Obama says that he asked Warren to speak in an effort to include differing views in his administration. But could you imagine if the President-elect had asked an anti-Semite, or a preacher that was in favor of segregation, to speak at his inauguration? There would be outrage in America. Today, that outrage is being felt in the LGBT community. It is one thing to invite people of differing views to the White House for a meeting, but it is completely different to invite them to open the inaugural ceremonies. Hatred and bigotry should not be celebrated in America and will not be tolerated from this new administration.
The “Turn Your Back on Rick Warren” campaign was created by Chris Mason, an activist and founder of Driving Equality, a three-month trek through all of the lower 48 states to advance LGBT Equality. Chris was incredibly excited to learn that he would be receiving tickets to attend President-elect Obama’s inauguration. He felt a sense of pride in his country and in his future president that, as a gay American, he was not accustomed to feeling.
“I was thrilled at the chance to witness the inauguration of my new President,” Mason explains. “I volunteered for Obama’s campaign, donated the most money I could afford on my student budget, wore an Obama button everyday for months before the election, and made sure everyone I knew at school and in my neighborhood got out to vote on Election Day. I convinced my skeptical friends that Obama would be a true friend to the LGBT community. When I heard that he chose Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, I got a lump in my throat. I recognized that name. Rick Warren is a staunch opponent of equal rights for LGBT people. He was a leader in the fight to strip gays and lesbians of their right to marry in California.”
“I had second thoughts about going to the inauguration,” Mason said. “I no longer feel welcome at the event. It is hard to believe that such a strong opponent of equality will be speaking at what was supposed to be such a joyous occasion. A lot of my friends that were going to travel down to D.C., have decided not to go.”
“I decided that I would still go to the inauguration, but that I would turn my back on Rick Warren while he speaks. This is a simple gesture that makes a strong statement; I am not a second-class citizen and I will not allow anyone to tell me otherwise. I believe that a young Barack Obama would have done the same thing if he were at a ceremony and a speaker who favored segregation took the stage.”
Thank you, once again, for all your hard work.
Heck, an improvement on the booing that I was thinking would occur. I hope this idea spreads.
<
p>Heck, given that Warren will almost definitely deliver a sectarian prayer that effectively closes out the millions of non-Christians from “our” president’s Inauguration, the whole idea of an expressly Christian invocation is offensive to start with.
The guy is going to be making a prayer, on behalf of Obama’s presidency, and if you don’t stand there and listen respectfully, you’ll really squander the sympathy and support needed for all sorts of important LGBT issues. Do you like being hated and called selfish and narcissistic?
It may not be disruptive, but it is disrespectful. He’s just going to offer a prayer and exit stage right. Don’t even start with the but-he-disrespects-us routine. We’re bigger than that I hope, and I believe Obama wants us to be bigger than that and follow his example. I doubt very highly that Warren’s prayer will be, “God, send down your fire and brimstone on the homosexuals in this country and help them see the error of their ways.” So stay home instead if you insist. I have always believed that Inauguration Day should be a protest-free day where everyone comes together to celebrate a 200-year tradition of peacefully transfering power. One day in every four years to follow the mantra, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all,” shouldn’t be too much to ask. This isn’t about 1st Amendment rights either as I’m not asking for what I just said to be legally enforced, just a suggestion.
… all that can be said is that he will have reaped what he has sown. This country is based on elections. That means this country is based on political expression. If actions invite expression, so be it. Accountability doesn’t end after the ballots are counted. Expressions of disapproval are entirely proper. This is perfect in it’s non-disruption. Disparaging the act rings (and will ring afterward) hollow because it is literally criticizing political expression that isn’t even disruptive in any way. Let the landscape of ideas define the conflict. He has expressed his, now let others express theirs.
<
p>I can’t criticize the method as it embodies accountability and political expression in the most direct yet non-disruptive manner possible. I hope that the dialogue about the event after the fact will cover the ideas that were in conflict and not merely focus on the method as ‘disrespectful’. It really is about civil rights IMO and almost any arena is appropriate as long as civil rights are trampled on.
that others in the LGBT community have suggested ringing bells or letting balloons go when Warren speaks. I think turning our backs is much less disruptive. Also, we are not allowed to bring signs into the inauguration, that wouldn’t work either.
They can’t possibly be confiscating those. Couldn’t you all just play a chime sound on your cell phones? Or would that not be nearly loud enough?
humming would work just as well, and would be 100% non-threatening. i suggest humming “jesus loves me”.
Very appropriate!
While I don’t agree with Rev. Warren’s opinion on GLBT issues, I don’t think there is anything to be gained in a)embarrassing the new president b)showing the country that Democrats are anti-religion (because that will be the message) and c)not in keeping with the kind of politics and vision that the president-elect ran on. Maybe, just maybe, this is the first step in healing the divide? But I can guarantee if people turn their backs during a prayer…the divide will grown even wider and deeper. So – your choice. Personally, I don’t think there’s much to be gained in the long run; the short run provides a cheap shot at Rev. Warren and a slap at Obama.
plenty to be gained. We are NOT going to be walked all over. Our rights are as important as the rights of African Americans or Jews or any other group in this country. No anti-semite would be acceptable, no racist either… why should a homophobe? Taking this standing down would show we’d be taking a timid President on DADT, DOMA or ENDA standing down. After what happened with Prop 8, the GLBT community ain’t taking nothing standing down. Never again.
and lose the war? Ryan, I truly do understand where you’re coming from. But staging something like this during the inauguration is likely not be in the long-term, best interests of GLBT concerns. The inauguration is the observance and commemoration of a peaceful transition of power; it’s what sets us apart from many nations.
<
p>I understand the anger though; I’d be angry myself. I can’t quite fathom myself why the President-elect chose Pastor Warren, unless it’s an olive branch of sorts.
<
p>My concern with the “back-turning” is that it will spoil the inauguration; it will clearly piss off the Obama administration, who will be in power for the next four years; it will confirm in the minds of 48% of America that the Democrats have no respect for religion; and there is no real long-term gain.
<
p>I never did think the President-elect was all that great on GLBT issues; his history isn’t exactly a shining beacon of strength. After all, this is a guy who didn’t want to have his picture taken with the mayor of SFO over gay marriage. A picture! So getting pissed off over this is kind of like being pissed off that Bill Clinton was a womanizer. We knew exactly what we were getting with him too.
<
p>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
<
p>
what isn’t peaceful at turning our backs on Rick Warren? It would be offensive and against many GLBT’s nature to actually stand there and do nothing. I can’t think of a more polite way to make the point than turning our back on him. If Obama finds that offensive and wants to punish the 30 million ish glbt Americans, then that shows very poor on his character, not our’s. If he is who we thought we voted for, then he’ll be okay with us showing our mind and take our actions and anger seriously.
<
p>An olive branch? Sometimes people don’t deserve olive branches – not to freaking presidential inaugurations. If he wanted to talk to Warren, fine. If he wanted to work on environmental issues, whatever. But to the inauguration? Why isn’t he sending David Dukes an olive branch? Or Osama bin Laden? We could be ‘reaching out’ to those haters, too.
<
p>
<
p>No. Clinton’s bedtime habits had nothing to do with my civil rights. Obama claims to want fully equal rights and I’m going to hold him to it; that’s what he told us, that’s what we thought we were “getting with him.” Anything less and the GLBT community will quite rightly scream bloody murder. That’s how Democracy works; that’s how you get things. Being timid and “polite” has gotten the GLBT community no where – and it didn’t get any other minority that struggled for civil rights anywhere, either. Fighting back is how we get “justice for all.” I suggest you get used to it — and join in.
anyone to be timid and polite. My only suggestion is that there are 364 other days in the year in which to hold protests. The day of the inauguration, to my mind, is not the time or the place to do this. Why diminish this guy in the eyes of the world on day one? Especially if you want to ever work with this guy again in the next four years.
<
p>And while we’re at it…”get used to it?” Get used to what? After decades of service to this party – what do you think I haven’t done yet? I’ve walked picket lines with the best of them, Rye. I’ve done the bullhorn shout as we walked up Beacon Street. I’ve also been in the trenches fighting for services and entitlements for people with mental retardation nearly all my adult life (talk about a disenfranchised population)…I know what it is to have a slick politician make all kinds of promises about hope and change and then make an announcement a week before Christmas to close down most of the facilities for people with mental retardation. yeah – that happened last week. And yes, I donate my time; I go to DC every stinking year to help “educate” our legislators about disability issues. BTW, there isn’t a lick of difference between Patrick’s policies and that of the previous four Republican governors. It just is…what it is. Plenty of fat (cats) in the budget, but let’s cut human services.
<
p>I truly understand your anger, but the fact is that the president-elect was never a huge GLBT supporter. The man did say that he wasn’t for gay marriage. I saw this in Time, which I think pretty well captures my thinking. By John Cloud:
<
p>http://www.time.com/time/polit…
<
p>
<
p>So, you can do what you want. Personally, I don’t think the backturning thing will get you much, but maybe I’m wrong.
… that inauguration day is special. Warren is being brought in for that special day. Protest against Warren on that special day are appropriate. If it tarnishes the day, then he shouldn’t have been brought into the ceremonies. Communicating that is what the protest is all about.
and framing it as a protest against Warren doesn’t change he fact that the inauguration will be ruined. It’s the optics in front of the whole world. Even a nonsupporter such as I still has some respect for the man and the office.
<
p>At the end of the day, I see a ten minute buzz for showing Rick Warren up – and four years of misery. Not sure I want to go there with you. Not for the Rick Warren’s of the world.
<
p>”There is no glory in outstripping donkeys”
Marcus Aurelius
… Warren on his special day, he really should expect flack from those Warren personally harmed. Not real hard math here.
We have this bizarre tendency in America to think of the President as royalty. I think of him as a human being. He doesn’t get anything special from me because he’s Mr. President. He’ll get my respect when he earns it by pushing through an agenda I, as a voter, helped elect him to do. Right now, he’s doing the opposite of it and that’s just not tolerable. We have enough sheeple in this country, I’m not going to treat the president elect any differently than I would any other person – he must be held accountable.
<
p>Again, the idea that because we protest Warren we’ll get ‘punished’ for the next ten years is absurd. What’s your evidence to suggest that’s how Obama operates? You’re inflating things big time here. In fact, by protesting, it’s going to show that we’re serious and make it that much more likely that Obama will listen to us in the future. He knows he’ll get our wrath if he doesn’t. We could be helpful in passing a lot of things, even beyond the GLBT agenda, but we aren’t being forced to the back of the bus any longer.
“We have this bizarre tendency in America to think of the President as royalty.”
<
p>Darn Right!
<
p>My views of the office and by extension the man holding it are much closer to Washington’s and Adams’ than Jefferson’s.
<
p>Then again, I’d like the remaining monarchies in Europe to remain and some of the deposed ones restored, but only in their symbolic status like the Windsors.
A. We’re not embarrassing the new president. He embarrassed himself; we’re just recognizing it.
<
p>B. Democrats will be accused of being anti-religion anytime we don’t turn the running of the (non-economic) parts of our society over to clerics.
<
p>C. Again, we are not obligated to live up to Obama’s standards if he won’t live up to them himself.
a) The new president isn’t displaying anything new, and we elected him anyway. He wasn’t a knight in shining armor for GLBT issues ever in his short political history.
<
p>b) BS’ that’s just histronics. But disrepect in full color video will trump any positive message we may have in four years.
<
p>c) His standards are being kept, amigo. This guy has never been known for his political courage d’coeur on GLBT issues, and again – we elected him anything. This is another case of “let the buyer beware.” The guy sat in a church where over-the-top “preaching” was delivered regularly, he voted present how many times on key issues? And couldn’t even get in a picture with Gavin Newsom, the mayor of SFO over the gay marriage controversy there.
<
p>We bought it anyway, despite the history.
<
p>And just so you know…I didn’t vote for the guy. I wrote in Hillary’s name. But even so, I don’t think there’s anything good to be had with the backturning. There’s a better strategy in dialogue than there is in ruining an inauguration.
Where is she in this controversy? And where is Caroline Kennedy?
This is a very clear-minded, pragmatic piece of advice. Nothing good will come of turning your collective backs on the prayer. I brought up the fact that I’m a former Hillary supporter to make the point that even I – who was not a fan and likely never will be, don’t think this is a good idea. I want this guy to succeed because the country NEEDS him to succeed. As for the backturning – you might feel awesome for about ten minutes, but a pissed-off Obama administration will be with you for at least four years. I just home people think this through before they go through with it.
Oh, and Hillary “I believe in Full Equality of Benefits” Clinton would be better? I found that statement absolutely disgusting. That was like telling Blacks to be happy that you have to walk through the kitchen to get into the nightclub because you get to see what is being served before anyone else does.
<
p>Yeah, where is Hillary on this one. She has a voice too you know, as does Senator Kerry!
<
p>
Hillary is going to have a direct role to play on gay rights as SoS, and has a special interest in the issue of marriage and civil unions. If we wind up with Civil Unions, won’t she be the one who has to talk to other nations about acknowledging these as legit relationships, and about how we acknowledge their same-sex relationships? We won’t be able to force other nations to acknowledge same-sex relationships, whatever we call them, but we might be able to work toward a globally consistent standard that doesn’t offend other nations and make other negotiations more difficult.
I didn’t. The LGBT community is becoming too damned pushy in their cause. If someone doesn’t kiss your collective asses they’re branded as haters. Go ahead, brand me. Just because I don’t share your fanaticism. An alternative lifestyle is your choice, deal with it. A heterosexual lifestyle is my choice. I’m happy, I wish you happiness too. Just stop trying to jam your choice down everyone’s throat.
how long were you a homosexual before that? or are you bisexual and have ultimately chosen to only have heterosexual relationships?
Girls weren’t icky anymore. I started letting them catch me. Playing hard to get worked.
puberty happened and you went with the flow. i think you like to “tell stories”, as my kindergarten teacher like to put it.
I just took biology this spring. I never noticed the homosexual gene in DNA. People are a product of their environment.
then how could you have “chosen” anything? may i suggest that you take a logic class next semester? until then, keep talking, because you undermine your own ill-founded assertions in a very entertaining way.
Homosexuality was in the closet. Racism was the cause celebre at the time. In South Worcester in 1965, dark-skinned humans were called colored. Go ahead call me a bigot, that was the terminology in 1965. Colored was better than negro or oft slandered nigger. You could not even notice the venom in the term nigger then, it was widely used. My dark-skinned friends parents at the time took the patience to explain it to me. In the 70’s the term black came into vogue. So what, i used names, not epithets to describe my friends. I don’t even think I realized there were homosexuals until I was an adult. Even in the mid-70’s what people did in their bedroom was their business, no one else’s.
But hey folks: Somebody PLEASE prove to me you’re not a bunch of Social Darwinsts. I do like to think there is some good in most people, even democrats.
So I guess having two straight parents, one of whom was a macho NFL lineman for seven years, is the perfect environment for producing gay children. Clearly, it’s environmental. Who would have known?
<
p>The fact of the matter is a) you don’t know crap, b) whatever the cause of sexual orientation, someone’s orientation is set at least before the time of adolescence and, c) pretty much all known mammals show examples of homosexuality and, d) there is something inherently biological about sexual orientation. One of the prevalent theories to explain at least some cases of gay men are hormones in a mother’s womb, which would help explain why younger brothers are more likely to be gay than their older brothers, as well as why we continue to exhibit around the same number of gay people each generation (and, indeed, among different species) despite the fact that they gay couples can’t reproduce without some sort of outside help.
<
p>So, really, for someone who “just took biology this spring,” maybe you shouldn’t pretend as if you know a single thing about being gay or its causes. Your bio 101 class (presumably), in the grand scheme of things, taught you very little… so I suggest losing the ‘tude and allowing your mind to open (and hopefully expand).
You were the rebellious one. Ding! A product of your environment. There are gay professional athletes. I suggest you read about John Amaeche. His book “Man In The Middle”is a good read. I found it somewhat fascinating.
if I were the “rebellious one” that would mean I was resisting my environment, quite the opposite of being a product of it.
<
p>No.
<
p>The real answer is that, when I got to the age of realizing who I was attracted to, I found out that it was men and not women. I didn’t choose that, that’s just what happened. Thought it was a phase that I’d pass through and went through a lot of grief for many years denying those feelings, then years spent bottling them up so no one would see them, before I was able to admit to myself that it was no phase and that I was, indeed, gay. Bottom line, at no point did I “choose” to be gay and at no point would one look at my environment and expect it to be one that would produce a gay child more proportionately than others. Indeed, I have 4 other siblings and, to the best of my knowledge, all of them are straight, be they “rebellious” or not.
Is a product or reaction of or to your environment. I respect your well written argument. It shows thought. I have to respect that. I’m not agreeing with you, but respecting your post. I’m almost ready to jump off this merry-go-round. Right after I explain social darwinism further down.
I didn’t realize you were such an expert on psychology. Thankfully, someone in this whole wide world had all the answers. Why didn’t someone ask you before? /snark off
So, let me get this straight, if a male is raised in an environment with parents who dress in pink, where contact sports are scoffed at, where toy trucks aren’t allowed and where nice, caring women are the dominant force off the family (or, two gay parents)… that child grew up in an environment likely to make them gay.
<
p>And if a male grew up in a very macho environment, hunting and camping on the weekends, football in the fall… with no gay stereotypes and plenty of male influence and macho stereotypes, that child is likely to become gay because of the environment. They’re going to “rebel.”
<
p>So, err… what exact environment in your, ah, expert opinion, will produce straight children?
<
p>Do you realize that kids have the same chance of being gay or straight whether they were raised in a heterosexual family or a gay one? That two gay parents who raise kids raise mainly straight ones – the same breakdown? Does that not suggest to you that the environment plays very little, if at all, in determining one’s innate sexual orientation?
<
p>You, sir, have been called out on the BS. Seriously, stop digging yourself deeper. You’re going to hurt yourself. You know NOTHING about what you’re talking about – and I don’t care if you just finished a psychology 101 class. LOL.
If there is an equal chance, why are gays only numbering 10%? Basically, you just made my argument for me. If a child grows up in an environment where gayness is accepted, they are much more likely to be gay. If a child grows up not knowing gayness, chances are extremely good they’re not gay. Gay children of a typical heterosexual environment usually aren’t the first born child. All I ask is that you think about it. Then come back with an answer of thought. I haven’t asked for anything in this exchange! You (plural) keep asking/demanding, and I keep answering. I’m not giving in, you folks aren’t giving in. Let’s move on.
Do you have any backing for that other than your own bigotry?
<
p>You could not be more wrong. Most kids with gay parents, a fiercely accepting environment, grow up to be straight. If a child grows up not knowing gayness, or even in an environment where gays are hated, there is still a 10% chance that child will be gay. It happens all the time. Kids get kicked out of their homes because the “environment” is one of homophobia, perpetuated by idea spread by people like you.
Ryan says, “Do you realize that kids have the same chance of being gay or straight whether they were raised in a heterosexual family or a gay one?”
<
p>You say, “If there is an equal chance, why are gays only numbering 10%?”
<
p>You just failed either basic math or reading comprehension. Probably the latter, though I’m also willing to concede you’re just being deliberately obtuse.
<
p>Actually, that seems the most likely, now that I think about it.
<
p>If a child grows up in an environment tolerant of teh gay, they’re just as likely to be straight as a child growing up in with a bunch of homophobes. As I already said, even in same-sex households, their children are just as likely to be straight as any other household. That much is a provable fact. Years of research have shown that, along with all the nation’s leading experts in the fields of medicine and psychology.
<
p>The same for the other way around. In fact, I can’t think of a single gay person that I knew personally until I realized my attractions were same-sex attractions, around the age of 10 or 11.
<
p>The “numbering” is 10% because, guess what, that’s the genetic number of how many of us end up gay… regardless of our environment. If you went to a sheep herd in Ireland, that’s probably the number of gay sheep you’d see grazing the field. You’d see around that number of gay penguins at the zoo, too. Homosexuality is just one variety in which mammals come; it’s only (some) humans that have trouble accepting that – it’s never bothered the penguins!
<
p>
<
p>Did I not just say that in a previous post? There’s a reason, too. It’s not “rebelling.” Otherwise, the first-born would be as likely to “rebel” as any other in the family, maybe even more so than some. The very likely reason, according to all the science we have available, is hormones in a mother’s womb. That’s why each boy a mother has makes the next boy that much more likely to be gay; each time she has another boy, her body tends to create more of a particular hormone that reacts with the fetus and, reportedly, gives a child a higher percentage of being gay.
<
p>Of course, I am no expert on the matter, so I may not be explaining it perfectly, but there’s years behind the research suggesting that there’s a lot of validity behind the theory. The only reason why it isn’t the all-encompassing, be-all, end-all answer to the question of “why are people gay” is because it doesn’t explain anything about the orientation of women. There just hasn’t been enough research there.
<
p>
<
p>You don’t think I haven’t thought about it? You don’t think I spent hours at night being tormented over the fact that I was gay before I came to accept it and realize that I wasn’t some abomination as the Catholic Church told me? You don’t think I spent years struggling to understand it – pouring over all the articles and research I could? Well, I did and, no offense, I know a lot more about it than you do!
<
p>I was raised Catholic. My immediate family wasn’t overwhelmingly homophobic, but they weren’t particularly friendly of gay people either. There were always the negative comments, for one, not to mention negative speculation of some distant cousin or other who may or may not be gay. I remember the relief my mother and half my aunts had when a particular cousin actually got a girlfriend for the first time, mid way through college, after spending his years at the all-boys St. John’s Prep. It was not a comfortable conversation to overhear, being 13 or 14 and knowing I had something big to hide, thinking I would not be accepted by people I loved because of who I was attracted to in life. You can bet your ass I was wishing I had some kind of choice when I was that age.
<
p>So, no, your “theory” is wrong… personally as well as according to all the scientific experts. You really just don’t know what you’re talking about. I wasn’t comfortable with my sexuality until I was in my 20s – it took that long to personally accept myself. I’m thankful every day for the rapidly changing attitudes in society, because kids are finally getting to the point where they accept themselves much earlier – the average age a kid comes out now is 14, which is years and years earlier than when I was still in school – and that wasn’t that long ago (24 now). While I only knew one out person in the entire school when I was in high school, my younger cousin now attends the same school and has many out, gay friends in her class alone.
<
p>I feel so sad that you hold so strongly to your homophobia and have a complete unwillingness to listen or think or change, but you can’t stop reality. You can resist it, slow it down maybe, but we’re here, we’re queer… and you’d do well to get used to it. People can either fight against us and waste their time, energy and money – or they can simply accept it, realize it won’t harm anyone else and focus on the things in life that matter.
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
<
p>think I must have pressed the wrong reply button.
This is just about the funniest thing I’ve read all day, and that includes the “Weekly Joke Revue”.
<
p>You “just took biology” and you’re an expert on DNA and the human genome? You do realize that the human genome is about the same size as the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Oxford English Dictionary combined, and is completely lacking any orderliness to it? I.e. it’s pretty easy to look stuff up in the EB or OED, but you can’t really just look up “gayness” in the human genome.
<
p>Scientists barely understand what makes some people’s hair curly – psychological underpinnings’ genetic roots are way beyond current scientific understanding. What makes people smart? What makes somebody a good sudoku solver? Why do some people have no spatial perception? These questions are about on par with “what makes some people gay”, and about as easily answerable by genetics.
<
p>It’s true that nobody’s isolated a gay gene. It doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, and it doesn’t mean that there is a gay gene. Like many complex human traits, there is likely to be a complex of dozens or even hundreds of genes involved, and that some combinations of them will make you more or less likely to be gay.
<
p>But you claim to know the human genome and that there is no gay gene. Well, bully for you. I’ll take the word of the scientists.
… was that research done on animals maybe 5 to 10 years ago pointed to hormone levels in utero being a somewhat reliable predictor. Something about testosterone levels. Can’t remember where I saw it, but I’m sure it was on Nova or something like that.
That is correct – as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, every boy a mother has causes subsequent boys to be subjected to higher and higher levels of that hormone, and the higher levels lead to increased chances of being gay.
<
p>But hormones come in a number of varieties. Some, like adrenaline, are only in effect for as long as they are in your system. When the adrenaline is gone, so is your burst of strength.
<
p>Other hormones, though, act to turn on or turn off certain genes or sets of genes. This uterine hormone (could be testosterone – I don’t remember at the moment) certainly acts in this manner (because its effects clearly act long after birth) – but what genes does it activate or deactivate? And which ones of them actually matter? Why might the second son be gay but the third son be straight? It all comes down to genes, and nobody not named billxi really claims to understand it all.
at least Obama didn’t chose you to speak.
Hey, people won’t turn their backs on that preacher at the end, that preacher who’s supposed to make it all okay.
<
p>”Maybe, just maybe, this is the first step in healing the divide?”
<
p>Uh-huh. Picking a homophobic preacher who has supported a call for the assassination of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yay healing.
It would be so George W. Bush of him not to recogize this invite was a mistake. I am hoping he decides to pick someone else instead.
in the fight to take civil rights away from American is disrespectful. In fact, it is much more than disrespectful. It is outrageous. I still am having a hard time believing it is even true. I have every right to be at the inauguration. I worked incredibly hard for months to get Obama elected. It is extremely disappointing that LGBT American will have to look up and see one of the most vocal opponents of equality speaking from the podium.
compared gay relationships to those of incest and pedophilia.
<
p>Can you imagine what it is like for LGBT Americans right now? Unbelievable the amount of hurt we are feeling at this moment.
Buy a pacifier. I certainly don’t allow any one individual’s opinion to “hurt” me. Especially someone I have never met.
Because anytime somebody – especially the Democratic Party – disrespects the disabled, you can’t stop mentioning it for months. Should I tell you to buy a pacifier next time?
<
p>No, because your reaction is completely understandable. We are all much more hurt by disrespectful behaviour directed towards ourselves than we are at such behaviour directed towards others. Completely natural, and I don’t fault you for it.
<
p>But don’t go pulling the holier-than-thou attitude. That suit doesn’t fit you.
I completely agree about Warren’s insults against gays and lesbians. And I completely disagree about the back-turning tactic.
<
p>It does no one any good to get in a pissing match with Rick Warren, except the haters on the right who will point at you and say what rude, bad people you must be. Why give them ammunition?
<
p>And why get into a tit-for-tat, eye-for-an-eye with the homophobe? LGBT-A need to prove that we are better than that dude, not a mirror image; that we have a more generous, more loving, more inclusive, more tolerant, more civilized, more sane outlook than he has. Why return his insults in kind?
<
p>It. Ain’t. About. Rick.
turning backs on warren is as much about sending a message to obama as it is to warren. if people just stand there like good little sheeple, the message received will be “see, we can screw ’em over and they still sit up and beg.”
<
p>NO MORE!
No good? Huh? Do we have marriage equality in MA? Are several other nearby states moving that direction legislatively? I dare say a positive message is the most effective thing LGBT-A has going for it. Would that the anti-Prop 8 geniuses figured out that you have to “come out” and say exactly what you’re for, if you want people to support it.
<
p>Was it a positive message that won in Massachusetts? Or was it endlessly tearing down Kris Mineau? I’d like to suggest it was mostly the former.
<
p>I don’t want to suggest there’s no place for anger — anger is justified, and it’s what fuels the movement. I do not suggest that people “stand there like little sheeple” — as if that were the only other choice. There should be a protest.
<
p>And I suppose the back-turning would get some press attention. I’m just pretty sure it’s not the kind you want. Maybe I’m wrong – but that’s how I see it.
<
p>The rhetoric of “we’re not gonna take it anymore” leaves the question, “HOW exactly are we going to make it so that we’re not gonna take it anymore?” We’ve all got to beware of underpants-gnomes logic:
A. Turn backs on Rick Warren
B. ?
C. Equality and Dignity for All!
how is turning one’s back any less dignified than that?
Some leges required major thumb bashing, others required hand holding, others required constituent numbers, others the changing vote of their peers.
<
p>Alot happened in Massachusetts to gain SSM. Including hard tactics of KnowThyNeighbor.
<
p>If you need your memories refreshed, the very first lege switch against the compromise amendment and against the ballot initiative was Rebublican Brad Hill. And he did not make his switch because we handed him daisies. It took constant protests, constant letters against him, following him everywhere he surfaced, a strong campaign against him etc
did not help the cause. If anything, the move to prevent the vote happened in spite of it. Verbally accosting churchgoers in P-town for signing the DOMA petition didn’t win this thing.
<
p>From the Globe:
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
<
p>It was the willingness of thoughtful constituents and legislators (gay and otherwise)who cleared the path towards full equality. Not hard ball.
The posting of the names online, the ensuing fraud stories, LGBT standing up for themselves, speaking to the 143,000 people who signed, the activism of the LGBT and allied base and the 2 1/2 years of KnowThyNeighbor pushing and being there most certainly helped a great deal.
<
p>How close to the inside were you on this issue one wonders…
if you think the Legislature was impressed by the publication of the names of churchgoers, many of whom were elderly, so that they could be intimidated – then you’re sadly mistaken.
<
p>It is the moderates, when cooler heads prevail, that can craft compromise so that opposing groups can not only co-exist, but thrive. The anger and “in your face” bully-boy tactics can only take an issue so far. Personally, I wouldn’t want to start off with pissing off the new President. But that’s just decades of experience talking.
<
p>And Alexander? I hope for all of our sakes that this new president stands up for the rights of all people.
the work of KnowThyNeighbor stirred up our base of LGBT who got out there and made the calls, talked to their family friends and those who signed. KTN testified at every State House Hearing, battled and deflated MassResistance, was given a National Honor by The Advocate, KTN was also called out by The Mass Family Institute as one of the four elements of the gay lobby(along with Arline Isaacson, Marc Solomon and Ryan- Vollmar from Baywindows), and even personally, I got a “high five” at a Senate Hearing by Mary Bonauto at GLAD for my work at KTN.
<
p>Respectfully, you have no idea what you are talking about when you say, “if you think the Legislature was impressed by the publication of the names of churchgoers, many of whom were elderly, so that they could be intimidated – then you’re sadly mistaken.”
<
p>Many of whom were elderly?? Church goers??? You have no idea do you?
<
p>Regarding protests, which posting names and calling out these people for what they did in order to generate dialogue is a form of, protests and base activation is a key element of any civil rights movement. JoinTheImpact and others in the past are doing this now, KTN did it in Massachusetts.
What special pork project for his district? Was it $500,000 like Alicea was promised, but never delivered?
who allowed himself to be educated by the facts and then acted according to his conscience.
<
p>You, on the other hand….
<
p>
Where does the line form? Or are only Social Darwinist leaning democrats invited?
Do you realize how crazy you sound? Worse than “they” these days…
I would love to see or hear it.I’ve yet to hear to the contrary.
That we aren’t social darwinists? Do you even know what social darwinism is? I’ve heard plenty of people say that conservatives – and their view of the world where we’re all alone and out for ourselves – is social darwinism, but I’ve never heard that of progressives, who’s chief belief is that we’re all in this together. If that’s social darwinism, well, wow.
Social Darwinism is a product of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest”, let the weak and/or infirm fall by the wayside. I think Gov. Patrick’s closings last week bear that out. As my favorite example, I like to use the exclusion of wheelchair using democrats on the floor at last June’s state convention. Or Senator Kerry’s use of wheelchair people during his campaign stop in Worcester in late October. (Yes Max, I noticed your flair in transferring, good show) I also noticed the gentleman in a scooter being ignored by his democratic brethren.
my point is: gimps are good props, now it’s time to shuffle off into the corner and be happy to be breathing.
I just don’t think you do, not really. Your anecdote isn’t even a good anecdote, because you have no idea what those “gimps” did afterwards or Senator Kerry’s record on disabilities. Indeed, his record in helping veterans – many of whom face life-long debilitating injuries – proves otherwise. Republicans, meanwhile, support policies that indeed produce “social darwinism” starting with slashing taxes for the rich moving toward making sure the poor have no access or bad access to health care and, finally, by making sure a college education is something that’s less and less affordable. Seriously, you have a very, very warped, ignorant view on life. May I suggest next time someone offers you a choice of pills that you take the blue one – for I do not subscribe to the notion that ignorance is bliss.
Boarded their very nice rented-for-the-day tour bus to move on the next campaign stop. This stop was 1 of 5 that day. What about us nonmilitary gimps? I think I stated that already. What about the June convention? Still no rebuttals. Sucks to be wrong, huh?
an incoherent description of an event we didn’t attend? And why does that one event trump, e.g., Ted Kennedy’s work on the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Social Darwinism is a product of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest”
<
p>That much is correct. But a true social Darwinist would be the first to say, “F*** the gimps, I got mine”. He’d completely ignore any disabled issues, and would focus exclusively on those people who are “able to pull their own weight”.
<
p>Any politician who actually works on behalf of the disabled is, therefore, not a social Darwinist.
Didn’t YOUR democratic governor prove that last week with the closings. The only democrat I have seen work on disability issues is John Edwards.
So the ADA counts for naught?
<
p>And your repeated references to “social darwinist democrats” would seem to imply that Republicans are somehow better or off the hook. Is that your contention?
If they’re obeyed. Is the “T” accessible at all stops? no. How many years now? 18? I don’t believe I have mentioned Republicans in this thread at all. I just find it odd that the “all encompassing welcome everybody” democratic party are sneering at, then turning your backs on the 3% of the population that needs you the most. (Disclosure: I do NOT need you folks). You aren’t even worth sarcasm anymore.
I don’t believe anybody’s turned their backs or sneered at disabled folks. Do you really see that sort of behaviour? I don’t – but I freely allow as how so much more could be done.
<
p>As for the T, specifically, the T is subject to the ADA just as much as any other business is. And the law says that pre-existing facilities are “grandfathered in”, just as they usually are with more common zoning changes. Hell, my house still has about 20% knob-and-tube wiring, because it was code at the time of installation and nobody ever changed it. Grandfathered in.
<
p>The ADA would never have gained passage if it had required immediate upgrades of all facilities, or even upgrades within a 5-10 year period. It would have bankrupted too many businesses and other facilities. So instead they made it so that facility upgrades would mandate accessibility upgrades.
<
p>The T was around long before the ADA, and so until such time as they do renovations on a stop, that stop is not obligated to be accessible. But slowly and gradually, the stops are becoming accessible. Quite a few have been done since passage of the ADA, and more are underway.
<
p>It’s not perfect, it’s not even great or good. But it’s what was, and what continues to be, realistic.
<
p>
And no, you haven’t mentioned Republicans. You’ve just been unceasing in your attacks on Democrats, so I wondered how you felt about Republicans. Most folks who come here to attack Democrats are Republicans, so I thought I’d ask, even though a Republican in a wheelchair strikes me about as logically as a Log Cabin Republican.
<
p>But I’m glad to see you plan on laying off the sarcasm; maybe you’ll actually feel like having some real conversations instead of the hit-and-run sniping you’ve so often engaged in in the past.
Every renovation Framingham State College has attempted in the last 3 years has made disability access worse. Let me tell you about the health services building:
The disability/wheelchair lift is too small.
The restrooms are inaccessible
One exam room is accessible. After I dented several walls. Every door in the building weighs more than 15 lb. The acceptable limit is 5-7 lb.
The braille lettering is total gibberish
Plants and fire extinguishers providing ample opportunity to injure a blind person.
<
p> This building was renovated in 2006. Your tax dollars at work. Somebody has got to be paying graft on this thing.
<
p> One more thing: This one is mind-boggling. At a dormitory, there is a wonderful curb cut, very nicely and meticulously done, must have gotten value there. Uh uh, it leads to stairs. NOTHING ELSE!
<
p> Can’t blame grampa for these.
Look, I’m certainly not saying things are ideal, or even good. And I, like many other people, have absolutely no eye for these sorts of things. I mean, OK, I probably would have scratched my head at the curb cut, but I would not be able to spot a too-small wheelchair lift or be able to spot an inaccessible room. (Though I really wonder who the manufacturer is. There can’t be much of a market for that…)
<
p>I, for one, do try. I’m learning. But what I’m trying to say is that no “normal” person is ever going to complain about these things. And if nobody ever complains, FSC and other outfits are going to think things are hunky-dory.
<
p>None of which excuses anything FSC has done in these matters. They should have had an accessibility expert guiding them, and based on what you say, they clearly did not.
<
p>I like to think that most “normal” people would want to help with these issues if they knew about them. But there’s no roving band of ADA police out there making sure every construction project meets guidelines. (Though maybe there should be – or at least, a concerted effort to make sure that the various inspectors of cities and towns look for these things when checking that construction is up to code.)
<
p>Like so many other crimes, the relevant authorities only get involved when somebody complains. You sound like you go to FSC a fair bit, or at least that you did at one point. Ever talk to anybody there or file a complaint?
<
p>I’ve got a friend who could help out – she used to work for these people doling out advice on ADA requirements and she’s got a lot of contacts in this area still; if you like, I can ask her about what sorts of appropriate steps would be needed here to get the ball rolling in the event that you want to do something about FSC (or other places)…
What do Democrats and Gays have to do with it?
It’s about Obama inviting him to speak. I’m not going to his church and standing up during his sermon and turning my back. I’m going to the inauguration of the president that I worked hard to get elected.
<
p>When someone equates you to a child molester, you do not stand there and take it. When someone works to take away your civil rights, you do not stand there and listen.
<
p>This silent protest on January 20th is much more of a message to Obama than it is to Rick Warren. November 4th, with the passage of Prop 8, sparked a new movement in the LGBT community. (Ironically RIck Warren had a lot to do with that). The LGBT community will no longer stand by and watch our rights and our lives be torn apart.
<
p>Let this be the first protest of the Obama administration. Let this action make it perfectly clear that LGBT Americans will not stand idly by while our rights are being trampled on. We. Will. FIght.
since you raised so much with that Phelps-a-thon. It helps to have a bad guy. MassResistance gets a TON of fund raising mileage out of reprinting that picture of a young gay couple turning their back to the alter at a Catholic mass, and this will not only help them, it will hurt your own fundraising. You’ve already got Laurel on your side, it does no good to impress her.
Warren-A-Thon and raise money for every second he speaks? And donate the funds to a national LGBT org?
said sarcasticly.
<
p>Then you should have no problem with the LGBT taking a very Biblical Judeo-Christian stand on this one and others.
<
p><< Ecclesiastes 3 >>
American King James Version
<
p>——————————————————————————–
1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
<
p>3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
<
p>4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
<
p>5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
<
p>6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
<
p>7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
<
p>8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
<
p>
Make no mistake, the campaign for equal rights is still on. Chris Mason, further downthread said:
<
p>One of the Obama campaign’s successes was not lying down. He returned attacks with rapid emphatic responses that cleared the record and did so while keeping his dignity. I see the turning of backs as exactly that only less rapid since the Warren announcement predates the event by so long.
<
p>I’m as pragmatic as the next guy… but not about civil rights.
<
p>
i just read that kenneth starr (remember him?) has joined the legal team defending prop 8 before the california supreme court. apparently he and friends their responses to the legal challenge today, including a request that the court to nullify the 18,00 legally enacted s-s marriages. MERRY CHRISTMAS!
<
p>
What if some of those couples have moved to Massachusetts? Seems to me those should still count here, they shouldn’t have to get remarried here. And likewise, what if some Massachusetts SSMs go to California? California simply will not recognize them as married. But they don’t have to nullify them in order to not recognize them, it’s just like if a Massachusetts couple goes to any other state without SSM or CU’s, the other state doesn’t have to do anything to avoid having to recognize them as married, they just won’t. It’s actually counter-productive, because it implies that they aren’t automatically nullified and still exist. There’s nothing to nullify.
<
p>So you’re right, this is just a vindictive and stupid move, and, to get back on topic, will have the same effect of generating sympathy for the other side.
They’re not really looking to have the marriages nullified. They’re just looking to have them not count in California. In other words, the same status that an MA s-s couple would have if they moved to Utah. But if they later moved from Utah to New York, they’d still be recognized as being married.
<
p>Likewise, if one of those 18,000 couples moved to MA, we’d see them as married, and so would New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut….
i should have said “invalidated”. according to ken starr, prop 8 calls for only straight marriages to be “valid or recognized” in california. starr isn’t trying to get the marriage licenses themselves nullified or revoked, but for married couples living in california that will be the effect if he succeeds.
tries to recognize a same-sex marriage after the Prop goes into effect? And, if some agency does that, wouldn’t they probably try to recognize SSM’s from everywhere, not just California? It’s so needlessly confusing.
Blogger “repeal8” pointed out that over on warren’s vaunted hiv program site are such offerings of tender mercy as
<
p>Walking people out of homosexuality
“More Than Words” is a compelling one-day conference geared to help you better understand homosexuality so you can minister to a friend or family member. You will learn how to respond to “gay theology,” what the research really shows, and what your church can do.
what does everybody think about a Warren-A-Thon, the same way I did the Phelps-A-Thon, except of course I couldn’t hold up a big sign tallying the numbers while he speaks.
Do one thing and do it well.
I can’t dispute that there are those who will tar and feather us for being petty, disruptive, and mean-spirited, whatever we do. Gay people were villified even when we were hiding in closets, trying to avoid detection. But this is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. The risk of our rolling over and playing dead is that Obama feels less pressure to honor his “fierce” commitment to LGBT equality. If we don’t stick up for ourselves, who will?
<
p>Rahm Emmanuel already blames gays for the right-wing backlash against President Clinton’s tentative steps to end discrimination in the military. He’s made it clear that he thinks we belong on the back burner. Unless we protest we will be shunted aside. That’s the unmistakeable lesson of our history, and the enduring witness of the martyr Harvey Milk.
<
p>I would ask those who would like us to shut up and take what we’re given to reflect on the wisdom of Dr. King.
He decried “the moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; … Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
All stops were pulled to save SSM in Massachusetts. I have been hearing alot of this “we kept it positive” bit coming out of MassEquality and others. And it really makes me angry.
<
p>Well it did California a whole hell of alot of good and the “keeping it positive” really helped Arkansas with that nasty adoption amendment. Give me a break! Was that the input that Massachusetts gave California? Keep it positive? I would like to know what we exported to help on the No on Prop 8 campaign.
Who are we in Massachusetts to dictate how the world should operate? I for one am glad California had the common sense to vote the way they did. Ya know… Let’s let the people decide the question. Majority rule. I will happily accept the decision either way. Then we can move on to important things.
Happily accept the decision since it doesn’t impact your marriage. Right?
I had to get a divorce, go on Medicare, to stay alive. PLEASE! don’t even attempt to chastise me on marriage rights. I know them all too well.As I have frequently stated “I’m all for marrige rights, where do I sign up?” Oh, I keep forgetting: only for social Darwinist leaning democrats. Silly me. I keep thinking equal rights for ALL!
Thank you for the compliment about eloquence. I’m trying to converse politely.
how’s that?
Read my post carefully. Exactly what makes me bigoted? Social Darwinist Leaning democrat? I BEG OF YOU. PROVE ME WRONG!
“I for one am glad California had the common sense to vote the way they did. Ya know… Let’s let the people decide the question. Majority rule. I will happily accept the decision either way. Then we can move on to important things.”
<
p>Where do I begin? “The common sense to vote the way they did?” “happily accept the decision either way?” “move on to important things?”
<
p>BIGOT!
For an “all-emcompassing” party you folks still toss out the stereotypical epithets pretty easily.
Check the voter reg. list to see what party I am registered with.
You’re still a jerk. I believe that’s the strongest term BMG will let me use. They don’t take too kindly to dissenters. But in the interest of freedom of speech, and occasionally humor, they let me stay around.
<
p>Thank you BMG
but on Judgement Day, the afterlife, the next life, or whatever you call it, looking back on what I have done and what I have been called, I will take that label to “Bigot” a hundred times over…
you make no sense.
<
p>Do you expect the government to find you a spouse?
Read the post before you respond. I know, If I’m not with you, I’m a bigot. Name-calling isn’t working, you folks need a new approach. I have been married 3 times. How about you?
You’ve repeatedly said:
<
p>
<
p>but you’ve yet to explain what the two statements have to do with each other.
<
p>What part of the Medicare law requires you to be divorced? Do you still live with your ex or did they require her to move out, too? Why does your experience with MEDICARE lead you to oppose other people getting married?
I needed kidney dialysis. My wife’s medical plan would only cover 80% of the cost. I am not a Massachusetts democrat, hence I’m not wealthy. Kidney dialysis costs $100,000+ a year. You need to be very poor to get Medicare. Without a divorce, my wife would be responsible for the bill. We could not afford to remain married. Why should you people be allowed to be married and not me? As I have stated SEVERAL times: I’m all for equal rights, where do I sign up? I am so done with this thread. Call me what you like, I won’t see it.
My heart goes out to you – that is a particularly nasty aspect of Medicare law, that you pretty much have to be broke before it will cover you. I know that too well, myself. I know that in some circumstances a “special needs trust” can get you around this loophole, but I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know if it would apply. Did you look into this at all?
<
p>Regardless, though, it’s not the same. You couldn’t afford to be married. That’s very different from not being allowed to be married. You are quite allowed to be married – the only person saying you can’t be married is you. Because you value your assets over a piece of paper from the government. And that’s your choice, and one I quite understand. But it shouldn’t be used as an argument for denying anybody else any rights.
I value LIFE over it’s alternative. I have no assets.
My heart goes out to you, but a gay person would be in almost exactly the same position (except I don’t think Medicare recognizes our marriages).
…. pointed out to him in the past… apparently to no avail.
No, I suppose it’s technically true that you now have no assets.
<
p>I was referring to the assets that you and your (ex)wife shared jointly, which presumably after the divorce she took legal possession of, so that you (singular) could officially have no assets and thus be eligible for Medicare.
<
p>And the means-tested aspect of Medicare is one of those things that looks like a good idea on paper, but has devastating human consequences. I do know a thing or two about this.
<
p>So it would make sense if you were to rage against your wife’s insurance companies, or against Medicare, or against Democrats for not doing enough about this.
<
p>But using it as an argument against gay marriage simply makes no sense. You’re taking your anger out on the wrong group of people.
<
p>
One thing, though, doesn’t make sense. Medicare doesn’t have means-testing. You wrote above, “You need to be very poor to get Medicare.” This is true of Medicaid, but not Medicare, which is available to all people over 65, as well as people like yourself who need dialysis due to permanent kidney-failure. There’s no means-testing, though there is a premium of $96.40/month (which goes up if you make over $164K) and an annual deductible of $135.
<
p>Medicaid has the means-testing aspect, and it’s what I immediately thought of when I wrote above that I “know all too well” the nastiness of the means-testing. I realized in the last 24 hours, though, that the naming similarity between the programs had me confused, and that Medicare does not have the means-testing.
<
p>So what do I have wrong?
I qualify for SSDI and mediCARE. You make valid points. My point is that gayness is a choice made by individuals largely influenced by their environment. I would love for the social climate to be changed for me too. Believe me, I did not choose to be disabled. Fortunately for me I had 45 healthy years. And the pleasure of knowing disabled people who helped me through my transition from health to disability.
Having kidney failure, you do qualify for mediCARE. Which there’s no means-testing for, just a premium. So I still don’t understand why you had to get a divorce. Can you explain?
<
p>You might even consider making a post out of it; I’m sure David or Charley or Bob would frontpage it in a flash. These sorts of conversations about how our healthcare policies actually affect real people are the sorts of things people want and need to know about it. If you wanted to lay things out – and I understand you might not – but if you did, I think it could benefit a lot of people.
<
p>Just a suggestion.
I am so angry about this and Obama in general and the Dems at large that they get no more of my support. This Warren thing is bullshit.
<
p>Turning your back on him is actually a good tactic, however, cameras need to be everywhere, pamphlets need to be handed out to everyone in attendance and LGBT and non-LGBT have to make a good showing and ALL turn their backs, not just a few “under 30’s.”
<
p>Everyone needs to be alerted and participate or this will be another blip like “a day without gays.”
<
p>Quite frankly, I could not stomach being at that inauguration to turn my back on Warren.
Were you invited? Even so, I don’t think you’ll be missed.
2nd: A serious question that I am asking in all sincerity. I never say sincere or it’s offshoots without meaning it. What was a “day without gays”? Was it like the illegal immigrants strike day?
Not totally sincere here: will you make a video of yourself turning your back to the TV? Post the link, I’ll watch it.
you have a lot of hate in your heart. That is sad. You went through the comments and attacked LGBT people in any way you could find. Get a hobby.
I am stating my point of view. Oh, my darned forgetfulness again. If I don’t wholeheartedly support you, I’m a bigot. As I previously stated, I will accept a popular vote decision EITHER way. What, pray tell, is bigoted about that? You forgot to call me a racist too, for for so-called “all-encompassing” you folks toss around the stereotypical epithets pretty well.
<
p>Well, yeah, you are. While this may be somewhat uncomfortable for you to understand, if you don’t support equal rights, then yeah, you’re a bigot. I don’t care if you don’t support ME personally, but if you don’t support my equal rights, then yes, you’re a bigot. If you think I should have less rights than anyone else because I’m gay, then, yes, you’re a bigot. There’s no way around that.
<
p>
<
p>I don’t care if you have a whole bigoted chorus to sing with you. I don’t care how popular your bigotry may be outside Massachusetts. The fact is that anyone who votes to suppress civil rights because someone’s gay is a bigot, whether that wins elections or not. That’s just a fact of life. If that provides you comfort – that you’re not alone in your bigotry – then that only makes me more sad for you.
When reasoning fails, resort to name-calling. Frankly Ry, you usually do better than this. Time’s up. I win. Moving on. There really is no winner or loser. Calling me an L only cements my victory.
were featured in ads in California until the very end of the campaign. The ads were heterosexual couples talking about discrimination. That is important, but it is even more important to show people that faces and families of LGBT people who’s rights are at stake. Harvey Milk made the same point during the Prop 6 campaign. He was right and they won.
<
p>In Massachusetts, the ads featured many different types of same-sex couples.
<
p>I see gay people …..http://www.massequality.org/background/ads/voteonrights/
because the amendment never made it to the ballot in MA. When amendments have passed in each of the 30 states where they have made it to the ballot, one must assume that the same would have happened in MA. This is, of course, why we all worked so hard to prevent that possibility.
<
p>But on the larger issue of gays needing to be visible in ads and other messaging, I totally agree. What is clear is that it is not enough to present ads featuring straight people that we hope fence-sitting voters will identify with. I think those ads have real value, but they need to be complimented with other sorts of ads that 1) shine a harsh light on the blatant lies used by the haters, 2) show real same-gender or same-sex couples/families, and 3) inform people on the difference between civil marriage and a religious blessing on a civil marriage.
I realize now that your comment was probably in answer to one of Tom’s.
In Arkansas for example gay run families were not allowed to be spoken about. Arkansas Families First only ran ads and spoke about “the children” never what was really behind this amendment–anti-gay sentiments. And the funny thing there was that the only ones talking about this being an anti-gay amendment were the anti-gay sponsors.
<
p>Visibility 24-7. The only really good ads in California were the ones from that rogue LGBT group showing the Mormons ransacking a lesbian couple’s drawers looking for their marriage certificate.
<
p>Laurel, regarding Massachusetts if it had gone to a ballot question, I firmly believe we would have lost. We were so unprepared and not united. Teh elctorate being tired of the 2 1/2 year battle kept them from really caring enough to influence the leges against us which worked to our favor, but I think the electorate was so SSM weary that if it had gone to the ballot we would have been in trouble.
<
p>Your most important point here is the 1) shin a light on the blatant lies of our opposition. This needs to be expanded to “knowing” who the opposition is. In California the fact that Mormons were behind this (from another state) should have been capitalized on by our side from the get go. The larger LGBT groups need to shed light and publish all information to our community. WE should be the judge of what tactics to use not “our leaders.” We need ALL information and we need it now!
If you believe you are Equal then act like it. Every time the LGBT leadership pussy foots around the issue, we lose.
<
p>Getting to Chris Mason’s point about being called child molestors etc. If a straight next door neighbor were being called a child molestor or evil or that he was hurting our children, and that person did not fight back with all that he has but listened to his friends telling him to remain calm, what would you think about his innocense or guilt?
<
p>We don’t fight hard enough. We need to choose our fights wisely, only in the fact that we shouldn’t promote creative little quirky activism unless we have the numbers and the energy to back it up. We need to get at the core of the anti-gay infrastructure and strategize on how to break it down.
Is the most effective personal protest I have ever seen! To this day.
Awesome.
Ever wonder why John Carlos (the bronze medalist) has his left hand up, when the standard is, as Tommy Smith (gold medalist) shows, right hand elevated?
<
p>Well, they’d been planning this for some time, but when the ceremony rolled around, Carlos had forgotten his gloves back in the Olympic Village. It was Peter Norman, the silver medalist from Australia, who suggested that Carlos wear Smith’s left glove.
<
p>And so they were able to go through with it, albeit in a slightly changed manner….