GLAAD Nominates Atlanta Journal-Constitution For ‘Outstanding’ Use Of ‘Transvestite,’ Ignoring Pride

We've already noted that all it takes to get a GLAAD Media Award nomination is to spit out some piece of gay-related content of middling quality, which explains why GLAAD gave Burlesque the only award nomination it'll receive — not counting its bribe-y Golden Globe nomination — besides its Razzie. But how does that explain GLAAD's "Outstanding Newspaper Overall Coverage" selection of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, a newspaper that has both ignored Atlanta's LGBT Pride celebrations (among the largest in the state and country) as well as the community at large, notes GA Voice. Oh, and then there's AJC's use of the word "transvestite" in an article, a practice GLAAD expressly forbids in its style guide. But hey, this is the same Gay Inc. organization that ignored Kirby Dick's Outrage! documentary exposing anti-gay closeted politicians, so really, the nominating standards are already suspect. If you're a glass half-full type, then find solace in GLAAD at least having the good sense not to nominate the Washington Post.


Permalink | Post a comment | Add to , , , , , , , , , , ,

Queerty

—  admin

Video: Hey Iowa For Freedom: Rejecting state DOMA law doesn’t mean ignoring it!

Here’s some more proud point-missing from the Iowa For Freedom coalition. This time from a voter who believes the state Supreme Court justices “ignored” the DOMA law, even if in reality, the Varnum panel quite openly and honestly found the law to be unconstitutional:

The down and dirty fact is that social conservatives tend to think any and all laws ever made that go against LGBT people and their rights are somehow cast in indelible stone, the likes of which can only to be reconsidered by a 50%+1 vote of “the people.” In this mindset, the only decision that any court can reach that’s in accord with righteousness is a decision that says, for the first time in American history’s clearly archived inevitability, that a minority group’s civil freedoms are to be ultimately determined by a majority of (largely) faith-motivated voters. As in always. As in only.

And it’s not just in states where courts roll back prior bans, either. In jurisdictions like Maine, where legislators reversed bias and implemented civil freedom, these same suspects come out of the political woodwork, this time decrying the “activist legislature” as opposed to the “activist court.” So don’t be fooled into thinking it’s only the judiciary that’s the “bad branch” in the “pro-family” community’s eyes. It’s *any* branch that opens its eyes to equal protection and due process. It’s *any* branch that does the right thing for America and her populace.

Now In Iowa, voters have a chance to do the right thing with this retention vote. And I’m not even saying that the right thing here is to automatically cast a “yes” vote for the three justices up for retention. No, no — the right thing is to look at the judge’s full record and to cast a vote based on a fleshed out, far-reaching assessment of the individual jurist’s merits, and not a monolithic vote based on vindictive spite for the one certain pro-equality opinion.

***

*SEE ALSO: Our complete Iowa For Freedom Archive




Good As You

—  admin