"Joy and pleasure are as real as pain and sorrow and one must learn what they have to teach. . . ." -- Sean Russell, from Gatherer of Clouds

"If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right." -- Helyn D. Goldenberg

"I love you and I'm not afraid." -- Evanescence, "My Last Breath"

“If I hear ‘not allowed’ much oftener,” said Sam, “I’m going to get angry.” -- J.R.R. Tolkien, from Lord of the Rings

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Friday Gay Blogging on Thursday

Just a few links and quotes this morning -- I just realized I have a doctor's appointment that I have to leave for soon.

The theme for today seems to be "scum." First, take a look at this report from Think Progress:

Yesterday, the Family Research Council (FRC) put out a statement objecting to the Obama administration’s pledge to “establish the nation’s first national resource center” to assist communities providing services to elderly LGBT communities. The statement from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius noted that there are now “as many as 1.5 to 4 million LGBT individuals are age 60 and older.” Nevertheless, FRC is arguing that there aren’t many LGBT senior citizens because “homosexual conduct” makes them die early:
In reality, HHS has no idea how many LGBT seniors exist. No one does! The movement is only a few decades old, and people who are 80- or 90-years-old didn’t grow up in a culture where it was acceptable to identify with this lifestyle.

Of course, the real tragedy here–apart from the unnecessary spending–is that, given the risks of homosexual conduct, few of these people are likely to live long enough to become senior citizens! Yet once again, the Obama administration is rushing to reward a lifestyle that poses one of the greatest public health risks in America. If this is how HHS prioritizes, imagine what it could do with a trillion dollar health care overhaul!


It still amazes me that groups that live in a fantasy world like this -- a "reality" composed, it seems, of equal measures of the nastiest, most mean-spirited reading possible of Christian scripture and the fantasies of a loon like Paul Cameron -- can get press coverage, and yet they've been defining the debate on gay rights for years.

However, I'd like to point out that FRC has maintained its perfect record: nothing that they claim in that statement is true.

And speaking of the unhinged, check out this report from Louise at Pam's House Blend: Peter LaBarbera, Brian Camenker, and Paul Madore held a "press conference" in Maine in support of Yes on One, the ballot measure to repeal Maine's new marriage law. Louise has also put together some related videos. This one's priceless -- LaBarbera at his best:



"Nobody wants to talk about it?" Peter, you don't talk about anything else.

By the way, if I'm remembering correctly, the "crowd estimate" for this shindig was 8 supporters, 10 press, and 15 representatives from No on One.

Louise has been doing amazing work reporting on the Maine campaign at Pam's House Blend; ditto Lurleen on the initiative in Washington State. Check them out.

Finally, NOM, the Mormon front run by Maggie Gallagher, has to obey the law, which is really going to twist her knickers. From Box Turtle Bulletin:

A federal judge has denied a request by the National Organization for Marriage for a temporary restraining order to suspend Maine’s campaign reporting requirements for ballot initiatives. NOM is currently footing nearly two-thirds of the total bill for Stand for Marriage Maine’s effort to pass Question 1. NOM complained that because they were not a Maine-based group, that they should be exempt from what they consider to be overbearing regulations for Political Action Committees. The court disagreed (PDF: 187KB/32 pages):
Maine’s compelling interest in ensuring that the electorate knows who is financially supporting the views expressed on a particular ballot question cannot be satisfied by one-time reporting. Instead, Maine is entitled to conclude that its electorate needs to know, on an ongoing basis, the source of financial support for those who are taking positions on a ballot initiative. It will not do to say that a one-time disclosure in the week before the election is sufficient. That would not give the opposing viewpoint the opportunity to point out the source of the financing and seek to persuade the electorate that the source of support discounts the message.


Note that a similar suit was filed in Washington State to block release of donor names for the attempt to void the expanded domestic partnership law there, and the Yes on 8 supporters in California are also trying to block release of information about the workings of their campaign.

Why do you suppose these people have such problems with being open and honest about what they're up to, hmmm?

Racing. Catch ya later.

No comments: