BJ’s NXS! opens new VIP Nightspot Lounge tonight

Club evolution

BJ’s NXS! is far more than a bar with hot dancers in it. At least that’s becoming clearer as they open the next phase of the club. Not only are they opening their Nightspot Lounge, the new private VIP area, they are also adding 16 new beers to the bar. That alone is reason to check it out. For tonight, they’ll offer complimentary tastings as well as keep the hunky dancers close by. Invitations are required but they make it easy for you. Just pick one up from the bartender.

DEETS: BJ’s NXS!, 3215 N. Fitzhugh Ave. 7 p.m. BJsNXS.com.

—  Rich Lopez

NOM: So into protecting children, they’ll take one kid’s pic and blast it ’round the web for political purpo$e$

This writer has already said that, if operating on an emotional level looking at the larger movement rather than personal passions, the “FckH8″ video campaign never seemed like the smartest of political strategies. And I’m not gonna apologize for that. Because it didn’t and still doesn’t strike as all that pragmatic, to this site and its writer, at least. (**I recognize and respect that others strongly disagree)

But that all being said: The National Organization For Marriage’s latest effort to exploit and flip the aforementioned video campaign for its own purposes has taken the game to a whole new level of offense. Because look, check out this button ad NOM’s created to promote their own cause:

Nom Banner Protectchildren

The boy in the image? Yea, that would be one of the kids from the FCKH8 video. As in: A kid whose pro-equality parent/s presumably know about his involvement. As in: A kid who never asked for NOM’s “protection.” As in: A kid who is not one of NOM’s children, but rather a young member of NOM’s pointed opposition. As in: A kid who NOM says is exploited via his sanctioned participation in the FCKH8 campaign, yet feels is being “protected” by this unsanctioned, forcible participation in NOM’s own fundraising efforts. How dare Maggie and Brian and company use this kid in this way?!



When I say that the video doesn’t strike me as smart politically, I’m speaking only about the language. The anger, the passion, the sick-of-it tone, the drive to inject humor into the whole thing: That’s of course all 100% understandable. Anger, passion, and sick-of-it-iness that is 100% DIRECTED AT NOM AND ITS SELF-APPOINTED JOB PROTECTING SOCIETY AND ITS CHILDREN! So for NOM, the ones who are always crowing about kids being “indoctrinated” in this way or that, to now further their self-appointment by using this one kid as their little victim in need of saving?! Well forget the political strategy attached to FCKH8: This attempt to flip it and exploit the underage participants is just further proof that the only families NOM cares to “protect” are the ones that SCREW=.




Good As You

—  admin

Video: NOM H8s viral vid so much, they’ll use it to raise Christmas cash

From the first moment I saw the video in question, I envisioned this kind of response campaign taking shape:

So essentially NOM is accusing the people behind the “FCKH8″ campaign of exploiting kids — while themselves exploiting the concept of kids and parenting to raise funds. Typical. And disgusting.

But not gonna lie: Putting kids in this “FCKH8″ initiative always struck me as an unsavvy move. When objectively weighing what the kids do for the video versus what they do for the forces who’ve turned every single anti-equality fight into a child war, who can honestly say that we come out the beneficiary?




Good As You

—  admin

Video: The sanctity of [telling gay soldiers they'll go to hell should they step on a land mine]




Good As You

—  admin

Video: ‘Every time they have to make a decision, they’ll be thinking about ‘what will some people out there think?’, not what the law is’

Former Iowa Governor Robert D. Ray (R) defends his state’s court system against the so-called “Iowa For Freedom” campaign:



(H/t: One Iowa)

***

*Our complete Iowa For Freedom archive




Good As You

—  admin

Audio: And next they’ll accuse us of plying Kate Gosselin with fertility drugs

Oh hell no, Focus on the Family! You are not going to pin TLC’s new heterosexual polygamy show on us:

(click to play audio clip)

*AUDIO SOURCE: TLC Reality Show Highlights Polygamy [FOTF]

Wait, is the show making these connections or is Jeff Johnston (an “ex-gay” whose FOTF beat is most always LGBT issues)? Because in reality: Polygamy exists because human potential exists! Polygamous unions have a recorded history because recorded history exists! The possibility of polygamous marriage exist because a custom known as marriage exists — not because same-sex marriage in particular has proven itself to be a worthy civil reality! There is absolutely no need to invoke the fight for two-person marriage equality when talking about this complete other kind of relational setup.

In terms of legality: Any change to the way this or any other nation recognizes civil marriage is to be decided ON. THE. MERITS. OF. THE. INDIVIDUAL. CASE! Pro-polygamy activists have every right to contend in court, with their representative, and with the public at large. But their burden will be to present legally sound arguments that hold muster under constitutional law. Their basis will come from a “slippery slope” dating back to the discovery of sex and the creation of a civil marriage system, not back to 2003′s Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health!

***

Oh, and considering TLC is the network of Sarah Palin and the Duggars, perhaps these social conservatives want to rethink their claims about TLC’s strategy of “pushing the envelope.”

***

*EARLIER: We predicted they’d try to pin it on us: TLC’s slippery slope: Duggars lead to polygamy [G-A-Y]




Good As You

—  John Wright

Mixed District Court ruling for NOM; or as they’ll surely call it: partly activist, partly okay

Not sure what to make of this mixed-bag decision, really:



PORTLAND — A U.S. District Court judge has delivered a split ruling that backs disclosing the names of out-of-state donors who helped repeal a gay marriage law in Maine.

Saying a state law requiring that the names of donors be disclosed within a certain time frame is “unconstitutionally vague,” U.S. District Judge D. Brock Hornby nevertheless said the request by the state Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices that the National Organization for Marriage disclose names of donors who gave money to defeat a gay marriage law in Maine is not a burden on NOM’s freedom of speech.

But Hornby took shots at some of Maine’s campaign finance disclosure rules. The judge said rules requiring 24-hour disclosure of independent expenditures over 0 — not just before an election, but whenever they occur — “has not been justified … is impermissably burdensome and cannot be enforced.”

Judge: Names of gay-marriage foes must be disclosed [Portland Press Herald]

So it seems good, but with some caveats. Still chewing on it; see below and form your own thoughts.

**The full opinion:



Dbh 08192010 1-09cv538 Natl Org for Marriage v Mckee




Good As You

—  John Wright