If you’re not outraged, we’re not doing our job.
HOME •
BASE8 •
BABYLON •
VIDEOS •
RSS •
TWITTER •
GOOGLE READER
Video & more after the jump.
In short: McMackin described Notre Dame’s chant before last year’s Hawaii Bowl as a “faggot dance”:
Read more »»»
Tweet This Post! 
So, let me get this straight:
A bare plurality of bigots votes to strip their fellow Californians of a fundamental civil right, and there’s nothing our Democratic-controlled legislature can do about it, because it’s “the will of the people.”
But when an overwhelming majority of Californians (up to 66.4%) vote down every lame attempt to shift the burden of bringing our state economy back from the brink of death, suddenly that Democratic-controlled legislature is compelled to override “the will of the people.”
Oh, the irony. Oh, the cowardice.
Read more »»»
Tweet This Post!
Gay Albertans vow to keep up the fight
against Bill 44As Bill 44 passed early Tuesday morning, Alberta became the last province to formally recognize gay rights and the first to recognize the controversial idea of parental rights.
“Tomorrow the sun will rise, teachers will conduct their classes, and all will be right with the world,” claimed Alberta Progressive Conservative Culture and Community Spirit Minister Lindsay Blackett. Many in Alberta disagree.
Blackett spoke at 1:30am Tuesday morning at the third reading of Bill 44, which formally adds sexual orientation to Alberta’s Human Rights Act at the cost of also enshrining “parental rights.” Section 9 of Bill 44 will allow parents to remove their children from class when lessons on religion, sex or sexual orientation are being taught.
In reaction to Bill 44, David Swann, leader of the official opposition said that when it comes to democracy, he is “profoundly disappointed with Alberta today.”
The day leading up to the vote was dubbed the “Day of Protest Against Bill 44″ by Edmonton’s queer community, who were out in visible force throughout the day. …
During the press conference [police commissioner Murray Billet] noted that this all started 11 years ago with the Vriend vs Alberta Supreme Court ruling when “a teacher was fired for being gay.” Now, the province is “making it so a teacher can be fired for teaching gay,” he says. …
Before the vote even happened Alberta NDP leader Brian Mason vowed “the battle to repeal Bill 44 starts tomorrow.” Later Swann suggested calling for a referendum on parental rights.
More at the link.
Tweet This Post!
Among the 24 bills Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski signed into law a couple of days ago:
HB 2509: Directs school districts to provide age-appropriate sex education courses in all public elementary and secondary schools as part of health education curriculum. Requires that sex education instruction be medically accurate. Mandates that schools promote abstinence, for school-age youth, and mutually monogamous relationships with an uninfected partner, for adults, as the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and the transmission of STDs. Requires that the course include a discussion of the characteristics of the emotional, physical and psychological aspects of a healthy relationship and the benefits of delaying pregnancy beyond the adolescent years. Requires that students be provided statistics-based and up-to-date medical information regarding the efficacy of all methods of sexual protection in preventing HIV and other STDs. Directs schools to provide students with information about Oregon laws that address young people’s rights and responsibilities related to childbearing and parenting. Establishes applicability to the 2009-2010 school year. Declares an emergency, effective July 1, 2009.
Tweet This Post!
Headline says all. Just read today’s press release from the Proposition H8 gang (who swore passing Prop 8 would eliminate “teaching gay marriage in schools”!), and you’ll see what I mean:
God, these people are despicable.
Tweet This Post!
Tweet This Post!
Brilliant, hilarious, deeply touching… Pure Ellen:
Tweet This Post!
Sarah Arnold was in a bind.On the surface, the students in her 11th-grade English courses seemed to have their act together. Like so many people their age, Arnold’s students saw open homophobia as uncool.
On the other hand, when Arnold listened to her students talking before the bell, she often heard an anti-gay undertone that disturbed her. Students might utter the phrase “that’s so gay,” or crack jokes about anything that defied gender stereotypes. And Arnold had to wonder why so few gay people in Elkhorn, Wis. were out of the closet. …
Arnold took on the problem directly in “Exposing Hidden Homophobia,” a 37-day unit in which her students examined electronic media, short fiction and finally a novel of their choice to find the covert and overt ways our culture sends demoralizing messages to gay people.
She got them started slowly. …
More at Teaching Tolerance.
Tweet This Post!
From the Daily Princetonian, which includes a lively, fun video of imitation NOMbies* wearing Robert George masks and dancing about with umbrellas to protect themselves from the [imagine ominous thuderclap here] “Gathering Storm“:
Read more »»»
Tweet This Post!
Straight from the double-headed demon that lied its way to stripping us of our fundamental constitutional right to marry (which they even admit was our fundamental constitutional right), this is a long must-read. Here are just a few salient points our failed “leaders” (and, we hope, a new generation of more successful leadership) must heed:
Passing Prop 8 . . .
Schubert Flint Public Affairs signed onto the Yes on Prop 8 campaign right before the first of what would eventually total 18,000 gay weddings took place after the California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. We immediately faced our first important strategic challenge: How to respond to the marriages? We decided to withhold criticism of the same-sex couples who were getting married (after all, they were simply taking advantage of the rights the Court had granted them)…
Over the next three months, sympathetic news articles and television reports appeared daily across the state. Traditional marriage supporters were routinely portrayed as right-wingers holding onto outdated, bigoted ideas. …
We needed to convince voters that gay marriage was not simply “live and let live”—that there would be consequences if gay marriage were to be permanently legalized. … We made one of the key strategic decisions in the campaign, to apply the principles of running a “No” campaign—raising doubts and pointing to potential problems—in seeking a “Yes” vote. As far as we know, this strategic approach has never before been used by a Yes campaign. …
We probed long and hard in countless focus groups and surveys to explore reactions to a variety of consequences our issue experts identifed. The California Supreme Court ruling put gay couples in a protected legal class on the basis of sexual orientation, and then found that gay couples had a fundamental constitutional right to marriage. This decision signifcantly changed the legal landscape. …
We settled on three broad areas where this conflict of rights was most likely to occur: in the area of religious freedom, in the area of individual freedom of expression, and in how this new “fundamental right” would be inculcated in young children through the public schools. …
Our ability to organize a massive volunteer effort through religious denominations gave us a huge advantage…
We built a campaign volunteer structure around both time-honored campaign grassroots tactics of organizing in churches, with a ground-up structure of church captains, precinct captains, zip code supervisors and area directors; and the latest Internet and web-based grassroots tools. …
We held the campaign’s first statewide precinct walk the weekend of Aug. 16. … This intense commitment to distributing materials throughout the state was the result of another key strategic decision. Supporting traditional marriage is not considered to be “politically correct.” We wanted voters who supported our position to know that they were not alone and so we made sure they saw our signs in their neighborhoods and our campaign materials at their church. And if they were part of an ethnic minority, all these were in their native language.
The final phase of the volunteer campaign, GOTV, was really a month-long operation. California allows early voting, starting 29 days ahead of Election Day. From Day 1 of this period, we tracked voters who either appeared on the permanent absentee voter list, or had applied for a vote-by-mail ballot. Those who were identified as persuadable received additional volunteer and direct mail contacts. Definite Yes on 8 voters were reminded to return their ballots as early as possible. The effort paid off…
By this time, leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had endorsed Prop 8 and joined the campaign executive committee. Even though the LDS were the last major denomination to join the campaign, their members were immensely helpful in early fundraising, providing much-needed contributions while we were busy organizing Catholic and Evangelical fundraising efforts.
Ultimately, we raised $22 million from July through September with upwards of 40 percent coming from members of the LDS Church. … Our initial television ad began airing on Sept. 29, a week after the other side began its campaign ads… We knew that this initial ad needed to be a home run—and boy was it!
Our campaign’s general counsel had alerted us to a press conference San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom held following the Supreme Court’s marriage decision in May. Like Howard Dean once did, Newsom got increasingly excited the longer he addressed the crowd until, with a smirk on his face and his arms fully extended, he exclaimed, “This door’s wide open now. It’s gonna happen—whether you like it or not.” …
We then segued into potential consequences by featuring a prominent law school professor warning about implications for religious freedom and freedom of expression, and letting voters know that as a result of the court’s decision, gay marriage would be taught in the public schools. The “Whether You Like It or Not” television ad immediately solidified (and excited) our base and captured the attention of voters across the state. We invested heavily in airing this television ad and a companion radio spot. …
The gay community sounded the alarm… This emergency cry for contributions was incredibly effective. Whereas they had raised $15 million in the previous nine months, they raised another $25 million in the ensuing seven weeks of the campaign. But their failure to respond to the “consequences” messages (especially the education message) in a timely fashion ultimately led to their downfall. After blanketing the state with “Whether You Like It or Not,” we focused our message on education. …
The response to our ads from the No on 8 campaign was slow and ineffectual. They enlisted their allies in the education system to claim that we were lying. They held press conferences with education leaders to dismiss our claims. They got newspaper editorial boards to condemn the ads as false. What they never did do, because they couldn’t do, was contest the accuracy of what had happened in Massachusetts.
Finally, three weeks after the Yes on 8 campaign had introduced education as a message, the No on 8 campaign responded with what would be their best ad of the campaign. It featured State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell claiming that Prop 8 had nothing to do with education and that our use of children in our ads was “shameful.” This in-your-face response, much delayed but very effective, foretold the final period of the campaign—it would be largely about education. …
Our strategy had anticipated that the No on 8 campaign would label as “shameful lies” any claim that gay marriage had anything to do with schools, so we went to great lengths to document our ads. … But then we got the break of the election. 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.
Now we not only had an example of something that had happened in California (as opposed to might happen), we had video footage to prove it. Within 24 hours of the No side airing their best ad, the one featuring O’Connell claiming that Prop 8 had nothing to do with schools, we were on statewide TV showing bewildered six-year-olds at a lesbian wedding courtesy of their local public school.
There were multiple skirmishes in the press over the education issue during the final days of the campaign. The other side claimed the wedding episode wasn’t really as we described it, while we defended the ad as accurate…
It wasn’t as these liemongers described it. Read our post from October, “Yes on Proposition 8: First Lies, Then Blackmail, Now Child Exploitation.”
After several days of dueling ads featuring Jack O’Connell and kids at the lesbian wedding, the No side effectively conceded they had lost the education debate. They pulled the O’Connell ad and went in a new direction in the final few days—attempting to equate a Yes vote with racial discrimination. …We decided to not respond to this line of attack, confident that it would backfire. The basic message that supporters of traditional marriage are bigots, guilty of discrimination, had never worked in focus groups. …
As the campaign headed into the final days, we launched a “Google surge.” We spent more than a half-million dollars to place ads on every single website that had advertising controlled by Google. Whenever anyone in California went online, they saw one of our ads in the final two days of the election. …
Try to ignore Schubert and Flint’s typically nasty smugness as you read the rest — but do read the rest.
Tweet This Post!
…it’s hard to keep the nasty, Schadenfreude-y smirks off our faces:
Layoffs Begin At Oral Roberts University Dozens of employees at Oral Roberts University started receiving word today that they will be laid off. …
Last November the school said it would lay off about 100 employees — or about 10 percent of its work force. …
The layoffs come days after ORU completed a separation agreement with former President Richard Roberts that will pay Roberts $447,200.
Roberts stepped down in late 2007 amid allegations he misspent school funds to live in luxury.
Hear tell this new round of layoffs will wipe out another 6% of ORU’s remaining workforce.
A tad more at the link.
Related:
Oral Roberts Battles the Devil for ORU, October 26, 2007
File Under News That Made Us Happy Today: Oral Roberts University to Lay Off 100 Employees, November 28, 2008
Tweet This Post!
With Ken Starr, Richard Peterson, Doug Kmiec, et al., as the poster boys of the anti-gay movement, we’re supposed to swallow this crock of baloney? Puh-leeeze.
Well, at least as it appears a few less-than-raging-conservative Pepperdinians are starting to wake up to their school’s long history of raging conservatism. Too bad Pepperdine’s spokesmodel appears to be paddling furiously up that ol’ river called Denial:
Pepperdine Campus Again in
Prop. 8 Controversy SpotlightUniversity Reiterates Its Neutrality on Gay Marriage
There haven’t been any open demonstrations on campus, but some Pepperdine University alumni are criticizing their alma mater for appearing to be in the forefront of the defense of Proposition 8 and the attempt to abrogate the same sex marriages that preceded passage of the measure outlawing these unions.
Jerry Derloshon, the university’s director of public relations … said Pepperdine is neutral on both the highly controversial proposition and the issue of the validity of existing same sex unions.
He said the school’s response is “similar to what it was in the brouhaha over Professor Richard Peterson” during the Proposition 8 political campaign.
Peterson, a Pepperdine faculty member who was the broadcast face and voice for the measure — with his school affiliation texted at the bottom of the screen or included in the voiceover — is credited with giving the measure gravitas among undecided voters. …
Kenneth Starr, the dean of the Pepperdine Law School has recently been brought on board by the Proposition 8 forces as the lead attorney to take the three legal challenges to the measure and the efforts to void previous same sex unions, to the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, if required. …
Starr is operating under the aegis of ProtectMarraige.com — the Proposition 8 campaign committee — and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund, which both repeatedly state the proponents’ position “that the will of the voters and Proposition 8 will be upheld.”
Andrew Pugno, Protect-Marriage and P8LDF general counsel, said on the groups’ Web site that “the addition of Dean Starr to this legal conversation will provide useful guidance for the Court in resolving these important issues.” …
Derloshon stressed that Starr is acting in an “individual capacity, exercising his free speech rights,” and added that the university “is an advocate of a free exchange of ideas” and “honors Starr’s free speech rights.”
However, some legal scholars and free speech advocates question Starr’s tolerance of the free speech rights of others because of his role in the so-called “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” Alaskan school banner case when he successfully argued for allowing limits on students’ free speech rights — the first meaningful court restriction of student rights in decades. …
An unsubstantiated number of critics are sending out emails that urge a “Pepperdine protest” and state, “If you’re currently donating to Pepperdine, stop until they stop this madness [and] don’t let your kids go to Pepperdine.”
An accompanying flyer states, “Pepperdine used to be a school we could be proud of. Now they’re leading the fight for hate, not acceptance and diversity.” …
Derloshon acknowledges that some alumni have contacted the school to say they would not be donating to Pepperdine, but he indicated that many of them had not been donors before.
Derloshon said Pepperdine has gay students and encourages open discussion of gay issues, noting that groups such as Soulforce have been to the campus and met with students, faculty and staff. He said, “We welcome discussion in an open environment, but it has to include all points of view.”
And there they go again, framing anti-gay bigotry as a “point of view.” Sounds like Derloshon would say the belief that African-Americans shouldn’t be allowed to marry white people — and a concerted effort to re-enact anti-miscegenation laws — is just another “point of view,” too.
More at the link.
Related:
No on Proposition 8 Campaign Demands Misleading Ads Be Taken off the Air
October 15, 2008
Jim Brosnahan Rips Proposition 8 Liar Richard Peterson A New One
October 20, 2008
Richard Peterson, the Face of Proposition 8 Lies, PWNS Himself
October 23, 2008
Some Good News for Free Speech: Bong Hits 4 Jesus Dude Wins $45K
November 24, 2008
Yes, They’re Going to Try to Nullify Our Marriages, and Yes, Soulless Vessel of Evil Kenneth Starr is Their Lead Counsel
December 19, 2008
Also:
A scholar against abortion but for Obama
Boston.com, August 30, 2008
Pepperdine works to reinvigorate church ties
Christian Chronicle, September 8, 2008
Obama-McClurkin Redux: He Throws Us Under the Bus AGAIN.
Lavender Newswire, September 19, 2008
Tweet This Post!
WASHINGTON, D.C. — January 7, 2009 — A public school in Arkansas violated the U.S. Constitution by arranging construction of a special meeting room for a Christian student group, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
School officials at Fountain Lake High School in Hot Springs, Ark., refer to the room, built for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, as the “FCA room.” The space was constructed as an addition to the school’s football complex; it contains a plaque that displays a cross and the words “Fellowship of Christian Athletes Meets Here!”
According to an article in the Hot Springs Village Voice, the addition was paid for with private funds, but school officials came up with the idea and were candid about the room’s religious purpose.
Assistant Coach Andi Kinsinger told the newspaper, “Fellowship of Christian Athletes has impacted many people for over 50 years through the influence of athletes and coaches, and we want to share those experiences with the students at Fountain Lake.
“This new building will make a statement and hopefully change the lives of many for His Glory,” Kinsinger continued. “FCA camp is where I came to know Christ; it provides a lot of opportunity for all.”
In a letter sent today to the school’s superintendent and principal, Americans United demanded that the school remove the FCA plaque, ensure that the room is shared equally by all student groups and refrain from referring to the room as the “FCA room.”
“This is a public school, not a Sunday school,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “Public schools must welcome children of all faiths and none.
“The school’s actions are patently unconstitutional,” he continued. “It is wrong for school officials to meddle in religious matters.”
Americans United’s letter was drafted by AU Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan, Senior Litigation Counsel Alex J. Luchenitser and Staff Attorney Ian Smith.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
Tweet This Post!
The role of religion in the presidential campaign tops the 2008 “Top Ten” list of top church-state stories, according to the editors of Church & State.
The monthly magazine, published by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is the nation’s only news periodical devoted exclusively to the intersection of religion and government.
Said Church & State publisher Barry W. Lynn, “It was a wild and crazy year. To tell you the truth, I’m glad it’s coming to a close. I’m hopeful 2009 will be a lot better.”
After studying the past 12 months of news, the editors selected the following 10 stories as the most important and most interesting church-state developments for the year.
1. The Role of Religion in the Presidential Campaign: Not since 1960 when John F. Kennedy the first Roman Catholic president was elected, has religion played such a large role in a presidential campaign. News media representatives grilled candidates on what sins they had committed and what their favorite Bible verses were. Barack Obama fought false rumors that he is secretly a Muslim, and Mitt Romney’s Mormonism became a controversial topic. Candidates were held accountable for the incendiary comments of their pastors and their clergy supporters, such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and TV preacher John Hagee. Many observers thought the whole thing was an unholy mess, especially in a nation that separates religion and government.
2. The Resurgence of the Religious Right: While pundits and progressives have proclaimed the demise of the Religious Right, the fundamentalist political movement remained extraordinarily powerful. Republican John McCain found it necessary to name evangelical Sarah Palin as his running mate to mollify the GOP’s restive religious base, and Religious Right forces rammed through bans on same-sex marriage in California, Florida and Arizona. Moderate evangelical Richard Cizik was forced out as government affairs representative at the National Association of Evangelicals after coming under fire from Religious Right forces.
3. The Battle Over Gay Marriage: Bans on same-sex marriage were approved in California, Florida and Arizona with conservative religious forces leading the drive. California’s approval of Proposition 8, with massive funding from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was particularly contentious. The Mormons, joined by the Roman Catholic hierarchy and evangelical Protestant congregations, were successful in passing a constitutional amendment that takes away the right of same-sex couples to marry and reflects church doctrine in civil law. The issue now moves back to the state Supreme Court.
4. The Ascendancy of Rick Warren: Once known primarily as a mega-church pastor and best-selling author (The Purpose Driven Life), the Rev. Rick Warren has rapidly moved into position as the nation’s most prominent preacher, despite right-wing views on reproductive freedom, gay rights and church-state separation. Warren, a Southern Baptist who heads Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., is viewed by progressives as Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt with an ace PR team. After hosting a presidential debate stacked toward John McCain and being asked to give the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration, many think Warren seems destined to be the new Billy Graham.
5. Religious Right Influence at Justice Department: Religious Right influence at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was exposed this year. According to an internal DOJ investigation reported in the media in July, senior aides in the department used religious and political criteria to hire staff members for non-political positions. Monica Goodling, a top adviser to the attorney general, checked to see if job applicants were “pro-God in public life” and held right-wing views on abortion, homosexuality and other issues. (Goodling is a graduate of TV preacher Pat Robertson’s Regent University.) DOJ also posted a legally dubious memorandum this year insisting that the federal government may give grants to “faith-based” social service agencies that discriminate in hiring, even if Congress has explicitly banned such bias.
6. Battles Over Creationism in Public Schools: New battles have erupted over the teaching of evolution in public schools. Blocked by the courts from teaching fundamentalist religious concepts directly in biology classes, Religious Right forces are trying a backdoor strategy. They are demanding that schools teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, a euphemism for creationist ideas. Over the heated objections of educators, scientists and civil liberties activists, the Louisiana legislature approved an “academic freedom” law encouraging such instruction in the state’s schools. Now the Texas State Board of Education is debating a similar proposal as part of its 10-year review of science standards.
7. Church Politicking Plot: The Religious Right’s dream of building a fundamentalist church-based political machine took a big step forward in 2008 when more than 30 pastors used their pulpits to endorse Republican political candidates. They acted at the behest of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a wealthy Religious Right legal outfit that wants to challenge the federal tax law ban on partisan politicking by tax-exempt groups. The ADF, which was founded by TV preachers and other religious broadcasters, hopes the Internal Revenue Service will revoke participating churches’ tax exemptions leading to a court showdown.
8. Defeat of Jeb Bush Referenda: Florida Gov. Jeb Bush saw his school voucher subsidies for religious and other private schools overturned by the state Supreme Court in 2006. Undeterred, the now former governor’s allies on an obscure tax commission engineered two measures onto the November 2008 ballot that would have repealed the state constitution’s ban on public funding of religion as well as diluted its provision for a strong system of public schools. To Bush’s dismay, the state Supreme Court on Sept. 3 struck the referenda from the ballot, derailing the scheme.
9. Blocking of ‘Christian’ License Plate: The South Carolina legislature unanimously approved a special “Christian” license plate featuring a bright yellow cross, a stained-glass church window and the words “I Believe.” Backed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, four local clergy and two minority faith groups challenged the government favoritism toward one faith. On Dec. 11, a federal district court blocked issuance of the plates. The judge’s action may forestall similar sectarian plates under consideration in other states.
10. The Christmas Wars: It has become an annual holiday tradition Religious Right groups and their allies in the right-wing media launch a yearly crusade to stop the alleged secularization of Christmas and to pressure government to include Christian symbols in the holiday mix. They rail against stores’ use of the term “Happy Holidays” and insist that advertisements say “Merry Christmas” instead. This year, much of the attention focused on a Washington State battle where an atheist Winter Solstice sign was positioned near a Christian Nativity scene in the state capital. Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly and an array of Religious Right scolds lambasted Gov. Christine Gregoire for allowing the anti-religious sentiment. Ironically, credit for the atheist display actually should go to the Alliance Defense Fund, a Religious Right legal group that sued Gregoire last year, insisting that the Capitol is an open forum where a Nativity scene (and all other forms of speech) must be allowed.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom. Americans Unitied for Separation of Church and State Links: Homepage; Americans United (Press Center); Americans United (Action Center)
Tweet This Post!
Good question. The Aggie Insurgency (”Aggie,” FYI, is the nickname for any sports team, or team member, or, I’d guess, sports fan, at Texas A&M University) illustrates something I’ve been thinking about for some time: that the best exposés of anti-equality bigots are done by the bigots’ own homies. (I know that after our Prop 8 database is launched, in alpha, and I go to work on filling in details, I’ll naturally be drawn first to the bigots in my own backyard — such as my hometown’s ex-mayor, whom I took on directly at a city council meeting, who could not be swayed to acknowledge a Gay Pride Day requested by my old high school… despite being reminded that institutionalized homophobia led to the well-known and bloody suicide of Stuart Matis right on the steps of the ex-mayor’s own Mormon temple. But I digress, as usual.)
Aggies Do Not Lie, Cheat nor Steal, but Breaking Up Other Aggies’ Marriages is Apparently an Honorable Endeavor: Prop. 8’s Long and Intrusive Reach to Texas A&M, Part 1 Jeffery Puryear and Clair Nixon form the Aggie archetype. Both earned degrees from Texas A&M and both returned to their alma mater to contribute to its academic mission. Each is devoted to his family, work, and church, owns his own house and pays taxes—conforming in every way to the image that Texas A&M markets regarding the solid citizenship and family devotion practiced by Aggies worldwide. …
Although breaking up another Aggie’s marriage is definitely not an activity encouraged by the Aggie Code of Honor, it’s precisely what Puryear and Nixon—and arguably many conservative Aggies—would like to do with regard to these two one-time classmates and dedicated Texas A&M employees.
Is Homewrecking a New Aggie Tradition?
Jeffery Puryear (B.S. ’78) will earn slightly more than twenty thousand dollars this year as a part-time laboratory associate for the University’s Department of Ecosystem Science and Management. … Despite [financial hardships], Puryear recently scraped together a one thousand dollar donation to Yes on 8, a political action committee opposed to gay marriage in California.
Clair Nixon (M.S. ’77, Ph.D. ’80), a professor of accounting in the Mays Business School, stands on the other side of Texas A&M’s salary structure. However, he also faces his share of financial challenges. As a temple recommend-holding member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Nixon tithes ten percent of both his annual $157,137 salary and any ancillary income he earns through private consulting. A devout Mormon who has served as bishop of a local “ward” (congregation), Nixon takes seriously the Old Testament admonition to multiply and replenish the earth. He and his wife Laura have ten children.
Yet, when Mormon “prophet, seer, and revelator,” Thomas S. Monson, issued a mobilization order against the California Supreme Court’s legalization of gay marriage last spring, Dr. Nixon managed to find three thousand dollars to fund the same PAC that successfully urged 52% of Californians to deny gay marriage rights in the Nov. 4 election. …
The New Texas Philanthropy: Keep Gay Californians from Marrying
Altogether, conservative Texans donated $1.35 million to keep marriage in California between “one man and one woman,” included Mormon Alan Stock, owner of some 350 Cinemark theaters.* The Plano-based movie magnate gave $10,000 to Yes on 8, despite the fact that his cinemas are currently profiting from showing Milk, in which Sean Penn plays gay rights hero Harvey Milk, San Francisco’s legendary city supervisor and “Mayor of Castro Street,” who became America’s first openly gay elected official in the 1970s. …
More at the link, and worth the read — with Part 2 to come: “Two gay Aggies recount the joy of their California wedding and their disappointment at the passage of Proposition 8.”
* More on Alan Stock and Cinemark:
SF MovieBears: Boycott Century, CinéArts, Tinseltown Theater Chains
November 13, 2008
No “Milk” For Cinemark: “If You Have A Choice, Go Somewhere Else”
November 17, 2008
Meet Cinemark’s Token Auntie Tom, Bob Shimmin
November 23, 2008
Tweet This Post!
There are so many things I could say about Obama lately — like “I told you so (again),” or “Meet the New Boss, Same As the Old Boss,” or a simple “It’s gonna be a long four years”… I’m too spoiled for choice to decide. So I’ll just let Greg Palast update you on Obama’s latest head-shaker of an appointment:
Obama Slam-Duncans Education Hey, you Liberal Democrats. You may have won the election, but you’re getting CREAMED in the transition.
Today, President-elect Barack Obama stuck it to you. He’s chosen Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education.
Who? Duncan is most decidedly not an educator. He’s a lawyer. But Duncan has this extraordinary qualification: He’s Obama’s pick-up basketball buddy from Hyde Park.
I can’t make this up.
Not that Duncan hasn’t mucked about in the educational system. Chicago Boss Richie Daley put this guy in charge of the horror show called Chicago Public Schools where Duncan turned a bad system into a REALLY bad system.
And Obama knows it. Indeed, although he plays roundball with Duncan (who was captain of the Harvard basketball team), State Senator Obama was one of the only local Chicago officials who refused to send his kids to Duncan’s public schools. (The Obamas sent Sasha and Malia to the Laboratory School, where Duncan’s methods are derided as dangerously ludicrous.)
So, if The One won’t trust his kids to Duncan, why is he handing Duncan ours?
The answer: Duncan is supported by a coterie of teacher-union hating Republicans. The vocal cheerleader for the Duncan appointment was David Brooks, the New York Times columnist; the REPUBLICAN columnist.
Hey, didn’t those guys LOSE?
The problem with Duncan is not party affiliation. The problem is education philosophy. And Duncan is a Bush baby through and through, a card-carrying supporter of the program best called, “No Child’s Behind Left.” …
Here’s how Duncan operates this Bush program in Chicago at Collins High in the Lawndale ghetto. …
Do read on.
Honestly, I don’t get any sort of satisfaction out of being so right about someone I wanted to be so wrong about.
On the other hand, having taken the dimmest view of Obama since before it became fashionable (which was, um, maybe 18 hours ago) to recognize his many deep flaws, at least I’m not falling all over myself with shock and dismay over anything Obama does now. I just mentioned this to my wife: that even my reaction to the whole Rick Warren business is one big shrug.
It’s easy not to be shocked, dismayed, or even the least bit disappointed in someone you never believed in to begin with.
It’s just a shame Obama keeps living down to my worst expectations, again and again and again.
Tweet This Post!
ARIZONA — December 2, 2008 — The Arizona Supreme Court should strike down two voucher programs that direct tax dollars into religious and other private schools, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed Dec. 1, Americans United urged the justices to hold that the voucher plans violate explicit provisions of the state constitution that bar public funding of private education. For example, Article IX, Section 10, states that “no tax shall be laid or appropriation of public money in aid of any … private or sectarian school.”
Observed the AU brief, “No-aid provisions likes this one exist in many state constitutions as a supplement to basic church-state protections, and voucher schemes like the two at issue here contradict their plain meaning. … In addition to the obvious financial benefit they provide to sectarian private schools (in the form of publicly funded tuition payments), the voucher provisions aid the religious missions of these schools and of the religious groups that operate them.”
Americans United noted that opposition to taxation in support of religion has a long constitutional history.
“Thomas Jefferson emphatically wrote” the brief asserted, “that one of the principal cornerstones of our republic is a ‘wall of separation between Church and State’. … The tenet of church-state separation with the longest and deepest historical pedigree is the prohibition on the expenditure of taxes to support religion in general or religious training in particular.”
Americans United also urged the justices to be wary of claims that voucher programs benefit students. The brief cited an array of studies indicating that voucher plans do not improve student academic performance.
The Arizona Court of Appeals has already ruled in the Cain v. Horne case that the programs violate the state constitution.
A hearing at the state’s high court is scheduled for December 9.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
Tweet This Post!
Via an email list I’m on, and it looks perfectly legit to me; I have email addresses to contact for questions, which I’m not going to broadcast here (or give away even on request), in an effort to protect the student and her thesis sponsor from spam and hate mail. I’m going to respond myself as soon as I make this post:
Hello, I am writing to ask you to participate in my survey about the the meaning of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples around the world. This survey is part of my senior thesis at Purchase College, State University of New York.The survey takes about ten minutes to complete, and all responses are entirely anonymous. If you are willing to participate, just follow the link below and answer the questions to the best of your ability.
Tweet This Post!
From StudentsForEquality.com:
NATIONWIDE STUDENT PROTEST
FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITYATTENTION ALL STUDENTS!
Let’s stir it up a bit by having all the students walk out of class for a NATIONWIDE protest for equality similar to the ones on 11/15/2008!
This year we saw extremely high turnouts at the polls by young voters. You guys are politically involved, you want to be heard, and you can definitely make a difference in the world!
Regardless of whether you are straight or gay. Regardless of whether you are black, white, latino, asian, or any other race/nationality. Regardless of your religion or your political status. We ask you to stand up and DEMAND equal rights for all American citizens. On Wednesday, December 3rd we strongly suggest that all students throughout the United States walk out of class at 9 am in your own time zone. This will create a ripple effect across the country! When you leave, please leave a note on your desk or chair that says, “SCHOOL TAUGHT ME NOT TO DISCRIMINATE. SAY NO TO H8. SAY YES TO EQUALITY”.
We’ll leave it up to the students at each school to figure out what they want to do while they are out of class, but we encourage you all to meet up as a group somewhere nearby and protest for equal rights for everyone. Coordinate through facebook, myspace, text messages, and word of mouth.
Since we don’t know the location and geographics of every school, we are asking students to spread the word around their campus and collectively make a plan for meeting at a specific place near by to protest as a group. …
More info, including Facebook & MySpace links, printable PDF fliers, and more, at the link.
I must say, I can’t wipe the smile off my face at the idea of a good, old-fashioned student walkout. I am so proud of our youth for taking the reins like this, I don’t know what to say. Except I’m really touched, and encouraged, and oh so very proud.
(And… suddenly, I feel the urge to watch Rock ‘N’ Roll High School again.)
Tweet This Post!
2008 Men on a Mission Calendar |
2009 Men on a Mission Calendar |
Remember Chad Hardy? Here’s a quick re-cap from Chad’s own Web site:
Chad Hardy made headlines around the world with his thought-provoking Men on a Mission Calendar in late 2007. …Having come from a sixth-generation Mormon family, lived in Utah for 8 years, and served a 2-year religious mission himself, Hardy has an in-depth understanding of the LDS church and its devotees. Hardy set out on a mission to “open shirts, open minds” by showcasing individuality within one of the most conservative religions as a medium to build bridges that separate humanity based on religious and cultural intolerance.
Hardy’s bold move not only cost him his place in the Mormon Church, but it has now cost him his BA degree in Communications Studies at Mormon-owned Brigham Young University.
Hardy’s excommunication from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was an attempt to silence him because of his project. And now the continued blow with his revoked degree has given him more reason and conviction to encourage people of every belief system to take a stand for what they believe in to let their own voice be heard and live with the powerful consequences without fear.
Hardy believes that change does not happen until the status quo is challenged. With your help, others will follow to shine the light of accountability on the intolerance and abuse that exists within our country in the name of God.
The part about the “revoked degree”? Yep: Brigham Young University is refusing to give Chad his diploma after he fulfilled all course requirements and graduated from BYU this past August.
Does BYU have the right to do this? Yep.
Should the accreditation of religious schools be stripped over incidents like this? We think so — seeing as how an accredited degree is worth plenty in the secular world.
But Chad’s not asking for that — all he wants is his degree.
You can Google Hardy for the AP story we won’t link to — or you can go to Hardy’s site and read the email and snail-mail exchanges to and from Hardy’s stake president, Hardy, and BYU — which are much more enlightening.
Tweet This Post!
Americans United for Separation of Church and State:
Dear President-Elect Obama,Congratulations on your recent victory. You are assuming the leadership of our nation at a challenging time, and we are sure there are many people and organizations competing for your attention.
As you prepare to assume office, we would like you to consider the importance of separation of church and state. This principle, enshrined in our First Amendment, is the platform upon which our religious liberty rests. We believe it is vitally important that it not be eroded.
We hope you will show leadership in supporting the separation of church and state. There are several key issues your administration may confront in the coming years. These include:
• ‘Faith-based’ funding of religion: we find it alarming that our nation seems to be moving away from the idea that religion is best supported by individual contributions made voluntarily. Instead, “faith-based” initiatives to fund churches and other ministries with taxpayer dollars are increasingly common. We urge you to oppose such measures.
• Voucher subsidies for religious schools: A federally funded voucher program is currently subsidizing religious and other private schools in the District of Columbia. Voucher programs have been proposed for other states and cities, as well. We urge you to oppose government subsidies for religious education and focus on improving our public schools.
• The composition of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court wields enormous influence over how the First Amendment is interpreted and applied. If you are faced with vacancies on the high court, we hope you will take into account any potential nominee’s views on church-state separation and the role it plays in defending our liberties.
• Church electioneering: Currently, federal tax law prohibits houses of worship and other tax-exempt groups from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. Polls show overwhelming support for this concept. Yet proposals have been introduced in Congress to alter the regulation or do away with it altogether. We urge you to use the power of your “bully pulpit” to oppose such misguided legislation.
These are just some of the church-state issues you might face. We hope you will use your time in office to unite Americans on the need to support the separation of church and state.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
The Staff and Membership of Americans United
Tweet This Post!
Maybe if they stopped practicing discrimination far and wide…
November 10, 2008, press release from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX TO PAY $1,875,000 FOR RELIGIOUS BIAS AGAINST NON-MORMONS EEOC Settles Suit on Behalf of Class of Enrollment Counselors in Online Division
PHOENIX — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that Federal District Court Judge Mary H. Murguia has entered a consent decree for nearly $2 million and significant remedial relief to resolve a class religious discrimination lawsuit against the University of Phoenix, Inc., and its parent corporation, Apollo Group, Inc.
Apollo Group and the University of Phoenix are one of the largest employers in the Phoenix metropolitan area. In its lawsuit, filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (EEOC v. University of Phoenix, Inc., and Apollo Group, Inc., CV 06-2303-PHX-ROS), the EEOC charged that the University of Phoenix engaged in a widespread practice of discriminating against non-Mormon employees who worked as enrollment counselors in the University’s Online Division. Enrollment counselors at the University of Phoenix are responsible for recruiting students and are largely evaluated based on the number of students they recruit. At present, the University of Phoenix has over 2,000 employees working in online enrollment.
Robert Lein, who filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC that resulted in the lawsuit, said, “I am very pleased with the outcome of this case and I thank the EEOC staff for their work. I am happy to hear that the University of Phoenix is making significant changes to its environment to prevent what happened to me and many of my colleagues from happening again in the future.”
Testimony of witnesses in the case revealed that managers in the Online Enrollment Department at the University of Phoenix discriminated against non-Mormon employees, and favored Mormon employees, in several ways, including: (1) providing the Mormon employees better leads on potential students; (2) disciplining non-Mormon employees for conduct for which Mormon employees were not disciplined; (3) promoting lesser-qualified or unqualified Mormon enrollment counselors to management positions while repeatedly denying such promotions to non-Mormon enrollment counselors; and (4) denying tuition waivers to non-Mormon employees for failing to meet registration goals, while granting the waivers to Mormon employees.
“We are pleased that University of Phoenix is going to stop condoning such favoritism toward Mormon employees and the resultant discrimination against non-Mormon employees,” said EEOC Phoenix Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill. “It is the EEOC’s belief that, for many years, the University of Phoenix condoned an environment in which Mormon managers felt free to engage in favoritism toward their Mormon employees, and did so by providing the Mormon employees things such as strong leads on potential students. Given that evaluations are based largely on recruitment numbers, this disproportionate assignment of leads affected a whole host of matters for employees, including compensation, access to tuition waivers, and ability to be promoted.”
The consent decree entered into by the EEOC, the University of Phoenix, and Apollo Group provides monetary relief of $1,875,000 for 52 individuals. The amount of relief provided to any individual is based on the nature of the discrimination he or she experienced. The consent decree also contains several strong provisions designed to stop further religious discrimination and prevent it from recurring, including:
• Dissemination of a Zero Tolerance Policy to all employees in the University of Phoenix Online Enrollment Department, stating that the company has zero tolerance for religious discrimination and that any violation of the policy will result in termination;
• Training for managers and non-managers on the issue of religious discrimination;
• Creating a system to include in managers’ evaluations an assessment of their compliance with equal employment opportunity laws; and
• Hiring a Diversity Officer, and the staff necessary, at the University of Phoenix to monitor compliance with the terms of the consent decree.
EEOC’s Phoenix District Director Chester Bailey said, “We hope this settlement sends a message to all employers to be vigilant in ensuring a fair and equitable work environment for all employees regardless of their religion. The relief the EEOC obtained will require this large employer to change discriminatory business practices that already have affected potentially hundreds of non-Mormon employees at the University of Phoenix Online.”
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at http://www.eeoc.gov.
Tweet This Post!
It’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission — and the outcome of the next thirty or forty years I have left to live far outweighs my curremt worries about what constitutes Fair Use and what doesn’t — so I’m reprinting this in full, and hoping the Los Angeles Times will forgive me, just this once.
No on Proposition 8 Debunking the myths used to promote
the ban on same-sex marriageClever magicians practice the art of misdirection — distracting the eyes of the audience to something attention-grabbing but irrelevant so that no one notices what the magician is really doing. Look over at that fuchsia scarf, up this sleeve, at anything besides the actual trick.
The campaign promoting Proposition 8, which proposes to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, has masterfully misdirected its audience, California voters. Look at the first-graders in San Francisco, attending their lesbian teacher’s wedding! Look at Catholic Charities, halting its adoption services in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal! Look at the church that lost its tax exemption over gay marriage! Look at anything except what Proposition 8 is actually about: a group of people who are trying to impose on the state their belief that homosexuality is immoral and that gays and lesbians are not entitled to be treated equally under the law.
That truth would never sell in tolerant, live-and-let-live California, and so it has been hidden behind a series of misleading half-truths. Once the sleight of hand is revealed, though, the campaign’s illusions fall away.
Take the story of Catholic Charities. The service arm of the Roman Catholic Church closed its adoption program in Massachusetts not because of the state’s gay marriage law but because of a gay anti-discrimination law passed many years earlier. In fact, the charity had voluntarily placed older foster children in gay and lesbian households — among those most willing to take hard-to-place children — until the church hierarchy was alerted and demanded that adoptions conform to the church’s religious teaching, which was in conflict with state law. The Proposition 8 campaign, funded in large part by Mormons who were urged to do so by their church, does not mention that the Mormon church’s adoption arm in Massachusetts is still operating, even though it does not place children in gay and lesbian households.
How can this be? It’s a matter of public accountability, not infringement on religion. Catholic Charities acted as a state contractor, receiving state and federal money to find homes for special-needs children who were wards of the state, and it faced the loss of public funding if it did not comply with the anti-discrimination law. In contrast, LDS (for Latter-day Saints) Family Services runs a private adoption service without public funding. Its work, and its ability to follow its religious teachings, have not been altered.
That San Francisco field trip? The children who attended the wedding had their parents’ signed permission, as law requires. A year ago, with the same permission, they could have traveled to their teacher’s domestic-partnership ceremony. Proposition 8 does not change the rules about what children are exposed to in school. The state Education Code does not allow schools to teach comprehensive sex education — which includes instruction about marriage — to children whose parents object.
Another “Yes on 8″ canard is that the continuation of same-sex marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings — of any religion — could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.
The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it’s not public. The ruling does not affect churches’ religious tax exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn’t about a wedding ceremony.
Much has been made about same-sex marriage changing the traditional definition of marriage. But marriage has evolved for thousands of years, from polygamous structures in which brides were so much chattel to today’s idealized love matches. In seeking to add a sentence to California’s Constitution that says, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized,” Proposition 8 supporters seek to enforce adherence to their own religious or personal definition. The traditional makeup of families has changed too, in ways that many religious people find immoral. Single parents raise their children; couples divorce and blend families. Yet same-sex marriage is the only departure from tradition that has been targeted for constitutional eradication.
Religions and their believers are free to define marriage as they please; they are free to consider homosexuality a sin. But they are not free to impose their definitions of morality on the state. Proposition 8 proponents know this, which is why they have misdirected the debate with highly colored illusions about homosexuals trying to take away the rights of religious Californians. Since May, when the state Supreme Court overturned a proposed ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, more than 16,000 devoted gay and lesbian couples have celebrated the creation of stable, loving households, of equal legal stature with other households. Their happiness in no way diminishes the rights or happiness of others.
Californians must cast a clear eye on Proposition 8’s real intentions. It seeks to change the state Constitution in a rare and terrible way, to impose a single moral belief on everyone and to deprive a targeted group of people of civil rights that are now guaranteed. This is something that no Californian, of any religious belief, should accept. Vote no to the bigotry of Proposition 8.
Tweet This Post!
California voters should reject Proposition 8 When voters are given the opportunity to take away another citizen’s constitutional rights, aren’t we all at risk? Why should the government be empowered to interfere in the privacy of someone’s relationship?
Let’s look at a few more of the arguments those urging support for Prop 8 are making.
1. “We must protect traditional marriage” – with all due respect, traditional marriage is in a lot more trouble than a few gays and lesbians getting married threatens. More than one in three heterosexual marriages in this country end in divorce. The leader of the Republican Party is on his second marriage – and we know about that messy divorce! So which traditional marriage needs protecting? Someone’s first? Their second? Their third? It makes no sense to conclude that same sex couple seeking the commitment that the institution of marriage offers, could possibly do any worse with it than heterosexuals have done.
2. “It’s against my religion to support same sex marriage” – Your church doesn’t have to perform any marriage ceremonies for same sex couples. The law allows all religions to continue to have their own rules. But legal marriage is not a religious marriage. It is essentially a license by the state that has nothing to do with religion. Same sex couples are happy to get married in the courthouse and not the church – though there are clearly some religious denominations that welcome the chance to celebrate such unions.
3. “I don’t want my kids to hear about same sex marriage schools” – Nothing in the Constitution provides for education in the schools about same sex couples. Local school boards would still make education curriculum decisions and schools would still be able to have any curriculum they choose. Even the fact that many children of gays and lesbian couples are already in school doesn’t change the need for much of the education about ALL relationships to remain the responsibility of parents.
4. “Why do you need the word Marriage?” – Unfortunately that is the word that defines in both state and federal law all of the benefits and legal responsibilities that a legal union require. “Separate but equal” is a failed concept of justice in this country. We tried it with race only to determine that integration served the nation’s goals much better. . It is impossible to confer access and equality with a new category of relationships. And based on constitutional reasoning, we shouldn’t have to try to change each and every separate law when the whole point of a constitution is to afford sweeping protection for all of its citizens under all laws.
It seems odd that this issue should even be on the ballot for a vote Tuesday. After all, how many of us would really want our relationships put up for a vote? It is hard enough to get the approval of your family and friends of the person you want to marry, imagine if you had to get the approval of 15 or so million voters in your state.
In the midst of this most important Presidential election, the nation will also be watching California Tuesday to see whether reason and compassion prevails and Proposition 8 is defeated.
Tweet This Post!
Back to the Ramparts in California Some audiences for the upcoming film “Milk,” about the slain San Francisco supervisor and gay politician Harvey Milk, will certainly be inspired by his fight against Proposition 6, a 1978 California ballot measure that would have expelled gay teachers from the state’s public schools. Others less entranced with Mr. Milk’s politics will, no doubt, be less impressed.
But, in California, both types of moviegoers will probably feel a sense of eerie familiarity. The state is embroiled in a fight over another numbered ballot measure aimed at gays that will be put to voters on Tuesday: Proposition 8, which would bar same-sex marriage.
In many ways, the battle sparked by this latest proposal echoes the one that inspired Mr. Milk’s most famous crusade.
“It’s surreal,” said Cleve Jones, a veteran civil rights activist who is portrayed by a curly headed Emilie Hirsch in the film. “It’s like there’s a 30-year cycle.”
Call it life imitating “Milk,” or vice versa, but the parallels between the campaign chronicled in the movie and the real-life battle over Proposition 8 are striking. Social conservatives pitted against gay activists? Check. A Republican governor (and former movie star) siding with gay Californians? Check. Close polls, a nationally watched campaign, the potential for heartbreak?
Check, check, check.
One of the most obvious similarities is the role that children have played in both campaigns as political symbols.
In 1978, supporters of Proposition 6 suggested that gay people might aim to “convert” and molest children. Recent advertisements for Proposition 8 have asserted that gay marriage will be taught in schools to young children. …
Opponents of the ballot measure deny the school claim. But it isn’t accidental. …
Proposition 6 was hatched in California just days after the singer and anti-gay activist Anita Bryant successfully led an effort to overturn an antidiscrimination law in Miami in 1977. (At the film’s premiere in San Francisco last Tuesday, the crowd hissed when Ms. Bryant appeared on screen.)
The 2008 battle has also been influenced by forces beyond California’s borders, with both sides receiving major financial support from groups based outside of the state.
Many analysts say the critical factor in defeating Proposition 6 was Ronald Reagan, then the former governor, who said it would be costly to implement and infringed “on the basic rights of privacy.”
This time around, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, another Hollywood Republican, has come out against Proposition 8. …
Perhaps the biggest difference today is the lack of charismatic front men like Mr. Milk…
Such figures are harder to find in this generation of gay leaders, said Scott Schmidt, who is 33, gay, opposed to Proposition 8 — and a Republican. “There are no Harvey Milks,” he said, “in this campaign.”
Regardless of the outcome tomorrow, are you willing to let Harvey’s legacy die?
I’m not. To silence me, they’ll have to kill me, too.
Related:
Flashback: The Briggs Initiative (with a Nod to George Santayana)
October 29, 2008
Videos, Print Coverage of “Milk” Premiere, 10/28/08
October 30, 2008
Video: What Would Reagan Do? New Republicans Against 8 Ad
October 31, 2008
Tweet This Post!
Bad Behavior has blocked 1436 access attempts in the last 7 days.
