11/24/2009
Audio: Putting discrimination on the defensive
Finally, someone has done it: Taken the same basic structure that NOM has been using against us in radio ad after radio ad, and flipped the script so that it instead supports the good and fair fight. Take it away, Garden State Equality:
Radio Commercials, November 2009 [GSE]
We need to do this more! They are on the offensive here, not us. Make them answer for it!
***
**The oft-regurgitated NOM ad, for comparison:
And here's our oft-regurgitated, homespun response to it (ours was to the 'Annie' version of the ad, but its the exact same script as the 'Jayla' one):
------------------
------------------
11/24/2009
When it comes to bias, NOM hopes its caca will be good Garden State fertilizer
-The idea that the New Jersey legislature has not taken up the issue of marriage equality at any point during Jon Corzine's time as governor? Yea, that would be a complete and utter lie! The whole reason why we have civil unions in the Garden State is because the Supreme Court mandated that the legislature take up the issue. That body of lawmakers made the unfortunate choice to choose civil unions rather than marriage, and Gov. Corzine signed them into law. In the time since, they have learned that CIVIL UNIONS ARE NOT DELIVERING ON WHAT THE COURT REQUESTED! So now is the time to correct the mistake. But it won't be an inaugural consideration. It will be a correction of a past bit of shortsighted incrementalism!
-Isn't it a tad hypocritical for NOM to cite "an economic crisis that has left many families struggling to make ends meet" as a reason why the NJ legislature should not focus on marriage, but then in the very next breath ask their supporters to GIVE, GIVE, GIVE for their vague NJ campaign? I mean, on the legislature's side, we have a crucial matter of inequality that truly does affect the bottom lines of countless gay and lesbian couples. But on NOM's side, you have fear-mongery generalities about gays destroying marriage. They aren't even supporting a candidate or a referendum -- they just want to put out an ugly campaign of anti-gay whispers. And yet they are accusing elected lawmakers of being the wasteful ones??!!
Those are but two of the thoughts we had after reading Brian Brown's latest e-blast. Go form some of your own:
Video: You don't 'understand' us? Well here, let us translate: ☮, ♥, =
A big fan of Obama who's no fan of gays. A familiar, frustrating story:
It's always astounding that heterosexual people think they should "understand" our sex lives or speak for our our hearts and minds. Do they not realize how foreign, unrelatable, and unappealing so many of us find the forms of sex that we do not enjoy or desire?! Yet we have no desire to "explain" away the many, many, MANY complexities of human biology that don't apply to our own lives. Why the obsessive need for our opposition to cut us out of the human fabric?!
Of course that's a rhetorical question, as we all know the motivation is the cherry-picked interpretation of one certain, man-written book. But of we don't encourage the expansion of the answer-collection process, who will?
WND poll: Belying an entire movement's 'we're not anti-gay' rhetoric
The hostiles over at WorldNetDaily are tired of keeping their 'mo detestation behind the typical, socially conservative mask. And their tired of confining their referendums to only our marriage rights. Today they are coming out and flat-out admitting what so many of us already know: That they simply don't like LGBT people:
Papal papers: Official Catholics vs. unacknowledged Catholic front group
The National Organization For Marriage and The Archdiocese of Washington, DC. Both groups have a pamphlet on the ready, "explaining" why gay folk should have their civil liberties trounced upon beneath the Pope's Prada-clad feet. Both work overtime to deny that gay rights are civil rights. Both fib in the name of faith, stretching the truth about how religion will supposedly be stifled by same-sex unions. Both completely disregard the one group who should be the KEY topic of discussion here: Gay couples!
Picking your favorite document might be like picking your favorite child (to unfairly hurt with discrimination). But have a look and see if one of the pieces of propaganda strikes your fancy a little more than the other:
Was that praying or preying, Wendster?
In a new piece where she explains why she leant her name to the anti-gay, anti-progressive, anti-true religious freedom document known as "The Manhattan Declaration," Concerned Women For America president Wendy Wright says this:
I have also signed, knowing that the threat to our freedom is quite real. Twice, I was sentenced to six months in jail for simply praying on public property near an abortion clinic. One of those times included a condition. The judge stated that I could be released from jail if I promised not to do it again. As the Manhattan Declaration eloquently puts it, I cannot comply.
Arrested for "simply praying." It's always the story that these "pro-family" folks tell whenever they receive deserved punishment for skirting, flonting, or outright breaking some sort of a law. But as we've seen with situations like the so-called "Philadelphia eleven" case, the far-right's assessment of events is only accurate about 0.001% of the time (if we're being generous). Whenever you hear one of these folks self-casting the "victim" role, you better check your sources.
So is Wendy telling the truth about her two arrests? Well, we don't know about both times. But we do know about one of Wendy's arrests, from back when she was shilling for anti-LGBT, anti-choice extremist Randall Terry and his equally incendiary Operation Rescue group. And as you will see from this 8/21/91 AP clipping, "simply praying" was not the order of the day. Stirring up violent ire for the now-murdered George Tiller was more like it:
NOM: The worst New Jersey joke ever CONcocted
We're not sure where, exactly, NOM discovered the seeds for their money tree, but we do know that they plan to keep shaking that damn thing until every last gay person in the world gets hit with one of its bad apples:
(Washington, DC) – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) announces a new $500,000 voter outreach campaign in New Jersey highlighted by the release of a new radio ad, “Give Me a Break,” which will begin running on targeted New Jersey radio stations today and will continue for at least two weeks.
“NOM's voter outreach will include telephone calling, direct mailers, and online advertising to let voters know that Democrats are considering following Jon Corzine over a political cliff by pushing gay marriage in the lame duck," said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM.
National Organization for Marriage Launches New $500,000 Message Campaign To Trenton: "Give New Jersey voters a break; don't vote for Corzine's gay marriage bill" - Brian Brown, Executive Director [NOM]
And big shocker -- they're once again working the disingenuous idea that equality should be put on the back burner because there are other needs on the table:
So disgustingly misleading. We're not talking about days of debate and scores of resources. In a state where the high court has already demanded equality, and where the legislatively-implemented civil unions have failed to live up to that promise, the debate over whether or not to bump up the C.U. system to full equality should be a no-brainer. It need not take away from anything else. Gay people, being as full of citizens as anyone else (despite what NOM wants you to believe), care as deeply as the other issues as anyone (more, in many cases). But we also care about constitutional fairness. And so should the Garden State legislature!
NOM is a despicable group, plain and simple. The New Jersey we know and love will "give gays a break" -- a break from the hurtful slate of attacks that the National Organization For Marriage call a mission!
**FIND OUT WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP THE GOOD FIGHT:
11/23/2009
Culture Warrin' (G. Harding)
Eighty or so years before the sinister federal marriage amendment that tarnished the first decade of the 21st century, there came another kind of FMA. Overall, it wasn't as outright hostile as the modern version, with many of the points (a) still somewhat in practice in varying degrees to this very day; and (b) things that truly do strengthen the institution of marriage, as it were. But nevertheless, it's still interesting to note the similarities/missteps/biases that unite FMA 1.0 and FMA 2.Disgusting. For instance:
- Just like the 2000's failed attempt to interfere with civil bonds of matrimony, the 1920's version was all about putting an overreaching magnifying glass on America's bedrooms.
- It was also primarily championed by Republican members of congress.
- And, surprise, surprise -- the Prohibition era one was also designed to "protect children," especially from the "sub-normal"
Hop in the time machine:
