The Gaytheist Agenda

The bigots have been responding to the recent Proposition 8 decision. I’ve read and listened to them with a mix of amusement and disgust (though more of the former than the latter–it’s obvious their movement is in its death throes, and they know it as much as we do). It must be so difficult for these people, so firmly stuck in the first century, to be thrust into the 21st century. Needless to say, they’re not taking it gracefully.

 
Brian Brown scrawled one of his typical hysterical press releases “decrying” the decision and whining, as usual, about the perceived right of the majority to vote away the rights of a minority. For once he forgot to beg for money…

 
The Nag herself was playing the martyr on CNN. It appears her hard work defending bigotry is taking a toll on her. She looks more haggard every time she gets on camera.


 
Ex-con Charles Colson, James Dobson and others got together to whine about how very persecuted they are because their “religious freedom” to force everyone to kowtow to their version of god, morality and all the rest is being abridged.

 
Certified hate group TVC was “angered” over the decision. Plenty of whining about how the majority is under attack by the minority and claims that the mob is supposed to rule all.

 
Tony Perkins tries to play the victim on CNN but fails miserably.


 
Newt Gingrich strongly denounced Walker’s destruction of marriage between one man, one woman, one man, one woman, one man, one woman and multiple mistresses .

 
Rush Limbaugh, Oxycontin fiend and four-time divorcee, is also very much opposed to Walker’s decision.


 
AFA can only fixate on the fact that Judge Walker is gay. (Which is not surprising considering their bizarre fixation on all things gay) Supposedly if a judge is gay they are automatically biased in any case that touches upon gay issues and must recuse themselves. Funny how the Christians never ask Christian judges to recuse themselves in cases that involve Christians…..

 
Wendy Wright, of Concerned Whackjobs for America, had hysterics on national TV.


 
A Mormon still clings to the notion that the only purpose of marriage is spawning, which is why the Prop 8 decision was so very, very wrong.

 
LDSinc “regrets” the decision (the decision, not their involvement in the campaign), and asks for “mutual respect and civility”. After they expend tens of millons of dollars and countless hours waging war on our families and our lives they ask for respect and civility? WTF?

 

The entire 138 page decision is worth reading, but here are some juicy bits : (Boldface is mine.)

…..
III
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both
unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.

DUE PROCESS
The Due Process Clause provides that no “State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” US Const Amend XIV, § 1. Due process protects individuals against arbitrary governmental intrusion into life, liberty or property. See Washington v Glucksberg, 521 US 702, 719- 720 (1997). When legislation burdens the exercise of a right deemed to be fundamental, the government must show that the intrusion withstands strict scrutiny. Zablocki v Redhail, 434 US 374, 388 (1978).

THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER
The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. See, for example, Turner v Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) (“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”); Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (1978) (“The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”); Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632, 639-40 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”); Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) (The “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”); Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, 486 (1965) (“Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”).
…..
Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse. FF 21. “[I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.” Lawrence, 539 US at 567. The Supreme Court recognizes that, wholly apart from procreation, choice and privacy play a pivotal role in the marital relationship. See Griswold, 381 US at 485-486.

Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre. FF 23-25. When the Supreme Court invalidated race restrictions in Loving, the definition of the right to marry did not change. 388 US at 12. Instead, the Court recognized that race restrictions, despite their historical prevalence, stood in stark contrast to the concepts of liberty and choice inherent in the right to marry. Id. The marital bargain in California (along with other states) traditionally required that a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals. FF 26-27, 32. As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouse’s role within a marriage. FF 26-27, 32. Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals. Id. Yet, individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality.

…..
Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS DO NOT SATISFY CALIFORNIA’S OBLIGATION TOALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO MARRY
…..
The evidence shows that domestic partnerships do not fulfill California’s due process obligation to plaintiffs for two reasons. First, domestic partnerships are distinct from marriage and do not provide the same social meaning as marriage. FF 53-54. Second, domestic partnerships were created specifically so that California could offer same-sex couples rights and benefits while explicitly withholding marriage from same-sex couples. Id, Cal Fam Code § 297 (Gov Davis 2001 signing statement: “In California, a legal marriage is between a man and a woman. * * * This [domestic partnership] legislation does nothing to contradict or undermine the definition of a legal marriage.”).

The evidence at trial shows that domestic partnerships exist solely to differentiate same-sex unions from marriages. FF 53-54. A domestic partnership is not a marriage; while domestic partnerships offer same-sex couples almost all of the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage, the evidence shows that the withholding of the designation “marriage” significantly disadvantages plaintiffs. FF 52-54. The record reflects that marriage is a culturally superior status compared to a domestic partnership. FF 52. California does not meet its due process obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry by offering them a substitute and inferior institution that denies marriage to same sex couples.

PROPOSITION 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DENIES PLAINTIFFS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WITHOUT A LEGITIMATE (MUCH LESS COMPELLING) REASON
Because plaintiffs seek to exercise their fundamental right to marry, their claim is subject to strict scrutiny. Zablocki, 434 US at 388. That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319 US 624, 638 (1943). ….. The minimal evidentiary presentation made by proponents does not meet the heavy burden of production necessary to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Proposition 8 cannot, therefore, withstand strict scrutiny. Moreover, proponents do not assert that the availability of domestic partnerships satisfies plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry; proponents stipulated that “[t]here is a significant symbolic disparity between domestic partnership and marriage.” Doc #159-2 at 6. Accordingly, Proposition 8 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

……
SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR SEX DISCRIMINATION
Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 as violating the Equal Protection Clause because Proposition 8 discriminates both on the basis of sex and on the basis of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation discrimination can take the form of sex discrimination. Here, for example, Perry is prohibited from marrying Stier, a woman, because Perry is a woman. If Perry were a man, Proposition 8 would not prohibit the marriage. Thus, Proposition 8 operates to restrict Perry’s choice of marital partner because of her sex. But Proposition 8 also operates to restrict Perry’s choice of marital partner because of her sexual orientation; her desire to marry another woman arises only because she is a lesbian.

The evidence at trial shows that gays and lesbians experience discrimination based on unfounded stereotypes and prejudices specific to sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians have historically been targeted for discrimination because of their sexual orientation; that discrimination continues to the present……
…..
Proposition 8 targets gays and lesbians in a manner specific to their sexual orientation and, because of their relationship to one another, Proposition 8 targets them specifically due to sex. Having considered the evidence, the relationship between sex and sexual orientation and the fact that Proposition 8 eliminates a right only a gay man or a lesbian would exercise, the court determines that plaintiffs’ equal protection claim is based on sexual orientation, but this claim is equivalent to a claim of discrimination based on sex.
…..
STANDARD OF REVIEW
…..

Although Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational basis, the evidence presented at trial shows that gays and lesbians are the type of minority strict scrutiny was designed to protect. Massachusetts Board of Retirement v Murgia, 427 US 307, 313 (1976) (noting that strict scrutiny may be appropriate where a group has experienced a “‘history of purposeful unequal treatment’ or been subjected to unique disabilities on the basis of stereotyped characteristics not truly indicative of their abilities” (quoting San Antonio School District v Rodriguez, 411 US 1, 28 (1973)). See FF 42-43, 46-48, 74-78. Proponents admit that “same-sex sexual orientation does not result in any impairment in judgment or general social and vocational capabilities.” PX0707 at RFA No 21.
…..
PROPOSITION 8 DOES NOT SURVIVE RATIONAL BASIS
Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, as excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. One example of a legitimate state interest in not issuing marriage licenses to a particular group might be a scarcity of marriage licenses or county officials to issue them. But marriage licenses in California are not a limited commodity, and the existence of 18,000 same-sex married couples in California shows that the state has the resources to allow both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to wed. See Background to Proposition 8 above.

Proponents put forth several rationales for Proposition 8, see Doc #605 at 12-15, which the court now examines in turn: (1) Preserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman and excluding any other relationship from marriage; (2) proceeding with caution when implementing social changes; (3) promoting opposite sex parenting over same-sex parenting; (4) protecting the freedom of those who oppose marriage for same-sex couples; (5) treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples; and (6) any other conceivable interest.
…..
Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law…..

The evidence shows that the tradition of restricting an individual’s choice of spouse based on gender does not rationally further a state interest despite its “ancient lineage.” Instead, the evidence shows that the tradition of gender restrictions arose when spouses were legally required to adhere to specific gender roles. See FF 26-27. California has eliminated all legally mandated gender roles except the requirement that a marriage consist of one man and one woman. FF 32. Proposition 8 thus enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.

The tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not further any state interest. Rather, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 harms the state’s interest in equality, because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender.
…..
Plaintiffs presented evidence at trial sufficient to rebut any claim that marriage for same-sex couples amounts to a sweeping social change. See FF 55. Instead, the evidence shows beyond debate that allowing same-sex couples to marry has at least a neutral, if not a positive, effect on the institution of marriage and that same-sex couples’ marriages would benefit the state. Id. Moreover, the evidence shows that the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or same-sex couples will remain unaffected if the state ceases to enforce Proposition 8.

The contrary evidence proponents presented is not credible. Indeed, proponents presented no reliable evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry will have any negative effects on society or on the institution of marriage……

The evidence does not support a finding that California has an interest in preferring opposite-sex parents over same-sex parents. Indeed, the evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes. FF 70. Moreover, Proposition 8 has nothing to do with children, as Proposition 8 simply prevents same-sex couples from marrying. FF

Same-sex couples can have (or adopt) and raise children. When they do, they are treated identically to opposite-sex parents under California law. FF 49. Even if California had an interest in preferring opposite-sex parents to same-sex parents —— and the evidence plainly shows that California does not —— Proposition 8 is not rationally related to that interest, because Proposition 8 does not affect who can or should become a parent under California law.
…..
Proponents failed to put forth any credible evidence that married opposite-sex households are made more stable through Proposition 8. FF 55. The only rational conclusion in light of the evidence is that Proposition 8 makes it less likely that California children will be raised in stable households. See FF 50, 56. None of the interests put forth by proponents relating to parents and children is advanced by Proposition 8; instead, the evidence shows Proposition 8 disadvantages families and their children.
…..
The evidence shows that Proposition 8 does nothing other than eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. See FF 57, 62. Proposition 8 is not rationally related to an interest in protecting the rights of those opposed to same-sex couples because, as a matter of law, Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex.

To the extent proponents argue that one of the rights of those morally opposed to same-sex unions is the right to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, as explained presently those individuals’ moral views are an insufficient basis upon which to enact a legislative classification.
…..
The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples. See FF 48, 76-80. The evidence fatally undermines any purported state interest in treating couples differently; thus, these interests do not provide a rational basis supporting Proposition 8.
…..
A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO
OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION
In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate……

Proponents’ purported rationales are nothing more than post-hoc justifications. While the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit post-hoc rationales, they must connect to the classification drawn. Here, the purported state interests fit so poorly with Proposition 8 that they are irrational, as explained above. What is left is evidence that Proposition 8 enacts a moral view that there is something “wrong” with same-sex couples.

The evidence at trial regarding the campaign to pass Proposition 8 uncloaks the most likely explanation for its passage: a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples. FF 79-80. The campaign relied heavily on negative stereotypes about gays and lesbians and focused on protecting children from inchoate threats vaguely associated with gays and lesbians. FF 79-80; See PX0016 Video, Have You Thought About It? (video of a young girl asking whether the viewer has considered the consequences to her of Proposition 8 but not explaining what those consequences might be). At trial, proponents’ counsel attempted through cross examination to show that the campaign wanted to protect children from learning about same-sex marriage in school. See PX0390A Video, Ron Prentice Addressing Supporters of Proposition 8, Excerpt; Tr 132:25-133:3 (proponents’ counsel to Katami: “But the fact is that what the Yes on 8 campaign was pointing at, is that kids would be taught about same-sex relationships in first and second grade; isn’t that a fact, that that’s what they were referring to?”). The evidence shows, however, that Proposition 8 played on a fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual. FF 79; PX0099 Video, It’s Already Happened (mother’s expression of horror upon realizing her daughter now knows she can marry a princess).
…..
Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples. FF 76, 79-80; Romer, 517 US at 634 (“[L]aws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.”). Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

CONCLUSION
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that oppositesex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,
the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Of course there will be appeals, as the bigots won’t stop attacking our marriages until they are forced to. Nonetheless this is a significant victory for marriage equality!

Our second anniversary, now just a few days away, will be very happy indeed.

 
Update: As anticipated, Judge Walker stayed his decision pending the inevitable appeals.

 

For better or for worse, Judge Vaughn Walker will issue his decision in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger tomorrow. I know I’m not the only one experiencing significant anxiety over this….

Will all of the Somebody Please Think of the Children!!! types be swarming over this one? Probably not, since it was their rabid homophobia that caused his death. (Of course this is an alleged crime and the man accused is considered innocent until proven guilty, etc, etc.)

RIVERSIDE, N.Y. (WPIX) - A man is accused of fatally striking a 17-month-old infant he was babysitting Sunday night on the Shinnecock Indian Reservation on Long Island, according to New York State police.

The suspect has been identified as Pedro Jones, 20, of South Hampton. He has been charged with first-degree manslaughter after allegedly hitting the boy “several times throughout his body with close fists” and grabbed him by the neck, according to the felony complaint filed by police.

Authorities say Jones also told them, “I was trying to make him act like a boy instead of a little girl. I never struck that kid that hard before.”

Ah yes, the old “beat the gay out” method. It’s a classic in some circles.

The infant, Roy A. Jones, was reportedly found in cardiac arrest and was rushed to Southampton Hospital where he died around 8:30 p.m.

“I just found out my Grandson died last night that’s all I know,” Donna Collins Smith.told PIX 11 News.

…..
“He infiltrated my family through our trust, through the heart of my daughter and then stole the life of her child,” said the baby’s grandfather Daniel Collins. “I hope the justice system turns around and steals his.”

…..

Yet another innocent life–a toddler no less, and one who probably wasn’t gay–lost to homophobia. Yet the bigots keep insisting they’re the ones who are being persecuted.

 

This is a poignant piece that needs more exposure:

I am the boy who never finished high school, because I got called a fag every day.

I am the girl kicked out of her home because I confided in my mother that I am a lesbian.

I am the guy that lives on the streets because I am scared to go home.

I am the prostitute working the streets because I can’t find anybody who will hire a transsexual woman.

I am the sister who holds her gay brother tight through the painful, tear-filled nights.

We are the parents who buried our daughter long before her time.

I am the man who died alone in the hospital because they would not let my partner of twenty-seven years into the room.

I am the foster child who wakes up with nightmares of being taken away from the two fathers who are the only loving family I have ever had. I wish they could adopt me.

I am the Christian that can’t find a pastor to marry me to a woman in the eyes of God.

I am one of the lucky ones, I guess. I survived the attack that left me in a coma for three weeks, and in another year I will probably be able to walk again.

I am not one of the lucky ones. I killed myself just weeks before graduating high school. It was simply too much to bear.

I am the child that dreams of seeing my mum again. The courts won’t let me because she lives with another woman.

I am the man who fears that I will never be able to be myself, to be free of this secret because I won’t risk loosing my family and friends.

We are the couple who had the realtor hang up on us when she found out we wanted to rent a one-bedroom for two men.

I am the person who never knows which bathroom I should use if I want to avoid getting the management called on me.

I am the mother who is not allowed to even visit the children I bore, nursed, and raised. The court says I am an unfit mother because I now live with another woman.

I am the domestic-violence survivor who found the support system grow suddenly cold and distant when they found out my abusive partner is also a woman.

I am the brother that gets called a fag just because my brother isn’t ashamed of who he is.

I am the father who has never hugged his son because I grew up afraid to show affection to other men.

I am the girl that was raped behind my school because some stranger wanted to teach me to be a “real woman”.

I am the home-economics teacher who always wanted to teach gym until someone told me that only lesbians do that.

I am the guy down the street that can’t get a disability pension because my partner is a man.

I am the woman who died when the paramedics stopped treating me because they found out I didn’t have a female body.

I am the man that is afraid of losing his job, for expressing his true identity.

I am the mother that sees my son come home from school every day in tears because the other kids call him a girl.

I am the celebrity that wishes I could tell the would who I am, but I’m too scared.

I am the domestic-violence survivor who has no support system to turn to because I am male.

I am the person who feels guilty because I think I could be a much better person if I didn’t have to always deal with society hating me.

I am the man who stopped attending church, not because I don’t believe, but because they closed their doors to my kind.

I am the Youth Worker that sees hundreds of kids thrown out of home because they were honest with their families.

I am the girl that struggles to get up in the morning because school is so cruel to me.

I am the footballer scared to come out because I might lose my contract.

I am the boy that always wanted a Barbie, but no one would let me have one.

I am the person who has to hide what this world needs most: love.

I am the woman that wants to join the army, but my family wont let me because I would look like a dyke.

I am the person ashamed to tell my own friends I’m a lesbian, because they constantly make fun of them.

I am the boy tied to a fence, beaten to a bloody pulp and left to die because two straight men wanted to “teach me a lesson”.

I am the bisexual whose friends don’t want her to go to a movie with them because there’ll be a homophobe there, and they don’t want him to get mad at them for inviting me.

I am the girl who can’t hang out with girls because they assume that if I’m nice to them I have a crush on them.

I am the teenager who doesn’t tell my mother the truth in fear she’ll tell my homophobic father.

I am the bisexual who does not tell her parents for fear of being shunned for what I am.

I am the woman now 50 who vowed at 13 never to hide the fact I am bisexual

I am the woman who learned the true meaning of love and commitment from a couple together for more than 40 years I called them both Uncle

I am the man who lost his family, because my mother’s devotion to her religion was stronger than her maternal love for her son.

I am a woman who lost her family, because they simply couldn’t accept, that I am bisexual and I have as the same rights to be happy as everyone has.

I am a woman who lost her virginity because her best friends decided for her that she had to be with a man before she can decide she’s gay, so they drugged her one night and set her up with two guys. Her best friends set up a rape because they couldn’t accept her homosexuality.

I am a woman whose rights are constantly in peril because some think their religious beliefs trump basic human rights.

We are all around you.

We are the millions that want the hate to end.

Once again a rabid bigot disproves the National Organization for (Heterosexual Only) Marriage’s repeated claims that they don’t hate gay people.

Throughout its 23-city “Summer for Marriage Tour 2010,” the National Organization For Marriage (NOM) has gone to great lengths to portray itself as a tolerant organization of Christians driven to oppose same-sex marriage by their religion. NOM has argued that its members are in a great “civil rights” struggle against intolerant LGBT counter protesters who have sabotaged its tour and threatened its members. Former NOM President Maggie Gallagher has described her supporters as “very peaceful and prayerful and respectful of the law, because that’s who our people are” while painting LGBT activists as “a real face of hatred.” “It isn’t just ‘we disagree with you, we’re supporting our point of view,” Gallagher quoted the counter protesters as saying, “it’s ‘you’re wrong, you’re haters, you’re bigots.’”

The blog NOM Tour Tracker has worked to expose the thin veil of NOM’s tolerance throughout their tour and has noted that NOM has coached its supporters to focus on the movements message of “love” when speaking with reporters. Yesterday, the blog cross-posted an item by Good As You’s Jeremy Hooper, which uncovered the homophobic record of pastor Brad Brandon, one of the speaker’s NOM’s rally in Minneapolis. Brandon had previously warned supporters that gays would teach children how to masturbate and compared gays to alcoholics, pedophiles and Hitler:
…..

I suppose we should consider ourselves lucky he’s not openly calling for us to be lynched, unlike some of NOM’s other followers….

 

Many are angry over Target’s $150,000 donation to rabidly anti-gay Minnesota Gubernatorial Republican candidate Tom Emmer, who pals around with (and gives money to) those who advocate for the death of gay people, and rightfully so. But what about the many other organizations and corporations who donated to, or did business with, Emmer? Here are the most grievous offenders.

 
Best Buy, Inc $100,000.00 - Cash

 
Cold Spring Granite Company $35,000.00 - Cash

 
Davisco Foods $100,000.00 - Cash

“Davisco Foods is a family-owned company, mainly concerned with dairy products [cheese and food ingredients], which is headquartered in Le Sueur, Minnesota. The company markets such brands as BiPRO and BioZate. They also own Cambria, the sole producer of quartz work surfaces in the U.S. …

 
Federated Mutual Insurance Company $100,000.00 - Cash

 
Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. $100,000.00 - Cash

Aside from terrestrial broadcast stations, other current ventures include the film network ReelzChannel [q.v.] (launched in 2006), arts network Ovation TV, and the Hubbard Radio Network, which is used to distribute KSTP-AM’s local talk shows to subscribing radio stations in Minnesota and Wisconsin. The cable channels are run through subsidiary company Hubbard Media Group.

In 1981, Hubbard Broadcasting started U.S. Satellite Broadcasting (USSB), and later was instrumental in the development and launching of the first digital satellite system for television in 1994. … USSB’s development partner, Hughes Electronics (a General Motors subsidiary), launched their own subscription satellite service called DirecTV [q.v.]. The two services did not compete against each other (they carried different channels), and were often marketed together to subscribers by retailers and in advertisements until DirecTV’s 1998 acquisition of USSB.

Television stations

All of the assets are owned by the Stanley S. Hubbard Revocable Trust, and administered by Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. …

KAAL; KOB; KOBF-TV; KOBG-TV; KOBR; KRWF-TV; KSAX; KSTP-TV; KSTC-TV; WDIO-DT; WHEC-TV; WIRT-DT; WNYT.

Cable channels (through Hubbard Media Group division)

Ovation TV (purchased August 2006; co-owned with Bob and Harvey Weinstein and The Weinstein Company)

ReelzChannel [q.v.] (launched September 2006)

Radio stations

KSTP 1500 kHz AM - St. Paul, Minnesota - Sports radio

KSTP 94.5 MHz FM - St. Paul, Minnesota - “KS95″ - Adult contemporary

KTMY 107.1 MHz FM - Coon Rapids, Minnesota/Twin Cities - Talk radio for women

 
McClung Communications & Public Relations, LLC $10,000.00 - Management Consultant [Expenditure]

You haven’t heard of this company because it’s only been in business since June, 2010.

This says all: “Brian McClung - Owner at McClung Communications & Public Relations, LLC - Past: Deputy Chief of Staff at Office of Governor Tim Pawlenty; Director of Communications at Office of Governor Tim Pawlenty; Press Secretary at Office of Governor Tim Pawlenty” - LinkedIn

Tim Who? The anti-gay Bigot-in-Chief of the State of Minnesota, that’s who.

Need more? Video: “Pawlenty and Bachmann Sign Gay Marriage Ban Pledge”: “Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, State Senator Michele Bachmann, Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer and Republican state legislators sign a pledge to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Minnesota.”

 
Pentair Inc. $125,000.00 - Cash

 
Polaris Industries $100,000.00 - Cash

 
Red Wing Shoes $50,000.00 - Cash

 
Regis Corporation $100,000.00 - Cash
12,800 beauty salons worldwide.

 
Securian Life Insurance Company $100,000.00 - Cash

 
Stevens & Schriefer Group (SSG Media, Inc.) $195,000.00 - Media [Expenditure]

 
Tarrance Group $14,666.67 - Polling [Expenditure]

That says it: “A national Republican polling firm, providing polls, election information, and related services. … Our total commitment to quality has helped elect more than 80 Republican Governors, U.S. Senators and Members of Congress, as well as numerous state legislative candidates.”

Partners: Ed Goeas; Brian Tringali; Dave Sackett.

 
So when you’re boycotting Target, be sure to keep in mind these other organizations who gave significant amounts of money to a man who wants to strip you of your rights, and befriends those who want to strip you of your life.

 

No doubt you’ve heard about NOM’s pretty little hate tour. They’re going around the country in an eyesore of an RV to push their anti-equality message. At each stop they draw tens of like-minded people. Of course they’re not acting out of hatred or malice toward LGBT folk. Not at all…

 


 


 
Typical. NOM caterwauls when gay men stand quietly with umbrellas, yet do nothing to repudiate obvious death threats from their own. But remember, they’re not bigots, they certainly aren’t acting out of hatred, and anybody who says otherwise is persecuting them.

 
Update: Rob Tisinai has created a new logo for NOM, which I find very fitting:

This is an excellent piece by DSC, posted on a message board I used to frequent but rarely visit any longer for various reasons. I thought it should be viewed by a wider audience so here it is..

Unfortunately gay priorities haven’t gone well in this Congress. That has lead to great disappointment among gay posters for frankly good reason. Adding to it is when posters do the following.

Way one

Call gay priorities, especially the big three (ENDA, DADT, and hate crimes) a pony or some other belittling term meant to make out that these are unimportant frivolities. No, we don’t think we are the center of the earth. But for many gay people these are issues that at the very least can cause immense problems in our lives. In 3/5 of states, including such large states as TX, FL, PA, OH, MI, GA, and NC, gays are totally unprotected by non discrimination laws. We are totally at the mercy of employers, landlords, restaurateurs, hoteliers, and others. It is the very rare gay person who hasn’t had being gay or perceived as such, cost them a job or apartment. Thousands of gays are tossed out of the service each year while many others live lives of quiet desperation and fear of being found out. Hate crimes fortunately has passed for the record, we were the second most likely group to be victims of hate crimes (after Arab Americans).

Way two

Tell us we wanted Obama to wave a magic wand. We know all too well how much work it takes to pass gay friendly legislation. We didn’t think Obama or Hillary for that matter, would clap their hands and pass gay friendly legislation. We did think that either Obama or Hillary would use the Presidential bully pulpit to argue forcibly for gay friendly legislation. Obama frankly hasn’t. He has been, to be charitable, an intermittent advocate of gay issues. We didn’t expect a magic wand but we did expect Obama to advocate forcibly for legislation that had over 70% popularity (by comparison health care never broke 45%) but he just plain didn’t.

Way three

Tell us things are better for us than they really are. Posters have told us that we are covered by anti discrimination laws when we aren’t. That we have marriage rights when we don’t. That we can be covered on our partner’s health care when we can’t. We do tend to know when we are, and when we aren’t legally protected. It is our lives after all.

Way four

Tell us Obama has done more for gays than any other President. That ignores the immense progress, coming from our work, that happened for gays between 1993 and 2009. In 14 states sodomy laws existed and could be used to prevent gays from obtaining and keeping professional licences, take their children away, and even put them in jail. Gay civil rights laws only existed in a couple of states and no state even entertained marriage rights. TV was nearly berefit of gay characters, schools had virtually no openly gay teachers and few openly gay students. Gays could be fired from any federal job simply for being gay. Oh, and AIDS was still a 100% fatal disease that had hardly any government funding. Gay men were still dropping like flies in our major cities and our small towns. Clinton eliminated federal discrimination everywhere but the uniformed military. He appointed the first Senate confirmed gay and the first ambassador. He increased AIDS funding (both research and medication) leading to AIDS becoming a manageable disease for many of its sufferers. He also came within one vote of passing ENDA. Yes, Obama, did oversee the passing of hate crimes and he did give some benefits to gay employees. He also has more openly gay employees than Clinton did (remember that many people with professional licenses were closeted thanks to morals clauses on their licenses) but starting points matter and Obama had a pretty big, unearned head start over Clinton. Ignoring that ignores the work we did.

Hopefully this helps you to know what annoys us.