Maggie's Nightmare Come True?

Maggie Gallagher seems rather fond of speaking out of both sides of her mouth.  Back in 1991 she penned a viciously intolerant article (The Myth of Multiculturalism) against the apparent evils of "multiculturalism" that were encroaching into our public schools as, somehow, a demonstrable threat to her "religious liberties" and other like her, because the notion of these other faiths and their traditions might seem confusing and it would even be at odds with what she believes would be the moral instructions of Christian parents' teachings.  Sound familiar?  Well, it should!  This is the same argument, merely in a different guise, in which she has tried to drum-up Christian parental fear-mongering against other cultures, religions, and even other races!  Yes, Maggie has more than a slight racist bone in her body.  She ended this article by saying how embarrassed she is to admit that most African Americans are also Christian!  But, why do I bring this up?  Because, one infamous talking-point constantly brought up by Maggie Gallagher is the fear of a dramatic cultural shift in society that she and others like her cannot or do not approve of: "Gay marriage advocates hope to use the law to reshape the culture in exactly the same way that the law was used to reshape the culture of the old racist south."  I find it ironic that she would bring up an opposition to racism considering her earlier remarks, and the fact that her group has engaged in its fair share of ovate race-bating (despicable as it is)!  But, moreover, Maggie Gallagher's worse nightmare encapsulated by this talking point might be in the verge of reality!  According to Queerty, a Lesbian woman was excused from Jury service by the Prosecution, under the pretense that she new some Nigerian friends and might be biased in the Defendant's favor because of his ethnicity.  However, according to the Defense in this case, it would appear that she was removed because of her sexual orientation!  Historically, minorities were frequently weeded from a jury pool by Prosecutors because they might have sympathy for the Defense; I find it appalling that Maggie would insist that it's offensive to the African American community (a community that she is manipulating!) as if we both have no shared experiences of historical oppression!  And, furthermore, if this case lands before the SCOTUS, and they decide that it's unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, that blows Maggie's agenda wide-open.  You know, the agenda about us wanting to "use the law to reshape the culture" when this case is not being challenged by the Gay community (so, she cannot blame us).  Oh, and there's also her agenda in which she demands -- based on religious and moral dogma -- the legal right for all society to be able to discriminate against Gay people in terms of housing, employment, and goods and services, etc. (Brian Brown admitted to this on MSNBC this year, in fact!).  Indeed, if the SCOTUS finds that it is in keeping with the Equal Protection Claus -- the one that Maggie Gallagher humorously insisted our Founding Fathers drafted to protect citizens on the basis of race alone while she was a guest on CNN! -- than it could positively be used as a weapon against DOMA, challenged to state-sanctioned marriage discrimination, as well positively affecting the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (none of which Maggie and her coevals want!).  But, that's not all....  Maggie Gallagher also has her sights set on dismantling the First Amendment as a threat to her beliefs, as well, assuredly even imposing Domionist Christofascism onto the country and its citizenry; she honestly believes (well, she wrote it, so whether or not she believes it is anyone's guess) that the motives of the Gay community is to secularize the country and to separate the "American tradition" from "it's Judeo-Christian roots"!  Terrifying, no?

Ruth and the Handmaid's Tail!

In 1985 Margaret Atwood published a brilliant dyostopian-era novel called The Handmaid's Tale which was later turned into a film (in 1990) and an opera which premiered in 2000.  (Indeed, it would make a brilliant musical for the Broadway stage!)  The plot revolves around a future Theocratic society in which human fertility has declined to the point that any woman still capable of conceiving is compelled by law to do so for the sake of preserving the species in a monastic life; they are the featured public entertainment when they bring a new life into the world, and they can be purchased to conceive an heir by the wealthy and the powerful.  Fornication - that is, consensual intercourse with any man other than he who has purchased a Handmaid - is punishable by hanging!

This novel presents a reality - albeit fictitious....for now! - that may come to pass through means that are all too easy to achieve!  A reality that, sadly, the anti-Gay Ruth Institute seems to want to impose onto society in general; that marriage is a primarily conjugally public act intended for procreation, and any other message is a threat to those value systems, in particular the FAIR Act that was recently passed in California allowing for the inclusion of Gay Americans in history and social studies courses.  At the moment the Ruth Inst. and "Dr." Jennifer "Jenn" Roback Morse (QED) is railing against it by citing the testimony of one Dr. Miriam Grossman (it is also worth noting that this video - which the Ruth Inst. has cross-posted on their official Blog - was put together by, and bears the water-mark of, the active anti-Gay Hate Group, Mass Resistance):

"Dr." Grossman is a media darling for the extremist Far Right, and she has been a featured guest working in tandem with both the Ruth Inst. as well as "Dr." Jennifer "Jenn" Roback Morse's (QED) podcast!  Indeed, she seems to wear numerous hats - in one instance she is a child psychiatrist (according to Ruth and the above video clip), or she bills herself as a physician!  Ultimately, "Dr." Grossman doesn't want children taught Sex Ed. of any form, believing it to be harmful to children, under the misguided belief that marriage should be the only vehicle for sexual intimacy of any kind; however, many adults will now tell you that without appropriate Sex Ed. kids are susceptible to a whole variety of STDs.  Also, we must look at this testimony by "Dr." Grossman - and Ruth's endorsement of it - from another angle: they are attempting to insist (albeit speciously) that any mention of Gay people, our historical contributions to society, as well as how we have been historically oppressed and marginalized by society is supposedly a mere pretext to teaching our kids about Gay sex in a public school environment!  Certainly, it can be said, that many people do not make this sort of distinction, and Ruth may be attempting to play to this xenophobic base!  They are also evidently playing to irrational parental fears - by underscoring sex education and Gay social studies/ history - that Gay people are simply an inappropriate subject for kids, as though we are somehow a threat.  This is an old hat form of discrimination!  However, Ruth, NOM, and various other sorts of so-called "Family" groups yield to these methods in order to maintain their grip on American culture, values, and society!  Although, in reality, it is the values of the Ruth Inst. and the National Organization for Marriage that is a threat to the freedoms and secular values of the American people (as in Atwood's brilliant novel)!

Indeed, what harm would it be for parents - even Theofascists - to take their children to the side either before or after school in an effort to reaffirm their own moral guidelines, whether or not their children will end up believing them?  After all, isn't this the job of a parent, to reinforce their personal values in the home?  This should, in all honesty, be enough to satiate NOM and the Ruth Inst., though it clearly is not.  This guy (albeit he's a clear bigot) has the right idea:

Can't NOM and the Ruth Inst. learn from him?

The International Organization for Marriage Discrimination?

Well, it would appear that my fears have been realized!  A couple weeks ago, according to a public phone call that Jamie McGonnigal (Talk About Equality Blog) over-heard, Brian Brown (Pres. of the National Organization for Marriage) admitted at an air port that NOM appears to be planning to launch an international anti-Gay Group or, otherwise, an international anti-Gay activity of some time! Money quote:

[Brian Brown] said he needed to talk to Justin about who to hire with regards to a “New York International” organization. He has a meeting planned with the Christian Institute of Scotland and then said he didn’t “have much faith in the Mexican group.” Again, Jeremy Hooper recognized that Thomas Peters (NOM staffer) has been tweeting about some of NOM’s “exciting new plans.” This could very well have to do with that.

I have long-since been privately begging NOM to take its show on the roan, only because I need a good laugh at how the rest of the world is bound to treat them -- especially Ms. Maggie Gallagher-Srivastav -- when one takes into account how generally far more liberal Europe is when compared to the level of clearly anti-Gay extremist that NOM exhibits!  I also find is rather hysterical that Sen. Ruben "Gays are worthy to death" Diaz has refused to partake in NOM's 24 July anti-Gay hate-rally picketing the marriage licenses of Gay couples!  Neither will Archbishop Timothy Dolan be there.  This is odd, to me, considering the furor with which they both protested Gay Civil Rights in the months and weeks before the end of June throughout NY State!

Also, I can't believe that he's a smoker!  That certainly doesn't seem very "Christian" of him, considering all the carcinogens in but a single puff!

Repudiating Their Rhetoric?

On 19 July of 2005 two Gay teenage Iranian boys (pictured) were publicly hanged for the "crime" of homosexuality, charges that were later trumped up to rape by the religious authorities who control the Iranian judicial system.  Furthermore, according to Iranian law, for crimes of this nature, they were allowed to choose from four individual methods of execution: hanging, stoning, severed in half with swords, or dropped from the highest perch.  They seem to have chosen the far less painful method for their death.  Unfortunately, the mainstream news media did not seem to give this important story the attention that it rightfully deserved (a search of CNN yields no results), even when there was one more hanging of a Gay couple scheduled five months later.  So, when a local Gay Rights group here in Iowa sought to buy ad space from the Des Moines Register in order to report on these events, they were rejected on the grounds that the photograph of the two boys would be too graphic for their readership.  The irony is, of course, that the Des Moines Register later published a very graphic and disturbing advertisement from a Theofascist pro-life group featuring the image of an aborted fetus!

This tragic state-sponsored murder of two Gay youths seems to have served as the inspiration for an atrocious sign that was brandished by one of the National Organization for Marriage's (NOM) supporters in Indianapolis during their "Summer for Marriage Tour" last year, as Maggie Gallagher was speaking at the podium:

Today, however, I awoke to check the national GLBT news, only to find (thanks to my good friend Alvin McEwen of Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters) that the NOM has released a statement on its Blog repudiating any violent or hateful rhetoric on their behalf directed at my Gay brothers and Lesbian sisters:

We stand with [the GLBT community] abhorring any threat to the person and property of gay people, or gay marriage supporters. We hope you do the same for marriage supporters.

But we do it because it's the right thing to do not because anyone demands this of us. 

I know.  I almost stroked-out when I read that, too!  But, is their Blog an accurate reflection of past events, or are they merely trying to cover their asses in an attempt to make it seem as though they are not the vicious and uncaring hate-mongers that they seem?  According to NOM, they appear to be speaking of the incident involving the above sign when they write:

When a man came to a NOM rally with a hateful sign, he was immediately told he wasn't welcome. This is why the photo of the hateful sign is not of a sign being held up at a NOM rally but a sign discarded across the street.

However, no report of these events were made by the Courage Campaign (CC) who was closely monitoring NOM's tour.  Instead, as the following video will show, when reporters from the CC approached this individual holding that disgusting sign NOM's officials were quick to pounce upon the CC reporters to warn them, "We don't want anything inflammatory!":

Also, does this photo look as though he is standing "across the street"?  I didn't think so.  You can clearly observe the stairs leading up to the podium with some sound equipment and a few assembled supporters behind him.  Nice try, NOM!

Almost immediately after this incident was disclosed by the GLBT Blogosphere, Evan Wolfson of the Freedom to Marry campaign begun circulating a petition calling on Maggie Gallagher or other officials of NOM to repudiate this heinous gesture.  To my knowledge, NOM simply ignored our attempts to hold them accountable for the anti-Gay vitriol that they inspire in their supporters.  (I have contacted Evan Wolfson in order to be sure about whether or not Maggie issued a statement - any statement - castigating Larry Adams' sign.  I am awaiting his response.)  Four days after this sign was waved about, Maggie was called to repudiate it on Box Turtle Bulletin, given that she certainly seemed to endorse celebrities which quote Scripture calling for the slaughter of Gay men!  Neither has Maggie gone on record denouncing the barbaric and inhuman Ugandan "Kill the Gays" Bill that is still pending!

This now brings us to the NOM-sponsored anti-Gay Theofascist hate rally in the Bronx (N.Y.) that Brian Browne attended (pictured here, intimating the Million Man March on Washington as they begin their Hetero-Hegemony Pride Parade) in which one Rev. Ariel Torres Ortega, who also spoke at the event sometime after both Browne and Sen. Ruben Diaz, declared over the microphone that Gay men and Lesbians "are worthy to death!"  NOM has yet to repudiate Ortega's disgusting proclamations that might serve to encourage a homophobic and Theofascist society!

I don't know about you, but given NOM's previously disingenuous track record, I'm not buying it.  Indeed, considering the viciously anti-Gay hate-speech on hehalf of NOM's FaceBook supporters, I also have to wonder if they have not alienated their Theofascist base because of this new statement?  Maggie Gallagher has even shown her insensitivity towards my Gay brothers and Lesbian sisters at a public gathering, during the Iowa stop on NOM's "Summer for Marriage Tour":

Given the short-lived life span for many of NOM's tweets and blogs that are in any way supportive of the Gay community once they alienate their Theofascist base, I must wonder how long this anonymous posting is likely to remain.

NOM's White Hooded Terrorists!

(Copyright, Sean Chapin, 2011)

Last Thursday (30 June, 2011), the Minnesota Campaign Finance & Disclosure Board ruled in a 5-to-1 vote that the so-called National Organization for Marriage (NOM) must disclose their secretive handful of donors who contribute more than $1,000 in an effort to provide the citizens of that state with a transparent democracy, rather than allow the manipulation of their citizens by a shadowy group with unknown donors which seeks to defame Gay people in the media and in their own back yards.  Expect NOM to file a law suit challenging the state - as they have elsewhere whenever the group flagrantly disobeys a state's finance and disclosure laws - in order to have the Supreme Court rule Minnesota's campaign and finance laws un-Constitutional, perhaps because NOM qualifies as a "corporation" under the SCOTUS "Citizen's United"-ruling (more on that, later).  After all, Maggie Gallagher-Srivistrav once facetiously admitted, "[defending 'traditional marriage'] requires very expensive lawyers."  At worse, however, should NOM file a suit against the state of Minnesota, the desired result may be one in which a stay of the Disclosure Board's ruling is issued, thereby allowing Maggie Gallagher and Brian Browne to again play in Gay Minnesotan's back yards.  However, the Board's ruling already appears to be having an immediate effect due to the strength of the MN. law..  According to Andy Birkey of The Minnesota Independent, the publication was able to disclose many of the identities - not of NOM's backers - but of local MN. tycoons and local anti-Gay "Family" organizations who have all kicked in large sums of money, privately, to ensure Civil Marriage Discrimination:

The Minnesota Independent took a look at lobbying reports, campaign finance filings and foundation tax records and found a large amount of money coming from a handful of people. Lobbying reports don’t include the amount of money given to a particular lobbyist, only whether the donation was more than $500 per year. And campaign finance reports are limited to funds that went toward advertising, print or other electioneering communication and activity. 

Three groups have been behind the push for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The Minnesota Family Council (which also runs Minnesota for Marriage), the Minnesota Catholic Conference (a part of Minnesota for Marriage) and Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage (which reformed under the banner of Minnesota Majority several years ago).

Read the full article to glean who these wealthy anti-Gay movers and shakers are!  Though, one wonders how, given it's shamelessly transparent political activities and motivations that Catholic Church in various states has not been legally censured by the state or the IRS!

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.

NOM Skating on Thin Ice

I sure hope Maggie doesn't slip on a thin spot!  The whole article is well worth the read!

Poor Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown; what a sad couple. The front group they run for the Mormon and Catholic Churches, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), is under an active investigation for money laundering in Maine. This investigation by the State Attorney General and the Maine Ethics Commission has been underway for nearly two years, because NOM likely believes that it is above the law.

Well, one or both of these alleged lawbreakers could end up in prison if there was “intent” when they decided not to report the source of the $1.9 million that they raised to take away Maine’s marriage equality law back in November 2009.

...[NOM] also sued Maine to get its election law declared unconstitutional. 

This is a juicy frakking article, folks!  It definitely gives us hope that this hideous group will be brought town once and for all by the strong arm of the law!  Ah....I think I shall prepare a soothing tisane with some rose honey for a nice relaxing evening.  Articles like this just give me a case of the Warm Fuzzies!

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)