02/08/2010
Not right or straight or acute: Coral Ridge works 'obtuse' angle
"In reality, the rational basis for traditional marriage is abundant. It was designed by God, our biology makes that clear to all but the most obtuse, and studies show it provides the best environment for raising healthy children.
The only “animus” [in the federal Prop 8 trial] is between homosexual activists and the truth."
-Coral Ridge Ministries
Yup, Coral Ridge Ministries just called you obtuse (i.e. slow, dim, dull) for defending perfectly natural biology, untruthful for standing on the legally justified side of the civil equality debate, unGodly for thinking you deserve civil marriage, and irrational for defending your own family traditions.
Holy mother of "is there a mirror in front of you?", that's a lot of role recasting! Next thing you know, they'll accuse us of being the ones named after a pinkish hill.
------------------
------------------
02/08/2010
Welcome back, IFI!
Attention "pro-family" monitors: Less than a year after the Illinois Family Institute was removed from the Southern Poverty Law Center's anti-gay "hate groups" list, the Carol Stream's based organization has made an unceremonious return to the dubious roster:
Active Anti-Gay Groups [SPLC]
See, Laurie Higgins: We told you that negligent Nazi comparisons would keep your group from having nice things.
***
*Oh, and why should the national political scene care? Well...
Prob. not the best paycheck Mike could've collected.
Video: Achieve while LGBT, suffer mischievous wrath
Remember earlier when we referenced the way the far-right is constantly warring against any and all of President Obama's LGBT appointees/nominees? Yea, well here's more for the fodder file:
Ya know, if they're going to continue to lie about and unfairly represent the inestimably qualified Chai Feldblum, we at least wish they'd learn to get her name right (pronounced like like "high"). One would think that would be something a filmmaker would care about getting right before entering pre-production. But then again, to the ones they are hoping to rally, her name might as well be Lezzie McLezzenberg. Their true "concern" begins and ends at her sexual orientation -- everything else is just superfluous spin.
And what's with Janice Crouse's unbelievable non sequitur that suggests Amanda Simpson is bad for children simply because she herself has a fifteen-year-old son?! Or forget the non sequitur: What's with this supposed "family protector" having the gall to use Simpson's own son against her for political gain?!? Have they no shame?!
Then there's Jennings, who's suffered nearly a year of character assassination and flat-out lies (Brewster wasn't 15, for instance), simply because his life's work of protecting LGBT kids and teens goes against the far-right's own desire to turn these same kids into "ex-gays." There may not be a presidential selection who's ever had to face as much careless defamation as K.J. These supposedly "moral" folks will not rest until the accomplished leader and author has a reputation that's as muddy as their own presentations of the truth!
Gross.
Poll: Iowans care about SMS, not SSM
Polls are of course, well, polls. And yes, this one only sampled 805 Iowans via telephone. But still, it's encouraging to see that while 72% think a driving-while-texting ban deserves legislative time and a possible ban, only 36% feel the same way about marrying-while-gay:
A majority of Iowans think the issue of gay marriage doesn't deserve lawmakers' limited time.
Among six hot-button topics, a new Iowa Poll shows a majority of Iowans consider only a ban on text messaging while driving worth the Legislature's time during a session shortened by 20 days to cut costs. Iowans are not enthusiastic about devoting time to debates on gay marriage, puppy mills, gun control, payday loans or gambling.
Iowans rate drivers' texting as more urgent than gay marriage [Des Moines Register]
So to recap:
"OMG, let's go to the mall" = a dangerous driving activity.
"OMG should be used to deny civil marriage" = a dangerous driving belief.
That's a godly outlook we can get behind! Stay focused on real dangers, Iowa, not false and divisive ones.
Weird how far-right turns all of prez's LGBT picks into 'bigots'. Funny how that works, huh?
April of 2007: A Wyoming couple was barred from taking communion because of their marriage equality advocacy. This prompted the Human Rights Campaign's Harry Knox to say:
“In this holy Lenten season, it is immoral and insulting to Jesus to use the body and blood of Christ the reconciler as a weapon to silence free speech and demean the love of a committed, legally married couple. The Human Rights Campaign grieves with the couple, Leah Vader and Lynne Huskinson, over this act of spiritual and emotional violence perpetrated against them.”
Human Rights Campaign Responds To Catholic Church Barring Same-Sex Couple From Receiving ‘The Body Of Christ’ [HRC]
And he was right: It is insulting to use communion as a political weapon against certain kind of human beings. For religious Christians who think that Jesus embraces everyone regardless of sexual orientation, the denial is, in fact, insulting to their vision of their Lord. So Harry said this not because he's anti-Catholic or anti-Jesus -- he said so because he's pro-both!
December of 2008: The Vatican opposed an initiative to decriminalize homosexuality. This prompted Harry Knox to say:
“As faith leaders we were shocked by Vatican opposition to this proposed initiative. By refusing to sign a basic statement opposing inhumane treatment of LGBT people, the Vatican is sending a message that violence and human rights abuses against LGBT people are acceptable. Most Catholics, and indeed most Catholic teachings, tell us that all people are entitled to live with basic human dignity without the threat of violence. The Catholics we know believe that Scripture asks us to be our brother and our sister's keeper. Many are speaking out against this immoral stance in the name of religion.
Faith Leaders from LGBT Groups Issue Joint Statement Denouncing Vatican, Supporting UN Resolution [HRC]
And he was right: The casual support of worldwide criminalization does, quite demonstrably, foster human rights abuses. The only way to create change is to take a stand for peace, in hopes that this peace will catch on. So Harry said this not because he's anti-Catholic or anti-Jesus -- he said so because he's pro-both!
March of 2009: Pope Benedict tried to defend the church's anti-contraception stance by saying that condoms increase rates of HIV infection. Harry Knox responded by saying:
“The Pope’s statement that condoms don't help control the spread of HIV, but rather condoms increase infection rates, is hurting people in the name of Jesus,” said Harry Knox, director of the Human Rights Campaign’s Religion & Faith Program. “On a continent where millions of people are infected with HIV, it is morally reprehensible to spread such blatant falsehoods. The Pope’s rejection of scientifically proven prevention methods is forcing Catholics in Africa to choose between their faith and the health of their entire community. Jesus was about helping the marginalized and downtrodden, not harming them further.”
Human Rights Campaign Responds to Pope Benedict’s Remarks that Condoms Increase HIV Infections [HRC]
And he was right: Discouraging condom use is disturbingly short-sided, and undeniably puts people at risk. It's more than fair to say "in the name of Jesus," because that is the source from whom the Pope is claiming to glean his views. So Harry said this not because he's anti-Catholic or anti-Jesus -- he said so because he's pro-both!
But of course none of this matters to the far-right, for whom rational extrapolation and analysis take a back seat to reductive attacks. Which is why House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), and a host of conservative Catholics are now using the conservative CRC Public Relations (the same firm that NOM uses) to paint Harry Knox as an "anti-Catholic bigot," and President Obama as supportive of "hatred." Check out the unreasonably considered, borderline defamatory words to which the highest-ranking House Republican has proudly lent his name:
Jeremiah's not a bullfrog, but his civic views are bullcrapola
This fundamental misrepresentation of our constitutional representative democracy/federal republic comes courtesy of the West Virginia Family Policy Council's Jeremiah Dys:
This summer, legislators heard from a variety of experts on the topic at a standing-room-only hearing. At that hearing, former Delegate Carrie Webster indicated that it was essentially the job of the Legislature to protect West Virginians from themselves. She posed an interesting hypothetical question to me. "What if," she said, "we took a poll next year that indicated 90 percent of West Virginians wanted to vote to reinstitute slavery. Should we let them?"
Setting aside the apples-and-oranges nature of such a question for the moment, and putting aside that the founders did not implement the voting process to be dependent upon which subject matters individual legislators morally approve - and the fact that, in reality, West Virginians would soundly reject slavery if put to a vote - there's a more foundational question, which I could ask of Delegate Webster herself: "What if next year we took a poll in your district, and 90 percent of the people there want to vote for you. Should we let them?"
This is a good question because the very process that West Virginia voters use to put lawmakers in office is being denied to the same voters when it comes to deciding an issue with which many lawmakers are at odds with the will of the people.
Jeremiah G. Dys: Voters should rule on marriage[Charleston Gazette]
Okay, if we want to talk about apples and oranges: How about Jeremy's direct comparison between a vote on a minority's civil rights and voting on an elected delegate's term of office?! Because the latter is a key to our representative democracy/constitutional republic, while the former runs contrary to the same!! It is not only offensive to LGBT people to suggest that the process by which we elect our representation is the same process that some would use to vote against our marriages -- it's also downright offensive to the founding principles of this nation! Forget malic acid vs. citric -- Dys' comaprison is actually more like apples and torches.
But if we did want to make a direct comparison, and consider a hypothetical in which a poll assured us that voters would side with marriage equality at a 90% margin: Well guess what? We would STILL oppose such a vote! Because the bottom line is that our liberty under the law is not provisional! We are owed access to equal civil marriage, and we are demanding nothing less! We're not asking for our voting friends to give it to us, and we're not asking our voting foes to take it away. We're DEMANDING that our government sort it all out in the swiftest way possible. This can mean that our elected lawmakers remedy the inequality in their states, eventually leading the federal government to do the same, or it can mean that our judiciary uses their informed knowledge of the documents that govern this land to (accurately) pave the way for fair treatment -- both the legislative and judicial tracts are in line with this nation's system of governance. But it NEVER, EVER, EVER means a public vote in which a 50%+1 margin uses their personal (often faith-based) whims to weigh in on our ring fingers! We are a nation of people, not ruling mobs.
What this really highlights is the crucial need to put civics education back into public schooling. Perhaps if our organized opposition was not so focused on the supposed "indoctrination" attached to Heather and her two mommies, they would join us in remedying this actual public school issue!
Procrast-this-nation: Palin plays the 'not right now' card
Because to the far right, justice delayed is apparently okay as long as its "just us" who are denied...
Palin Says Congress Should Not Repeal DADT 'Right Now' [TP via YT]
So let's get this straight: After decades of debating this matter, and with growing public opinion polls that show majorities in favor of DADT repeal, we still have to wait to allow openly gay soldiers to fight and possibly die for their country because some people think we're not ready. However, a one-term governor who quit her job heading the 48th most populated state so that she could -- let's be honest -- cash in while the spotlight is red hot, and who has said some of the most divisive and incendiary things in modern political history ("death panels" "real America"), is totally ready to lead this nation?! What's wrong with this picture?!
Folks, we must not write this one off as viable. Our equality is at stake. The writing's on the hand.
02/07/2010
Video: At least Doritos only wants to harm our waist lines
Focus on the Family's much-ballyhooed Super Bowl ad basically comes across as benign...
...and that's why it's so dangerous for LGBT people. Because when one pays a visit to the FOTF website to "celebrate family" and "celebrate life" (which is the organization's only "ask" in the ad), the celebration they will find is one that, as a blanket policy, forcibly disinvites anyone who falls outside of heterosexual society. Like, for instance, when a parent of a fourteen-year-old gay son writes the FOTF forums for advice, the forum moderator is likely to refer them to scientifically discredited researchers and organizations who seek out "ex-gay" "change." Or when another parent seeks out advice on public (as in church-separated) schooling, he or she is likely to stumble on the writings of one Candi Cushman, a grown adult whose sole job -- WHOSE SOLE JOB! -- is, as best as we can discern, to keep LGBT students vulnerable to a host of obvious and easily discernible harms. Or there is Focus on the Family's CitizenLink "news" site, where one just might stumble on some extremely beyond-the-pale rhetoric from the likes of Peter "I personally attack gay people's individual marriages" LaBarbera or Matt "one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love’” Barber. On Focus' site, you can can find all of this, coupled with daily assaults on marriage equality, decrial of even the most basic of rights or protections, and an overreaching refutation of just about anything that creates a more level-playing field for people who happen to have been born a certain way. All done in the name of a loving God, of course.
Despite a history of denying certain LGBT-themed ads, CBS has allowed Focus on the Family to buy into the most prominent night on television in order to advertise a site that attacks LGBT families (among others) on a daily hourly basis. So you'll have to forgive us if we temporarily pause our mindless consumerism and instead take mindful exception with the organization that won't rest until they consume the portion of normalcy's spectrum that includes LGBT people. We just don't like it when society-weakening discrimination goes commercial.
