Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 49

Guest column by Irene Monroe: Marriage equality film comes to Harlem

Marriage equality film comes to Harlem

By Rev. Irene Monroe

African American lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) communities have always existed in Harlem, residing here since this former Dutch enclave became America's Black Mecca in the 1920s.

The visibility of Harlem's LGBTQ communities for the most part was forced to be on the "down low." But gay Harlem, nonetheless, showcased it inimitable style with rent parties, speakeasies, sex circuses, and buffet flats as places to engage in protected same-gender milieux.

And let's not forget Harlem's notorious gay balls. During the 1920s in Harlem, the renowned Savoy Ballroom and the Rockland Palace hosted drag ball extravaganzas with prizes awarded for the best costumes. Harlem Renaissance writer Langston Hughes depicted the balls as "spectacles of color." George Chauncey, author of Gay New York, wrote that during this period "perhaps nowhere were more men willing to venture out in public in drag than in Harlem."

As expected, however, African American ministers railed against these communities as they continue to do today. Given Harlem churches' spiritual and sexual stronghold over its churchgoing communities, the church continues, to its detriment, to police the entire community concerning queer sexualities. Any healthy dialogue about God's love and unquestioning acceptance of LGBTQ people is kept on lockdown, maintaining a "politic of silence" not only about LGBTQ sexualities but also about the various expressions of black sexuality as part and parcel on the continuum of human sexuality.

While most Harlem churches won't touch LGBTQ issues, various gay-friendly arts venues in Harlem will. And the Harlem Stage is one of them, allowing a safe and uncensored space for black queer expressions.

On April 26 the Harlem Stage premiered the new documentary short film, Marriage Equality: Byron Rushing and the Fight for Fairness, allowing the largest public dialogue on same-sex marriage by LGBTQ people of color in the country. New York native and award-winning African American gay filmmaker Thomas Allen Harris directs the film, sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign.

Harris tackles the continued hot-button issue in both the African American and LGBTQ communities. Civil rights: black vs. gay. Harris dismantles the false dichotomy of this on-going debate by connecting the Black Civil Rights Movement of 1960s with the same-sex marriage equality movement of today. And he does it by focusing on African American Democratic Massachusetts State Rep. Byron Rushing, a veteran of the Civil Rights Movement who, in the past decade, took the campaign for same-sex marriage into African-American communities here in Massachusetts.

More below the fold.

Byron Rushing was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1982, and he was an original sponsor of the gay rights bill and the chief sponsor of the law to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public schools. Rushing was also one of the leaders in the constitutional convention to maintain same sex marriage in Massachusetts.

Rushing is one of the legislative pioneers in Massachusetts's black community to address the topic of LGBTQ rights as a civil rights issue. And Harris' film, the first of this genre, will keep the topic from slipping into the "down low" culture of black life.

"Like the Civil Rights Movement did 50 years ago, the marriage equality movement is dominating politics in the current national landscape," Harris said. "I hope the event at Harlem Stage will launch a movement across the country where community members use the film as a way to discuss marriage and other issues of political and social importance, especially as it relates to communities of color."

With over 200 LGBTQ people of color and allies in attendance at the Harlem Stage, renown gay African American Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart moderated the forum on same-sex marriage with a panel that included entrepreneur and activist Russell Simmons; Cathy Marino-Thomas, board president of Marriage Equality New York; Human Rights Campaign board of directors member David Wilson; myself; and a host of rights advocates, political activists, and religious leaders.

Whereas many African American ministers will continue to hold fast to the erroneous belief that the battle for same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue, there are, however, many African American elected officials like Rushing who know same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue.

For, example, during a June 12, 2007 Capitol Hill ceremony commemorating the 40th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down anti-miscegenation laws -- and sponsored by several straight and LGBTQ civil rights organizations across the country -- the Legal Defense & Educational Fund of the NAACP released an historic statement that best explains why the LGBTQ struggle for same-sex marriage is indeed a civil rights struggle: "It is undeniable that the experience of African Americans differs in many important ways from that of gay men and lesbians; among other things, the legacy of slavery and segregation is profound. But differences in historical experiences should not preclude the application of constitutional provisions to gay men and lesbians who are denied the right to marry the person of their choice."

LGBTQ Harlemites have resigned themselves to have dialogues on same-sex marriage -- if not in their black churches, then in various public gay-friendly arts venues throughout Harlem.

And in so doing, they will be standing on the shoulders of their brothers and sisters of the Harlem Renaissance.

Country Singer Blake Shelton Tweets His Homophobia

Blake Shelton, a country singer who is a judge on the latest singing competition TV show, The Voice, which airs on NBC took to Twitter tonight to spew some gay-bashing homophobia by "rewriting" one of Shania Twain's lyrics to read:

 "Any man that tries Touching my behind He's gonna be a beaten, bleedin', heaving kind of guy..."

One wonders if Christina Aguilera, who is a judge on the show and is a long-time supporter of LGBT equality, will have anything to say about this.

The Voice has received some buzz in the LGBT community recently because it has prominently featured several gay & lesbian contestants in its first couple of premiere episodes.

Will NBC do the right thing and invite Blake Shelton to take a hike? Or will they try to sweep this under the rug and pretend like it never happened?

TX: HS cheerleader dropped from squad for not cheering sexual assailant, told to pay up by court

See letters written to Silsbee officials by reporter and Blender Scott Rose below the fold. And if that doesn't blow your mind and put you into a rage, the teenager must pay compensation to the school  -- $45K -- after the legal challenge. (The Independent):

The United States Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a review of the case brought by the woman, who is known only as HS. Lower courts had ruled that she was speaking for the school, rather than for herself, when serving on a cheerleading squad - meaning that she had no right to stay silent when coaches told her to applaud.

She was 16 when she said she had been raped at a house party attended by dozens of fellow students from Silsbee High School, in south-east Texas. One of her alleged assailants, a student athlete called Rakheem Bolton, was arrested, with two other young men.

As usual, this tale does not favor the victim in the least. Bolton was not charged with rape and copped a plea to misdemeanor assault. That charge allowed Bolton to return to school -- and the basketball team.

So when the victim traveled to a basketball game in January 2009 to cheer on Silsbee's team, she participated in cheers and when Bolton was attempting a free throw, she stood silently with her arms folded. And then she was punished:

Richard Bain, the school superintendent in the sport-obsessed small town, saw things differently. He told HS to leave the gymnasium. Outside, he told her she was required to cheer for Bolton. When the girl said she was unwilling to endorse a man who had sexually assaulted her, she was expelled from the cheerleading squad.

Her parents sued, saying the teenager's free speech rights were violated when the coach demanded she cheer for her rapist. Two courts ruled against her, arguing:

"As a cheerleader, HS served as a mouthpiece through which [the school district] could disseminate speech - namely, support for its athletic teams," the appeals court decision says. "This act constituted substantial interference with the work of the school because, as a cheerleader, HS was at the basketball game for the purpose of cheering, a position she undertook voluntarily."

And with that, came the $45K fine for filing a "frivilous" lawsuit.

WTF is going on in Texas? Basketball, oh hell, team sports are so important that rapists and schools can run roughshod over the right of a teen girl's rights? It's disgusting.

Blender Scott Rose noted that the Silsbee High School Code of Conduct reflects the problem:

At the link below is the latest online-available Code of Student Conduct for Silsbee High School. It states, among other things, that a student who copies school computer programs will face very serious school discipline and legal consequences. That is to say, Silsbee High takes the copying of its computer programs more seriously than the rape of one of its students.

The Silsbee Bee has a fan page on Facebook. You might want to share your thoughts about its high school.

Below the fold, the letter Scott Rose sent to Silsbee elected officials.

From:

Scott Rose

[address, phone redacted]

To Silsbee, Texas City Government Officials:

This is to express extreme concern over how the Silsbee School District handles students once they are convicted of assault and/or rape.

Reference is made to a report on the Silsbee school student and convicted assailant Rakheem Bolton at this link:

http://tinyurl.com/63y349w

While the legal matter has revolved around whether Bolton's victim should have been compelled to cheer Bolton on a Silsbee school sport's team following his conviction, that legal matter is not the genuine issue.

The genuine issue is that, once a student is convicted of assault against another student, the convicted student should be expelled and never again permitted to trespass anywhere on school district property.

Silsbee Schools Superintendent Richard Bain has behaved unconscionably, allowing a convicted assailant to return to the same school with as his victim.

The Silsbee Schools Student Code of Conduct found at the link below talks of "Expellable Offenses."  How is it that being convicted of assaulting another student is not an expellable offense?

http://tinyurl.com/3bw83yw

I note that a recent court decision in the legal matter orders the victim to pay costs to the Silsbee Schools.  Please answer directly back to me at this e-mail address as to whether you will be making a public announcement waiving the victim's legal obligation to pay that fee.  I shall be publishing an article about your school district and your city government, in any event, but wish to know from you directly whether you are so sleazy that, after not expelling the convicted assailant from your schools, you would hold his victim liable for the court costs of a legal action involving that assailant.

Sincerely,

Scott Rose

Addresses of officials:

citymanager@cityofsilsbee.com

DeeAnn@cityofsilsbee.com

christopherbarnes888@hotmail.com

rbain@silsbeeisd.org

sdickard@silsbeeisd.org

sgrisham@silsbeeisd.org

jchandler@silsbeeisd.org

And here's another letter:

from Scott Rose newyorkcitywriter@earthlink.net

to priscillia.flores@tea.state.tx.us

date Wed, May 4, 2011 at 4:40 PM

subject Inquire: In Re: Texas Department of Education guidelines

From:

Scott Rose

Reporter

Dear Ms. Flores:

Will you please let me know whether the Texas Department of Education has certain minimum standards for student discipline that apply to all public schools in Texas?

My specific interest in this involves the Silsbee, Texas schools, in a matter reported on here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

The matter has come to involve, legally, the question of whether the student victim could be compelled to cheer for her convicted assailant during a sports event.

However, dialling this back a step, I am questioning why the convicted assailant was permitted to return to the same school with his victim.

The assailant pleaded guilty to assault in a plea bargain on rape charges.

Is it really general Texas DOE policy that such a student be permitted to return to the same school with the victim?

Or did the Silsbee Schools go against general Texas DOE policy by returning the convicted assailant to the same school with his victim?

Sincerely,

Scott Rose

Missing mom, thoughts about grief, religion

A brief break from politics...

Mom in 1985, NYC (just before an aerobics class :) She passed away on this date in 1997

When I speak to people who have just lost a parent that they are close to, they often ask when it will get better in terms of a grieving process. It's always hard to say - grieving is such an individual process. What I do say is that the acute pain of loss, particularly during holidays, birthdays and the like, diminishes over time -- that you're not a non-functional basket case.

But I think the question is really about self-consciousness about feeling weak, sad and overcome with grief. There's no expert, no certain amount of time that is normal. The key is to stop managing the feelings, particularly when it is so close to the passing.

I know when my mom passed away from lung cancer (she smoked heavily much of her life, and quit toward the end), I was in a state of shock -- she went into the hospital on Friday, received her diagnosis, was admitted, and went into respiratory arrest on Sunday). She hadn't even time to make plans or even asked to tell her family in NYC anything. As executrix, I had to do all of the administrative BS that goes with that role, though my mom had nothing of note in her "estate."

But in those quiet times, even in years down the road, you sometimes find yourself feeling like an abandoned child. And it manifests itself in strange ways.

On September 11, 2001, I was sitting at my desk at work and heard about the planes hitting the WTC. I couldn't believe what I was seeing as photos were posted on news sites.I immediately picked up the phone and started to dial my mom's number in Brooklyn. I was just about to push the last digit when I remembered. "She's not there, she passed away, Pam." I cried briefly (I don't do so often), and then got angry - I felt I had no one to share the anger and grief at what was going on and she wasn't there. I eventually got my brother, who said he had the same impulse to call mom. Your brain does strange things in dealing with loss.

More below the fold.
I wrote about religion and grieving a couple of years ago in a post called "This I believe," which captured what I felt when Mom passed.

I fall into the category of spiritual but not religious. When my mother passed away suddenly several years ago...her desire on record was not to have a religious service, she simply wanted to have her ashes cast in New York. While she held a strong belief in a power greater than all of us, she was disillusioned by the pettiness of organized religion, and held particular contempt for the "death merchant industry,' so her send-off was her statement of the simplicity of her brand of faith.

Returning home, driving around in the daze of grief in the immediate aftermath, I often looked up at the clouds, thinking in childlike fashion, I wonder where she is...is she in heaven...is she simply gone? Does this death, while meaningful to me on so many levels, mean no more in the grand scheme of things than stepping on an ant on the sidewalk -- just another life snuffed out, life goes on? The thoughts were fleeting at times; sometimes I obsessed about it, sometimes I simply cried and thought about nothing more than the immediacy of losing a parent. You feel orphaned, no matter the age you are when you experience the loss of a parent you are close to, and it's a time for your brain to race through those memories, those feelings of childhood and dependency on that loved one, and the overwhelming sadness of never being able to talk to or see them again. For those who have grown up in a faith of some kind, no matter how observant you are, it is a time of reconciling religious teachings with reality as well...

-- how can God take this person from me?

-- if these things happen for a reason, what is the reason?

-- how can God allow natural disasters to take thousands of innocent, even believing lives?

-- how can God allow earthly misery and suffering for some, and wealth and pleasure for others?

I'm not saying anything here that many others haven't written or thought about, certainly more eloquently than I have. These are feelings common to many of us who experience a loss of this magnitude. I can still feel the pull of organized religion, its ceremony and sense of community when I attend services (for occasions of others -- weddings, funerals, etc.) and can appreciate what faith can do for others in times of need and as a means to share joy and give thanks.

In the end, I am on the agnostic side of the fence, though I'm not precisely sure of which variant, it depends on the day, the events at hand.

But on this day, I have warm memories, not much grief; there are only a few pangs of regret that she didn't live to see her two grandkids, that she didn't live to see all the work I've done as a blogger/citizen journalist.

However, there are many of us out there who don't have good relationships with their parents and I imagine that dealing with their death(s) has to be extremely complex.

Are We Seeing The Rise Of Super DOMA?

[image error]Lavi Soloway, prominent advocate of the LGBT immigration rights movement thinks so, and he's sounding the alarm.

An immigration attorney, Soloway also the founder of the Stop The Deportations blog, an excellent source of information for LGBT bi-national couples. Having worked for years on LGBT immigration cases as a founder of Immigration Equality, he's also in private practice. He's seen some changes in the ICE practices of late. Soloway says even as the administration has backed off defending on DOMA in court they seem to doubling down on actually enforcing it in immigration cases.

Soloway's theory seems to be the administration, in response to relentless attack from the right for "not enforcing DOMA" has over-corrected and now refuses to even negotiate, grant any leniency or exercise any discretion, even when it is clearly available to them. Soloway makes his case after the fold.

From Stop The Deportations blog:

As we fight to stop Henry's May 6 deportation, we are facing a growing DOMA problem: the President's commitment to enforce DOMA has paradoxically made DOMA stronger.

Why is this administration, after declaring its belief that DOMA is unconstitutional, now enabling DOMA to extend its discriminatory reach?

All of us in the lesbian and gay binational couple community felt a surge of excitement when President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder announced on February 23 that they would stop defending Section 3 of DOMA in federal court challenges.  Nevertheless, Holder made it clear in a letter to Congress that the administration would continue to enforce DOMA until it is overturned by courts or repealed by Congress.  In doing so, the Obama administration says, it is simply abiding by its constitutional duties, executing the laws passed by Congress.

However, the Obama administration’s commitment to enforce DOMA has had an unexpected effect.  At Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies such as Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), DOMA seems to be growing stronger, not weaker.  DOMA is morphing into something more powerful and more disturbing than a simple “marriage definition” statute. It has become Super DOMA.

The administration—guided by a political concern that they not be perceived by their opponents as ignoring DOMA—now cites the need to enforce DOMA to justify inaction for married, same-sex binational couples even in instances where DOMA does not preclude executive branch action. Just last week, DOMA was the reason given by government attorneys to avoid exercising prosecutorial discretion in Josh and Henry’s case, a context where DOMA would not even have been mentioned before February 23.

This was not the first time that executive branch remedies that could protect binational couples have been deemed out of bounds under an overly broad reading of DOMA. In March, the administration ordered USCIS to stop its “abeyance” practice (green card cases filed by married, same-sex binational couples were being put on hold and not denied).  The decision to order USCIS to deny those cases was framed as “legal guidance” and blamed on DOMA.  We argued that this interpretation of DOMA was wrong. Sixty members of the House and Senate and the American Immigration Lawyers Association and 81 other organizations called on the administration to restore abeyance. To be sure, DOMA does prevent USCIS from approving those cases.  However, it does not prohibit them from putting those cases on hold indefinitely.  So why is the administration taking this unnecessary position despite their objection to DOMA itself? This approach seems clearly designed to preemptively counter criticism from the right that this administration is in any way not fully enforcing DOMA.  Binational couples in need of executive branch remedies are the victims of this overly cautious political calculus.

The latest developments in Josh and Henry’s case reveal how the creeping effect of Super DOMA results in incorrect application of law and policy and inhibits discussion of perfectly legal executive branch solutions for gay and lesbian binational couples.

Background

Josh Vandiver and Henry Velandia have been together for more than four years and were legally married in Connecticut last summer. Henry, a professional dancer from Venezuela, was placed into removal proceedings in 2009 when his employment-based immigration case was denied. Last summer, Josh, an American citizen, filed an I-130 marriage-based green card petition for Henry. It was denied in January with the USCIS citing DOMA as the sole reason. After the President and Attorney General announced their new position on DOMA, we re-filed the petition for Henry's green card. That petition is still pending. On May 6, Henry will appear in court for a final hearing before the Immigration Judge who will decide whether he will be deported. If Henry is ordered deported to Venezuela, he will be barred from returning to the United States for 10 years.

Josh and Henry Seek Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion to Terminate Proceedings

Faced with the near certainty that the judge will order Henry's deportation on May 6, the couple sought the co-operation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Chief Counsel in the Newark District office.  Specifically, they reached out to ICE to reach a compromise ("an exercise of prosecutorial discretion") that would allow Henry to remain in the United States and postpone a final decision on his deportation long enough for DOMA's fate to be determined by Congress or the Supreme Court.  New Jersey's two U.S. Senators, Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, have expressed support for Josh and Henry’s situation. Congressman, Representative Rush Holt, has specifically called on ICE to carefully consider our request.  And while ICE’s co-operation is important, the Immigration Judge will make the final decision.

ICE Denies Josh & Henry's Request to Terminate Proceedings

Last week the Chief Counsel for ICE denied our request to terminate proceedings against Henry, citing DOMA. ICE asserts that because Josh's pending petition for Henry's green card will eventually be denied because of DOMA it wouldn’t be “appropriate” to entertain our request to slow down or terminate these proceedings.  But by blaming DOMA, ICE misses the point of our request.  Obviously, we are aware that DOMA prevents USCIS from approving the I-130 petition.  That’s why we are seeking termination on  other grounds. While DOMA prevents ICE from recognizing Josh and Henry’s marriage, it doesn’t prevent ICE from looking at all their other circumstances and exercising prosecutorial discretion.  This ICE office seems determined to hide behind DOMA, echoing the “must enforce” mantra coming from the President and the Attorney General.  But enforcement of DOMA is irrelevant to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.  The denial by ICE is further evidence that a uniform, nation-wide policy halting these deportations is desperately needed.

Prosecutorial discretion isn’t special treatment. It is simply the process by which a law enforcement agency like ICE decides how aggressively any particular case should be pursued.  ICE routinely exercises prosecutorial discretion, deciding who to deport and who to leave alone. Convicted felons, gang members, terrorists and  others who pose a threat to their community or this country are at the top of the priority list.  On the other hand, where humanitarian circumstances exist – such as with Josh and Henry—ICE has the power to adjourn, administratively close or even terminate proceedings altogether.
In their denial, ICE did not explain why Henry could not simply be classified as a low-priority case and put on the back burner.  This is clearly a case in which Super-DOMA, given super strength by a government terrified of seeming lax on enforcement, shuts down rational consideration of any cases involving same-sex couples.   In the realm of Super DOMA, an otherwise reasonable prosecutor is blinded to the reality of the situation: a loving couple will be torn apart if ICE does not agree to termination or adjournment of proceedings.  Not only is this unacceptable from a humanitarian perspective, it doesn’t make sense from a legal perspective.  DOMA does not dictate that federal officials must close their eyes whenever a married gay couple appears before them.  It prevents recognition of their marriage.  It does not prevent recognition of their humanity.

NYC Wedding March September 2010 © Javier Soriano

Henry is not a priority for deportation according to the Obama administration's own stated goals. He is not a criminal, he is not a gang member, he is not a threat to national security. He is of undisputed good moral character, a tremendous asset to his community where he is well known and respected as a professional dancer and dance instructor. He has strong ties to Princeton, New Jersey and has maintained a relationship for more than four years with Josh.   These are the circumstances that ICE should be considering when weighing whether and how to exercise prosecutorial discretion, not DOMA.

Also, ICE should be considering that Josh cannot move to Venezuela to be with Henry if this deportation is carried out. Venezuela provides no immigration rights to spouses or partners of gay Venezuelan citizens.

But rather than considering the circumstances of this case, ICE ducks behind DOMA.  The administration is more concerned about keeping up appearances to avoid criticism from its opponents than it is about finding solutions for couples like Josh and Henry who face irreversible harm because of unconstitutional discrimination.

Super DOMA will become a bigger problem than DOMA itself if we allow this political interpretation of the law to take root. We must aggressively reject any false reliance on DOMA offered as an excuse by this administration to do nothing in the face of devastating irreversible harm faced by binational couples like Josh and Henry.

Click here to find out how you can help us stop the deportation of Henry Velandia and all spouses of lesbian and gay Americans.

I'm not an attorney. But Soloway is, and if he says there are discretionary powers the admin is not exercising, I'm inclined to believe him. After all, they currently enjoy the discretion to stop the DADT discharges but are not doing so.

And while I'm not a attorney, I am a voter. And Obama made a promise to our community in 2007, he said:

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws.

Well, he hasn't done that, yet. But he could start setting an example to the states by not letting ICE treat our state marriages like they are of no consequence at all.

He also told us:

I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.

OK. Keep working. We're a long ways from done.

Update: GetEqual has taken on Josh and Henry's cause as well.

President Obama has made clear that his Administration is prioritizing criminal deportations, yet non-criminal deportations like Henry Velandia's continue to move forward -- and undocumented "DREAM Act" students across the country are seeing the same thing. Despite "doing everything right" -- seeking legal status, going to school, getting married, contributing to American life -- the government continues to turn its back on immigrants.

They ask you to send a message to the administration here.

 

SLDN releases letter from discharged service members urging no rollback of DADT repeal in progress

Today a hearing was held on H.R. 1540 - FY12 National Defense Authorization Bill - Subcommittee On Military Personnel. Servicemembers Legal Defense Network had legislative staff up on the Hill (follow SLDN on Twitter) to report on markup, specifically on guard for anti-DADT repeal actions.

Around 11 AM SLDN Tweeted:

The mark the subcomm approved includes some lang. straight out of '93: "forced?intimacy & little privacy" Sec 521: http://1.usa.gov/mahUV7

Earlier the organization released a letter signed by veterans discharged under DADT to tell the lawmakers not to entertain a rollback on the repeal that is under way. From SLDN's press release:

The letter highlights the urgent need for timely certification as Congress returns to Washington from recess this week:

"As service members discharged under the discriminatory 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law, and who stand ready to serve our country again, we are alarmed at what appears to be a movement to undo the progress that was made last year. Already, at least four expected candidates for President in 2012 have voiced their opposition to repeal and some have gone as far as to say that if elected, they would 'repeal the repeal' of DADT. Meanwhile, opponents of repeal in the new majority on your committee have made it clear that their aim is to defund, delay, and if given the opportunity, derail the repeal of DADT," the service members wrote.

In the letter, they reminded members of the HASC that recently, senior military leaders testified that training for repeal is progressing smoothly.

"We were there last year when Naval Academy graduate and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen testified that repealing DADT is 'the right thing to do' and explained, 'I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.' We were there when the Pentagon working group released its exhaustive nine-month study and found no barriers to repeal. And we were there when, with a stroke of the President's pen, the will of the American people, including a majority of those currently serving in our Armed Forces, was carried out on December 22, 2010.

"Now is not the time to turn the clock back, but that is exactly what repeal opponents are planning to attempt. We urge you to review the record that was before Congress last year when it was considering this legislation. The facts are there, and they are a greater testament to the injustice of this law than anything we could communicate to you in a single letter," they said.

National Organization for Marriage refers to birther site in attack on lgbt education

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

The National Organization for Marriage is in a good mood because as the organization tells it, a new poll says that a majority of Americans reject "teaching gay subjects in elementary schools:"

Bob Unruh reports:

An overwhelming majority of Americans say elementary school is no place to promote the homosexual lifestyle, and even among liberals there is the strong belief that such lessons should be left outside the door of the classroom, according to a new poll.

The results are from a WND/WENZEL Poll conducted for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.

"Whether they object on moral grounds or simply out of concern that many U.S. schools are failing in their core missions of teaching basics doesn't really matter – the vast majority of American adults want this type of curriculum kept out of the classroom," Wenzel chief Fritz Wenzel said.

There is just one BIG problem with that poll. It comes from the site World Net Daily, or more commonly known by some as WingNut Daily.

It is an extremely homophobic site. Among other things:

A writer on the site, Les Kinsolving, has in the past referred to the lgbt community as the "sodomy lobby." In October of  last year, he called a judge’s order to stop enforcement of the military’s ban on gay and lesbian troops in the military as a "disease ridden judicial decision."At its online superstore (yes World Net Daily has a "superstore"), interested individuals can buy a discounted copy of The Pink Swastika, a discredited book which claims that gay men started the Nazi Party. In August of last year, the publication dropped conservative writer Ann Coulter as a keynote speaker from a conference it held because she earlier spoke at a conference held by a gay Republican group.And in February of  last year, another writer on World Net Daily, Molotov Mitchell, spoke out in favor of Uganda's "Kill The Gays" bill, even evoking Martin Luther King Jr's name in defense of it.
Even the World Net Daily article, which NOM refers, to repeats lies about Obama appointee Kevin Jennings, such as he supports "teaching children about fisting."

So I think its safe to doubt the credibility of this site's poll.

But vicious homophobia doesn't even scratch the surface in regards to World Net Daily's madness.

 

World Net Daily has also been the leader of birther nonsense, shamelessly implying that President Obama is ineligible to be president. The site has ran over 100 articles regarding this issue, including the following:

Kagan, Sotomayor blew chance to stop eligibility challenge?
Lawyers say Supremes broke rule, failed to respond to recusal motion

Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate
Signs affidavit declaring long-form, hospital-generated document absent

Questions raised over Obama birth date
Was claim he was 3 months old during 'Bay of Pigs' a slip?

Promises of Obama birth hospital trip vanish
Authors admit no one given tour of president's 'birthplace' in Hawaii

Oprah's half-sister 'has Obama's birth certificate'
Rush Limbaugh clowns about Winfrey's family secret

The site sells birther bumper stickers, postcards, and videos. World Net Daily also created a national billboard campaign asking "Where is the birth certificate."

Ironically, even now when Obama has made his long-form birth certificate public, World Net Daily is still spinning conspiracy theories. On Sunday, the site ran the following:

Online 'birth certificate' document 'was changed'
Analysis raises possibility content of text was altered

Way to go, NOM. I wonder how the African-Americans allies you made in Maryland and you are now making in New York would feel about your citing World Net Daily, a site working actively to delegitimize Obama's presidency.

Perhaps Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher, NOM's leaders, should remember before they spout off yet again about "unfairly being labeled as bigots" that you are always known by the company that you keep.

Or in this case, the sources you cite.

Related post:

Eleven examples of NOM's bigotry

Google Splurges On Big Ad Buy For "It Gets Better."

Google burnished their gay pride credentials again last night (in case you were unconvinced by this, or this, or this, or even this).

The Googs bought 90-seconds of airtime on Fox's hit show Glee (retail value: $818K+) and mostly turned the time over to Dan Savage's It Gets Better project. The spot splices together a wide varity of clips from people famous and not so. The inclusion of a hearing impaired person using sign language is a particularly nice touch. The spot is merely bookended by quick cameo mentions of their browser Chrome.

It's touching. Typical response on the Twitter confirms it:

 The #ItGetsBetter Commercial during #Glee gave me goosebumps.

Thanks for continuing to not be evil, Google. Off to give your browser a try. Yeah, what this guy said.

Zogby: 6% of All Voters & 30% of Republicans Continue to Believe Obama Not Born in U.S.

All I can say is welcome to Pea-Brained America. There is no hope for that hard core 6%.

Sixteen percent of all voters and 30% of Republicans do not believe President Barack Obama has proven he was born in the U.S., even after release of his long-form birth certificate, a new IBOPE Zogby interactive survey finds.

These results are from an IBOPE Zogby interactive poll conducted April 29-May 2, which was after Obama released the birth certificate and addressed the news media on the topic.

Demographic groups besides Republicans expressing the highest levels of doubt about Obama's birth in the U.S. are conservatives (34%), and those without a college degree (21%) vs. those with a degree (11%).

The IBOPE Zogby interactive poll of 2,020 likely voters has a margin of error of +/-2.2%.  A sampling of IBOPE Zogby International's online panel, which is representative of the adult population of the U.S., was invited to participate.  Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, gender and education to more accurately reflect the population.

Tired tirade: Congressman equates marriage equality with incest, polygamy during hearing

No need to ask - he's a Republican. These bigots are simply bleating the same, tired garbage; it's time for a new tune. Plus, he missed bestiality. We even had the Obama DOJ using this defense for the last couple of year. Here's Rep. Trey Gowdy:

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) compared same-sex marriage to incest and polygamy during a House Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General Eric Holder this afternoon, asking why the administration would be willing to apply a higher level of scrutiny to laws that prohibit gay people from marrying as a pose to other kind of marriage arrangements:

GOWDY: And would you agree with me that the rational basis test is the appropriate test to be used with respect to consanguinity, the marrying of family members? That's the appropriate test, right? Rational basis. You're not arguing for a heightened level of scrutiny on whether or not cousins can marry each other.

HOLDER: No, I would not argue that. I don't know if there's law on that, but again off the top of my head, I'm not sure that you would need heightened scrutiny standard in that regard. [...]

GOWDY: Alright, and we don't need intermediate or heightened scrutiny with respect to polygamy, right?

HOLDER: Yea, I would think not.