BVP's Big Blunder!

Think Progressive broke the story, today, that Bob Vander Platts - CEO of the Family Leader (FL), a federally funded Iowa-based anti-Gay group (formerly the Iowa Family Policy Center) which is a local branch of the SPLC-designated anti-Gay Hate Group, the Family Research Council (FRC) - was caught on tape putting his foot in his mouth by erupting in peels of laughter over a "faggot" joke, thus cementing his utter disdain for Gay people:

So much for his disingenuous attempt at showering Gay people with cookies as a token symbol of his allegedly "Christian love" when he and his fellow Theofascists lobbied for the passage of an anti-Gay so-called "Marriage Amendment", writing in  Newsletter to his group's supporters:

Several of us plan to bring a token of Christian love (like a small bag of cookies or other treats) to share with homosexual activists who we'll be encountering Monday...  It's time we dispel lies about Christians by tangibly showing love to people who struggle with homosexuality.

Aside from the fact that this was an utterly offensive gesture which amounted to the Family Leader asking the Gay community to trade their Civil Rights as free-born Iowans for a mere cookie (does the FL value the civil rights of others so poorly?), but the belief that this is an example of "Christian love" is appalling!  His pretense to "showing Christian love" is an utter farce that has earned him and his group that label of bigotry and he was hoping to "dispel".  When Vander Plaats arrived at the Capital Building in Des Moines, IA. in January he was the only one in attendance who appeared to have brought a single "token of Christian love" and - according to my fellow One Iowa lobbyists who were mobilized throughout those gracious halls - he didn't bother to hand out his two bags of Chips Ahoy-brand cookies, which he was photographed praying over:

This more recent scandal, however (observe the video footage above), falls only a couple of weeks after Vander Plaats had the audacity to endorse slavery [courtesy SPLC Hatewatch] as a preferable societal (family) institution for the rearing children in a 14-point pledge his group has called The Marriage Vow: A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMILY (PDF) which declared:

...a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the USA's first African American president.

The blatant ignorance of this statement is galling in light of the historical documentation that children born of slaves were considered property and, once weened, were usually ripped from the arms of their parents - who were not allowed to marry each other - and sold into slavery to various plantation owners.  Perhaps a key, albeit shallow, to determining the exploitation of Civil Gay Rights by the Republican Party as a "wedge issue" has been the general lack of efficacious venom which the party has been finding to be more and more futile.  Indeed, five of the current GOP 2010 Presidential Candidates - including openly Gay Rep. Fred Karger, who is presently being politically extirpated by the media which has gone to extreme lengths in order to ignore his bid for candidacy - have already declined to sign this "pledge" which identifies Civil Marriage Equality for Gay couples with polygamy, bigamy, adultery, incest, and polyandry; furthermore, the Vow also declares that homosexuality is "a public health risk" and that it is a choice: Mitt Romney released a statement characterizing the principles of the oath as "undignified and inappropriate for a presidential campaign", Tim Pawlenty deftly crafted a statement politically dodging this offensive "vow" by affirming that "rather than sign onto words chosen by others, I prefer to choose my own words...", Herman Cain, similarly, suggested that his "stated position encompasses their [the FL's] values without the need to sign the pledge", and Gary Johnson (who boasts a "tolerance is American" television ad), characterized the pledge as "offensive to the principles of liberty and freedom on which this country was founded", continuing that the Vow is "the type of rhetoric [that] gives Republicans a bad name"!

This is only the latest in a stream of vitriolic bigotry on behalf of Vander Plaats and his homophobic hate-group the FL.  Unfortunately, don't be surprised when you do not observe your local televised news devoting any attention to his scathing reactions at a derogatory term for Gay men!  I remember earlier in the year how the local news from Des Moines insisted on characterizing the Republican party of Iowa as merely "defending the Constitution and their oath of office" by insisting that they put to a vote of the people the Civil Rights of Gay Iowans to acquire a Civil Marriage license.  No central Iowa televised news outlet gave any comparable time to our Democratic allies, such as Mike Gronstall, who went on record to immediately censure House and Senate Republicans in The Des Moines Register for wanting to impose second class citizenship onto a minority of their fellow Iowans:

I'm not going to put to a vote of the people anybody's constitutional rights.  Because, if I can do that to gay people, I can do that to Catholics, I can do it do Methodists, I can do it to Baptists, I can do it to blacks, I can do it to Hispanics.  If I can put to a vote of the people, people's constitutional rights, then you may be popular today - old white guys like us might be popular today and our rights will be fine - but someday the baby boom will be gone and there wont be enough old white guys left to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.

Ruth Steps in "It" Again

Ari, the far more fiery Blogger over at the website for the NOM-affiliate The Ruth Institute ("Making Marriage Cool" QED) has stepped in "it", again, it would seem...  You may recall that earlier this year the Human Right's Campaign affiliate NomExposed responded to The Ruth Institutes "Reel Love Challenge" by submitting a very tastefully rendered video of their own.  First of all, the title of the competition is clearly an anti-Gay play on words intended to convey the NOM-endorsed ideology that Gay people are either incapable of loving their significant others to the extent that a heterosexual couple is, or else that we are incapable of what heterosupremists call "love" (because the thought of two men being romantic to each other just seems to make their skin crawl); both being old-hat forms of discrimination intended to make it seem more "natural" to oppress a minority by augmenting a group's perceived differences. 

Shortly after their submission, Ari responded with a post that was in such utterly poor taste - comparing our love for a spouse with vomit - that it was summarily removed by the Ruth Institute Blog Mistress without even apologizing to the Gay community in any meaningful way for his comments.  (Ari's comments to his post seem to have been far worse than even the original posting itself!)  Fast forward more than six months later and Ari has again shoved his foot into his mouth, insisting, that Gay people apparently know that we are "America-hating, freedom-hating goons" in a clear ad hominem assault.  (Props to Jeremy Hooper of GoodAsYou for this clip!)  One wonders if Ruth will, again, find itself in the position of having to apologize on Ari's behalf?  Time will tell.

Referendum Redux: Washington State (Up-Dated)

Protect Marriage Washington - which insists it only wanted to "protect traditional marriage" when it got into bed with the National Organization for Marriage in order to over-turn Washington state's "everything but marriage" Domestic Partnership law, which had nothing to do with their Theofascist concept of "traditional marriage", in the first place - is back in court again.  They are trying to stop, or at best delay a recent SCOTUS ruling insisting that when one signs a petition to enact change to a law that they are essentially acting in the position of the Legislature.  They are now worried that, when the records become public, Gay Rights group will publish them and their businesses may be hurt either through vandalism or a boycott (not that Theofascists haven't attempted to intimidate Pagan businesses or Gay bars, often through domestic terrorist techniques such as bombings!):

...Washington voter's up-held the new [Gay rights] statue. 

In June of 2010 the nation’s High Court ruled eight to one in the “Doe V. Reed” case that the names could be released. The ruling dealt with claims by foes of the new gay rights law that disclosing their names would violate their First Amendment rights. However the justices said the plaintiffs could go back to a lower court to try to get a specific exemption on other grounds.

In a statement, James Bopp, Jr., Protect Marriage Washington’s lawyer, said he provided examples of threats to people in his most recent court filing.

“What is becoming increasingly evident is that some groups and individuals, certainly a minority, have resorted to advancing their cause, not by debating the merits of the issue but by discouraging participation in the democratic process itself.  The First Amendment was designed to ensure that all groups, whatever their persuasion, could participate fully in our Republic. That breaks down when some groups or individuals are cowed into silence for fear that they or their families will be targeted or threatened if they speak up,” Bopp said.

I just wish that these Theofascists would grow a set of brass balls for once, and stop playing the victim card every time they attempt to cowardly oppress a minority, when that minority shows some courage and fights back to defend their community!

How to Spell "Bigot" in Legalese!

For the past few years - since she has been a blip on my Gaydar - I have wondered, precisely, what Maggie Gallagher-Srivistav means when she would run off at the mouth with, "They will call you bigots", or this gem during a lecture she gave at The Sutherland Institute (Salt Lake City, Utah) in April of 2011 where she was the Key-Note Speaker:

If you want to know how same-sex marriage is going to affect traditional believers, mainstream Christians and other faith communities, ask yourself, 'how do we treat racists who are opposed to interracial marriage in the public square?'  Racists are marginalized, stigmatized, oppressed and made second-class citizens.

But, what is a second-class citizen?  The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1997) defines it as follows:

An individual regarded or treated as inferior to others in status or rights, an underprivileged person. ("Second Class", pp. 562)

Sweet and concise - this definition has been in use since the early 1940s.  Is there any authentic evidence, however, that racists and other bigots are actually treated as second class citizens?  During the 1940s of Nazi Germany - when this term was coined - my Gay brothers were targeted for second class citizenship by the Nazi regime along with Gypsies, Jewish citizens, as well as Unionists.  However, the treatment of these men and women were relatively mild when one takes into account the brutality meted out to one who was branded with the Pink Triangle, even among his fellow inmates!  Even today, Maggie and her organization is fighting for the status quo in an effort to keep us Second Class Citizens, so that my Gay and Lesbian brothers and sisters cannot take full advantage of the laws that govern the country in which we live and pay our taxes to!  Sadly, Maggie does not seem to have realized the irony of her own statement.  But, let's think of this in another way.  Can a bigot be denied the Due Process of Law, such as loosing their children, being arrested, being denied the freedom to marry, filing joint taxes, ad nauseum?  The answer, of course, is a definite "No", unless the party in question wants to be brought up on charges that they have violated their Constitutionally Guaranteed Right to be an unapologetic bigot or a racist in this country!

Indeed, one wonders if Ms. Gallagher-Srivistav is, perhaps, also saying that she is - or would be - a second class citizen because she and her fellow "traditional believers" would no longer have the "right" to openly and publicly discriminate against the GLBT comm. as they have had in the past?

On a released memo from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) - of which Maggie Gallagher-Srivastav is Chairperson of the Board - during the battle over Prop-8 in California the group gives a variety of examples about what the organization believes will befall them - their so-called "consequences" - if they are legally defined as bigots within American society and culture:

(Source)

So far as I am aware, the FCC has not pulled Michael Savage's radio license for his frequently anti-Semitic remarks, nor that of Tony Perkins since the SPLC has designated his group - The Family Research Council - an anti-Gay Hate Group in 2010, nor the radio license of white supremacist, James Edwards, because this would clearly infringe upon their Constitutionally guaranteed rights of free speech, no matter how despicable the public may find their rhetoric!  Edwards, who is only 27, still hosts his shamelessly white nationalist radio talk show - The Political Cesspool - for two hours each weeknight from a local station near Memphis, Tenn. where Edwards is currently a resident.  According to The Southern Poverty Law Center:

"The Political Cesspool" in the past two years has become the primary radio nexus of hate in America. Its sponsors include the CCC and the Institute for Historical Review, a leading Holocaust denial organization. Its guest roster for 2007 reads like a "Who's Who" of the radical racist right. CCC leader Gordon Lee Baum, Holocaust denier Mark Weber, Canadian white supremacist Paul Fromm, American Renaissance editorJared Taylor, neo-Nazi activist April Gaede, anti-Semitic professorKevin MacDonald, Stormfront webmaster Jamie Kelso and League of the South president Michael Hill have all been favorably interviewed on the "Political Cesspool" this year, along with former Klan leader and neo-Nazi David Duke, the show's most frequent celebrity racist guest, who has logged three appearances.

Ms. Gallagher-Srivistav must realize that "bigot" is a public term, not a legal principle.  In fact, if one draws these fear-based scenarios to their logical conclusions, than we should expect to find a sudden crack down on websites espousing hate-rhetoric!  But, we don't.  Furthermore, according to Dr. Heidi Beirich - Research Dir. of the Southern Poverty Law Center - "there are [in fact] several hate groups [operating in the U.S.] with 501c3 [charity] status, including the very noxious Council of Conservative Citizens (they have a tax-deductible foundation)" (pers. comm.: 4 July, 2011).  As an example of the CCC's extremism, consider the following odious comment that can be found on the group's website: "God is the author of racism.  God is the one who divided mankind into different types...Mixing the races is rebelliousness against God".

Ultimately, NOM has no basis in fact for these accusations; they are nothing more than empty words intended to frighten their "traditional believers" into conforming with their oppressive ideology.  Indeed, as Dr. Beirich alerts us, these specious arguments which NOM is employing have been used before: "No Christian is going to be persecuted for being [opposed to] same-sex marriage.  These are the same specious arguments that the Religious Right has been making against hate-crimes laws - of course their only concern is about hate crimes protections for the LGBT community.  They argued that the recently passed Matthew Shepard bill would end with preachers in jail because they [evangelized] against homosexuality" (pers. comm.: Ibid.).  Indeed, in an attempt to martyr themselves in the service of their religious calling, several Christian ministers staged a protest in Wash. D.C. 11 July, 2007, because they considered the Hate Crimes Legislation that was being reviewed by the Senate as "hatred and intolerance aimed at ministers and good Christian folks who dare to call a sin a 'sin'".  Two years later, after the bill was signed into law by President Obama, a group billing itself as the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission - yes, the same group that defends so-called "Christian" organizations who spout anti-Gay defamatory rhetoric insisting that Gay men molest children and wallow in feces - engaged in a protest outside the Justice Department opposing the Hate Crimes Legislation, attempting to test the merits of the new law and their worries over religious freedoms to preach intolerance against the GLBT community in the hopes that these Evangelical ministers might be arrested for their cause.

The Watershed of Lawrence...

A great article was published today on HuffPo:

Lawrence was a watershed moment that continues to generate other watershed moments. One can draw a line connecting Lawrence to the landmark decisions in its aftermath that have recognized marriage equality, found the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional in various settings, and struck down laws burdening the right of same-sex couples to form intimate relationships. When a federal trial court declared "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" unconstitutional last year, it relied on Lawrence. When Prop 8 was declared unconstitutional last year by Judge Walker, he too relied on Lawrence. Just as the government may not make criminals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people based on their relationships, neither can it fire them from their jobs, ignore their cries for help when harassed at school, deny them the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy, nor exclude them from institutions like marriage.

One wonders, then, why NOM (in general), and Maggie Gallagher or Brian Browne (in particular) have not come out swinging against Lawrence as a threat to their alleged "religious liberties" (QED)?  I, honestly, can't seem to locate any commentary by Gallagher directly opposing Lawrence v. Texas!

Pride Meets Prejudice: We've Earned Our Stripes!

The Rainbow Flag was developed in 1978 by San Francisco-based artist Gilbert Baker in response to a suggestion by Artie Bressan who thought that the burgeoning Gay Liberation Movement required a more positive symbol.  Symbols have always been an important part of community recognition in an age of civil oppression.  Oscar Wilde wore a green carnation which epitomized homosexual love and the Gay community in his plays; this custom was already established throughout Paris, France where the green carnation was worn as a boutonniere by Gay men to identify each other.  Presently, the SoHo district of London houses an off-beat Gay bar called Green Carnation which holds Oscar Wilde-themed events and drinks.

However, up until the late 1970s, the pink triangle had been resurrected by early Liberation groups in order to identify themselves and our oppression; but, this symbol carried with it a negative and perverse stigma from the Nazi regime when we were targeted by Hitler's fierce party under the ideology that we would not give to Germany the children - contributing to the "Master race" - that we owed her.  Though, it has otherwise been demonstrated that the Rainbow Flag was ultimately borne out of the Hippie movement of the idealistic 1960s.  Indeed, it was common place to observe individual rainbow flags during this era, each signifying a different theme.  For example, one such "rainbow flag" that was characteristic of this period representing racial solidarity and community was fashioned from stripes of red, white, black, brown, and yellow fabric. The original colors of our own Flag, however, were each impregnated with their own unique symbolism: fuchsia or hot pink (sexuality), red (life), orange (healing), yellow (sunlight), green (serenity with nature), turquoise (art) or indigo (harmony), and violet (Spirit).

Our Flag, initially gigantic in scope, was hand-dyed and sewn by Baker in June of 1978 for the first San Francisco Gay Freedom Day Parade, which was to assure its popularity.  At this time an employee of the Paramount Flag Company had found a cache of old rainbow flags each with seven stripes that had been made for some Masonic clients.  These quickly sold out to the local Gay community.  Working with the Paramount Flag Company Gilbert designed a six-striped variant of his original design because fuchsia textile dye was not, at that time, commercially available.  It was in reaction to the assassination of Harvey Milk one year later - the first openly Gay man to serve public office in the United States - that the San Francisco Pride Parade Committee organized a parade to protest his murder; they adopted Baker's flag as their symbol.  But, because the committee had wanted to divide this enormous flag evenly during the procession into two banners each of three colors, royal blue would come to replace both turquoise and indigo.  However, the spark of Queer flame always burns bright even in the darkest night, and our Flag continued to undergo alterations that were not always successful.  For example, during the mid-1980s of the HIV/ AIDS onslaught - chiefly ignored by the Reagan Administration - Leonard Matlovich, an AIDS-activist proposed adding a black stripe to our Flag as a somber reminder of the brothers we had lost to this dread disease; this stripe was then to be removed and publicly burned in Washington, DC. in an expression of victory and grief should a cure finally be discovered.

(Continued)