She only grows more ignorant, hateful and utterly revolting by the minute:
The governor told us though she’s not a member of any church, she visits a couple of them regularly when she’s home. She took issue with news reports that one of them, The Wasilla Bible Church, sponsored a conference where gays could be made straight through prayer.
Palin: Well, it matters though, Katie, when the media gets it wrong. It frustrates Americans who are just trying to get the facts and … be able to make up their mind on, about a person’s values. So it does matter.
But what you’re talking about, I think, value here, what my position is on homosexuality and you can pray it away, because I think that was the title that was listed on that bulletin. And you know, I don’t know what prayers are worthy of being prayed. I don’t know what’s prayers are going to be asked and answered. But as for homosexuality, I am not going to judge Americans and the decisions that they make in their adult personal relationships. I have one of my absolute best friends for the last 30 years happens to be gay, and I love her dearly. And she is not my “gay friend,” she is one of my best friends, who happens to have made a choice that isn’t a choice that I have made. But I am not going to judge people.
You know, George W. Bush is sounding like the paragon of tolerance — and intelligence — compared to this stupid she-thug.
For your perusal, talking points (aimed at a federal ban on marriage equality) from the National Organization for Marriage (the anti-gay cell led by professional gay basher Maggie Gallagher, who was busted for taking money to promote the Bush administration marriage program through her syndicated UPI column):
Language to avoid at all costs: “Ban same-sex marriage.” Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”
The first line is the biggest crack-up:
Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:
“Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”
We say: Oppressive old busybodies who can’t keep their own marriages intact have the right to live as they choose — but they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.
As usual, it’s just another crapfest from Gallagher and her Bigot Brigade — but worth reading, as even their “best” arguments are as weak as a sick kitten.
I’ve got gay marriage on my mind again. Why? Well, you know, now that it’s legal in California, I’m looking to end my marriage with my wife so I can marry a dude. That’s what it’s all about, right?
Nah, it’s not that. …
What got me thinking about this issue is that I heard the first ad (I was in the other room from the television) urging voters to vote yes on Proposition 8 - the proposition that would amend the state constitution to outlaw gay marriage. In all honesty, it made my stomach turn and left me with a rather morose feeling that dragged on for the rest of the day.
I was going to post a couple of video clips on this blog so I could compare and contrast the rhetoric of the anti-gay marriage crowd with the pro-gay marriage crowd. The problem was, when I watched some of the anti-gay videos, I just started to feel depressed. I’m so sick of these people and their specious arguments. Stop talking about “protecting” marriage. Stop talking about “values.” Shoot, one video I saw showed Newt Gingrich comparing the “Yes on 8″ cause to the cause of the American Revolutionaries. I had to stop, as I feared that such a concentrated dose of hatred and stupidity would melt my brain if I continued to watch it. Good thing he didn’t say “judicial tyranny” ’cause that makes me want to vomit fire.
The thing is, I’m really starting to hate these people. I honestly don’t think that hate is a useful emotion, and I realize that it does more harm to me than it does to them, but I can’t help but feel this way. This whole thing is so colossaly unfair. It’s not just unfair, but the arguments of those who are against same-sex marriage are so completely illogical. The combination of ignorance, hatred and irrationality is too much for me. Basically, I need to stop thinking about it, as I tend to dwell on things that depress me - and these people depress me. …
No, Lance, don’t stop thinking about it.
Lance, the smartest thing I ever heard about depression was this: Depression is anger turned inward.
The cure: Turn it outward. Direct it at the source.
The hate is easy to understand — the gay-bashers are doing everything within their power to incite hate. But allowing them to make you feel depressed and hopeless is exactly what they want.
California voters will have a chance in November to protect the rights of gay men and women, and to preserve the state’s Constitution. They should vote against Proposition 8, which seeks to amend that Constitution to prevent people of the same sex from marrying. …
Opponents of giving gay couples the protections, dignity and respect that come with marriage are working furiously to try to overturn the court ruling through Proposition 8. It is our fervent hope that Californians will reject this mean-spirited attempt to embed second-class treatment of one group of citizens in the State Constitution. …
The proponents of Proposition 8 make the familiar claim that legalizing same-sex marriage undercuts marriage between men and women. But thousands of gay and lesbian couples have been married in California since the May ruling and marriage remains intact.
Similar discriminatory measures are on the ballot in Arizona and Florida. They also should be rejected.
LOS ANGELES — September 29 — On the same day that the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign released its first commercial, the independent Californians Against Hate posted its first commercial.
This groundbreaking spot depicts San Diego mega-donor Terry Caster. Caster and many of his eight sons and daughters and their spouses have given a combined total of $293,000.00 to the Protect Marriage / Yes on Proposition 8 campaign between January and July of 2008. Caster owns A-1 Self Storage Company of San Diego. A-1 Self Storage has 40 locations throughout California with over 4 million square feet of storage.
Caster has been the focus of a “Call Terry Caster Campaign” for the past two months, which has generated so many calls to his office that he had to put in a separate phone line to field them all.
The commercial features one of his 38 grandchildren, portrayed by four-year-old Madison of Los Angeles, asking her grandfather, “Why did you give so much money away, Grandpa?” The innocence of the little girl is in stark contrast to the mega-contributions of Caster and his family. The spot opens with Madison plucking the pedals off a daisy, just like the little girl did in what is arguably the most famous political ad in American history, Daisy Girl 1964. That commercial ran only once, but it became the centerpiece of President Johnson’s landslide victory over then U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater.
Fred Karger, Campaign Manager of Californians Against Hate said with the release of their first commercial, “We want to remind people exactly who is giving vast sums of money to try to take away marriage equality here in California. We will have at least one more commercial featuring another mega-donor that will be coming out soon.”
The commercial was produced, filmed and directed by noted filmmaker and documentarian, John Keitel and his Shelter Productions.
Television stations and other media outlets can download a high-resolution, broadcast-quality version of the 43-second Daisy Girl 2008 commercial:
Records of major contributors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, including Terry Caster and his family’s contributions, can be found on the “Dishonor Roll” on the Californians Against Hate web site:
The Caster Family owns A-1 Self Storage, with 40 locations throughout California. Terry Caster is quoted in the San Diego Union Tribune as saying “without solid marriage you are going to have a sick society.” Son Craig Caster is the Founder/Pastor of Family Discipleship Ministries in San Diego. The Caster family has donated more to Proposition 8 than any other family in San Diego.
How come when gay people challenge the law by filing suit against the state, and the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the result is “overturning the will of the people” by “activist judges” who “legislate from the bench” …
…yet when the same people who level such charges challenge the law by breaking the law, and provoking the government to enforce the law as an excuse to file suit against the state, they’re making “a bold defense of the First Amendment’s Establishment, Free Exercise, and Free Speech clauses”?
Maybe somebody at the Alliance Defense Fund can explain the difference to me, what with them bein’ such real smart, book-learned lawyer types and all.
While we wait for an answer (don’t hold your breath), let’s review yesterday’s attempt to overturn the will of the people through legislation from the bench…
Americans United Urges IRS To Take Action Against Six Churches That Joined Pulpit-Politicking Scheme
Church-State Watchdog Group Criticizes Religious Right Lawyers For Luring Congregations Into Intentional Violation Of Federal Tax Law
Americans United for Separation of Church and State today filed complaints with the Internal Revenue Service about six churches whose pastors endorsed candidates from the pulpit during a mass defiance of federal tax law last Sunday.
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Religious Right legal group in Scottsdale, Ariz., urged pastors to defy federal tax law by endorsing or opposing candidates during a so-called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” Sept. 28. Under the IRS Code, churches and other 501(c)(3) tax-exempt groups may not intervene in elections.
“These pastors flagrantly violated the law and now must deal with the consequences,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United.
Continued Lynn, “This is one of the most appalling Religious Right gambits I’ve ever seen. Church leaders are supposed to tend to Americans’ spiritual needs, not behave like partisan political hacks. I urge the IRS to act swiftly in these cases.”
Lynn also scored the ministers who took part in the ADF gambit.
“A pastor who knowingly violates federal tax law is setting a poor example for his or her congregation,” Lynn said. “Every pastor who took part in this stunt ought to be ashamed.”
The ADF overture has been roundly criticized. Many pastors refused to take part, arguing that America’s pulpits should not be politicized. In addition, three former IRS officials have filed a complaint asserting that the ADF has violated ethics standards governing tax attorneys by urging clients to violate the law.
The six churches reported to the IRS by Americans United today are:
Bethlehem Baptist Church, Bethlehem, Ga.: According to press accounts, Pastor Jody Hice “urged his congregation to vote for Sen. John McCain and to not vote for Sen. Barack Obama.”
Fairview Baptist Church, Fairview, Okla.: The Associated Press reported that Pastor Paul Blair “says he told his congregation that as a Christian and as an American citizen, he would be voting for John McCain.”
Warroad Community Church, Warroad, Minn.: Pastor Gus Booth told his congregation, “We need to vote for the most righteous of candidates. And it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure that out. The most righteous is John McCain.”
Calvary Chapel, Philadelphia, Pa.: The Rev. Francis Pultro told the congregation, “As Christians it’s clear we should vote for John McCain. He is the only candidate I believe a Christian can vote for.”
First Southern Baptist Church, Buena Park, Calif.: The Rev. Wiley Drake said, “I am angry because the government and the IRS and some Christians have taken away the rights of pastors. I have a right to endorse anybody I doggone well please. And if they don’t like that, too bad… According to my Bible and in my opinion, there is no way in the world a Christian can vote for Barack Hussein Obama. Mr. Obama is not standing up for anything that is tradition in America.”
New Life Church, West Bend, Wisc.: Speaking from the pulpit, Pastor Luke Emrich said, “I’m telling you straight up I would choose life. I would cast a vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin.”
Said AU’s Lynn, “When five of the six pastors choose to endorse John McCain, it’s hard not to see the ADF scheme as partisan in character.”
In complaint letters filed with the IRS, Americans United urged swift investigations of the churches and appropriate penalties.
[“Pulpit Freedom Sunday”] was organized by the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, which sees the IRS rules as an infringement on the First Amendment freedoms of religion and speech.
The rules are neither. Hice and other ministers have every right to preach politics from their pulpits. Nothing government does can or will stop them. However, they simply cannot endorse candidates AND maintain their tax-exempt status. That status is a special benefit conferred by government, and government has every right to set conditions on receipt of that benefit.
Furthermore, the IRS rules in question apply not just to churches but to a wide array of tax-exempt non-profit groups that perform religious, educational or charitable functions. Donations to such groups are tax-deductible; donations to political groups and candidates are not.
It is perfectly reasonable and fair for the IRS to enact rules to protect that distinction.
Is this a real “pulpit freedom” issue? Some want to compare it to Martin Luther King and conscientious objectors and any who appeal to a “higher law.” But King and the objectors know that they are vulnerable to arrest or penalties, and have often paid them by sitting in jails. The Pulpit Freedom advocates appeal to no “higher law;” they simply want the freedom to break existing laws. They may serve some purpose by forcing more definition from IRS and church leadership, but most immediate purposes are to be straight-out political and to have the citizenry at large pay, indirectly, to subsidize their messages.
A charade is being played … and a grandstand play. …
This is a fest for a few who are a little too full of political zeal. …
Of course, pastors can express political opinions. But they can’t use their institutions as political machines and expect them to be treated as tax-exempt.
I always find it odd that so many conservative Christians don’t see the conflict between conservative politics and Biblical message. …
In the Gospels, we never find Christ trying to manipulate the state power of the Romans or influence its leaders, but instead He spoke to the hearts of the people, telling them that it was up to them to seek a change of heart and find their way to God. …
The strength of our faith comes from a choice we make after searching our hearts and seeking to draw closer to Christ. Wagging our fingers at the behavior of others and trying to pass laws to prevent them from behaving a certain way is Old Testament legalism, and Christ condemned the Pharisees pretty harshly for similar behavior.
Finally, it looks like the ADF is going to have a hard time arguing that pulpit politicking is okey-dokey with the American people; a Los Angeles Times poll which asks, “Should pastors be allowed to deliver political sermons and endorse presidential candidates?” is currently showing 81.4% say NO.
I haven’t watched the ad yet — Firefox hangs on videos when one has dozens of tabs open — but per the No On 8 camp (the good guys), the first anti-marriage ad by the Yes On 8 camp (the bad guys) includes the big (and I mean Radio-City-Music-Hall-big) lie that “school children will be taught about same-sex marriage unless Prop 8 passes.”
Frankly — or rather, Frank-Schubert-ly — I’m surprised the rabid radicals would resort to one of the most easily debunked lies in their arsenal of propaganda — especially after (by many accounts, none of which I have handy to link to at the moment) the Prop 8 camp was expected to avoid any overt anti-gay attacks, and instead soft-sell “traditional” marriage, with images of happy heteros and their perfect children.
But then, when truth is not on your side, all you can do is lie some more, and hope nobody notices. Isn’t that right, Frankie?
Today’s announcement from No On 8 (the good guys):
Their ad claims that the California Supreme Court “mandated” the right to marry for same-sex couples and, as a result, school children will be taught about same-sex marriage unless Prop 8 passes.
Of course it’s a blatant lie.
What the Court did was uphold the Constitution’s promise of equality.
And the proponents know that their claim that the law requires that children be taught about same-sex marriage in school is also a lie, just like the other false claims in their misleading ad.
But honesty clearly is not a value that the proponents of Prop 8 believe in.
We know that a growing number of voters are beginning to see Prop 8 for what it really is: an effort to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.
And money will be a major factor in whether we win or we lose — because this election will be decided on the airwaves. Whoever has more to spend — and is most effective in their ads — is more likely to win. It is that simple.
In the next four weeks, you can expect the proponents attack ads to get even uglier. The only way we can win is to match them dollar-for-dollar in ad buys — and then respond to their untrue attacks.
FORT MILL, S.C. — Fort Mill Mayor Danny Funderburk says he was “just curious” when he forwarded a chain e-mail suggesting Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama is the biblical antichrist. “I was just curious if there was any validity to it,” Funderburk said in a telephone interview. “I was trying to get documentation if there was any scripture to back it up.” …
The e-mail, which has circulated in the last six months since Obama secured the Democratic nomination, claims the biblical book of Revelation says the antichrist will be in his 40s and of Muslim ancestry.
There is no such scripture. And Obama is not a Muslim. …
The urban legend Web site Snopes.com first exploded the myth in March. Funderburk forwarded the e-mail this month.
When asked if he believed Obama was the antichrist, Funderburk replied, “I’ve got absolutely no way of knowing that.” …
“I am curious about current events and their connection to the Bible,” he said.
We’re also curious about whether or not Funderburk’s brain stem goes all the way to the top.
Just heard about this Bangor, Maine, news anchor named Cindy Michaels, who not only bears a striking resemblance to Sarah Palin, but shares the same frightening hair-don’t, cringemakingly trendy eyeglasses, and complete cluelessness in the proper application of makeup.
Normally, we’d feel sorry for Michaels — who says she’s been getting hate mail from both Palin-haters and Palin-lovers (sadly, the latter do exist) — and ask for volunteers to offer the poor thing a free makeover. Thing is, she likes looking like that idiot from Alaska. Go figure.
On the bright side, here’s one person who doesn’t have to fret about finding the right Halloween costume this year — answering the door in her everyday wear is sure to make children run screaming into the night:
As the economy worsens, so does Palin in the eyes of fellow Republicans.
Sarah Palin faces the biggest test of her month-old candidacy with this Thursday’s vice presidential debate, but many Republicans are already convinced the Alaska governor is not ready for prime time — and may never be.
“It was fun while it lasted,” conservative National Review columnist Kathleen Parker regretfully concluded last week. “But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick.” …
“Things got very intense around here in the ’90s — the culture war was very hot here,” Bess said. “The evangelicals were trying to take over the valley. They took over the school board, the community hospital board, even the local electric utility. And Sarah Palin was in the direct center of all these culture battles, along with the churches she belonged to.” …
Pat O’Hara, a journalist who served on the Wasilla school board for twelve years, remembers how the religious right made her feel like a stranger in her own community. …
It wasn’t until the 1990s that local churches like the Wasilla Assembly of God, which Palin grew up attending, became aggressively political. A few years before Palin became mayor, a group of preachers confronted the school board with questions about social issues that had never before surfaced in local politics, according to O’Hara, who wrote first for the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman and then for the Anchorage Daily News. “They started asking me, ‘Would you allow a homosexual to teach in schools?’ and ‘Do you favor abortion?’” she said. “At the time, I didn’t know what was coming. I said, ‘This is not a school board issue. We have overcrowding. We have funding problems.’” The last time O’Hara ran, conservative pastors mounted an effort to defeat her, saying she favored hiring homosexuals, but they failed. Nevertheless, in 1996, feeling increasingly alienated in a place she’d lived for twenty-five years, she quit the school board and moved to more liberal Anchorage.
“The whole community changed,” she said. “It became extremely rigid and intolerant, and you can see that in every election since.” Palin, said O’Hara, “represents the worst of those values. She feels that because she’s a member of the right church, she’s chosen by God to inflict her values on everyone.”
With her vice presidential nomination, Sarah Palin has become the ultimate religious-right success story. Ever since the Christian Coalition was formed using the infrastructure of Pat Robertson’s 1988 presidential run, the movement has focused on building power from the ground up, turning conservative churches into little political machines. …
She has not always governed as a zealot; in fact, she’s a bit of a cipher, with scant record of speeches or writings on social issues or foreign policy. Nevertheless, several people who’ve dealt with her say that those concerned about church-state separation should be chilled by the idea of a Palin presidency. …
Palin’s nomination, and the energy she has injected into the GOP, show that, once again, reports of the death of the Christian right have been greatly exaggerated. …
Palin — who opposes gay rights, believes abortion should be banned even in cases of rape and incest, and supports the teaching of creationism — wasn’t known as a leader in Alaska’s religious right, but she clearly had ties to it, and to some of the more extreme fundamentalists in the United States. …
[Curt Menard, mayor of Mat-Su Borough (which includes Wasilla)] and his wife, Republican State Senate candidate Linda Menard — the former director of the Miss Wasilla pageant — have known Palin since she was in third grade. … They clearly adore Palin, and when Curt Menard describes her connections to the religious right, he doesn’t intend to be critical.
Echoing Pat O’Hara’s account, he recalled that the area had been solidly Democratic until the rise of politicized right-wing religion. …
When Palin ran for governor in 2006, Christian conservatives mobilized to help elect her — the Alaska Family Council, a group that formed that year and is loosely affiliated with Focus on the Family, distributed a voter guide showing Palin’s alignment with its ideology. …
Like McCain, Palin appears to believe that the United States is a Christian nation. As governor, she signed a resolution declaring October 21-27 Christian Heritage Week in Alaska, in order to remind Alaskans of “the role Christianity has played in our rich heritage.” Written in the mode of some right-wing revisionist historians, it describes the nation’s founders — including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson — as “Christians of caliber and integrity who did not hesitate to express their faith.”
The conviction that America is a Christian nation could be especially worrisome when coupled with the kind of apocalyptic beliefs espoused by the Wasilla Assembly of God, since the combination suggests a profoundly messianic foreign policy. …
Much more at the link to send a “ninety-mile-an-hour Alaska north wind” down your spine.
This morning, I received news from Iraq that the coordinator of Iraqi LGBT in Baghdad, Bashar, aged 27, a university student, has been assassinated in a barber shop.
Militias burst in and sprayed his body with bullets at point blank range.
He was the organiser of the safe houses for gays and lesbians in Baghdad. His efforts saved the lives of dozens of people.
Bashar was a kind, generous and extremely brave young man — a true hero who put his life on the line to save the lives of others.
My thoughts go out to his loved ones and to the other members of Iraqi LGBT.
Their courage is an inspiration to all people everywhere fighting against injustice.
You’re not going to believe how far right-wing bigots (oops, redundant phrase) will go to demonize non-whites and non-heterosexuals — or maybe you will.
In a blog post on National Review Online, Mark Krikorian asked if diversity policies touted by Washington Mutual, which was seized by federal regulators and sold to another bank on September 25, were the “[c]ause” of the bank’s collapse.
My initial thought: “They must mean ‘diversity’ in the financial sense (e.g., diversified assets), not the ‘racial, ethnic, and/or gay’ sense.”
Was I ever wrong:
As Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald noted, in a September 26 blog post on National Review Online’s The Corner titled “Cause and Effect?” Mark Krikorian reproduced part of a press release by Washington Mutual bank — which on September 25 was seized by federal regulators and sold to another bank — touting its diversity policies and programs. Crediting a blog post by Steve Sailer, Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, wrote: “I really thought this was a joke, but it’s not. WaMu’s final press release, before it sank beneath the waves.” The release that Krikorian partially reproduced was headlined “WaMu Recognized as Top Diverse Employer—Again” and included the subhead, “Company ranks in top ten of Hispanic Business’ Diversity Elite and earns perfect score on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index.”
National Review asks: Did WaMu fail because it employed minorities?
National Review’s Mark Krikorian notes that (1) Washington Mutual became the largest bank to fail in American history yesterday and (2) its last press release touted the fact that it was named one of America’s most diverse employers, having been “honored specifically for its efforts to recruit Hispanic employees, reach out to Hispanic consumers and support Hispanic communities and organizations”; for being “named [one of] the top 60 companies for Hispanics”; for “attaining equal rights for GLBT employees and consumers”; for having “earned points for competitive diversity policies and programs, including the recently established Latino, African American and GLBT employee network groups”; and for being “named one of 25 Noteworthy Companies by Diversity Inc magazine and one of the Top 50 Corporations for Supplier Diversity by Hispanic Enterprise magazine.”
While juxtaposing these two facts — (1) WaMu has a racially and ethnically diverse workforce and (2) WaMu collapsed yesterday — the National Review writer headlined his post: “Cause and Effect?” He apparently believes that the reason Washington Mutual failed may be because it employed and was too accommodating to large numbers of Hispanics, African-Americans and gays. Is that why Lehman Brothers, AIG, Bear Sterns and so many others also failed — too racially diverse of a workforce? …
More at the link, including Digby’s take on “the Right’s strategy … to blame minorities for the financial crisis” (in which Filipino-American uber-hypocrite and race traitor Michelle Maglalang — or, if you prefer, the Anglicized “Michelle Malkin” — leads the pack), and Greenwald’s conclusion:
Trying to blame it on the fact that home loans were made to racial minorities — or, worse, that these institutions employed too many racial minorities, as National Review’s Krikorian did — is demagoguery so vile and reckless that it defies description.
We normally wouldn’t waste the pixels on Jennifer Roback Morse, a longtime foe of equality who makes her living writing about how horrible and mean gay people are, and spends a lot of time praising fellow activist homophobes like Doug Manchester — but this latest blog post of hers reveals that she’s not just a bigot — she’s an equal-opportunity bigot:
I have been doing a lot of interviews and speeches in support of Prop 8. I am going to be letting me readers know about some of my adventures in this blog.
I want to start with something that happened just today.
This afternoon, I saw an African American man in the parking lot of a Rubio’s restaurant where I was going for lunch. … The man was wearing an Obama t-shirt. I approached him and asked him, “sir, are you planning to vote for Obama?” He hesitated and said yes, probably. I said, “may I ask you, to please, please consider voting yes on Proposition 8?” He didn’t know what it was. I knew from all the polling that blacks support natural marriage and Prop 8 at higher rates than any other ethnic group. I told him it was the proposition that says marriage is only the union of a man and a woman, and would he please consider voting yes on Prop 8. He said, “I don’t even need to consider it. there is only one way to vote on that.” I thanked him and smiled and went on my way.
African Americans don’t expect social conservatives to be nice to them, even though they are natural allies on many issues. The presidential race is not in play in CA: Obama will win in California, no matter what the Republican Party does. Social conservatives and traditionalists might as well take the opportunity to talk to and work with as many African Americans as possible on the marriage issue, which obviously concerns us all.
Forget for a moment the ludicrous “natural marriage” line…
“I knew from all the polling that blacks support natural marriage…”
“African Americans don’t expect social conservatives to be nice to them…”
Jennifer Roback Morse, this may come as a shock to you, but you’re not just a nasty, shrill homophobe — you are a nasty, shrill, homophobic racist.
And if that kind of sweeping “blacks are a monolith” generalization doesn’t take the cake, here’s the cake topper:
“Social conservatives and traditionalists might as well take the opportunity to talk to and work with as many African Americans as possible on the marriage issue…”
Translation: “Those black folk are a lost cause when it comes to the presidential race, ’cause they’re all gonna vote for the black candidate, ’cause that’s just what those people do — but maybe we can get them on our side to bash the homos, so we’re gonna have to lower ourselves to actually speak to them.”
I’m surprised she didn’t call the guy in the parking lot a “colored man.”
By the way, if the incident took place at all (and that is highly questionable), the response, “I don’t even need to consider it. [T]here is only one way to vote on that,” is the most noncommital non-answer there is.
If you’re wearing an outfit that looks like a cat puked on an unmade bed and you ask me what I think of it (and if I don’t want to hurt your feelings), I’ll likely respond: “Wow! That is some outfit, all right! I tell you, only you could wear something like that!” No harm, no foul, see?
We’ve been struck lately by the number and scope of organizations prefacing their expression of opposition to Proposition 8 with: “We usually don’t take a position on issues like this, but…” (Just yesterday, Sergey Brin said as much on behalf of Google.) That many varied groups not normally inclined to get involved with politics recognize the need to take a stand is testament to the importance and urgency of defeating this measure, which would strip gay and lesbian Californians of our already-established right to marry.
While some may accuse these groups of stepping outside their chartered mission, or even of having no “right” to take a stand (as in the case of PG&E, a public utility, which has the anti-equality forces frothing with anger), there is one question the complainers leave unasked, and unanswered: Is a group, be it a private company, a public utility, a charity, a school board, or a town council, maintaining its commitment to serve the best interests of all its customers or constituents, or not?
This question is answered in an eloquent op/ed in the Marin Independent Journal by Thomas Peters, president and CEO of the Marin Community Foundation, a long-established and extremely well-funded philanthropic organization (which “ardently urges voters to oppose Proposition 8 when they go to the polls this November”):
Equity and social justice per se are not program areas at the foundation. They are, even more fundamentally, core values that pervade all our activities — our grantmaking, our efforts to bring people together to solve problems, and, when called for, our advocacy efforts.
The issue of whether or not to take a stand comes down to two words: core values.
As the passage of Proposition 8 would, simply, hurt people (and make a mockery of the California’s own core values of equality and fairness), and as the defeat of Proposition 8 would hurt no one (but only benefit many), those afraid to take a public stand against writing discrimination into our constitution must ask: “What are our core values? By our silence, are we remaining true to the values underlying our mission, or abandoning our mission altogether?”
If a group’s core values do not include equality and fair play, that’s one thing — but what about those groups sworn to such a commitment?
Those opposing marriage equality from a religious standpoint (and in truth, all opposition to equality for LGBT Americans is rooted in religious belief; there has never been a coherent secular argument) claim that they are indeed remaining true to their core values.
But are they?
The anti-equality groups pay much lip service to “love” and “equality,” while skipping past the trite but pertinent question, “What would Jesus do?”
I’ll tell you what Jesus did do:
When Jesus was arrested at Gethsemane, one of his followers drew a sword and cut off the ear of “a servant of the high priest’s.”
Jesus admonished the disciple: “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” (Matthew 26:51-54)
In other words, Jesus condemned the use of force to spread the Gospel.
Just before his arrest, Peter, as foretold, denied Jesus — and, of course, Judas betrayed him.
The question then becomes: Are Christians who oppose equality remaining true to the core values of Jesus, or are they (like Peter) denying and (like Judas) betraying Jesus — and attempting to force their beliefs on others at the point of a sword?
Thomas Peters continues:
The [Marin Community Foundation] has long embraced a respect for different points of view, including ones based on religious belief, and that respect continues. But there are times, and this is one, where basic rights defined by equity and social justice have the determining priority.
Plainly put, the restricting beliefs of some cannot be allowed to negate the inclusive opportunities for others.
Would that the “Christians” supporting Proposition 8 take these words to heart — especially since it is so clear they do not take Jesus’ words to heart.
Warning: Don’t take your morning appetite depressant before watching this — you don’t want to double-dose.
“Sarah says that she wants to prepare for a career in television broadcasting by majoring in telecommunications and political science. It is no wonder that she has also been recognized by [unintelligible — “Havasu”? “in the zoo”? “a boy named Sue”?] since she has displayed her leadership in all areas from academics to student politics to athletics, having led her basketball team to the championship of the state tournament. Ladies and gentlemen, constestant number eight, Sarah Heath.”
And dig the cheesy background music, last heard in some porn flick where the leading man had long sideburns and a motorcycle-cop moustache:
Now, now, before you say it: “Bimbo” is a really offensive word, you know.
But only to bimbos.
Seriously, folks, think about this fascinating dichotomy: Ye Olde Newswire gets slammed left and right (literally) for coming down hard on Obama on the issues — and gets raked over the coals for being “racist.” (That’s a good one, as yours truly is voting for McKinney-Clemente.)
Then John McCain picks this wild-eyed, theocratic idiot from Alaska, and we get raked over the coals for being “misogynists.” (Again: That’s a good one, as yours truly is voting for McKinney-Clemente.)
By self-proclaimed feminists.
What kind of “feminist” would want her nation represented by a lying, hypocritical, homophobic, animal-slaughtering, inexperienced, unqualified, end-of-times creationist bimbo — yes, bimbo — who flashes her flesh in a beauty pageant? What happened to feminists protesting beauty pageants for what they are: the sexist exploitation of females as brainless vessels put on earth solely for the sexual gratification of men too insecure to interact with women possessed of an IQ over 40, surrounded by lots of red, white and blue, and crappy songs sung by some neutered chucklenuts like Bert Parks or John Davidson to mask the fact that it’s all just an excuse for a gratuitous display of tits and ass?
How does any feminist reconcile Sarah Palin’s bimbosity — on top of her unbudgeable anti-choice stance — with anything even remotely resembling a step forward for women?
As an Internet company, Google is an active participant in policy debates surrounding information access, technology and energy. Because our company has a great diversity of people and opinions — Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, all religions and no religion, straight and gay — we do not generally take a position on issues outside of our field, especially not social issues. So when Proposition 8 appeared on the California ballot, it was an unlikely question for Google to take an official company position on.
However, while there are many objections to this proposition — further government encroachment on personal lives, ambiguously written text — it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8. While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 — we should not eliminate anyone’s fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.
Posted by Sergey Brin, Co-founder & President, Technology
SurveyUSA is the one pollster I’ve always counted on. Gallup and all the rest can be totally out to lunch, but SurveyUSA has been uncannily correct most of the time, whether we’re talking about races between candidates, or ballot initiatives. I’m not going to deny that now, or try to soften this news.
The best way to mitigate for the “Bradley Effect” is to eliminate the human factor, which is exactly what the SurveyUSA robo-polls do. And indeed, the latest SurveyUSA poll on Proposition 8 shows a much tighter race–44% Yes to 49% No–than the human polls which show Prop 8 losing by double digits.
Comparing the cross-tabulations of SurveyUSA to those of a private human poll conducted earlier this week, there are certain sub-groups that support Prop 8 in the SurveyUSA numbers, but oppose it overwhelmingly in the human polls. This “Bradley Effect” shows up among African Americans (26% swing), people living in the Inland Empire (26%), Independent voters (10% difference), and surprisingly, Asian-Americans (22%). …
This survey should be a reality check to all the gays and lesbians who have held onto their wallets and remind them that now is a good time to give us your money! …
Jim Burroway found a real gem: A “brief document … posted on Wikileaks earlier this week, appears to be brief notes for a meeting of LDS officials working to defeat California’s Prop 8,” which, Jim opines (and we think so too) “provides further evidence that the nuts and bolts of the Prop 8 campaign in California is almost exclusively an LDS-driven effort.”
This file was presented as a handout to a small group of local LDS church leaders in hard copy form and was emailed to two people of which I am aware.
It contains information about the LDS Church’s involvement in and planning for the Proposition 8 campaign in California. Of special import is the first paragraph noting that the “broad coalition” of churches involved in the Protect Marriage campaign is really not much more than just the LDS church.
Comments and questions may be directed to Mormonwhoknows@hushmail.com. Questions about the veracity of the first paragraph may be directed to the persons named in that paragraph (in their offices in Salt Lake City, UT).
The document is leaked as it would be of interest to anyone interested in the LDS church’s involvement in the 2008 California Prop 8 debate, and producing the document publicly online could result in ecclesiastical punishment for the publisher.
The document is timely, in that the November election is coming up soon and the LDS church continues to advertise and imply that its thousands of volunteers are working in tandem and cooperation with a significant number of non-LDS folks.
1. Elders Ballard, Christopherson & Clayton met last week with leaders of the Coalition for 2 hours. The brethren emphasized that there wasn’t much participation from non-LDS people. The work depends on us. …
3. SCHEDULE & VOLUNTEERS - Stewide we are about 43% done with walk/phone lists. We suffer from STP (same ten people).
Awww, don’t worry, Mormons for Prop 8 — you do have Xenu on your side.
We should not pressure people to walk/phone more than 10 hours but to explain the needs and let them make their own decisions. We will soon shift to all phoning.
4. NEXT PHASES - Persuasion Phase. We will need about 20 people per zip code to call the “mushy middle” people. That will take about 5 hours per person. There will be two surges, one the end of Sept. or early Oct. and the other at the end of Oct. to the first of Nov.
5. We will need 5 people per polling place (one to get information and 4 to be runners). We need people who are willing to take a day of vacation on November 4th to be available all day. [Handwritten:] Basically a person in the polling station will monitor who has voted or not and the four people will go out and remind them.
. . .
[Handwritten:] “Driven by Church Headquarters through coalition”
Levi Strauss & Co. is putting its famous pockets behind defeating a ballot initiative that would outlaw same-sex marriage in California. …
Levi Strauss has pledged $25,000 to Equality for All, the coalition leading the No on 8 campaign, says company spokesman E.J. Bernacki. Robert Haas, the company’s chairman emeritus, and his wife have given $100,000, Bernacki said.
Two labor unions, the California Council of Service Employees and the California Teachers Association, each have given $250,000. Telecommunications company AT&T has given $25,000. …
Also Thursday, a Southern California-based business advocacy group came out against Proposition 8. The board of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association, which represents businesses in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles voted “by a significant margin” to oppose the measure, said President Stuart Waldman. …
To Levi and the Haases, we are truly grateful — but this is nothing less than we would expect from the pioneering jeans maker. As the article notes:
The company ended racial segregation of its California factories in the 1940s and was the first Fortune 500 company to offer health benefits to the domestic partners of its unmarried employees.
Timothy at BTB notices that the anti-marriage forces in California can’t manage to muster an endorsement for Proposition 8 from even one “statewide elected Republican… the Governor [or] the Insurance Commissioner,” let alone the mayor of any city you’ve ever heard of, much less want to visit (save Anaheim, a city of 346,823 primarily right-wing nutjobs, minus the couple-thousand gay Disneyland employees who head for Garden Grove to decompress after spending the day cleaning up toddler vomit), one Democratic or Independent state lawmaker, one major newspaper…
…but the Yes on 8 campaign does boat the support of “the Church of Scientology of San Diego, Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc., and Creation Research of North America.”
Well, now, how can you beat the descendants of Xenu the Terrible, Jews for Jesus, and young-earth types who think “The Flintstones” was a documentary?
She only grows more ignorant, hateful and utterly revolting by the minute:
Tweet This Post! 
