Our bottom line is equality. Businesses can decide if ours benefits or threatens their own

In light of the whole Chick-Fil-A brouhaha of this past week, we keep getting the same note from the company’s defenders. Whether in email or in forums, both on this site and elsewhere, there’s this idea that by simply making note of an announced sponsorship or united advocacy campaign, we on the pro-LGBT side were acting like big, bad meanies. That’s a compelling claim, if you consider the basic facts.

In order to start controversy, all this site had to do was simply make note of The Pennsylvania Family Institute’s announced sponsorship with Chick-Fil-A. That’s it. We simply had to repost a flyer that PFI had already created! From there, others weighed in, PFI abruptly scrubbed the flyer (without noting their action), and Chick-Fil-A Corporate tweeted its own interest in the matter (before issuing a carefully parsed statement two days later)

Now, If Chick-Fil-A was proud of the support and its public illumination, then there would be ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM ON THEIR END. That’s the way it is with any number of pro-equality corporations, who quite proudly support LGBT events, pride marches, conferences, etc. Pro-equality companies tend to embrace diversity, progress, and inclusion, as well as those who advocate for it. I’ve consumed enough corporate-donated food and stashed away enough corporate-branded swag to know this to be true.

So that’s what’s so darn telling about these kinds of corporate developments. When we highlight them, more often than not, the company (be it privately or publicly held) tends to back away, demand their name be scrubbed, renounce support, etc. Whereas the reaction, both from Chick-Fil-A and PFI could’ve been “So what?” or “Yeah, we’re proud to support each other on ‘protect marriage’ causes,” we instead got walk backs, disavowals, convenient explanations, shot-messengers, and scrubbed flyers. And this is how it plays out almost every time.

That corporate reality is not on us, our movement, or the canard that “militant” gays wield a mutant power of intimidation. Everyone — consumers, business owner, stock holders, advocacy groups — has their own outlooks, choices, and free will. In America’s marketplace, equality is the outlook that seems to be winning, with “pro-family” outreach an increasing liability.

***

*Oh, and this also goes for our more recent revelations about Chick-Fil-A/WinShape’s connections to the larger marriage movement. If they are proud of this fight, then they should like our bringing it to light.




Good As You

—  admin

FRC really knows how to advance a cause. Ours.

The Family Research Council’s newest strategy at this late DADT hour: Building on the idea that openly heterosexual soldiers are on the cusp of fleeing or dying, thanks to the so-called homosexual agenda:

Winter isn’t officially upon us until next week, but it looks like Snowe and Flake have already melted. Two Republicans, Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Rep. Jeff Flake (Ariz.), both made stunning decisions to back a bill that could force soldiers to leave their jobs–or be hurt doing them. Despite warnings from General James Amos that overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would cost Marines lives and limbs, more Republicans are chickening out when the troops need them most. [SOURCE]

That’s a sweet thing to lay at people’s feet for the sake of political gain, ain’t it?

But believe it or not, that’s actually enot the most telling comment we saw in today’s FRC “Washington Update.” No, no — that honor would actually go to this quip:

Attempting to explain her turncoat maneuver, [Sen. Olympia Snowe] said she arrived at her decision after “careful analysis” (which, considering how her state just voted to protect marriage, probably wasn’t as careful as it should have been). [SOURCE]

We say telling, because it completely belies the “it’s only about marriage” strategies that these folks always use whenever nuptial parity is on a state ballot. Here we have FRC — major players in Maine, like all other marriage states — connecting a completely unrelated issue right smack back to the marriage matter, simply because both conversations have gay people at heart (despite how lacking that heart might be). FRC’s suggestion seems to be that Sen. Snowe’s primary source of information gathering on DADT should not have been the Pentagon report or the opinions of folks like Gates or Mullen, but rather the most recent way that a majority of citizens from her home state chose to treat gay people. The suggested answer seeming to be that discrimination is transferrable, with only the target needing to remain the same, not the issue up for debate.

If that’s what they wanna go with, fine. But we’re gonna throw it right back in their faces the next time we read a “this is not about discriminating against gays — it’s about protecting marriage” press release. That is, of course, unless our suddenly-gay-only military is unable to stave off world domination with only the pride flags and Quiche Lorraines that we plan to radically use as replacement weapons, ultimately stripping us of the right to call out Southern Poverty Law Center-designated “hate groups” on their homo-hostile nonsense.




Good As You

—  admin

Visitation, ours: ‘Here I brought you this flower, dying spouse’ remains evangelical hot potato

So let’s say, for the sake of argument, that social conservatives like Matt Barber are 100% committed to their convictions against sinners as they usually describe them. Does this mean that they’d deny obstetric services to adulterers? Cut off treatment to an overdosing drug addict? Nix life-saving surgery to an alcoholic victim of a booze-induced car accident? Limit hospital visitation only to those whose lie detector results prove that they’ve borne true witness all year?

Screen Shot 2010-11-19 At 2.54.13 PmOr: Is it only one kind of “sinner” that they care to target? This from the American Family Association’s One News Now:

According to the new rule, which takes effect in 60 days, hospitals receiving Medicare or Medicaid money have to inform patients of their right to designate a spouse, domestic partner, family member, or a friend. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said on Wednesday the rule grants “full and equal” rights to patients to choose who they want by their bedside. But Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel points out they already have the right to choose visitors.



[Matt] Barber considers the new rules political theater in trying to create the disingenuous idea that people based on their so-called “sexual orientation” are roundly discriminated against. Faith-based hospitals are not exempt from the rule.

“Certainly there are Catholic hospitals and Baptist hospitals that recognize homosexual behavior as sinful behavior,” he points, “and they do not want to take part in affirming homosexual sin under the strong arm of the government.”

Some religious hospitals may have to make a decision as to whether to conform to the rules or not accept Medicare patients. Barber says what the Obama administration is doing is casting liberty of conscience aside and forcing acceptance of homosexuality

Feds to hospitals: Go gay…or go broke [ONN]

Honestly, if you’re at a medical hospital that holds this as the (or even a) focus, then you might wanna go somewhere else anyway. And this goes not only for gays — it goes for anyone among us who’d much rather get the fast cure than cast the first stone!




Good As You

—  admin

Sources: Pentagon’s DADT report will be Tony Perkins’ roadblock, not ours

A Pentagon study group has concluded that the military can lift the ban on gays serving openly in uniform with only minimal and isolated incidents of risk to the current war efforts, according to two people familiar with a draft of the report, which is due to President Obama on Dec. 1.

KEEP READING: Sources: Pentagon group finds there is minimal risk to lifting gay ban during war [Wash Post]

Excuses = off.

Progress = on.

Santa, you know what we want.




Good As You

—  admin

Some honey for Sharron Angle’s wedding, even as she douses ours with vinegar

Sharron Angle’s 1970 wedding sounds lovely:

201010280944

Genuinely. Sharron looks pretty. Her groom, handsome. The antique satin gown was surely resplendent. And a honeymoon trip around Tahoe and California of the early 1970s? That’s fun.

Unfortunately, 2010 Sharron doesn’t feel the same way about my legal marriage:

I confess that we are a nation who has killed our children. I confess that we are a nation who has walked away from the family and allowed divorce even among our ranks. We have walked away from the biblical definition of marriage; one man, one woman, the two become one flesh,” Angle said. “We as a nation have been walking away from our constitutional freedom and relying on government instead to take care of the widow and the orphan…we’re saying ‘well, the government we have all these programs now, aid for families with dependent children and medicare and social security.

Sharron Angle Laments ‘Wicked Ways’ Of Social Programs, Divorce, Gay Marriage (AUDIO) [HuffPo]

Oh yea, Sharron? Well okay, fine: Your bridesmaids dresses sound kind of lacking. There, I said it. Green organza gowns with green picture hats accompanied by a bouquet of salmon gladoli and fern? Sounds drab. Boring. Yuck. ::Harumph!::

Oh, don’t listen. I’m just kidding, S.A. The dresses sound fine, perfectly complimenting your own gown. It’s just that your words wound so much, S Dog. Here in a world where we’re trying to help gay kids, it’s sad to hear of another potential U.S. Senator who wishes to push outdated, offensive biases into the national discussion. Those cut right to the core. So you’ll have to forgive my catty comments about your bridesmaid choices — they’re born not out of true style assessment, but rather staunch self-protection against dangerous discourse that cruelly undermines millions of American families! Families like mine.




Good As You

—  admin