DKStories

NOM is the front group in the fight of religious and social conservatives against marriage equality. They helped pass Prop 8 in California, and helped pass similar measures in Maine and several other states. In Delaware, Maryland and any state where marriage equality comes up, they are up there and testifying about the evils of gay marriage. Today we got a peek behind the curtain of their strategies thanks to Maine's disclosure laws: http://www.hrc.org/nomexposed/entry/must-read#.T3FOROziQ3g\ Lest they be forgotten, Latinos were also part of the strategy: Those are great splash headlines - but dig into the document itself and you see the broader scope. I was going to quote from the document but it seems to be doing something screwy. Look at page 11 of the document linked above. There you will see their strategy for 2012 included targeting for repeal marriage rights in New Hampshire and Iowa. As you might be aware, the vote in New Hampshire happened last week. The final vote there was 211-116 to kill the repeal bill. Another vote for a voter referendum on the issue failed 162-188. In Iowa, Democrat Liz Mathis won a special election to the state Senate, guaranteeing a 26-24 Dem Majority and the bill to repeal that state's marriage laws was dropped due to the 26-24 split in the Senate. (In New Hampshire the Governor threatened to veto any law that passed and Republicans joined Democrats in voting to kill the repeal bill). On page 12, we see more of their strategy with focus on a $6 million dollar campaign to repeal marriage in D.C. They pledged $2 million of their funds were pledged for that purpose. Also on this page they delve into how much money they put in to the 2010 election to specifically attempt to defeat the pro-gay marriage Lynch (who won despite their efforts) and their attempts to get opponents of gay marriage elected (successfully enough to get them to introduce the marriage repeal bill after they got elected). Reading pages 19-21 we see them lay out their strategy on what I call "cultural indoctrination". Pages 21 and 22 lay out their strategy for influencing young people by holding debates, conferences, and speakers to 'train' young people to oppose gay marriage. It's a direct strategy that is very dangerous and can fly below the radar if not directly confronted. Thank back to A-H school district and their 'neutrality' policy on sexuality. These are the breeding grounds they want to create nationwide. At the bottom of Page 24 is the part that strikes closest to home for me. It is titled: What does this mean? It means they funded $120,000 to, among other things seek out children of gay parents to speak about the horror of growing up in a gay household. After nearly three years of having people say organizations like NOM are well-intentioned and just about 'defending traditional values', it's interesting seeing the scope and intent of their efforts laid out in black and white text. It isn't about traditional marriage, it's about making dividing the country to acheive their agenda, about demonizing gay people, and making social issues the primary agenda of people they help get elected. When you hear about opponents to gay marriage pushing one agenda or another - these people are likely behind it.

Let's just hope that the voices of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, John Lewis and others drown out the voices of the New Black Panthers.

This is one liberal that is actually considering buying a gun again because of the conservatives...but fortunately there are a lot better liberals out there who are pushing and guiding the responses to the Trayvon Martin murder into non-violent protests. They say 'leave your guns at home - they are part of the problem and the answer is peaceful protest, not more violence'. Let's just hope their message of peaceful protest takes root and stays strong.

The point is probably cultural - but it is one seen far too often (at least in the United States). If it doesn't affect someone directly, then they don't really care. They see a black kid dead on the sidewalk and make noises about how tragic it is, but don't feel any connection. Make the dead kid a latino and you get the latino community up in arms, but the black community often just shrugs. Change the race of the kid and you can expect to see a change in the way the case is viewed. A lot of the times, as a community we let ourselves be focused on issues that we only think affect us - like the cruise ship arrest and that's to be expected. What I'm trying to point out is that this story really does impact us as a community and should be taken as a warning sign that in states like Florida, simply making a pass at someone is now more likely to result in your being killed and your killer walking away without even once being behind bars. Since the 'stand your ground' law went into effect, Florida has seen justified homicides increase by 283% . This is "Wild West" justice when men carried guns and used them against each other and it is something we should be wary of if we live in or travel to the United States. It's kind of like one of Gee Whillicker's stories where you see the warning signs developing. You can ignore them, or watch them get worse.

By now I would expect that anyone who has watched or read a bit of news in the last few weeks has heard of Trayvon Martin, the 17 year old black teenager gunned down by a "Neighborhood Watch" member while walking home with skittles, ice tea, and a phone he was using to call his girlfriend. If you've looked into this at all, you've found that the shooter, Zimmerman still remains free, and that in the last few months he's made numerous calls to 911 about suspicious people in his neighborhood. More than likely you've also found that every single of those calls for which the 911 tapes have been released involved him calling in about a black person behaving 'suspiciously'. Most likely you've also heard he wasn't arrested because of a so-called "Stand Your Ground" law that allows gun owners to shoot down anyone that they feel threatens them. Unless you're black, why should you care? Because it is only a matter of time until a gay man ends up dead and his shooter walks away free under this law. Think about it for a moment. Have you ever heard of gay panic? It's where a 'straight' person panics at a gay man making a pass at him, feels threatened and uses violence against the gay person. How long is it going to be before this law helps someone hunting down gay people from walking away free by claiming they were threatened when they gay person made a pass at them? Zimmerman on the phone to 911 right before he shot Trayvon Martin said very faintly 'f*ck*ng c**n'. The 911 operator immediately asked 'Are you following him?" When Zimmerman said "Yeah", the 911 operator said "Okay, we don't need you to do that". After that, Zimmerman went on to shoot and kill the 17 year old black boy who was 'acting suspiciously' by walking home. What happens when it is a gay slur involved there instead of a racial slur, and a gay man who looked at a gun owner weird?

Such a good link EJ and so telling we are not only like 37th but that we are in the "yellow" section as well. It would be interesting to see a listing of US states like this

Yellow journalism has gotten us into several wars from the Spanish-American to the second war in Iraq. The 24-hour news cycle has only made matters worse. Still there are underlying issues here that just have to screamed at by people. First off - why the hell is a cruise ship full of gay men going to an island that hates gays? Pure stupidity on the part of the cruise line, and every single gay man who signed up to go on that cruise knowing its destinations. Think before you go to a place. As an example, the DNC this year is in Charlotte, NC. Since he works for the California Dem Party, he goes to every DNC. Last cycle (2008) we were on the field 20 yards away from Barack Obama as he gave his speech at the packed football stadium. He has to go to Charlotte this year, and our original plan included me going as well as taking our kids (my niece and nephew who we have full custody of now). He's still going. I'm not and the kids aren't because North Carolina is a state that still has sodomy laws on the books and ENFORCES those laws, having arrested gay people several times in the last year. Sure, those people were later let go when the county prosecutor declined to press charges thanks to Lawrence. Still, they spent TWO days in jail and one judge upheld their arrest and confinement because the laws were still on the books. Our kids were born in NC, and their father still lives there. We had intended on this trip to let the kids see their paternal grandmother for the first time in 5 years, but now we won't because these local laws could be used by the father to try to regain custody. Would he ultimately succeed? Not bloody likely considering the national news story we would make of the attempt. Still, do we put ourselves and our kids through that hell? No, we don't. Instead we choose to not visit North Carolina because it is not gay-friendly. We do plan to attend the inauguration in January (if the election goes well) and invite the grandmother to come up to Washington, D.C. to visit the kids. We won't take the kids into Virginia, again because it's an anti-gay state. We might visit Maryland. Sometimes caution is best. There are plenty of examples of gay tourists caught in traps by anti-gay laws of different states or nations. We risked going to Florida several times knowing full well any hospital we go to if we get sick might turn the other way for visitation. Visiting Texas we took a similar risk, but that was with just the two of us. The last time we visited Florida it was with plenty of family members that could and would help out if needed - so we wouldn't face emergency situations alone. We want to say it ain't so - but this cruise ship story points out an important fact - if you're a gay man, lesbian, bi-sexual, transsexual in this day and age you have to pay attention to the laws of your state and nation and make wise choices. Many gay couples have chosen to move because their state won't let them adopt, or recognize their relationship. Many more, like us, limit their vacation choices to stay away from locations that are anti-gay. It sucks. I'd love to take my son to Arlington because he wants to be a SEAL and I want him to see the gravestones so he understands it is risky and the price so many have paid. He won't be able to though, because it is in Virginia and that is a danger state. We all have choices to make in life, and whatever happened to these men on this cruise ship, they should have expected some trouble because they were going to a nation that is anti-gay in its laws.

More Dystopian stories from GeeW, please.

It is amazing how so many people are afraid of 'indoctrination' of their kids that they have to force indoctrination on all kids...

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/03/15/breaking-senate-confirms-gay-nominee-to-calif-federal-court/ Michael Fitzgerald was nominated to the US Federal Courts last year by President Obama. The seat he is filling is in the conservative Central Valley of California (where I was born and spent many years over the last four decades). He is openly gay, walked door to door in the 2008 fight against Prop 8, served on numerous LGBT boards and was even a Stonewall member in the 1990's (a gay Democratic organization I also belong to now). His nomination was held up in the US Senate for FOUR months, not because he was unqualified but as part of a partisan campaign to keep Obama nominees from getting appointed. An overwhelming majority of senators from both parties ended up voting for him when Senator Harry Reid (I've worked on campaigns for his wife and his son, but not him) forced nominations that had long been on hold to the floor. The final vote for Judge Fitzgerald was 91-6. Having an openly gay judge in a district like this one is good - it's just too bad it couldn't have happened three months ago (a wait of about a month can be expected for confirmations in a partisan atmosphere - but FOUR?). Judge Fitzgerald is also the third openly gay person to be appointed and confirmed to the federal bench by the President. A fourth was nominated, passed through the Judiciary committee and then withdrew his nomination after waiting 18 months for a floor confirmation vote. For Judge Fitzgerald, he was a principle in the 1993 Buttino case. Us older folk might remember that until 1993 the federal government viewed being gay as a bar to gaining a security clearance. Yes, that's right, the US Government until 1993 said that being gay was grounds for denying you a security clearance. The Buttino case changed that within the FBI. Later executive orders and law changes spread that change throughout the federal government. This is a piece of good news in a world increasingly gone mad...

Mile High club is nothing compared to doing it on a ship that is rockin' and rollin' in heavy seas - then again cruise ships have stabilizers so they are absolutely no fun. What club is it that we join for having had sex while on every ocean of the world? Ditchdigger is for Panama Canal - ah the bad part of getting old...you forget somethings.

This is the church that today has two of its bishops as the primary supports of North Carolina's Amendment 1 ballot measure to prevent gay people from getting married. Are we supposed to be grateful that they're just telling us to remain celibate these days instead of castrating or lobotomizing us?

I've got to say after having kids in schools and watching some of the decisions being made, I am tempted for the first time ever to run for school board. I'm a consultant - consultants do NOT run for office but I am giving it very serious consideration. We're lucky the school my kids attend has a good administrative and teaching staff, but the board and district superintendent leave a lot to be desired. It just goes to the old addage - if you see a wrong and can do something to fix it, you have an obligation to act. gah! I hate hearing about this stuff even more than the castration of boys that the Dutch catholic church did during the 1950's if the boys got caught having gay sex.

Why would anyone be surprised by this after his appearing in that Left Behind series?

What's funny is paypal's head guy is this big libertarian who donates money to Ron Paul.

All you have to do is look at Texas, Montana, Virginia, Alabama, Florida, and Wisconsin to see that Santorum is only the shape of things to come from the Republican party. He's not even extreme there - rather middle of the road.

I haven't seen Tony Perkins on Rachel's show for a while and I watch almost every night. Now he was on Reverend Al Sharpton's show recently and Reverend Al ripped Perkins a new asshole quoting the bible back at him while defending marriage equality. The conservatives tend to stay away from the evening shows but now even the conservative morning shows aren't safe for them. Check out this video of Jonathon Capehart tearing into Gov. Chris Christie: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-word/46507922/#46507922

Hairdo One, Frothy Mix, Tron Peuk, et al are all lessened for the lack of the wife of the gay curer.

I can't help it, I read this story and just have to share. Warning, it's macabre, it is NOT for the weak of heart or those who faint at gore (and I don't mean Al Gore). http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/130874/dead_teen_sued_by_victim?utm_medium=sem2&utm_campaign=outbrain&utm_source=outbrain&utm_content=outbrain&quick_picks=1 If you don't want to follow the link but want a synopsis. Teen was running across tracks to catch a train. Another train sped down tracks at 70 mph, hitting the teen who promptly went splat! At least one of the teen's body parts hit a passenger on a nearby platform, knocking her down. She suffered broken wrist and some other injury. She is now suing the teen's estate. I'd imagine this would fall under the homeowner's policy. Still, seriously, who is this woman's lawyer? Don't they know the train company has more liability insurance and higher limits? Sue them for not putting up netting to stop flying body parts. Or, maybe not having signs. Will we now see signs saying like at ballparks but saying: Warning! Not responsible for flying body parts or debris from on-track collisions. Stand at your own risk! Sorry, I"m still laughing and feeling guilty for the macabre humor, but it's sooooo...oh please tell me it's a fake story.

eh, we still own four televisions (60", 42", 32", and 25"), plus five 24" televisions and a 17" laptop and a 14" laptop. Then there are the three iPhones we own. the only live television we watch is MSNBC and CNN. Everything else is recorded on the DVR or streaming.

What's really funny is that the defenders of marriage went to court to try and uphold Proposition 8 (california ballot measuren that limits to marriage between one man and one woman in the state's constitution). Two couples sued with a very good legal team (two attorneys who in 2000 had both argued in the Bush v Gore legal case regarding the presidential election - one on the Bush side, one on the Gore side). Proponents of Prop 8 went ot court to defend the law because the Governor, Attorney General, and State Legislature all refused to defend Proposition 8 in court. You'd think the defenders of marriage would want the trial broadcast far and wide so everyone could hear their ringing defense of marriage, right? Wrong. The defenders of traditional marriage (christians) have fought tooth and nail to keep the recordings of the trial from going public. Their fear is that if people see and hear what they said during the trial, there will be a backlash against them. Isn't that something that is so very telling about why people want to keep gays and lesbians from getting married?

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/12/22/Mich_GOP_Passes_Ban_on_Partner_Health_Care_Coverage/ Just in case you were confused about who supports gay rights, Republicans elected by Michigan voters in 2010 have taken away domestic partnership rights of government employees in their state. They were elected in 2010 with the Tea Party wave and they join their fellow Republicans from Wisconsin, Ohio, etc. in taking away any possible recognition or rights for gay people. Remember this on election day in 2012.

Many times over the years I've heard "It doesn't make much of a difference if I vote for a Republican or a Democrat." Between DOMA and DADT, I think there is a very clear picture that there IS a major difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to our rights. Take a further look at everything Republicans in state legislatures across this nation are doing to take away our rights and the picture gets even clearer.

My husband forwarded this link to me today and it's worth reading: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/21/4137957/2-women-share-1st-kiss-at-us-navy.html As a navy veteran, I can tell you that the Navy is full of traditions. Some are gross, some are boring, and some are downright sickening (yuck! I hate cremated ashes getting in my mouth during a burial at sea!). Most have some good foundations, and the traditions focused around a ship pulling into home port after a long deployment are some of the most poignant. Sailors who had children born while on deployment get to see their new child for the first time. Estranged loved ones are reunited.. While I was in the service, one of the traditions was the playing of a song over the ship's loudspeakers as we approached the pier. The night before we pulled in following our deployment to Operation Desert Storn, the crew chose "Mama, I'm Coming Home" by Ozzie Osbourne. The next day as we pulled in towards the pier, the loudspeakers blared out Neil Diamond's "Coming to America" What happened? The Evangelican Christian Captain and Evangelical Christian Executive Officer refused to have 'a song by a satanist' played on their ship. Now with that in mind, look at the linked article. Two female sailors won, in a lottery, the right to be the first couple reunited after the deployment. This has been a tradition in the United States Navy for decades, if not longer. Now lesbian and gay couples are a part of that tradition. No longer are they hidden, separate, unequal. Once again, we should all thank President Barack Obama for leading the effort to make this happen. In the House of Representatives (back when Democrats were in charge) the vote was 250 to 175 for the repeal. All but 15 Democrats voted to repeal DOMA, and all but 15 Republicans voted to oppose the bill. In the Senate, it passed 65-31 with all but one Democrat being joined by 8 Republicans voting to pass the repeal. One Democrat abstained from the vote, and both Independent Senators voted FOR the repeal. In the Senate, it was Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins who led the effort to get the necessary Republican votes to make it pass, and it was John McCain who defended it to the bitter end (imagine - if was President now instead of Barack Obama, this would never have happened). After the vote, it was again President Obama, this time joined by Robert Gates, Leon Panetta, and Admiral Mike Mullin who led the implementation and eventual certification to make the kiss in the article happen. Know who are your friends, and who are not.

I still get in trouble with the double negative thing after taking russian. However, the judge's questions are very informative of his approach and give the proponents of DOMA an uphill battle. For a little understanding, we should probably point out who is arguing which side. President Obama has instructed the United States Department of Justice to not only REFUSE to defend DOMA in court, he has instructed them to GO TO THE COURT and argue as to why DOMA is unconstitutional. The DOJ (Department of Justice) official in charge of civil rights cases for this area showed up in court himself to argue to this judge that DOMA is unconstitutional. This is so unprecidented the judge commented on how this official's presence was an honor and an indication of the very strong opinion of the DOJ. Then we have the attorneys for the plaintiffs. They're they ones who filed ths suit (again the ACLU) and who are responsible for this trial even happening. Once again, it is the ACLU pushing forward for gay rights here. Defending DOMA is a set of attorneys hired by the House of Representatives (normally it would be the Department of Justice, but as noted previously, they are arguing that the law is unconstitutional). The defense attorneys call themselves the Bipartisant Legal Advice Group but the Judge is questioning who they are and their statement that they represent the interests of Congress in defending DOMA, and by extension the American people. The judge's questions to them are enlightening because we know certain facts about the BLAG (Bipartisan Legal Advice Group). 1. The committee that 'hired' the BLAG consisted of the Republican (3) and Democratic (2) Leaders in the House of Representatives.This committee voted 3-2. Can you guess who were the three and who were the two who opposed hiring a BLAG? (Hint: it was a party-line vote). By asking the questions he did, the answers will be entered into the court record showing teh "Bipartisan" part of BLAG is actually false and that the defense of DOMA is NOT Bipartisan. 2. Other questions dealt with rather the BLAG represents all of Congress, or just part of Congress. The BLAG was only approved by the House of Representatives, not by the Senate. As a result it will be shown that the BLAG only represents the interests of the House of Representatives. Added to #1, the judge can find that the BLAG is misrepresenting itself. They do not represent Congress, they represent the interests of REPUBLICAN in the House of Representatives only. This drastically cuts down the viability of any of their arguments. If you are an American and you voted for a Republican in Congress last year - thank you so much. Thanks to you there is a group hired by Republicans in the House of Representatives defending DOMA. If Democrats had been elected instead and retained control of the House, we'd have seen not only the Department of Justice telling the court that DOMA was Unconstitutional, we'd likely have had concurrence from Congress, not what we see here today. Remember that when we vote in 11 months.