05/08/2008
Audio: Seriously, someone get these folks a news script
Back in November of last year, we let you hear a radio ad that the so-called National Organization For Marriage was distributing in New Jersey:
An ad that was very similar to a TV spot that had tarnished Wisconisn airwaves in 2006:
Kid-isgusting, right? Well now, following the old edict that if the logic is 100% broke still don't fix it, the NOM group has rebranded the same script so that it can be used to scare Rhode Islanders. Oh but this time, it gets even more unapologetically fear-mongery. To signal the "red alert" threat that we gays pose to society, they've actually gone so far as to insert "fear beeps":
Video: There is, in fact, a gay Gene
Openly gay Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson was on "Today" this morning, putting a human face on just how threatened a gay person can feel if they dare to take a righteous, public stand for their life and love. Check it out:
Wow, a bulletproof vest? That must've been to protect him from his fellow "militant" gays, right? [::writer rolls eyes at the flawed yet widely accepted idea that it is the pro-equality side who is filled with hostility::]
Despite death threats, gay bishop plans civil union
It's their world, we just get taxed in it
Hey social conservatives: GAY PEOPLE ARE NOT AN ENTITY OUSIDE THE UMBRELLA OF "TAXPAYERS"!
Why are shouting this? Well, because in reaction to yesterday's ruling saying that public employers in Michigan cannot provide domestic partner benefits because of the state's ban on gay marriage, Peter LaBarbera says the following:
"The fact is government should be promoting real marriage -- and when you give benefits to extramarital relationships, be they heterosexual or homosexual, you are undermining marriage. So we think this is a good thing," LaBarbera explains.
LaBarbera is pleased to see judges deferring to the expressed will of the people in this case. "It was clear that, in Michigan, taxpayers did not want to fund extramarital relationships, and we're glad that the Supreme Court has not imposed a false will on the people," he says.
Wait, taxpayers don't wanna fund any and every recognition of our unions? Well that's funny, since we gay taxpayers don't remember being asked if we would like to fund the rights, benefits, and situational realities that come with heterosexual couplings! But we do. We all do. Because we are all part of the realm of tax-paying individuals, not individual sects who get to stand in the way of any and every bit of fairness on account of our individualized tax-paying wants and needs. Every aspect of our rights and protections should not be put up to a public referendum!
Sure, a majority of Michigan residents went to the polls and chose to embrace the cruel constitutional ban. But the line used to sell the ban was that it was all about "protecting marriage." And its intent was not presented as being meant to deny the minority voice their every possible form of recognition.The "pro-family" community's defense of the ban's usage to deny other types of benefits speaks to the improprieties of their every anti-gay campaign. It's not about protecting anything -- it's about denying gays of every possible step towards leveling the playing field!
Folks like Peter are just oh so smug about heterosexuals' larger numbers. Their communities are made up of gays and the "general public," so they don't see any fault with using a blanket term like "taxpayers" to refer to the opposition. Minority rights be damned -- the will of the majority is their concern. This callous disregard for the full gamut of the populace is in many ways the most offensive of all of their short-sighted views. If they want to condemn our immortal souls to a lake of fire, then they have every right to do so. But their repeated attempts to deny our mortal roles as tariff-paying citizens who are deserved to equality and fairness should be eye-opening to any group who has in the past or might in the future be in a place where tyrannical disenfranchisement is a possibility.
Extramarital partners remain uninsurable [ONN]
I'm wrong? I'M WRONG?! Well you're gay, you gay-mo!!!
When you're gay, simple confrontations are often compounded because of your sexual orientation. Incidents that might be uncomfortable for heterosexuals are sometimes turned into personal attacks for 'mosexuals, since many people of this world still think that one's gayness is a characteristic that can and should be used against one in the course of confrontation.
We've certainly experienced this. Not too long ago, while this writer and his partner were trying to park their car, a lady in a mini van cut us off and stole the space. When we challenged her rude and reckless driving, she didn't try and defend her motor skills. Instead she let out some sort of convoluted attack against our sexuality.
And that's just one small example. "I think you've wronged me -- let's discuss it" can very quickly turn into, "Whatdya gonna do about it, f*ggot?" For queer people, it's often a case of not only having to decide if life's common run-ins are worth the headache, but also if speaking up and saying something will make you vulnerable to homo-hostile insults (or worse).
Which leads us to this incident in New Jersey. A gay couple is currently in court seeking justice for what they perceive as inaction stemming from an 2004 incident in which they confronted a group of firefighters' noisy party, and were (allegedly) met with resistance that included threats against their gay lives. In fact, they claim that the harassment was so real and firghtening, it prompted them to flee the city of Secaucus. And despite the threats they felt, they claim not nearly enough was done by local authorities to allay their fears. Read more at The Star-Ledger:
Gay couple say they lived in fear after threats [Star-Ledger]
Now, we're not going to weigh in on the merits of the case or the men's deservedness to the damages they seek. That's for the lawyers and judge to sort out. But what we are saying is that we get it. As a gay person, you just do. And if a blind eye was truly turned to this pervasive problem in a way that forced the men out of town, we certainly want to see that remedied.
We should be free to bitch about life's injustices without fearing a followup that targets our sex lives. For all of us, the weak form of discourse serves as a constant reminder that our lives and loves are still not embraced. For some of us, it serves as a sobering mindf*k that numbs us to the corel.
Video: What, was digitally inserting the 'Cloverfield' monster too difficult?
Sometimes we on the pro-gay side have to work really hard to show how absurd our opponents' rhetoric can be. Other times, the parody is self-imposed:
Wow. Ominous music. Scare quotes. Lakes of fire. How frickin' frightening are we?! It's truly a wonder that we queers are still free to walk freely among the rest of society!
Here's just hoping we don't destroy the world by summer. There's an animal sanctuary that this gay writer's been really excited to visit, and it'd be a shame if I didn't get to play with a happy piggy before the fiery, Earth-destroying meteor turns us all into bacon.
Gay Marriage is an ABOMINATION [YouTube]
But must New Yorkers recognize out-of-state bias?
In regards to the news that New York state will continue to recognize same-sex marriages that were performed in other states, Focus on the Family's Bruce Hausknecht has a few thoughts. Unfortunately, "YAY! Fairness prevails! Mazel tov, gays!" is not the theme of his reaction:
“Inexplicably, the high court is letting stand a ruling that says that New York essentially has no public policy regarding same-sex 'marriages' performed elsewhere,” he said. “It's ridiculous legal reasoning to insist that a state could recognize a type of ‘marriage’ from outside that it will not permit within the state. Yet that's exactly what the Court of Appeals has now done.”
Hmm. You know what we find inexplicable? The fact that Mr. Hasknecht and friends ignore the facts in order to advance their bias! And you know what we find to be "ridiculous legal reasoning"? That the opposition would try and apply a different standard to same-sex couples than they do to heterosexual ones!
The truth? There is no state law preventing the recognition of out-of-state marriages. Not opposite-sex nuptials, and not same-sex one. The state has a history of recognizing marriages from other states, even when the couple wouldn't be eligible to get married under New York law (such as a marriage between two close relatives). And so by applying the century old "marriage recognition rule" to the out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples, NY state is not employing some cockamamie legal gymnastics. Instead, they are simply staying consistent with current policy.
The Empire State very well may pass marriage equality in the coming years. They're certainly very close. But the point here is that the state has NOT passed legislation specifically barring this out-of-state recognition. It's one thing for a court to say that it's up to the legislature to open up marriage to same-sex couples (as the state's highest court has indicated). It's quite another for a court to say that in the absence of a DOMA law or other measure that specifically hinders out-of-state recognition, the state must employ the same fairness for straight couples as they do gay ones. The former ruling does not invalidate the latter, no matter how dutifully (and duplicitously) our opposition attempts to muddy the waters of this situation.
New York Will Recognize Same-Sex ‘Marriages’ Performed Out of State [CitizenLink]
**SEE ALSO: The Pride Agenda is looking into one New Yorkers bizarre ideas on marriage "sanctity."
05/07/2008
Gay high schooler able to earn respect of peers? Kan. teen can!
You know all those teen movies about the girl who triumphs over adversity (usually in the form of glasses and unkempt hair) and goes on to become homecoming royalty? Yea, well, isn't about time we heard a charming story about a young gay boy who triumphs over bias, captures the hearts and minds of his stereotypically conservative high school, and eventually becomes homecoming king?
Kansas City's The Pitch thinks so. Check out the charming, airy, inspiring tale of Matthew Pope:
The Shawnee Mission East class of '08 loves its gay homecoming king [The Pitch]
Facebook? iPhones? Wikipedia rather than that musty old set of Encyclopedia Britannicas that your mother bought at the supermarket three decades earlier? And now the ability to be both openly gay and elected to something other than "punching bag"? Damn this 1970's birthdate! I wanna redo high school in the Myspace generation!
He's really just a sensitive 1960's teenager
And now in a G-A-Y exclusive: We have been given a special message that a Mr. J. Christ would like to deliver to those members of the religious right who think they hold ownership of his existence and teachings. Take it away, J:
(Note: Lip syncing issues are apparently due to the distance of the satellite feed)
We scored a nice "get," right? But that's not all: Be sure to look for future exclusive video feeds, where we're expecting J's father to do a bitchin' rendition of the Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil"!
Take that, CNN!
**NOTE: We have a sneaking suspicion that J. has given us this exclusive as a backdoor way to audition for the inevitable Broadway musical version of The First Wives Club. Then he can really show the Great White Way what a Jesus Christ Superstar looks like!
