard: that was no apology, Virginia Foxx
* Tony Perkins Supports Foxx, Death Threats Claimed.
* Virginia Foxx sends 'apology' to Judy Shepard

Why Rick Santorum will never be able to wash his hands of 'Santorum'

Not one, but two Twitter accounts (@RickSantorumPR and @FakeSantorum) mock the failed former Senator from Pennsylvania, and any hope that his 2012 campaign can be taken seriously has been obliterated...

Tennessee lawmaker: State Needs to Get Away from Looking 'Barefoot and Bucktoothed'

After what rolling back LGBT protections statewide, what's left to say? (TN report):

High ranking Tennessee House Democrat Mike Turner says a series of extremist bills are giving the state a black eye, including legislation that would ban teachers in younger grades from addressing homosexuality to reversing an anti-discrimination ordinance in Nashville seeking to protect gay and lesbian employees.

Meanwhile, the governor is pleased with the "Deliverance" rep:

Gov. Bill Haslam reiterated for reporters Wednesday why he is sticking by his decision to sign into law a bill that ultimately reverses an anti-discrimination ordinance in Nashville. The legislation, HB600, prevents any local government from enacting rules on "discriminatory practices" that are more stringent than at the state level.

Blender captures prophetic image of Mitt Romney's campaign?

You can't fight fate...Mittens

Some Thoughts And Unsolicited Advice For Janet Mock - The Newly Out People.com Editor

Janet Mock has a career as a writer and journalist; she's an editor for People.com. She's young, beautiful, and African-American.

Recently, she came out as a woman of transsexual experience.

Mock came out in conjunction with releasing a video for the It Gets Better project -- a video series created by Dan Savage to address the rash of suicides by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth. The It Gets Better project videos are ones where both celebrities and non-celebrities tell youth that it may be horrid in school, but life does get better -- it's a effort to provide hope for L, G, B and T teens, as well as other bullied teens, by letting them know that "It Gets Better."

She also filled in some details of the why of her coming out in a article at Marie Claire entitled I Was Born a Boy, where she explained why she came out:

...My coworkers don't know about my past, mostly because I never wanted to be the poster child for transsexuals - pre-op, post-op, or no op. But the recent stories about kids who have killed themselves because of the secrets they were forced to keep has shifted something in me.

That's why I decided to come out in the pages of Marie Claire, why I'm writing a memoir about my journey. It used to pain me to hear my birth name, a heartbreaking insult classroom bullies would shout to get a rise out of me. But talking and writing about my experiences have helped me finally accept the past and celebrate the fact that I was once a big dreamer who happened to be born a boy named Charles. I hope my story resonates with other big dreamers, lets them know that no matter how huge, how insane, how unreasonable or unreachable your goals may seem, nothing - not even your own body - can hold you back if you are certain and fearless and, yes, even a little ballsy in your quest.

Janet Mock is now publicly trans. As someone who is publicly trans and a writer too, I'd like to share some unsolicited thoughts and advice with her.

The first is that she's going to hear congratulations for awhile for her bravery and her courage by members of the general public, as well as many in the transgender community, but the praise won't last forever. New realities will set in shortly.

Among those new realities will be a partial loss of membership in the "club" of women. There are now going to be a large number of women who look at her not as a woman, but as a "man in a dress." Those will include less than accepting coworkers who will smile to her face, and then viciously rip into her behind her back. And too, members of the religious right will likely soon be calling Mock a "mutilated man" and identify her relationship with her boyfriend Aaron as a "homosexual" relationship. I'd advise her to be aware that when these things happen, she shouldn't take these things too personally. As Mock already knows, she cannot allow western societal sex and gender norms dictate for her who she is. And to quote civil rights icon Bayard Rustin:

[More below the fold.]

[T]he job of the gay community is not to deal with extremists who would castigate us or put us on an island and drop an H-bomb on us. The fact of the matter is that there is a small percentage of people in America who understand the true nature of the homosexual community. There is another small percentage who will never understand us. Our job is not to get those people who dislike us to love us. Nor was our aim in the civil rights movement to get prejudiced white people to love us. Our aim was to try to create the kind of America, legislatively, morally, and psychologically, such that even though some whites continued to hate us, they could not openly manifest that hate. That's our job today: to control the extent to which people can publicly manifest antigay sentiment.

I'd advise her that Bayard Rustin, if he were an activist now, would likely add antitrans sentiment to what we as a community can and should control, and that her It Gets Better video is one of the tools by which she's already begun addressing antitrans sentiment.

And speaking of the religious right declaring her relationship a "homosexual" relationship, I would advise her to be prepared for her boyfriend to be called gay by some of his friends, a number of his acquaintances, and by a number of total strangers who strike up conversations with him. Mock needs to be prepared for him to react to being called gay for being her boyfriend. Mock already has transitioned, but I would tell her that her boyfriend is now likely going to go through a kind of public partner transition -- it's nothing to fear, but it is something to be aware of.

When Mock leaves People.com after her run as an editor there, her obtaining a new job as a journalist or editor might be more difficult than it would have been before she was publicly out. Ugly whispers about her history will follow her by those who don't like her -- whether these individuals don't like her for her work style or don't like her for being a transsexual -- and those whispers may impact her employability for years to come. I'd advise her read up on the employment issues of trans people of color in the National Center for Transgender Equality's and Gay & Lesbian Task Force's report Injustice At Every Turn: A Report of the National

Transgender Discrimination Survey, and write a piece about the employment difficulties experienced by trans women of color. It may not solve that possible future employability problem, but I'd advise Mock that she can directly address the problem in a way that might change minds in her industry for her and other trans writers.

Mock will also definitely experience being a celebrity in transgender subcommunity of the LGBT community, as well as the broader LGBT community. There will be speaking requests because she is a celebrity. But, as Mock likely already knows from working as an editor and journalist in the entertainment field, the people who will want to have her as a speaker will often have their own agendas. It's a real possibility that people at LGBT organizations who ask her to speak at their events might not actually see her as a someone who's a whole human being -- but again, just see her as a T celebrity who can draw an audience.

I would advise Mock to only speak at, and accept awards from, organizations with which she completely aligns with those organizations' mission and vision statements.

And lastly, I'd warn her about the T community -- or should I say the divided communities that form about the terms transgender and transsexual. I'd warn her about people who identify themselves as members of the transgender community, and of people who identity themselves as members of a transsexual and intersex community; I'd warn her as well as of those who identify with terms such as women of transsexual history, women of operative history, classic transsexuals, and with Harry Benjamin Syndrome -- those who have in common a philosophy of genital reconstruction surgery essentialism. Each of these groups have agendas that she may or may not agree with, and members of each of these groups will likely attempt to co-opt her story to promote their viewpoints.

If Mock doesn't choose to sociopolitically identify as transgender -- she hasn't publicly identified herself as transgender to this point -- I would remind her she was called by the antigay f-word pejorative during her transition. People outside of the LGBT community often can't tell gay men, drag queens, genderqueer people, crossdressers, and transsexual women apart, and that's an important thing to remember. If the message that Mock believes in really is a message "It Gets Better" for all LGBT teens, then even if she doesn't identify as transgender she can embrace the humanity -- the human dignity -- of crossdressers and genderqueer people, as well as pre-operative and non-operative transsexual people. I would remind her that fighting for these teens who don't identify in the same way she identifies is what, in part, the It Gets Better Project is about -- she can fight for more than just the teens who are gay or are post-operatively transsexual.

And, she should be made aware that legislators don't like the word transsexual for the same reason they don't like homosexual -- there's a "sex" in the middle of both of those words, and that "sex" in those words makes many legislators who are our potential legislative allies extremely uncomfortable. And too, when people here the term transsexual they hear genital surgery -- that's not something one politically wants to connect with preteens who are coming out earlier and earlier in their lives.

The term transgender apparently makes politicians less uncomfortable. If she doubts me on this political reality, she should talk to trans politicians, such as Dana Beyer and Brittany Novatny, and trans people who have talked to politicians as part of their jobs on a regular basis, such as Cecilia Chung, Mara Keisling, and Masen Davis. They can confirm for Mock political realities regarding the terms transgender and transsexual.

So if Mock really wants to make it a better climate for LGBT youth, she's going to have to embrace the term transgender -- if not for her own sociopolitical identity, then acknowledge that it is an identity that youth that she wants to protect from bullying do identify by that term. And too, politicians who want to vote for enumerated anti-bullying policies are more comfortable with the term transgender than the term transsexual.

And with regards to the divided T communities, I would add this: All of these T communities sadly behave in a way that reflects what trans activist Dallas Denny noted about transgender community. And Denny's noted truism about community is that we trans people eat our own. Many in broader society will, in coming weeks and months, tell her how brave she is; people from the T communities will for the most part either congratulate and/or thank her for coming out, or just stay silent. But, Mock should expect that if she says something that people in T communities finds insensitive, or takes a position a particular faction of the T communities doesn't like, what I call the Trans Attack Machine will come out in force and slam her hard. If she remains a public figure and doesn't talk about political issues frequently enough to satisfy some in the T communities, especially if she talks about celebrity and fashion more than serious issues, then members of the T communities will attack her for not being a more serious activist.

Again, the one truism about the T communities is we trans people eat our own. I would suggest that Mock take media training from GLAAD -- I see on her Facebook page that she has "liked" GLAAD (the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation). Whether she agrees or not with all of GLAAD's LGBT Media Reference Guide's guidelines, taking some training to at least be aware of what the T-related pitfalls are for a public T figure seems a must -- If she chooses to "violate" the guidelines, she should still at least be aware of what the guidelines are that she's violating.

I probably will never know if Mock reads this piece, and I won't know if she accepts any of thoughts or advice I've offered as useful. But that said, I would give similar advice to anyone who comes out as T these days who is likely to become a trans public figure.

In a nutshell, it's a harsh world out there for trans public figures, and Janice Mock is likely going to experience that harsh world first hand. She should be forewarned -- and prepared -- for what experiences she may soon have come her way.

.

Bloomberg Delivers Speech Calling On Albany To Pass Marriage Equality

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg delivered what the New York Times called "uncharacteristically forceful and sweeping speech" urging the New York Senate to vote to pass marriage equality yesterday afternoon at Cooper Union.

New York magazine said of it:

You know, sometimes it's easy to forget our curmudgeonly, wisecracking mayor is capable of stirring speeches like this. It seems to come out when he expects better of New York than what he's seeing. Which is, I suppose, exactly the kind of thing you want to get a mayor fired up.

It was a beautiful and inspiring speech.

But more than that, it was a smart and knowing speech. It was filled with historical context, of both the gay rights movement and the broader movement of Civil Rights expansion in America. It was a clever speech, seamlessly weaving in economic talking points. And it was an empathic speech, where he spoke earnestly of his love and respect for his family and his staff.

JPMassar published the full text here.

 

 

It was a speech clearly tailored very thoughtful for a New York audience. There were the obligatory reference to the 1969 Stonewall Riots. But even better, the mayor contextualizes what actually brought about the riots themselves, a part of history that is often glossed over. He tells what life was like for gay New Yorkers in 1969:

For men and women of that era, an era many of us remember well, being in a gay relationship meant living in fear:

“Fear of police harassment.

“Fear of public humiliation

“Fear of workplace discrimination.

“Fear of physical violence.

“Today, in some places, those fears still linger.

True, Stonewall still lives in many parts of the country.

It was particularly canny for the Mayor to craft his message to appeal to New Yorkers' pride as a force for leadership in the nation. "We're #7! We're #7! We're #7!" hasn't exactly been the slogan of the Big Apple. But that's the place we're at now. Isn't it time to seize the day?

“So why should New York now lead on marriage equality? Because we have always led the charge for freedom – and we have always led by example. No place in the world is more committed to freedom of expression – religious, artistic, political, social, personal – than New York City. And no place in the world is more welcoming of all people, no matter what their ethnicity or orientation.

“That has always been what sets us apart. In our city, there is no shame in being true to yourself. There is only pride. We take you as you are – and we let you be who you wish to be. That is the essence of New York City.

“That is what makes us a safe haven for people of every background and orientation… and a magnet for talented and creative people. It’s the reason why we are the economic engine for the country and the greatest city in the world.  

“But it’s up to us to keep it that way. As other states recognize the rights of same-sex couples to marry, we cannot stand by and watch. To do so would be to betray our civic values and history – and it would harm our competitive edge in the global economy. This is an issue of democratic principles – but make no mistake, it carries economic consequences.

“We are the freest city in the freest country in the world – but freedom is not frozen in time.

The New York he describes is the one I hoped I'd find when I left the midwest. And I did.

Mayor Bloomberg with his neice, Rachel Tiven, the executive director
of Immigration Equality, an LGBT org. ©Edward Reed/Mayor's Office

Much speculation has surrounded the Mayor's activism on this issue. He addresses it:

“There’s a reason I’m so passionate about this issue – and so determined to push for change. I see the pain the status quo causes – and I cannot defend it. When I meet a New Yorker who is gay, when I speak with friends and members of my staff who are gay, or when I look into the eyes of my niece, Rachel, I cannot tell them that their government is correct in denying them the right to marry. I cannot tell them that marriage is not for them. I cannot tell them that a civil union is good enough.

“In our democracy, near equality is no equality. Government either treats everyone the same, or it doesn’t. And right now, it doesn’t.

His rhetorical force is potent. Let's hope he put it to good use when he traveled to Albany to have a chat with his Republican friends in the Senate on the issue last week. The Times Union reported after his meeting with Bloomberg, Putnam County freshman Republican Greg Ball said, "Right now, I'm an absolute maybe."

Bloomberg's purse strings may be even more convincing than his speeches. The Mayor gave $900,000 to New York Republican State Party last year the New York Capitol News reports. He has pledged to throw his support behind marriage equality supportive Republicans.

Meanwhile, Elsewhere Across The Aisle...
Also yesterday, the Times Union printed an Op-Ed from New York Republican Assembly woman Janet Duprey. She reality checks for her colleagues the conventional wisdom this is a dangerous vote. When she switched her vote from "No" in 2007 to "Yes" in 2009 she said they wrote her "political obituary." Turns out that was premature. She returned to Assembly in 2010 with 60% of the vote, crushing a Conservative Party challenger spurred on specifically by her marriage equality vote. She actually credits her "Yes" vote with providing her with a bump:

The outpouring of support and appreciation I received was overwhelming. It came from my constituents and from advocates committed to standing behind those who support the freedom to marry.

That community of support made a difference. The moral and financial support, strategic advice and counseling and dedicated commitment by volunteers proved too much for those who campaigned against me because of my vote.

I did not lose my election because of my stand. Neither has any of the 72 Republican legislators who have voted for the freedom to marry.

I wrote about it yesterday.

A virtual legend of New York Republican politics spoke out in favor marriage equality yesterday as well, former Republican Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno. The venue was an interesting choice too, Fred Dickers' radio show. Fred Dicker has carved out the niche of reporting for the New York Post from a conservative perspective. Bruno reiterated his support first mentioned in 2009:

“I support that now. Really, in politics, in life, with legislation, timing is everything,” Bruno said. “It really comes down, in my mind, to equal rights for everyone.”

“I support it, I think the time has come, and I think that people have a right for their own expression,” he continued.

Bruno also had kind words for Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo's leadership on the issue. Dicker needled Bruno for previously referring to homosexuality as "an abnormal lifestyle."

Bruno replied:

“I’ve always regretted it because you and others have stuffed it down my throat every chance you got.”

[image error]  

To The Phones! Battleground: Queens

Meanwhile, way down at the grassroots level, the New Yorkers United For Marriage phone bank hosted about 35 callers Thursday night. They've set up shop at the SEIU offices in Times Square (thank you, Unions!) and managed to successfully connect almost 300 voters with their Senators to leave messages of support. It's a pretty sophisticated auto-dial system they have set up. At the debrief volunteers reported how friendly and supportive the people they spoke to were. A few reported hearing genuine displays of anger that Albany or Senate Majority Leader Skelos has been dragging their feet on the issue and couldn't just get it done.

Queens Assembly man Francisco Moya dropped by to work the phones himself and give a pep talk to volunteers. Moya said he answered to a "higher power" (his Catholic mother who told him marriage equality was an issue of social justice).

Another Queens elected came by, New York City Council Man Daniel Dromm (seen with NYUM volunteers). He said he genuinely believed renegade Democratic Senators Joseph Addabbo and Shirley Huntley could be moved to flip from "no" to "yes." He also said he wasn't one to make threats, but he did bring up how unpleasant primaries fights are. New York Democrats have seen a few over this issue. And if they fail to unite, he thought they'd see more.

In Conclusion Whether this vote passes or fails, we're winning.

Even if we lose this battle, we can see the end of the war from here.

Here in New York, the debate has shifted across party lines. The Democrats are mostly shored up. The no voters are hanging their heads in shame and facing primaries, and their colleagues aren't giving them cover. They are "old guard" holdouts and they are fast being replaced with Democrats who support—and vote—for full equality for their LGBT constituents.

Here in the New York, it's across the aisle in the Republican camp where they are now having the debate about what is right and what is not, and having testy exchanges. The Republican heretics who support marriage equality are beginning to outnumber the Democrats who don't.

We are winning.

The phonebank is open:
Daily: Monday through Thursday
Time: 5pm-8:30pm
Location: SEIU 1199
330 W 42nd St, 7th Floor New York, NY 10036

You can RSVP here, but they appeared to have the capacity to accomodate walk-ins as well.

HRC endorses Obama for re-election; message: open the gAyTM and get with the program

Washington Blade (the full endorsement here:

"President Obama has improved the lives of LGBT Americans more than any president in history," Solmonese. "In 2008 we were promised change and profound change is what we got. More remains to be done and ensuring that President Obama is able to continue the forward momentum toward equality for another term is an absolute priority of the Human Rights Campaign."

...Alec Gerlach, spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, said the HRC endorsement demonstrates the support that Obama has offered the LGBT community.

"That the Human Rights Campaign offered such an early endorsement is a clear sign that the president has fought for LGBT rights across the country and in our nation's military," Gerlach said. "We will work closely within the LGBT community in the months to come to ensure that we are united in the cause to re-elect the president and to ensure equality for gay and transgendered Americans. The president believes that DOMA is discriminatory and unfair, and because the fight for equality affects us all he will not support it."

Again, this illustrates that if HRC is on board, the assumption is that entire LGBT community is stepping in line by default. Is it "Groundhog Day", a case of waking up and starting the same day over and over with these folks? HRC no more controls the community than blogs do, as we've seen before, it's just that the institutions seek credibility through our Beltway orgs.

Also, hat is the point of doing this now? I don't recall HRC endorsing in the primaries when it was Hillary vs. Obama, for instance. And how about Republican presidential candidate Fred Karger, is he a non-starter? It just seems odd for an allegedly non partisan org. The reaction from Jimmy LaSalvia of GOProud, the release titled "HRC Officially Ends Charade of "Bipartisanship" with Pre-emptive Obama Endorsement":

"Today, the Human Rights Campaign chose to endorse Barack Obama's re-election even though the field running for President in 2012 isn't even set yet.  This pre-emptive endorsement ends HRC's charade of bipartisanship.

"LGBT people who are interested in putting policy before partisanship now know that HRC is little more than a puppet of the Democratic National Committee and an organization that has one goal - to elect more Democrats."

He's right on the latter point, however, the flip side of the coin is that pro-LGBT or even neutral Republicans aren't exactly breaking down the door for the LGBT vote either. Thoughts?

Homophobia, Inc.

It can't be said that the existence of anti-gay organizations is related in any way to a grassroots uprising of terrified citizens trying to do anything to protect their children and their families from gay people. In fact, it's a small group of profit-driven, pseudo-religious people who stop by your town to take your money and move onto the next place they can scam. The truth is, gay issues are not really that important to the populace. They could mostly not care less. Even in the reddest district in New York state, a pro-marriage equality candidate won an election. The so-called "middle" are really very good people who are generally on our side on gay issues. At the very least, it seems that they don't care enough to vote against a candidate they like if that candidate supports gay marriage. This is not the conventional wisdom that these anti-gay groups have been spreading, but it is closer to the truth. They are not served at all by these money-seeking entities fighting to line their pocketbooks because destroying the lives of LGBT people happens to be profitable.

This reality is a problem for the scammers, so they do what they can to stoke homophobia and tell decent folks that they are just trying to "protect our children." The reality is also that these are longtime astroturfers, and calling themselves "grassroots" doesn't change that. Brian Brown, for example, is so "grassroots" that even before he joined the corporation National Organization for Marriage, he was a "familiar figure" at the state Capitol in Connecticut for his former post at a state anti-gay organization.
Who would dare tell us that he is "grassroots"? Well, the Family Research Council:

"Brian has been the foremost grass-roots leader who has been involved in the marriage debate," says Chuck Donovan, a senior vice president at the conservative Family Research Council. "He's one of the more effective leaders out there."

And who are they? They are a lobbying organization formed in 1983, and were part of Focus on the Family for awhile. They are a corporation that exists solely to oppose gay rights and to a lesser extent abortion. They have a decades long history of promoting writings of anti-science and homophobic writers and pretending it's serious analysis. This group is constantly in the news for its hate speech against gays and was recently even labeled a hate group. (NOM got a mention that they're being watched, but no hate group label yet.)

Not exactly the type of group you want defending your "grass roots" status.

These are lifelong businesspeople making tons of money off homophobia. Maggie Gallagher, also from NOM, is famous for receiving over $41,000 from the President of the United States for writing anti-gay columns.

What would happen to her if she couldn't make money from homophobia? What would happen to Brian Brown? The Family Research Council? All those groups would get poor and die out. And they want to make sure that doesn't happen. In short: this is not a campaign to protect your children or the sanctity of your marriage. It's not a campaign to keep gays from ruining marriage. This is a campaign to protect the Homophobia Industrial Complex (H-I-C) and nothing more.

It is a long-entrenched effort built by right-wing Christian organizations for their continued access to power and money. Republicans fear losing financial backing from the H-I-C and Democrats fear the money that's spent against them by the H-I-C. So it's here to stay. It's built into the bedrock of our government at this point - not unlike the MIC. And like the MIC, neither party is going to be terribly willing to fight - especially at the state level where the fear is immense.

When even the former president is sending his money to pay these people in exchange for a huge return you know they're entrenched. The homophobia industrial complex will stop at nothing to keep their cash flow going as long as they can. And it's easy to see what happens: right-wing, rich old Republicans who are part of these hate groups donate a ton of money to get Republicans with likeminded beliefs in office. Then, since those Republicans, now in office, receive a nice sum of campaign cash from the homophobes, they propose anti-gay legislation and say anti-gay things.

Then suddenly, we're forced to listen to the (few) people (with lots of money) who perpetuate the homophobia industrial complex take to the media to discuss oh how terrible it would be if gay people served in the military or were allowed to get married or were allowed to have employment protections. Tony Perkins from the hate group Family Research Council not only repeatedly got on TV and in several op-eds to discuss Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal, but they let him do the same for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.

And even worse, this entrenchment of anti-gay bigotry-for-money feeds into the already prevalent racism in our national culture. These groups are not afraid to provoke racial resentment whenever they can.

But hey, as long as he gets paid the H-I-C does its job, right? That's all that matters in the end, really: people are making money. It's the American way. It doesn't really matter if NOM is actually five people in a van taking millions of dollars from rich contributors and pretending that they represent a massive amount of terrified Americans hiding under the covers away from the gay.

Breaking exclusive: Dan Choi, Andy Thayer, Nikolay Alexeyev protest canceling of Moscow Pride

10:15 AM ET: I just spoke to Dan Choi, who is in Moscow for Gay Pride, scheduled for May 28, 2011. It would have been the first legal Pride, but Moscow city officials rejected an application for a gay pride parade, citing a risk of public disorder

The decision by Moscow's city council ignores a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, which said that the city had illegally banned three pride events between 2006 and 2008.

Alexeyev told the Associated Press that this was the sixth time authorities had refused the request for a rally, and that activists would go ahead with a peaceful demonstration despite the ban.

"Of course it is illegal because the [European] court decision, which was clear in its interpretation of article 11 of the European convention, and which we are quoting as the basis for this. It doesn't even have any basis in Russian legislation," Alexeyev told The Moscow News.

Dan reports that he, along with about 20 activists from the U.S. and Europe attended Russia's version of Meet the Press. Russian LGBT rights activist, lawyer and journalist Nikolay Alexeyev debated their version of Maggie Gallagher, and the opposition (anti-gay) side was stacked with government officials and a "sexologist" demonizing LGBTs.

According to Dan, the first two segments were very contentious; at the end of the second segment it became so heated that Alexeyev stormed off of the set -- actually damaging part of the set -- and refused to come back for the third segment.

Instead, Alexeyev and all of the pro-LGBT attendees left the set and audience. This program aired live, so I'm sure clips will surface. Dan will have a report later; they are also planning direct action in protest of the cancellation of Pride by homophobic officials and it's likely there will be arrests.

Dan and these activists want to shed more light on the defiance of the European court by Moscow officials; I'll bring you more updates as I receive them.  

NOM's methods of 'defending marriage' are unchristian

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage claims that his organization wants a respectful discussion as to the merits of being against marriage equality.

However based on the actions of NOM - and the organizations it is partnering with in New York and Minnesota - one can't help but to question the veracity of Brown's statement.

So far:

NOM has put out a misleading commercial in New York touting a claim that the organization knows is discredited.The organization has also blanketed the state with flyers designed to imply that gays want to use marriage equality to corrupt the innocence of children.Brown himself, during a rally, made the erroneous claim that Massachusetts kindergartners are being taught that their parents are bigots if said parents favor opposite-sex marriage.

And these awful missives of inaccuracy and misdirection aren't confined solely to NOM. The organizations NOM is partnering with to fight marriage equality are also guilty of several dubious actionsAnd these awful missives of inaccuracy and misdirection aren't confined solely to NOM. The organizations NOM is partnering with to fight marriage equality are also guilty of several dubious actions.

In Minnesota, the Minnesota Family Council spread inaccurate information via its site that gays engage in pedophilia, bestiality, and the consuming of urine and feces. It also cited the work of discredited physician Paul Cameron. Since this discovery became public, the Minnesota Family Council has scrubbed these references from its site, however, you can still view the information and save it from here.  To top it off, even though the items were removed, the head of the Minnesota Family Council, Tom Pritchard, actually defended the material:

Prichard defends the postings as getting “into the nature of homosexuality and homosexual behavior,” but says that won’t be the focus of his group’s efforts to pass the constitutional ban.
“The focus of this campaign is the nature and purpose of marriage — not a referendum of homosexuality per se, or its lifestyle activities and behaviors,” he says. “I would see that as a separate issue.”

And it gets more interesting in New York. 

 

A group aiding NOM in that state, The Family Research Foundation, is encouraging supporters to write letters to the editor demonizing lgbts.  And the organization has the gall to provide prospective writers with several form letters, meaning that all they have to do is sign their name. You can view the letters here. One letter is below:

 

The letter implies that the lgbt orientation is as dangerous as cigarette smoking.  This theory was originally espoused by the discredited researcher Paul Cameron, the very man whose material the Minnesota Family Council scrubbed from its page.

Some folks may read this post and get frustrated.  They may say things like "whatever NOM and its allies are doing, it's working because they are winning" or "we are losing because we aren't fighting fire with fire."

But I disagree with both points. Sometimes exposing a lie to sunlight is the best thing you can do.  Whatever battles NOM have won are transitory at best and, when it's all said and done, will not be remembered when marriage equality becomes legal.

What will be remembered are the lies, the hypocrisy, the blatant inaccuracies committed in the name of God by NOM and its partners.

And hopefully those who follow our footsteps will take that behavior as a lesson of what not to do when claiming to work for morality.

Hat tip to Goodasyou.org