September 8, 2010

Another Day, Another Prop H8 Revelation

No, dearest readers, I will never “let go” or “get over” Proposition 8, no matter when (within my lifetime, I hope) this archaic relic of hatred is eliminated once and for all.

And even if I wanted to move on — the idea of which is as offensive to me as the idea of “moving on” past the September 11th attacks* — external forces would never allow me to, at least as long as I stay on top of the news. (That’s something I wish I could do — dissociate myself completely from politics and from current events in general, but as they say, once your eyes have been opened to what’s really going on in the world, they can never be shut again. But I digress, as usual.)

By “external forces,” I mean: Hardly a day, and certainly not a week, goes by when a piece of the puzzle I’d wondered about for more than two years finally drops into place.

I’ve often said there are many things we will never know about the machinations behind The Big, Monied Anti-Gay Machine. With each new day, I’m not so sure about that. Every time I learn something I didn’t know, especially something that confirms a suspicion I’d harbored but could never prove, I think one day we will know the whole story. Well, you might — I’ll be lucky to live so long. But the truth will out. It always does.

So, what’s today’s story that’s got yours truly all riled up?

Karen Ocamb, editor of Frontiers In LA and serious, in-your-face, take-no-prisoners journalist I agree with about 85% of the time, but whom I admire and respect 100% of the time, has a piece in today’s HuffPo:

Why I Didn’t Attend the NLGJA Convention –
They Failed Us on Prop 8

Karen begins:

The National Lesbian and Gay Journalist Association held its annual convention in San Francisco over Labor Day weekend. And even though I’ve been around for the 20 years since it was founded by Roy Aarons — I didn’t go. I’m still furious over the organization’s failure to discuss the San Francisco Chronicle’s coverage of Prop 8.

That may not sound like much on the surface, but what got under Ocamb’s skin — and now is under mine, again — involves one specific news story published by the Chronicle that determined, in no uncertain terms, the success of Proposition 8: the lesbian wedding the Yes On 8 campaign used in TV ads to convince unwitting parents that if Prop H8 failed, their children too would be forcibly dragged to gay weddings and made to witness the unholy union of those ungodly homosexuals whose real agenda was recruitment — not to mention wholesale destruction of the American family (pause for Bach’s scary Toccata and Fugue in D Minor here).

“[W]e got the break of the election,” wrote professional anti-gay strategist Frank Schubert in his most revealing article, “Passing Prop 8” (blogged February 23, 2009): “In what may prove to be the most ill-considered publicity stunt ever mounted in an initiative campaign, a public school in San Francisco took a class of first graders to City Hall to witness the wedding of their lesbian teacher. And they brought along the media.”

I’ll stop here and ask you to read the piece I wrote October 27, 2008:

Yes on Proposition 8:
First Lies, Then Blackmail, Now Child Exploitation

…which explains exactly why the children took a field trip to watch a beloved teacher marry her partner (when it was still legal), and how the Yes On 8 pirates hijacked and twisted the story for their own nefarious purpose.

Ocamb mentions my post in her HuffPo article (which is what led me to it, via traffic logs), remarking that I “complained vociferously about the Chronicle’s failure to put the field trip into the larger context of the Creative Arts Charter School’s philosophy” — and she is dead to rights about that — and about the fact that all outrage, even that of the parents whose children were exploited without permission by the H8 campaign, was ignored.

I’m not congratulating myself for anything, nor do I even feel vindicated. I guess what I’m really saying is: I told you so — “you” being “you parents who swallowed this sludge and voted Yes on H8 against the deafening screams of your Inner Common Sense, just in case, because your unfounded fears about your little darlings trumped everything you knew to be true about civil rights, and about that gay couple down the block you knew presented no danger whatsoever to Little Junior.”

The kids’ parents told you so. A lot of people told you so. And you knew better, but you let yourselves be manipulated, and knowingly allowed lies to trump truth.

Did you really believe it? Or was it a convenient excuse to indulge your deep-down homophobia you would never, ever admit, even to yourself?

And now the San Francisco Chronicle and — for reasons beyond my ken — the NLGJA do not want to be held accountable for 1) the former’s failure to explain the reasons for and circumstances behind the attendance of children at The Big, Scary Lesbian Wedding, or 2) the latter’s inexplicable failure to take the former to task for its material contribution to the success of the campaign to marginalize, demonize, and ultimately outlaw the civil recognition of commitment and pure, simple love between couples who never gave you, your family, or your precious spawn a second thought.

By Ocamb’s account (which I believe without question or reservation), the NLGJA actually censored her attempt to bring the truth about The Big, Scary Lesbian Wedding into the light.

Why?

Why?



* Don’t jump on me for that. I’m not comparing Prop H8 to 9/11, and certainly not equating the impact of the two. All I mean is that when an event changes your very life, admonitions to let it go / get past it / move forward are incredibly insensitive and insulting.

I’m still not over 9/11. I will never get over 9/11, as long as I live.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: California, Civil Rights, Education/Schools, Homophobia, LGBT Organizations, Marriage, Media, Proposition 8


September 3, 2010

Oh Noes! It’s a Sexy Man Storm Coming to Get Me!

How I missed this “Gathering Storm” parody, I’ll never know. Enjoy — it is so totally worth watching (and, yes, it gets totally yum-o-licious hot, for both boys and girls!):

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: California, Civil Rights, Homophobia, Humor, Marriage, Music, National Organization for Marriage/Maggie Gallagher, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right, Videos


August 25, 2010

Target Boycott: Walden, Trillium and Calvert Asset Management Companies Get It

A very satisfying press release — these companies will be tops on our list should we ever again be able to afford to invest in anything:

TARGET, BEST BUY RECEIVE SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS ADDRESSING
CONTROVERSIAL POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Contacts:

Tim Smith, Walden Asset Management 617/726-7155
Shelley Alpern, Trillium Asset Management Corporation 617/292-8026 x 248
Stu Dalheim, Calvert Asset Management Company, Inc. 301/961-4762

August 19, 2010 – Three leading sustainability investing firms have filed shareholder proposals this week at Target (NYSE: TGT) and Best Buy (NYSE: BBY), which are under fire for making sizable political contributions to a group channeling funds to a Minnesota gubernatorial candidate known for his opposition to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights.

Boston-based investment firms Walden Asset Management (“Walden”) and Trillium Asset Management Corporation (“Trillium”), and Calvert Asset Management Company, Inc. (“Calvert”) of Bethesda, MD, joined together to file a proposal at Target Corporation that asks the company’s independent board members to undertake a “comprehensive review of Target’s political contributions and spending processes including the criteria used for such contributions” and “oversight processes by management and the Board.” Calvert and Trillium have filed a similar resolution at Best Buy this week, Trillium on behalf of the Equity Foundation, which works to eradicate prejudice towards the sexual and gender minority communities of Oregon. Collectively, the shareholders control more than 1.1 million shares of common stock in Target worth $57.5 million, and 344,000 shares of Best Buy worth $11.3 million.

The proposals call attention to the misalignment between the donations and the companies’ corporate values. Both Target and Best Buy have exceptionally strong workplace policies for LGBT employees, and have supported LGBT community activities in Minnesota.

The candidate for governor, Minnesota state representative Tom Emmer, has adopted a highly adversarial stance toward the LGBT community. He opposes same-sex marriage and led an effort to deny LGBT couples full parental rights1 in Minnesota. In addition, his campaign made a contribution2 to a Christian hard rock ministry that praised Muslim countries that execute their citizens3 for homosexuality as being “more moral than even the American Christians.”

Target and Best Buy have made apologetic statements acknowledging objections to their contributions, but neither has asked the pro-business group, Minnesota Forward, to return any funds. Both companies are facing boycott campaigns. This week, Target decided not to contribute to groups supporting gay-rights candidates in Minnesota, a request of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation’s largest LGBT advocacy group. The HRC is also currently in discussions with Best Buy.

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision earlier this year opened the floodgates for millions of corporate dollars being directly and indirectly injected into political contests and races.

Tim Smith, senior vice president at Walden, commented, “It is unclear how frequently companies will decide to spend shareholder monies in controversial political races. But if the Best Buy and Target contributions are any indication, imprudent donations can potentially have a major negative impact on company reputations and business if they don’t carefully and fully assess a candidate’s positions. Funding ballot initiatives or “issue ads” can similarly backfire.”

Shelley Alpern, vice president at Trillium, said, “Tom Emmer has made it no secret that as governor he would deny members of the LGBT their full civil rights. No company can credibly claim that it continues to support the LGBT community if at the same time it is financing a deliberate effort to keep it in second-class citizenship.” Trillium has already been asked by one client, the Equity Foundation of Portland, Oregon, to fully divest its portfolio of Target shares.

Thirteen companies4 have donated $1,095,000 to MN Forward, including Pentair (NYSE:PNR), Polaris (NYSE:PII), a maker of snowmobiles, and Regis (NYSE:RGS), the parent corporation of SuperCuts, Hair Club for Men, and other hair care franchises. In 2008, Trillium filed a shareholder proposal at Pentair that resulted in the company’s adoption of a sexual orientation nondiscrimination policy. Alpern said Trillium will pursue the topic of political contributions with Pentair.

“Shareholder resolutions at Target and Best Buy should serve to alert companies of the importance of a careful and comprehensive review of their contributions policies, oversight, risk assessment and disclosure as they consider earmarking shareholder funds for political purposes,” said Tim Smith of Walden.

“A good corporate political contribution policy should prevent the kind of debacle Target and Best Buy walked into,” Alpern added. “We expect companies to evaluate candidate based upon the range of their positions – not simply one area — and assess whether they are in alignment with their core values. But these companies’ policies are clearly lacking that.”

“We continue to call for increased transparency and disclosure of corporate political spending. The absolutely wrong conclusion for companies to draw from this controversy is that everything will be all right as long as they conceal their political contributions.” Stu Dalheim, Director of Shareholder Advocacy at Calvert Asset Management Company said, “Instead they must ensure that they have a transparent governance framework that ensures they align their political spending with their business interests and stated policies.”

About the shareholder proposal proponents

Walden Asset Management has been a leader in socially responsive investing since 1975, managing our clients’ assets to achieve their specific financial and social objectives.

Trillium Asset Management Corporation is the oldest and largest independent advisor devoted exclusively to sustainable and responsible investing.

Calvert Asset Management Company is a leader in Sustainable and Responsible Investments (SRI), offering investors among the widest choice of SRI strategies of any investment management company in the United States.

1 http://minnesotaindependent.com/3915/after-lively-debate-surrogate-pregnancy-bill-passes-at-lege

2 http://minnesotaindependent.com/58393/gop-linked-punk-rock-ministry-says-executing-gays-is-moral

3 See fn. 2.

4 http://www.cfbreport.state.mn.us/pdfStorage/2010/CampFin/B/41035.pdf

Read the full shareholder proposal.

For a more complete list of companies donating to MN Forward, see:

Target Isn’t the Only Company Donating Big Bucks to Anti-Gay Bigot Tom Emmer of Minnesota, Lavender Newswire, July 28, 2010

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Business/Economy, Civil Rights, Homophobia, Marriage, Minnesota


August 20, 2010

It’s the Evidence, Stupid

Of course, I’ve been on a rollercoaster of emotions this past week and a half — first, marriage is back to stay in California, and then it’s not, and while it probably will be next year (or the year after, or the year after that), the Lying Liars — who base their opposition to equality on nothing but shaky egos and a pile of crap bigger than the one Laura Dern stuck her arm into in Jurassic Park — get what they want (to quash equality, at least for the time being), while the real victims suffer some more. (To what end? Why keep fighting a losing war? It’s the money — there’s big bucks in the professional anti-gay industry.)

And then, when it seems this war will never end, I come across something that jerks me back into reality, such as Lisa Bloom’s op/ed, “On Prop 8, it’s the evidence, stupid,” which reminds me that it’s all going to be OK. Eventually, anyway.

Bottom line: No matter what idiocy Charles Cooper pulls out of thin air (”You don’t have to have evidence,” he told Judge Walker, whose jaw, I expect, hit the floor), it’s all about the evidence.

Bloom writes:

Here’s the kind of “evidence” gay marriage opponents offered at trial: Homosexuals are 12 times more likely to molest children, their witness argued, and allowing same-sex marriage would cause states “to fall into Satan’s hands.” The witness’ source of information? “The internet.”

Read the piece. It’s really good. And it’s all true.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: California, Civil Rights, Homophobia, Marriage, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right


August 19, 2010

People on ‘Ludes Should Not File Motions

I’m on the email notification list for the Ninth Circuit Court for notice of filings in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and the notifications have been coming in fast and furious spurts over the past couple of days.

One interesting filing: Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Motion to Enlarge Time (Doc 729) — which essentially requests that, if the Ninth Circuit upholds Judge Walker’s ruling, the Prop H8 proponents (the bad guys) be required to pay legal fees for the plaintiffs (the good guys).

Most of the rest of the filings haven’t been all that interesting… but then I came to:

Carlvin H. Justice, 51, previously of Emeryville, California, and currently a resident of Berkeley, who appears to fancy himself some sort of citizen-legislator, and who, for no plausible reason I can imagine, has jumped headfirst into the Prop H8 fray — and, from as much as I can discern from his perfectly incoherent filings, appears to be on the anti-gay side.

I know nothing about Mr. Justice, except that he has had previous dust-ups with the courts (links below), and that his motions make me want to warn the world:

Never drive drunk, never dial drunk, and, whatever you do, never file motions under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or the little green men who live in your refrigerator.

(I had to type all this in by hand; all cAPiTaliZATiOn, punctuation, etc., is true to the original documents…)

Filed August 16, 2010, with the U.S. District Court, Doc 737:

CARLVIN JUSTICE
New Address: 2241 Sixth Street
Berkeley, CA. 94710
(510) 938-5726

Interposition
Carlvin H. Justice
On behalf of the State
Of California

United State District Court
Northern District of California

Perry
Plaintiffs et al
Vs.
Schwarzenegger
Defendant

[”VW”?] Case No. [8?]92292
Move to nullify
Judge V. Walker
Decision dated Aug
4, 2010 an a preventive
Injunction Title 28
U.S.C. §455, FRCP 7,53,
63:

This ruling is a violation of the initiative and of the Constitution of the United States of America and will need to be nullified on the merit. This would be a violation of the voting rights and would need to be revised.

Date: 8/6/10

/s/
Carlvin Justice
Interposition Carlvin Justice

What, not stupid enough for you? OK…

Filed August 16, 2010, with the U.S. District Court, Doc 738:

The attorney general of this State known as Edmund G. Brown—

There’s a state named “Edmund G. Brown”?

—did misrepresent the State of California as Defendants in this case and also the Governor of this State of California herein known as Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Wait — now the state is called “Arnold Schwarzenegger”??

OK, OK, no more interruptions (if I can help it); highlighted emphasis mine:

We as the people of this State don’t need deterring of our Constitutional rights or do we need a stronghold. A person has a right to whatever they choose within the united states according to the law and that right may not be withheld. But we do have a problem which is before this court and that is compliance To a Referendum at stake. This not the time for attorney Brown to reinvent the Constitution for the people of this State or the United States. If? the People of this State would like to get marry to a man or a woman, so let it Be between them and their god to answer that complaint. The requirement that The party seeking review must have himself suffered an injury and will not Seek from an attorney such as Ted Olson or our makeup Governor for help. There must be a problem litigating the rights of others in this case which In fact the Plaintiffs complained of no injury in order to have standing to sue. The constitution prohibits this case form coming before this court see United States Amendment XIX. There should be a clear understanding to case at hand and that would mean to alter the as different but equal and permit them to be marry as gay couples between a man and a man and woman and woman and be marry by a gay priest and a divorce my a gay priest. The importance of this precondition should not be underestimated as a means of defining the role assigned to the judiciary in a tripartite allocation of pwer. The court has required that the plaintiffs complaint fall within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee which may not be in question pursuant to title 42 U.S.C. §1983. Exception of third parties unable to assert own rights of third parties and It would be difficult for plaintiffs to assert their rights themselves See Wachtler v. County 35 f3d 82. We the people do have standing to protest an interest it seeks to protect. It is congress power to reduce standing requirements and we have standing To sue is ground on article III and elements of the constitution requirements of a case see 517 us 554.

Preliminary injunction

Altering the status quo the basic function of a preliminary injunction is to Preserve the status pending a determination on the merits of the case or a Eventual injury to the people of this state or the United States, of which the plaintiffs complained of.

On the last page (Proof of Service by Mail), Justice offers a handwritten description of his, uh, motion as:

Bill in The Nature of a bill of Review and motion To dismiss Lack of Subject Mater Jurisdiction Preliminary Injunction

Other bizarre Carlvin H. Justice dust-ups with the courts (and other official bodies):

Letter regarding the proposed establishment of a biodiesel fuel station in Berkeley:

CARLVIN JUSTICE
MAILING ADDRESS
1414 62ND ST
EMERYVILLE, CA. 94608
(510) 938-5726

TO: CITY OF BERKELY MUNICIPAL AND ZONING ORDINANCE
DATE OF HEARING 11/26/07

SUBJECT ISSUE: HEARING HELD FOR APPROVAL AT 1441 ASHBY AVE
BERKELEY CALIFORNIA LOCATION
FOR BIOL FUEL APPROVAL NON OWNER OF THE PROPERTY GRAIG HERTZS.

SUBJECT PETITION:

NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL OF ANY PROJECTS WHILE THE ABOVE NONE OWNER HAS BEEN NOTIFIED OF A COURT HEARING FOR THE ACCUSE TO RESPONDED TO THIS DOCUMENT WITHIN SIXTY DAYS REGARDING HIS FRAUD TO A GOVERNMENT AGENCY. AND IN POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY TEN YEARS AFTER THE FACT. I CARLVIN JUSTICE WILL MOVE FOR THE FOLLOWING ADOTPION AND PURPOSE FOR RECLARIFICATION OF THE HEARING FOR PUBLIC INPUT AND PROPER CIRCULAR HANDOUT FOR COMMUNITY COMMENTS OF THE ISSUES WHICH SHOULD BE ADOPTED OTHER THEN POSTING AT THE SUBJECT MATTER LOCATION SEE TITLE 23 SECTION 23A.04-23A20.10-23A.20.030 AND ORD 6478-NS 4 (PART). 1999.

CC: CITY CLERK
CC: COMMISSION
CC: ZONING
CC: GRAIG HERTZS FOR THE EIDEX FAMILY
DATE: 11/21/07
/s/
CARLVIN JUSTICE

Eidex Family Partnership, L.P. v. Carlvin Justice, August 22, 2008

Eidex Family Partnership, L.P. v. Carlvin Justice, January 26, 2009

In re: Carlvin Justice; Carlvin Justice, Petitioner, v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Respondent, Eidex Family Partnership, L.P., Real Party in Interest, July 1, 2009

I know — I shouldn’t make fun of people with… issues. But my exasperation sometimes outweighs my compassion, and — while I firmly believe in the people’s right to redress — I have to wonder how many times a single nutball can clog up the court system with such idiocy before he’s held in contempt.

Or locked up — not because said nutball may be crazy as a loon, but because he’s such a damned nuisance.

Hmm, yeah, now that you ask: My patience — especially for whackjobs who think they have some sort of right to screw around with my life — is nonexistent.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: California, Civil Rights, Marriage, Mental Health, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Proposition 8


August 16, 2010

Breaking: Ninth Circuit Caves to Gay-Haters, Marriages on Hold Again

Just announced on CNN; only one Web link so far:

Appeals court grants stay of Prop 8 ruling;
gay marriages won’t resume Wednesday

That’s right, judges — just keep torturing us. It sends a tingle up Maggie Gallagher’s bloated leg.

In all seriousness, my gut says this does not bode well for us.

*sigh*

That I am still legally married has no bearing on how I feel about this — just like everyone else hanging on to every twist and turn in this hellish nightmare, I just can’t take the rollercoaster again.

We don’t have a choice, but it’s just too much to take.

I feel as angry, and as tearful, and as… just plain sick as I did November 5, 2008.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: California, Civil Rights, Marriage, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Proposition 8


August 12, 2010

Prop H8 Stay LIFTED! Marriage to Resume in California August 18th!

THANK YOU, Judge Walker, for applying the LAW!

And congratulations, newlyweds-to-be!

SDGLN

SacBee

…and all over the Web, if you can push past the traffic!

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: California, Civil Rights, Marriage, Proposition 8


August 6, 2010

Christine Shreeve Hubbs: Mormon Wife Charged With 67 Counts of Child Molestation

Christine Shreeve HubbsI’d been puzzled for the past three or four days by the mega-traffic Base8 has been getting from Google queries on the name Christine Shreeve Hubbs.

She’s merely the wife of a dentist, who didn’t even donate to Prop H8 — his hygienist did. There is a very interesting story about alleged Ponzi-schemer Kenneth Kenitzer (I think he’s the father of the hygienist), but I couldn’t figure why so many people would be so interested in the dentist’s wife, whom I mentioned only in passing.

Well, I finally found out why — and have updated Dr. Hubbs’ Base8 record accordingly, with screencaps of “Chrissy’s” social-networking pages that are sure to vanish soon:

Timothy Duane Hubbs, DDS

The headline — “Livermore Woman Charged With Sex With Boys” — only begins to tell the story.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: California, Civil Rights, Crime, LDS/Mormons, Marriage, Republican Sexcapades


August 4, 2010

Prop H8 Ruled Unconstitutional!

I haven’t read the full opinion yet, but here it is — in crappy scribd format (I’m waiting for a decent PDF, but it’s not online yet):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/FF-amp-CL-FINAL

It’s a good day, folks. Just the beginning of the end — but a very good day indeed.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: California, Civil Rights, Marriage, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Proposition 8


July 28, 2010

Target Isn’t the Only Company Donating Big Bucks to Anti-Gay Bigot Tom Emmer of Minnesota

Had to type ‘em in by hand from crappy scans of handwritten records at the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board — but it was worth it.

What gets me is, while everybody’s getting their knickers in a twist over Target’s $150K to the bigot with the would-be gay-murdering friend, nobody’s taken note of these equally-shortsighted companies who did the same, and/or who are sucking up hate money to provide services for the bigot:

Ackmann & Dickenson, Inc.

Best Buy Co., Inc.

Cold Spring Granite Company

Davisco Foods International, Inc.

Federated Mutual Insurance Company

Genesys Meeting

Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc.

Insurance Federation of Minnesota

McClung Communications & Public Relations, LLC

Minnesota Business Partnership

Minnesota Chamber of Commerce

Minnesota Trucking Association

Pentair, Inc.

Polaris Industries, Inc.

Red Wing Shoe Company, Inc. (Red Wing Shoes)

Regis Corporation

Securian Life Insurance Company

Stevens & Schriefer Group (SSG Media, Inc.)

Tarrance Group

Winthrop & Weinstine LLP

Let the Bigot Boycott begin… again!

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Business/Economy, Civil Rights, Homophobia, Marriage, Minnesota, Republicans


July 26, 2010

One of the Most Enduring — and Vilest — Anti-Gay Organizations You’ve Never Heard Of

She is bent nearly double as she works a ball-point pen across a thin sheaf of papers balanced in her lap. She is crafting her own speech, pulling her pen along in a frank cursive hand that drifts upward at the end of each line. Her thick glasses hover about six inches above the page as she scrawls:

“I don’t hate anyone what I hate is sin Homosexuality is a sin the penalty for sin is death… Homosexuality is a choice your not born with it.”

That was in 1992.

Eighteen years later, they’re sponsoring awards for wannabe gay-murderer Martin Ssempra:

National Association of Marriage Enhancement

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Africa, Arizona, Christianity, Civil Rights, Homophobia, Marriage, Radical Religious Right, Religion & Spirituality


July 16, 2010

Perversion for Profit: 2010

I’m not taking comments on this post, nor at YouTube, because I know the nastygrams will far outnumber any kudos, and I don’t feel like dealing with dolts, nor do I care what they think.

Or, to paraphrase Dr. Seuss: “Those who mind don’t matter, and those who matter don’t mind.”

Besides, I already know who will enjoy this, and that’s good enough for me.

Backstory:

Perversion for Profit is a 1965 propaganda film financed by Charles Keating and narrated by news reporter George Putnam. A vehement diatribe against pornography, the film attempts to link explicit portrayals of human sexuality to the subversion of American civilization, and briefly draws a parallel between pornography and the Communist conspiracy. The film is in the public domain, and it has become a popular download from the Prelinger Archives. Perversion for Profit illustrates its claims with still images taken from various soft core pornography magazines of the period, though with some portions of human anatomy obscured by colored rectangles. …

“In an article discussing the Prelinger Archives for the San Francisco Chronicle, Peter L. Stein observes that the film has gained a different sort of utility than its producers intended:

…as the parade of girlie magazine covers, men’s physique pictorials and campy S&M leaflets continues, the film betrays a kind of prurience the filmmakers could hardly have intended. What results is a remarkable visual record of midcentury underground literature and sexual appetites, and a gloss on the values of the society that condemned them.

More: Wikipedia

If you haven’t seen Perversion for Profit before, here it is in all its salacious glory:

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVEKuq1gIGI

Prelinger Archives:
Part 1
Part 2

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Americans For Truth/Peter LaBarbera, Catholicism, Christianity, Civil Rights, Homophobia, Humor, LDS/Mormons, Marriage, National Organization for Marriage/Maggie Gallagher, Radical Religious Right, Religion & Spirituality, Videos


July 12, 2010

Said a demon made him do it…

Back by popular demand (with music that won’t give Warner Music Group the “right” to censor it).

IF VIDEO IS JERKY IN FIREFOX, USE MSIE.

The video that begs the question:

If serial killers, rapists, and other violent sociopaths have the “fundamental right” to get married on Death Row, how can that “fundamental right” be denied to any loving, committed, law-abiding same-sex couple?

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Civil Rights, Crime, Hate Crimes, Marriage, Videos


June 24, 2010

YES! “Supreme Court rules for disclosure of initiative signatures”

Yes, yes, yes!

In a case triggered by the battle over same-sex marriage in California, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that disclosing the names of people who sign initiative petitions generally does not violate their right to free speech.

The 8-1 decision is a victory for gay rights advocates who have used the ‘outing’ of same-sex marriage foes as a political tactic. …

Much more: Los Angeles Times, June 24, 2010

YES!

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Civil Rights, Free Speech, Marriage, SCOTUS, Washington


May 25, 2010

When the Scariest Thing NOM Can Come Up with is One of Our Posts, They’re Really Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel

“You’re a very bad man! And you keep thinking bad thoughts about me!”

“What about just wanting to know their names so you can criticize them? Is that such a bad thing in a democracy?”

Justice Antonin Scalia

Not to disparage my own efforts to make a difference in the world, but, come on, people, seriously — it’s inconceivable one of my blog posts is the best professional anti-gay lawyer James Bopp (or, at least, five anti-gay Mainers) can come up with to illustrate the horrible (horrible, I tell you!) threat of those skeeeeeery gays doing… well, doing nothing, I guess, except maybe thinking bad thoughts about them. And maybe wishing them away to the cornfield.

Backstory: In October, 2009, I posted an abbreviated version of the newly-released list of donors to Stand for Marriage Maine — i.e., people so hung up on (eeek!) gays (and apparently so completely incapable of minding their own damned business), they were actually willing to pay good money to stop loving couples from celebrating their lifelong commitments in civil marriage. (It was “abbreviated” in that I didn’t post in-kind — i.e., nonmonetary — contributions, or expenditures, simply because the blog might have choked on an even longer post.)

The data came straight (no pun intended) from the State of Maine’s Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices — directly from this file, in fact, which is still online: 2009 Campaign Finance Report for Political Action Committees (StandforMarriagemaine.com).

And — rather atypically of me — I didn’t do a lot of ranting in my editorializing, and in fact didn’t even do a lot of editorializing at all (for me, that is), save for referring to the anti-gay donors in general as bigots, and as “haters and hate-enablers.”

What got to them (the bigots), I think, and to Jimmy Bopp, was the title:

Red-Hot Bigot List: Stand for Marriage Maine Yes On 1 Donor Filings

It must have been effective enough to be noticed (at least, by five anti-gay Mainers who have probably never before had a hit when ego-surfing Google) and cited as a really, really scary consequence of donating money to strip total strangers of an already-recognized, fundamental civil right — that really, really scary consequence being, of course… being… um… uh… seeing your name come up in Google, I guess. (I can only guess because I haven’t found their affidavits yet.)

So, two days ago, a decision was handed down by the Honorable John H. Rich III regarding NOM’s refusal to turn over the names of donors who contributed to NOM’s anti-gay marriage campaign in Maine.

The upshot: NOM has to turn over the names (at least, from January, 2009, on) — which should come as no surprise, as that was the law going in.

What did surprise the bejeebers out of me was what I found on pp. 5-6 of NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE v. WALTER F. McKEE, Civil No. 09-538-B-H:

Bernatche, Elder, Hannemann, Jones, and Morse all aver that they made a donation to the Stand for Marriage Maine PAC to help promote a “yes” vote on referendum ballot question #1 to repeal Maine’s gay-marriage law, that they subsequently learned from a Google search that identifying information (for example, names and addresses) had been included in a “Red-Hot Bigot List” on a “Lavender Newswire” web site, that this has caused distress and fear of reprisal, and that they either will not donate to any controversial referendum causes in the future, will think long and hard before doing so in the future, or would not have donated to the Stand for Marriage Maine PAC had they known their information was going to be publicly released. See generally Bernatche Aff.; Elder Aff.; Hannemann Aff.; Jones Aff.; Morse Aff.

All I could think when I saw that was:

“That’s the best they can come up with?”

That thought was followed immediately by:

“They’ll never have a clue what ‘distress’ is until the day a hate-fueled mob agrees by majority vote that they’re inferior beings undeserving of the same rights as every other American citizen.”

And then came:

“There they go with that ‘fear’ crap, projecting their own fantasies of what they’d like to do to us onto us.”

In reality, it appears my post is all they could come up with, period. In Googling one of the more unusual names among the anti-gay complainers (nah, not “complainants,” but just plain ol’ complainers), Joseph L. Bernatche, I found two bona fide hits — one to my blog post and one to a scribd.com version of the court’s decision, plus a couple-three other sites that either link back to my post, or reproduce the entire list of anti-gay Maine donors lifted straight off my post (without credit, mind you; I know this because I have a rather unique way of formatting records, so it’s easy to recognize when my work has been lifted).

Still, it’s pretty sweet to see the Newswire immortalized forever in yet another case that shows up the bigots (and here I mean NOM, not the five individual complainers, whom I don’t know from Adam, and about whom I couldn’t give a rip) for the ludicrous fearmongers they are: My reprinting information already made public by the State of Maine was the best — or the “worst” — they could come up with. I’m almost embarrassed for Bopp, Gallagher, Brown & Co.

Actually, no, I’m not embarrassed for them at all. A little more disgusted by them than I was yesterday (if that’s possible) — but mostly I’m laughing at them.

When I think of all the hate mail I’ve received over the years (and lately, especially, because of Base8) accusing me of masterminding some Big Gay Conspiracy against those poor, little defenseless Anti-Gays, I have to laugh. If these fools only knew what I really spend my time “plotting” — how to keep the cats entertained, how to time my fruit-picking so I get to it when it’s ripe but before the birds peck it off the tree, whether I should warm up the leftover mashed potatoes or turn them into frittatas, jotting down the dates of various upcoming movie releases on the kitchen calendar… Yeah, scary stuff. Terrifying!

And I’m the best — or the worst — they can come up with?

How laughable. How pathetic.

As pathetic as these silly whiners.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Civil Rights, Homophobia, Maine, Marriage, National Organization for Marriage/Maggie Gallagher, Radical Religious Right, Random Stupidity


April 24, 2010

Letter To A Mormon

Don’t faint, because I’ve posted — and posted twice in the same day. Sometimes, you just have to get stuff out.

If you don’t know who the amazing woman called Carol Lynn Pearson is, her Wikipedia entry will fill you in on the basics, and her official site will fill in the details.

When you’re done…

I stumbled across a mention of Carol Lynn’s new Web site (sorry, I don’t remember where, or I’d credit the blogger, as I always do), “Proposition Healing,” which, in essence, is an effort to bring Mormons and gay people together to talk. Just talk.

Here’s the site: www.propositionhealing.com; make sure you read the page, “Here’s How It All Began.”

Now that you’re up to date…

Carol Lynn welcomes comments from people who have attended these meetings. Although I have never been to one of these meetings (and, I’m sure, never will), I felt the need to contact her about her idea, because — well, I hope I make myself clear below.

Mind you, I think her idea is wonderful. Really, I do. And I encourage anyone even vaguely intrigued or inspired to get in touch with her.

But enough introduction. Below is the letter I sent to Carol Lynn this afternoon. It is the longest thing I’ve written in many months — and, yes, I know I stopped posting, but here I am, posting. So sue me for changing my mind.

It’s not the most eloquent letter I’ve ever written, but I had to write it, and I had to share it with you.

Settle in for a long one.

(No, I will not be sharing Carol Lynn’s reply, should she decide to answer, unless she gives me the green light. This is just what I needed to get out of my system.)

Dear Carol Lynn (I hope you don’t mind my familiarity),

I read with interest your new Web site, “Proposition Healing,” and feel compelled to comment. Perhaps what I have to say will provide you with some fodder for future Mormon-gay discussions — perhaps not. For what it’s worth, here goes — and I apologize in advance for what I know is going to be a very lengthy letter, but I do hope you will find the time (and endurance) to read it from start to finish; I would consider it a great favor to me.

If you decide to quote anything I write here publicly, you have my permission to do so, on the condition that you conceal both my email address and my last name. I’ve never hidden my real name in association with my Web site, but in this case, I don’t want to provide any extra help to anyone trying to track down my home address or phone (which has already been done, on several occasions).

A little background: I am a native Californian, looking down the barrel at age 49; I have lived most of my life on the S.F. peninsula. A cradle Catholic, I knew I was a lesbian since… always. I was three years old when the Beatles arrived in the U.S., and all I knew is that I wanted to be one of them, because I saw the way my older sister’s friends reacted to them — as only dreamy-eyed, thoroughly infatuated teenage girls could. I knew what I was long before I knew there was a word for what I was, and long before I knew there was anyone else in the world like me. After many years of angst (which I’ll save you the monotony of reading a story you’ve read a thousand times before), I finally came out publicly after high school, a few years after I left the Catholic church (but quite a few years before I realized I was a full-fledged agnostic; these days, I might just be an atheist who’s not ready to admit it yet).

Fast-forward to May, 2008. My then-partner (now wife) and I were floored when marriage equality was finally recognized in California. We had never seriously discussed the idea of marriage as long as we were living in California — it just wasn’t an option; we thought we would have to wait until we moved back east (a plan still in the works but indefinitely on hold; it’s a long story) and settled in Massachusetts. But there it was — marriage — and so I dropped to one knee and asked her to marry me. She didn’t hesitate to say yes.

We probably would have waited a little longer than we did to get married, as planning even a small wedding (I soon learned) was a vast undertaking. (What did I know? The only reason I had never paid attention to what went into planning a wedding was that I never in my wildest dreams thought I would be allowed to experience that joy, too.) But the spectre of Proposition 8 was already hanging over our heads, and so, in August, our families — now one family — and friends gathered to witness us pledge our lifetime commitment to one another. No matter how much it sounds like a cliche, it really was the happiest day of my life.

My wife and I worked like dogs throughout the summer of 2008 to prevent Prop 8 from passing — save for the single week of our honeymoon, when, deliberately and gloriously, we cut ourselves off completely from communication with the outside world. We couldn’t have given ourselves a better wedding gift; while we grow every day in our love, our commitment, and our happiness with each other, that week was truly the last time we were simply happy, without a care in the world, because we had temporarily retreated from the war being waged on gay Californians.

If we thought things were tough before we left, it was only after we returned that we learned about the sudden rush of donations supporting Prop 8 — and only then did we even begin to perceive the massive weight of the Mormon church behind the crusade.

Throughout those horrible days and weeks, we did everything in our power to stop Prop 8, including making hefty monetary donations (which we really could not afford) to No On 8, and knocking ourselves out to help our readers (my wife and I both have relatively popular blogs) grasp what we were learning, as we learned it.

In doing so, we learned more about Mormonism than either of us had ever cared to know; up to that point, as far as we — a peace-loving, live-and-let-live atheist and atheist-leaning agnostic couple — were concerned, the Mormons believed what they believed, and did what they did, and as long as they didn’t bother us, we didn’t give them a second thought, and we were as cordial as we could be when saying, “No, thank you,” to the missionaries who kept insisting on ringing our doorbell. (My biggest annoyance about Mormons pre-Prop 8: the idea that a 19-year-old kid has the audacity to think he’s going to teach _me_ about God. These boys — for they are barely out of childhood — have no more business assuming the role of a religious “authority” at that age than they do of trying to write the next “War and Peace”; they have not yet lived anything even remotely resembling _life_.)

Now everything had changed. I had been aware, albeit peripherally, of the Mormon church’s involvement in defeating the Equal Rights Amendment, but I had had no idea that the church was, for all practical purposes, singlehandedly responsible for maintaining the second-class status of women in this country.

I had heard rumblings about the church’s involvement in the 1998 campaign to stop civil unions in Hawaii — now I was seeing the donor rolls for that campaign, reading strategy letters between Mormon leaders sent more than a decade ago, and finding long, detailed papers describing the Mormon battle plans, often written by Mormons themselves.

Meanwhile, I was no stranger to the cause of equality and other progressive issues, and the consequences of standing up for my rights. I was there for ERA rallies, and Take Back the Night marches, and more pride parades than I can count, in more cities than I can count, since the late 1970s. I wasn’t yet 20 years old when I led a boycott of a local restaurant openly hostile to lesbians. I was hassled, followed, and threatened with physical violence in the street just for looking gay (and for having a very pretty, feminine girlfriend who, many men stated outright, thought should belong to them). So, anti-gay animosity was nothing new to me. But this time, it was different; I had never before been the direct target of such powerful, well-funded, institutionalized hatred (yes, I’m sorry, but that’s what it is: hatred) like that fueling Prop 8.

Early on, along came came Nadine Hansen — who, I know now, was involved with Sonia Johnson and the ERA fight, but of whom I had never heard before she began documenting Mormon donations to Prop 8. A few ex-Mormons (all straight), appalled by the actions of their former church, found me, and filled in many blanks.

It all became clear: The Mormon church, its followers included, had insinuated itself into my life — and had been doing so, thanks to my own ignorance of their machinations — for far longer than I had ever imagined.

The Mormons had declared war on my family, and on my extended family of LGBT brothers and sisters. And they were lying about it, and about us.

Now, it was personal.

At some point, while poring over the tens of thousands of anti-gay donations to see who I knew*** — my wife and I were, of course, going to boycott every last anti-gay business in our area — I realized there was no single, easy-to-navigate resource that would help others identify (and if they liked, avoid) businesspeople who had donated to the California hate campaign. And so I began building a searchable database, first of Prop 8 donors, and then public records for donors to other anti-gay initiatives — Arizona, Florida, Maine… all the way back to Prop 22 in California, and “Save Marriage Hawaii” in 1998. My target audience is the LGBT community, and my purpose, and message to them, is simple: It’s up to you if you want to patronize businesses that use your money against you; for our part, we refuse to continue funding our own oppression.

I created Base8 (http://base8.lavenderliberal.com/) with the goal of identifying anti-gay donors more accurately than had ever been done before. I use only publicly-available information from the Internet, synthesizing many disparate bits of information into a single database entry that gives the reader a far clearer picture than a simple list of names and donation amounts. (That’s it in a nutshell; if you’d like the full explanation of Base8’s raison d’etre and my methodology, here is the FAQ: http://news.lavenderliberal.com/base8-faq/)

A lot of people — anti-gay donors, of course — don’t like what I do, or how I do it. I receive plenty of hate mail, some of which makes it to publication, and some of which I ignore. The bottom line is: What I’m doing is perfectly legal — and if a person doesn’t want to be associated with anti-gay bigotry and anti-gay activism, then the solution is simple: Stop donating to anti-gay campaigns.

There is no question that I get quite snarky in some of the entries, but I make no apologies. As I often write: These people have had their say, and now I’m having mine. It’s all I’ve got left. (We are outnumbered. Our votes do not count. And, stupidly, our side made the mistake of believing that the truth would outweigh the vile smear campaign of lie-riddled fearmongering. Our side was wrong. The only option we have left is to vote with our wallets, and try to starve the beast that is destroying our lives.)

It was (and is) also important to pick up where Nadine Hansen left off in identifying Mormon donors. Why? A number of reasons, all involving the lies that continue to be perpetuated by Mormons themselves — not the least of which are 1) the lie that the church itself never donated a dime to Prop 8, and 2) the fallacious strawman that Mormons only make up 2% of the population of California, and so cannot be held responsible for the passage of Prop 8.

And — I won’t lie — the more Mormon blogs I read (sometimes, that is the only sure way to identify a Mormon donor), the more important it became to me to expose the other lies individual Mormons were spreading, and continue to spread to this day — that their freedom of religion is threatened, that “gay marriage will be taught in schools” — all the garbage I’m sure you’ve heard a thousand times. (I thoroughly debunked the infamous, reportedly Mormon-issued, “Six Consequences” propaganda in August, 2008, in excruciating detail: http://news.lavenderliberal.com/2008/08/30/six-big-lies…)

What got to me — gets to me — is how, in regurgitating the talking points issued by LDS, Inc., there is a distinct, predictable pattern in the way these Mormons write, revealing undeniable hostility (born, I suppose, of “we’re going to the celestial kingdom and those filthy gays are going to hell” arrogance).

Worse, they’re absolutely joyous about hurting us. Oh, they don’t think they are — I’m sure most have convinced themselves they’re obeying some righteous, God-mandated mission to purge the world of us dangerous, evil homosexuals — but after reading literally thousands of pro-Prop 8 posts on “Mormon Mommy” blogs, nothing on earth could convince me that they do not thoroughly enjoy inflicting pain and damage on us, and then rubbing our noses in it.

I have been called many things in my life, and I have even taken physical abuse — but I have never been so cut to the bone by the sheer glee demonstrated by Mormon bloggers and Yes On 8 sign-wavers as they turned this crusade of hatred into a party atmosphere. They have made it clear this is _fun_ for them. (”Awesome!” is the most frequent word they use to describe their days of sign-waving. “It was so much fun!”)

I would rather be physically beaten than experience the mental and emotional anguish of knowing there are people who take such delight in my very real, very raw pain, which will not abate until the day I am recognized as a full citizen in this society (which I do not expect to see in my lifetime).

Right now, I’ll give you just one example, from this very morning.

Again, sometimes the only way to ascertain a Mormon donation is by reading the donor’s personal blog — and since I am absolutely pedantic about citing sources (you may have noticed Nadine Hansen being accused of not backing up her identifications of Mormons — and I certainly don’t want to be caught unable to “show my work”), I always include links to the sources of the information I am putting forth. If someone alerts me to a factual error, I will be quick to correct it — but so far, no one has alerted me to a single factual error in any of the many thousands of records in Base8.

Rather, I get hate mail or comments raking me over the coals for the very existence of Base8 itself, or — as I found this morning — for the most minor editorializing, such as calling a blog “aesthetically challenged.” I kid you not.

For that, and that alone, a lovely Mormon family called me “some freak of nature pro-gay person,” among other endearing epithets, and “anti-heterosexual,” as well as labeling my gayness a “sickness.”

And these people call themselves “Christians”? This is the modern Mormon church?

I hope you will read the exchange — it is not at all atypical of the mail and comments I receive from Mormons (both listed in Base8 and not) on a regular basis — I don’t even get so many nasty missives from Catholics (and you can be sure that I, as an ex-Catholic, feel free to criticize the Catholic church, often, and mercilessly):

http://www.lavenderliberal.com/cgi-bin/base8v2/linfo.cgi?id=5871

All this brings me to the reason I am writing you. (Again, I apologize for the length of this letter, but I felt it necessary to give you some context.)

I applaud what you’re trying to do, Carol Lynn. It’s admirable. It’s noble. And in a world before Prop 8, I would have been the perfect addition to your cause; I would have been writing a much shorter email to the effect of “Great idea! I’m all for finding common ground! Where do I sign up?”

That will never happen now. Now, I’m the sort of person you wouldn’t want within 50 miles of one of your meetings; nor would I want to be within 50 miles (which, come to think of it, is about how far I am from you).

I’m of no danger to anyone — I pride myself on my unwavering commitment to peaceful, nonviolent, legal action. But I am a different person than I was prior to Prop 8; if there is one thing I have learned, it is how naive I was, even at this stage of my life: With each new assault on my rights, my dignity, and my very humanity, my childlike desire to believe that there really couldn’t be anyone so hateful, so bigoted, so blind, or so willing to hurt strangers for their own gain (be it monetary or, as the Mormons believe, spiritual) shrinks by half. Today, my faith in humanity is dead, buried, and turned to dust. Yes, I blame the Mormon church, and its followers who carry out their anti-gay orders like mindless drones — and then scream bloody murder when somebody calls them on their most un-Christian actions and their mindboggling hypocrisy.

I also no longer believe that “reaching out” and “winning hearts and minds” — with Mormons or with anyone else who’s decided I am their inferior — is worth the time or trouble. As far as I can see, there are only two kinds of Mormons I could ever abide speaking with: ex-Mormons, and Mormons who were never bigots in the first place (many of whom were on the fence about the church anyway, and were pushed over the edge by Prop 8). As for the rest… Well, I wasted a lot of hours, a lot of words, and a lot of tears trying to communicate with Mormons determined to vote yes on 8, and my most sincere efforts didn’t change a thing. They believe they have the right to run — and ruin — my life, and force me to live as a Mormon, too. It seems that “free agency” applies only to Mormons.

There are some people who cannot be reached nor reasoned with, and I do not intend to waste any more of my life being patronized by smug, holier-than-thou believers, who can’t wait to post to their blogs the most despicable anti-gay screeds — yet say they “love” us while simultaneously plunging and twisting their knives in our chests. (Are they really as deeply in denial as they seem, or are they just “lying for the Lord”? I suppose it doesn’t matter, as the end result is the same.)

The “freaks of nature” comment I received this morning is only the latest in a long line of such remarks to confirm my solid belief that they know what they are doing, and they actually enjoy the power they hold over us, ruined lives be damned. The younger Mormons, especially, are so self-absorbed, they think no one else is watching, that the real world works like their narrow little existence of funeral potatoes and green Jell-O. As I’ve told more than a few: Enjoy that narrow little world, but when you step outside it, you’re in _my_ world — and if you think I’m not going to react to your unwelcome interference in my life, you’re in for a very rude awakening.

The solution, again, is simple: If you can’t take the consequences, from criticism to boycotts, then stay in your own world, and out of mine. But they refuse to hear that, or understand it. They are truly theocrats, determined to mold the rest of the world to their liking.

This mindset makes it easy to congratulate themselves on fulfilling the church’s latest edict and finding better favor with their god — but poke one of them, no matter how lightly, and they show their true colors. Seriously — attacking someone as a “freak of nature” for calling your blog “aesthetically challenged”? Isn’t that just a wee bit over the top? (Yes, it is — but it’s not unusual.)

How do I reason with people who live in such a sheltered, insular little fantasy world? Rhetorical question; the answer is: I don’t.

As Bishop John Shelby Spong wrote in his wonderful “Manifesto”:

“I will no longer engage the biblical ignorance that emanates from so many right-wing Christians about how the Bible condemns homosexuality, as if that point of view still has any credibility. I will no longer discuss with them or listen to them tell me how homosexuality is ‘an abomination to God,’ about how homosexuality is a ‘chosen lifestyle,’ or about how through prayer and ’spiritual counseling’ homosexual persons can be ‘cured.’ Those arguments are no longer worthy of my time or energy. I will no longer dignify by listening to the thoughts of those who advocate ‘reparative therapy,’ as if homosexual persons are somehow broken and need to be repaired. I will no longer talk to those who believe that the unity of the church can or should be achieved by rejecting the presence of, or at least at the expense of, gay and lesbian people. I will no longer take the time to refute the unlearned and undocumentable claims of certain world religious leaders who call homosexuality ‘deviant.’ I will no longer listen to that pious sentimentality that certain Christian leaders continue to employ, which suggests some version of that strange and overtly dishonest phrase that ‘we love the sinner but hate the sin.’ That statement is, I have concluded, nothing more than a self-serving lie designed to cover the fact that these people hate homosexual persons and fear homosexuality itself, but somehow know that hatred is incompatible with the Christ they claim to profess, so they adopt this face-saving and absolutely false statement.”

Bishop Spong speaks for me. (And if more Christians were possessed of the the moral clarity of Bishop Spong, I might be spending tomorrow in church, rather than researching the next thousand records for Base8).

I’ll stop here long enough to apologize for anything I’ve written which might be hurtful to you, as (I understand) you are still a believing Mormon. I don’t say these things to hurt you personally, nor dismiss what you are trying to do. I admire your efforts, and your optimism, but I don’t believe it will result in changing any hearts or minds — and the bottom line for me is the question: Will this person learn from his past actions and commit to never again harming me — or will he patronize me with empty words of “love” while continuing to press my neck under the heel of his boot?

As you might guess, I take a rather dim view of what Equality California is doing right now, too — canvassing anti-gay strongholds with the goal of “changing hearts and minds.” That’s all fine and good in and of itself — but if they think they’re going to change enough minds to support a ballot repeal of Prop 8, well, frankly, they’re nuts. Too, I don’t want to see Prop 8 overturned by initiative, partly because the losing side will keep going back to the ballot every two years, but mostly because civil rights should never be put to a vote. (I hope the current Olsen-Boies suit results in overturning 8 once and for all, and, ideally, has a ripple effect throughout the nation, even though my hopes are very small indeed — nearly nonexistent.)

Making nice never won anybody any rights, and it’s not working for gay people. The only thing that talks is money, or the lack of it; the Montgomery Bus Boycott teaches us that.

In the end, I’ve stopped caring if my self-sworn enemies “understand” me or not, or “approve” of me or not (to paraphrase Francis Maude, disapproving of homosexuality is as pointless as disapproving of rain); my value is not based on what others think or want — especially those so arrogant, they’ve convinced themselves they’ve cornered the market on morality and eternal happiness, and that I will burn in hell forever.

And as far as understanding Mormons, there’s plenty I have yet to learn about Mormonism, but I “understand” all I need to know about the rank-and-file Mormon mindset that makes common ground impossible. You show me a Mormon who was gung-ho for Prop 8 — donations, sign-waving, phonebanking and all — and then made a complete one-eighty and committed him- or herself to fighting for gay equality for the rest of his or her life, and I’ll change my tune. I would probably die of shock if you could produce that Mormon, just as I would die of shock if you could produce a real-life unicorn wearing the certified Shroud of Turin and carrying the Holy Grail while emerging from the genuine remnants of Noah’s Ark.

Seriously, I wanted to say something more positive to you, Carol Lynn, because I know of your work, and have great respect for you.

And I wish I could I could contribute in a positive way to your Mormon-gay meetings, but as we both know by now, I’m the last person you’d want involved.

Still, I hope this letter gives you some food for thought — even though, considering your ground rules regarding talk of Prop 8, I doubt any of what I have written here would be suitable for your discussions. On the other hand, you want open communication between Mormons and gay people, and that is what I have given you — only outside the boundaries of your “roundtables.”

I realize you may ultimately dismiss me as just another angry, bitter lesbian (well, of course I’m angry and bitter — who wouldn’t be?), but, somehow, I don’t think you will.

I wish you all the best of success with your Mormon-gay meetings, and with what tiny, dying, ragged shred of hope there is left in me, I wish your meetings would effect real change — the kind of change that would dismantle the anti-gay Mormon monolith and make equality a reality rather than an evil to be feared — and prove me dead wrong about everything.

I really do.

If you’ve made it this far, you deserve a medal. All I can offer is my sincere thanks for listening.

Very truly,

J—
LavenderLiberal.com

*** I did, by the way, find a few anti-gay donors I knew personally, or had had the misfortune of coming into contact with. The biggest (local) thorn in my side was (and continues to be) Ron Packard, perpetual city council member, to whom I directed some pointed words about the suicide of Stuart Matis some years ago. Packard doesn’t care; he continues, as he has since Prop 22, to cough up tens of thousands of dollars to ensure that gay people never have equal rights. (Here is what I said at a city council meeting in 2006: http://news.lavenderliberal.com/2006/02/25/…). And he continues to spread damaging misinformation, most recently on television (detailed here: http://news.lavenderliberal.com/2009/05/24/…).

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: California, Civil Rights, Hate Speech, Homophobia, LDS/Mormons, Marriage, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right


For My Fellow Freaks of Nature

Little bitty feelers hurt ’cause somebody said your blog is ugly?

Goodness knows, that’s far, far worse than destroying the lives of strangers!

Somebody call the wahhhhhmbulance!

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: California, Civil Rights, Homophobia, LDS/Mormons, Marriage, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right


February 28, 2010

Did You Hear the One About the Deep-Pocketed Fundy-Christian Anti-Gay Who…

I can’t come up with a headline to do this justice. I had to stop to blog something I just discovered: a $50,000 donation to one of Gary Bauer’s anti-gay PACs. Base8 entry says it all:

Czech, Jeffery Joseph (Jeffery J. Czech & Associates)
14111 Freeway Dr #400
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Phone: (562) 802-2159 / (714) 522-5553
Fax: (562) 802-1142
www.jeffczech.com
office@jeffczech.com

Oh, the irony! The supreme hypocrisy! The scumbagginess! He plops fifty grand down to defend the world against loving, monogamous gay couples — and he’s Octomom Nadya Suleman’s lawyer!

We couldn’t say it any better than Topix commenter “ICanHasSkankblin gie“:

Toxomom has received nothing but well-deserved national vilification for her repulsive attempt to turn the circumstances of her disgusting little experiment into “opportunities” to support her in a lifetime of easy living.

I guess the only Plan B she’s got left is to reveal the name of the spermdonor. A man who should certainly be responsible for the kids he agreed to procreate, if not for the ones he had not agreed to.

And what about making the sociopath of a doctor who was instrumental in this monstrously unconscionable act?

And finally what about Jeff Czech? A supposed advocate for the children who gets a percentage of every dollar they make. And a Christian Fundamentalist Marriage supporter who makes his buck off the backs of in-vitro fatherless babies by the dozen plus.

The Pride of Orange County, that one.

Who is going to haul his inept whatever into some legal organization that oversees the lack of ethics so shoddily dealt?

(Actually, he’s out of San Diego County, but “ICanHas” is right about everything else.)

AMERICANS UNITED TO PRESERVE MARRIAGE (ANTI-GAY)
Jeffrey Czech
Self
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
08/25/2008 - $50,000.00

Another boneheaded thing Czech did: He got up in Gloria Allred’s face.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Christianity, Civil Rights, Homophobia, Marriage, Radical Religious Right


January 11, 2010

Today’s the Day

Ted Olson to Make Opening Statement in Prop. 8 Trial

Trial on Unconstitutionality of Prop. 8 Begins in U.S. District Court; Plaintiffs To Testify First

SAN FRANCISCO — January 11, 2010 — The federal trial over the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 will begin Monday, January 11 with an opening statement by attorney Theodore Olson, who with David Boies is leading the legal team assembled by the American Foundation for Equal Rights to litigate the case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Opening statements will be followed by testimony from Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, who comprise two couples who wish to be married but who were denied marriage licenses because of Proposition 8.

Available info: please contact press@equalrightsfoundation.org

NOTE: POLICE OR COURTHOUSE CREDENTIALED MEDIA ONLY

• For courthouse access information, visit: https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/

• For information about remote viewing locations, visit: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/news/watch-prop-8-trial-live/

• Visit http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org for updates regarding potential broadcast of trial, photos, any available footage, court filings, live tweets from the courthouse and more.

• Plaintiff’s case is outlined at http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/plaintiffs-trial-brief/

Olson and Boies notably represented George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore respectively in the 2000 Supreme Court case that decided the presidency.

At trial, Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, will weigh witness testimony, a multitude of documents and other evidence, and arguments presented by some of the nation’s most distinguished attorneys.

“This unequal treatment of gays and lesbians denies them the basic liberties and equal protection under the law that are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” the plaintiffs’ suit states.

According to the suit, Prop. 8:

• Violates the Due Process Clause by impinging on fundamental liberties.

• Violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, thereby creating a category of “second-class citizens.”

• Discriminates on the basis of gender.

• Discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

Olson and Boies will also point out the “crazy quilt” of separate, unequal and unconstitutional classifications of people that Prop. 8 has compelled the California government to create:

• Opposite-sex couples who have full marriage rights

• Same-sex couples who have no marriage rights

• Same-sex couples married between May and Nov. 2008 whose current marriages are recognized, but who will be unable to remarry if widowed or divorced

• Same-sex couples married in other states who may petition California for recognition.

The defendants have the burden of demonstrating that Prop. 8 is narrowly drawn to serve a compelling government interest. Olson and Boies will demonstrate at trial, however, that the initiative fails to advance even a single legitimate interest. Tellingly, when asked by Chief Judge Walker at an Oct. 14 hearing to identify any harm to opposite-sex marriage that would result from marriage equality, the defendants’ attorney answered “I don’t know.”

The case against Prop. 8 has proceeded with uncommon speed toward trial. In an order issued after the first hearing in the case, Chief Judge Walker stated: “Given that serious questions are raised in these proceedings … the court is inclined to proceed directly and expeditiously to the merits of plaintiffs’ claims. … The just, speedy and inexpensive determination of these issues would appear to call for proceeding promptly to trial.”

“More than 30 years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized that marriage is one of the basic rights of man,” the suit states, referring to the Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia.

Chad Griffin, board president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, noted that near the time when the Supreme Court struck down interracial marriage bans with its 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision, a Gallup poll found that 73 percent of Americans did not approve of interracial marriage.

While Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown were named defendants in their official capacities, along with other state and county officials, Prop. 8 is being defended in court by a prominent conservative organization, the Alliance Defense Fund. Gov. Schwarzenegger earlier filed a brief that did not dispute the unconstitutionality of Prop. 8, and called for swift action by the courts. Attorney General Brown, the state’s chief law enforcement officer, filed a brief agreeing with the plaintiffs’ position that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional.

The ACLU, Lambda Legal, and National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) are participating in the case as amici (friends of the court) in support of the plaintiffs. The City and County of San Francisco, led by City Attorney Dennis Herrera and Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart, are supporting the plaintiffs’ team as co-counsel, with a specific focus on the negative impact Prop. 8 has on government services and budgets. Herrera and Stewart led the legal battle toward the California Supreme Court decision that struck down California’s previous same-sex marriage ban.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights Advisory Board, which was announced January 9th, includes Julian Bond, Lt. Dan Choi, Margaret Hoover, Dolores Huerta, Cleve Jones, Stuart Milk, David Mixner, Hillary Rosen and Judy Shepard. For more information, see http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/press-releases/american-foundation-for-equal-rights-names-advisory-board/.

Olson is a former U.S. Solicitor General and is widely regarded as one of the nation’s preeminent constitutional lawyers, and has argued 55 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. Boies ranks as one of the leading trial lawyers of his generation, having secured landmark victories for clients in numerous areas of the law. This is the first time they have served alongside each other as co-counsel.

Kris Perry and Sandy Stier have been together for nine years and are the parents of four boys. Perry is Executive Director of First 5 California, a state agency that promotes education and health for children under five. She holds a BA from the University of California, Santa Cruz and an MSW from San Francisco State University. Stier is Information Technology Director for the Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services Agency. She is originally from Iowa and is a graduate of the University of Iowa. Perry and Stier first tried to marry in 2004, after the City of San Francisco began issuing licenses. They live in Berkeley, CA.

Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo have been together for eight years. Katami is a fitness expert and business owner who graduated from Santa Clara University before receiving his graduate degree from UCLA. Zarrillo is the General Manager of a theater exhibition company. A native of New Jersey, Zarrillo graduated from Montclair State University. Having wanted to marry each other for more than two years, they considered options including traveling to other states for a “civil union,” but felt any alternative fell short of marriage. They live in Burbank, CA.

They have issued the following joint statement: “We and our relationships should be treated equally under the law. Our goal is to advance the cause of equality for all Americans, which is the promise that makes this nation so great.”

Source: American Foundation for Equal Rights

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Alliance Defense Fund, California, Civil Rights, Events, Marriage, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Press Releases, Proposition 8


January 7, 2010

New Jersey: 20 Bigots, 4 Cowards, and 2 MIAs Kill Equality

Another day, another defeat. So what else is new?

Same-sex marriage defeated in New Jersey

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Civil Rights, Homophobia, Marriage, New Jersey


November 17, 2009

Stupid Callous Homophobic Hateful Legislation

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: California, Civil Rights, Homophobia, Humor, LDS/Mormons, Marriage, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right, Republican Sexcapades


October 15, 2009

Red-Hot Bigot List: Stand for Marriage Maine Yes On 1 Donor Filings

UPDATE: All the Maine donors (including those from outside Maine) have been imported into Base8. While we are researching each record as you read this, these records are mostly raw data and unsorted — but they are now searchable (and much easier to read).

Go to Base8

Filed October 13, 2009

Notes:

• The data that follows is taken from the Maine Commission on Government Ethics & Election Practices (PDF file), and sorted for easy reading.

• Yes, there are Proposition 8 donors here; I’ve been working with the raw data for so long, I recognize a number of names without needing to cross-check.

• Yes, these records will be added to Base8.

• Of greatest interest will be the cash donations, but the expenditures reveal some interesting information as well. I’m not going to include expenditures (or in-kind contributions) in this post, but I encourage you to browse through the Maine.gov records.

While no one can fault a pizza parlor or a bagel shop for doing business with the Stand for Marriage Maine bigots, the expenditures list includes a number of businesses that (we can only surmise) knew exactly what sort of bigots they were accommodating, such as hotel catering services, designers and printers of banners and other anti-gay materials, those who made in-kind contributions, etc. We would never patronize any establishment that made money at our expense, by accepting business from professional homophobes.

When you get to the entries for “MAR/COM. SERVICES, INC.,” you’ll want to read this short article at the San Francisco Appeal: “San Francisco Company Making $600K To Fight Against Gay Couples.”

• No, I’m not really blogging again. This information is simply too important not to share.

And now, on to the haters and hate-enablers:

Read more »»»

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Civil Rights, Maine, Marriage


September 10, 2009

Q. What’s Worse Than Cheating on Your Wife With Two Other Women?

Take your pick:

A1. Bragging that you’re cheating on your wife with two other women, then saying it was all “just talk,” dragging one of your so-called conquests through the mud along with you; or:

A2. Listening to one of your cohorts, who’s on the Committee on Utilities and Commerce, brag about cheating on his wife with two other women, one of of whom is a utilities lobbyist, and and not reporting the conversation, especially when both of you are on the Assembly Ethics Committee.

Read more »»»

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: California, Civil Rights, Corruption, Homophobia, Marriage, Privacy, Radical Religious Right, Republican Sexcapades, Republicans


Brian Brown’s Very Bad Week

By Fred Karger, Californians Against Hate

Poor Brian Brown. It has not been a good week for him and his Mormon front group, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

With two more states (Maine and Iowa) considering investigations of his organization for improper reporting of campaign contributions and money laundering, plus the on-going ten month investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC Case #08-735), Brian went on the offensive on Friday and sent out the email below to all his supporters and the media.

Read more »»»

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: California, Catholicism, Civil Rights, Corruption, Focus on the Family/James Dobson, Guest Articles, Homophobia, Iowa, LDS/Mormons, Maine, Marriage, National Organization for Marriage/Maggie Gallagher, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right


September 9, 2009

Courage Campaign Calls on Attorney General to Investigate Assemblyman Michael Duvall

LOS ANGELES — September 9, 2009 — After California Assemblyman Michael Duvall (R-Orange County) was caught making obscene boasts about sex with married lobbyists on a live microphone in committee meeting, the 700,000-member Courage Campaign called on Attorney General Jerry Brown to investigate.

Read more »»»

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: California, Civil Rights, Corruption, Homophobia, Marriage, Press Releases, Proposition 8, Republican Sexcapades, Republicans


 

 
 

 

Bad Behavior has blocked 401 access attempts in the last 7 days.