We are heading out the door this morning early so I only have time to post a few links.
Apparently, you have the right to get married if you can squirt out babies. So watch out non-breeding heterosexuals ... if you don't start generating some new cannon fodder for the war machine and/or the allegiance of right-wing-bigots, your marriages could be next ...
And even more from Pam including reaction from the fundie wingnuts who are frothing at the mouth and writhing in ecstasy over this slapdown of marriage equality. Here she reiterates the point the our Democratic leadership is FAILING us on these issues. Voting against a marriage amendment is not enough --- they need to actually LEAD.
When you don't take a strong position on this issue (one way or another), people in the middle who may be considering voting Dem notice and speculate anyway. It's easy to be against a federal amendment, but what is a candidate's position on all these state marriage amendments and now, the future legislative efforts to gain marriage equality as these cases in WA and NY have resulted in punts?
Excellent question. No answer forthcoming as there are probably too many 700 Club appearances to plan and fundie wingnut asses to lick ...
The Mayor of Philadelphia is giving the regional Boy Scout council two choices.: Either they stop discriminating against gays or they begin paying fair market rent on their city owned headquarters.
The City of Liberty Council is the third largest in the nation, serving 87,000 boys in Philadelphia, Montgomery and Delaware counties. They have been using a city owned building since 1928, paying only for building upkeep.
The City is playing hard ball because the Scouts refuse to comply with the fair-practices ordinance which forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation among other protected classes.
Cradle of Liberty Council spokesman Jeff Jubelirer had more pointed views.
"With an epidemic of gun violence taking the lives of Philadelphia's children every day," Jubelirer said, "it is ironic the administration chose this time to destroy programming that services 40,000 children in the city."
That's an interesting perspective which completely ignores the fact that the City has tries to negotiate with the Boy Scouts for the past three years. There's no room for negotiation. The Boy Scout organization wants to be free to discriminate against homosexuals while receiving all the governmental funding it can swallow. Never mind the thousands of young men whose lives are impacted by their homo-bigot stance -- the young gay men, the boys with gay parents or siblings or grandparents or other loved ones, the heterosexual scouts who are taught by example to discriminate. Never mind those kids. Or their families. Or their dreams.
There's no room for negotiation. The Boy Scouts won't revise their creed of hate and the City isn't making an exception. Are political nuances at play? Sure. They always are, but that doesn't take away from the larger issue.
Our good friends at the American Family Association of Pennsylvania have chimed right in with their Christian-flavored bigotry:
?The boys involved in the Scouts are caught in a tug-of-war with those who seek to change society through homosexual activism and choose to be blind to the facts of the dangers of this lifestyle,? [AFA Chair Diane] Gramley concluded
Ah, yes, the homosexual activist card. Wouldn't be a hatefest if no one played it!
I find the Boy Scout's stance offensive, moronic and divisive. I don't buy their little snacks or donate to their causes because I think they really hurt boys and young men. I get some grief from my friends about my actions only hurting the boys. I'm sorry but that's an utterly spineless position. The Boy Scouts are *hurting* children, gay and straight. They should lose their funding sources because reason, common decency or genuine concern for all children doesn't seem to play a part in their decision making process.
I just knew it would come to this. The insistence of state (and federal) government on restricting free speech and assembly has inevitably led to the ACLU hooking up with the Phelpsians. (h/t PageOneQ)
Missouri, like other states and the federal government, has passed a law restricting protests and pickets at funerals in response to community outrage over the Phelpsians presence at military funerals. Fred and co. believe that God is killing soldiers because America has embraced homosexuality. So he totes his "God Hates Fags" signs to military funerals. Shock and awe ensue. Never mind that he's been doing this for years to at the funerals of homosexuals and those who have died from AIDS. No one was upset enough to pass a law curtailing civil rights then. I guess faggots brought it on themselves.
The ACLU argues that the law restricts speech on content and is seeking an injunction so the protests can resume while the court considers the constitutionality issue.
Here's Phelpsian whackjob and daughter Shirley ...
"I told the nation, as each state went after these laws, that if the day came that they got in our way, that we would sue them," said Phelps's daughter Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a spokeswoman for the church in Topeka, Kan. "At this hour, the wrath of God is pouring out on this country."
You aren't suing them, Shirley honey. The ACLU is suing them on your behalf. Because the ACLU respects your civil liberties. The wrath of God sure does pick some interesting vehicles ....
I, too, think the law is unconstitutional. Don't get me wrong -- its abhorrent that anyone would intrude on the grief of a family at the funeral of their loved one. But as the Correspondents have said before, these laws are unconstitutional and passed in a grandstanding furor by legislators responsible for the deaths of these soldiers. Rather than make the funeral a civil liberty free zone, how about reducing the number of funerals? You know, ending the war. Or improving health care access. Investing in AIDS research. Mitigating poverty. That sort of thing.
Last week, a jury found Leon Abramovitz guilty of several charges involving luring two male Pitt students to his apartment, forcing them to stay for weeks, coercing one to steal power tools and the other to perform sexual acts. Abramovitz, 59, has previously worked for City Council and (AND) the constituent affairs department of the Reagan White House.
It gets better.
Abramovitz is currently serving probation for two earlier charges of the same thing.
Huh. Here's the better part. The lawyer of this perv is trying to make this out to be gay persecution! This from the guy who worked for Reagan!
"Homosexual acts are not crimes," said Mr. Houck. "They are only anathemas in many people's minds, but not everybody's."
Mr. Houck is right. Homosexual "acts" are not crimes. However, the actual crimes this perv committed - holding people against their will, forcing them to perform sexual acts and steal, and threatening them with mafia retaliation - are not homosexual acts.
I do have to pick a bone with the PG on this story. In the article, writer Moustafa Ayad paints a comparison of the somewhat hulky young men and the frail pervert inviting the question of how he held them captive. Other than the reference to mafia threats, there is no context for the captivity. Obviously the jury was convinced so there has to be more content to the story.
I think Ayad's coverage was a little soft in this regard. Women are held hostage all the time as any domestic violence worker will tell you and frequently it has nothing to do with size differentials. Power does not translate into size. It is hard to believe that a 59 year old man with a walker could legitimately threaten someone with a mob hit. But obviously he DID on at least four separate occasions. At least.
Kudos to the students for testifying. Get this perv off the streets, walker or not.
I don't like when people put down individuals who receive welfare. I don't like the term "welfare people" or the jokes about welfare queens or the condescending sneers. I don't like the way the term itself is used to convey a litany of classist, racist, and sexist stereotypes which, unfortunately, now have the legislative muscle to keep poor women down and out.
Feministing sent me to a great article on new welfare regulations at TomPaine.com written by Maureen Lane, co-director of the Welfare Rights Initiative at Hunter College City of University of New York.
For these families, the rules represent a narrowing of the best opportunity many have of moving, not just from welfare, but permanently out of poverty. Study after study has shown that when people receiving welfare have the chance to get an education?whether it?s earning a college degree, securing a GED or mastering the English language?their family incomes and long-term prospects improve far more than those families who remain trapped in low-wage jobs. Yet dead-end low-wage positions without benefits or security are frequently the only jobs people pushed off the rolls without education and training are able to secure in this economy.
Welfare is supposed to be a safety net for the most vulnerable people in our society. Reform should include resources and programs that enable people to become self-sufficient, a standard that $5.50 per hour with no benefits does not accomplish. That only accomplishes a vicious cycle of poverty with its full array of ancillary problems.
For details on local welfare rights inititiatives, go to Just Harvest.
The article does a great job of pointing out the strategy of making illegal immigration a hot-button issue for voters in this state to divert our attention from issues of much greater importance to Pennsylvanians. Passage of either proposed legislation will have zero impact on 99 percent of Pennsylvanians, yet our politicians want this issue to be in the forefront of the upcoming election.
Hot-button issue to divert our attention -- sound familiar? Since the PA legislature minced its way out of the gay marriage bailiwick, the homo-threat has become less of a rallying cry for the faithful.
Jake makes another interesting point about the relationship of the immigrant threat to your average yinzer Pennsylvanian:
The fact that Pennsylvania is not a destination for the desperate should be of greater concern to us. Even the desperate see little opportunity here.
Now that's an interesting perspective -- we suck so much that even illegal immigrants won't come here.
I don't agree with his analysis on this point (I'm an optimist) or his perspective that anti-immigration legislation will impact Pennsylvanias. My cousin's girlfriend is Southeast Asian. My other cousin's husband is from India. Yet another cousin's in-laws are from China. My dad's cousin's wife is from the Philippines. A former coworker was from Sweden, another is from Germany. My friend's parents are from South Korea. And that's just the first few people that come to mind. So, yes, immigration issues are personal for me here in Pittsburgh.
So, Santorum is right (a ha!) that immigration reform does matter to Pennsylvanians. Divisive mean legislation intended to persecute and isolate struggling minority groups, incite xenophobic hysteria and further bash the rest of the world over the head with idiotic "America rocks" imperialism does affect us here in the Keystone State.
Just wait until the mighty whites tucked in their gated enclaves realize that this legislation will impune their ability to recruit white immigrants for nanny and governess duties.
Jake -- thanks for writing to the Post-Gazette People like you give me hope that the tyranny might soon end.
In a fresh off the press interview with Rolling Stone, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom takes Democrats to task for their spineless leadership on marriage equality. Newsom points out that their tepid waffling doesn't fool anyone, but reinforces everyone's belief that the Democrats lack conviction. How is that going to win any votes?
Rolling Stone: Listening to the Democratic opposition to the federal anti-gay marriage amendment, the party?s senators sounded more like Dixiecrats ? talking about marriage as a states?s rights issue ? rather than Democrats, pursuing this from a civil-rights perspective.
Gavin Newsom: Where?s the moral courage? It?s lost. I have the luxury of saying this from San Francisco, I certainly respect what it?s like saying this in parts of Kentucky or North Carolina, but also believe this issue won?t go away for the Democratic party we stand up on historic principles.
We?ve never run the 90-yard dash on equality ? ever. The history of this party is civil rights, women?s rights, human rights, labor rights, gay and lesbian rights. And for us to hold up civil unions and say that separate is somehow now equal ? when just a-year-and-a-half we ago celebrated the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board ? is transparent to the people. They see through the Democrats.
That?s why this issue was not seen by the Kerry campaign in 2004 in a positive light. Because people saw through John Kerry. They didn?t believe that he was only supportive of civil unions. Because here he was, running as a Democrat on all those proud traditions where we never fell short on equality. And so ? even though his position was exactly the same as Dick Cheney?s ? the American people questioned that. I don?t think the American people believe us. And that?s a big problem.
First, the exciting news. John Stamos will play a wedding planner who is gay in the upcoming A&E movie "Wedding Wars" due to air this winter. In the movie, Stamos' character boycotts his brother's wedding b/c his brother's boss and future father in law is a governor who opposes marriage equality. Hilarity ensues as an important point about tolerance and equality is made. Plus, thousands of gay and bisexual men can fantasize about marrying John Stamos. (h/t Good as You)
Another amusing must-view is a video parody GAY put together around Fred Phelps and his merry bunch of phelpsians. Rather than telling us "You are are going to hell" GAY informs us "You are going to HELENA" (another h/t to Good as You). On a related matter, the Phelpsians were fined $5,000 for wasting police protection when they didn't show up for a funeral protest in Michigan. Fred's whacky daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper told the press that the Holy Ghost told them to stay home and they would throw any citations in the trash can.
In an important note, a federal court has ruled that the White County, Georgia School Board must allow a Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) to meet. The School Board had previously decided to disallow any extracurricular group, but those groups continued to meet. The ACLU pursued the matter. (h/t PageOneQ). Here's a great quote from one the student plaintiffs:
"This has been the best civics lesson ever," said Kerry Pacer, one of the founders of the student group said in the ACLU statement, "I couldn't believe the school was so unfair to us when all we wanted to do was to try to address the violence and harassment against gay students. I'm relieved that the court is going to make the school let us meet."
You tell 'em, Kerry. Kerry is my mother's name so I'm especially fond of young person Pacer. Good for you for sticking up for your rights.
In the tolerance twist you knew was overdue, homo vacationeers in Provincetown are accused of making slurs against heterosexuals and Jamaicans. Police received numerous complaints that people were being called "breeders." One woman reported being verbally accosted after it came to light she signed an anti-gay marriage petition. She was called a bigot.
She IS a bigot. She chose to sign a petition that discriminates against her neighbors. Should they just accept that quietly? I'm not saying they should target her or act out, but calling her what she is seems acceptable to me. Her priest acknowledges that signing the petition would lead to repercussions, but called this a "dramatic experience" Puh-lease. Try having your brother deny you access to his kids b/c you are queer. That's dramatic. Try losing your job b/c you are gay. That's dramatic. Try having to control your simple desire to hold your partner's hand to avoid being harassed. That's dramatic.
Now the incidents with Jamaican residents is different. They attribute the increased intolerance to the looming debate over immigration and I'd agree that's very likely. Guess what homos? Not all Jamaican's are anti-gay. Don't be fueled by the Ricky/George rhetoric on immigration.
?Is that all there is? If that?s all there is, my friends, then let?s keep dancing,? sang Peggy Lee. If dancing means engaging others, by all means let?s dance; this discordant, tinny ruling did not stop the music. And if dancing means, well, dancing, then let?s keep working until all committed couples can dance, with family, friends, and loved ones, at their weddings, pursuing happiness, celebrating their commitment and love, equally protected by the law and the respect due every person.
OK, this lady I don't get. Helen Gricks of Ross, a self-described Republican and Evangelical Christian, writes to the Post-Gazette about her decision not to attend the upcoming Dixie Chicks concert in Pittsburgh.
My son and I would like nothing more than to go to the upcoming concert, especially with so many great seats still available. However, I don't want to go to a political rally, and I'm afraid that it will turn into one. I don't agree with their politics, but I do like the music. That's why people are buying the CD but not concert tickets.
To catch you up, the Chicks are coming to Pittsburgh at the end of the month (we have tickets!) and ticket sales have been reportedly slow.
What's interesting about Helen's perspective is that she basically wants the Chicks to perform for her, to entertain her but not bother her with those pesky politics of theirs. I'm guessing Helen hasn't really LISTENED to the new album (or bothered to read the liner notes) or she might note a striking parallel with the second stanza to "Not Ready to Make Nice"
I made by bed, and I sleep like a baby, With no regrets and I don't mind saying, It's a sad sad story That a mother will teach her daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger. And how in the world Can the words that I said Send somebody so over the edge That they'd write me a letter Saying that I better shut up and sing
Or my life will be over
It seems to be that Helen wants the same thing --- shut up and sing for crying out loud. Yes, Helen wants the Chicks to crawl back into the nice comfortable "girl-singer" mode so they can entertain the men without creating all that stupid thinking and whatnot. More precisely, Helen wants them to shut and sing so SHE can remain in her little delusional land where Jesus and W have got her back.
If some right-wing loonie hypocrite like Toby Keith comes to town, wraps himself up in the flag he won't enlist to defend, and sings about killing Saddam Hussein ... will you object to him being "political" Helen?
But wait ... here's the really interesting part .... guess who is an old college buddy of Helen? That would be US Representative Melissa Hart. And the right-wing apologist herself, Ruth Ann Dailey, wrote a fawning column about Grick and her home-schooling buddies hanging out with Melissa ("Missy").
If I do decide to go, I will wear a T-shirt that says: "I love Jesus, W and The Chicks!"
Well, guess what Helen? Unlike your buddy Malicious Hart, the Dixie Chicks want you to have the freedom to wear that T-shirt. They believe that the Constitution of the United States protects your freedom to dissent and that the First Amendment in particular gives you the the liberty to wear whatever political T-shirt you want, even if its unpopular.
The Dixie Chicks respect your right to love Jesus and W along with them. Too bad you can't afford them the same respect.
I'm not ready to make nice, I'm not ready to back down, I'm still mad as hell And I don't have time To go round and round and round It's too late to make it right I probably wouldn't if I could Cause I'm mad as hell Can't bring myself to do what it is You think I should
I missed this last week, but its 
