And yet Fred Phelps is a free man. Weird, Janet.

Janet-PorterJanet Porter (née Folger) on the now-year-old Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act:

Censorship. Hate-crimes legislation has passed that targets pastors, forbidding them from speaking about homosexuality, same-sex marriage or the dangers that Islam presents to America – part of Marxist censorship. (Not to mention that Obama wants all “fishy” communication to be reported to him.)

Janet Porter: To my fellow enemies [AFA]

You know, because you remember the recent announcement about the government reopening Alcatraz in order to house the tens of thousands of anti-LGBT faith leaders who’ve been arrested in the past year. Right? Preachers nationwide are now falling all over themselves to praise same-sex couples, lest they be hauled into the slammer. You all read about that in the latest issue of Convenient Fantasies For Feeding Far-Right Talking Points Weekly, yes?




Good As You

—  admin

Weird, Carl: Why didn’t ‘I don’t have one iota of respect for [civil unions]‘ make your 6-point ‘apology’?

Screen Shot 2010-10-12 At 6.18.42 PmHere’s Carl Paladino in September, speaking to the very same Hasidic group where he ultimately delivered his now-infamous comments about gays’ “brainwashing” children:

(click to play audio clip)

*AUDIO SOURCE: A September appearance alongside Yehuda Levin, wherein Levin said same-sex marriage ’caused the last step before the floods of Noah that actually destroyed the worlds’ and that the judicial and legislative system has “spiritually sodomized” voices of dissent, while Paladino sat there and said nothing [G-A-Y]

But now Carl Paladino of course knows that he’s stepped in it big time. So where there was once a need to say whatever he thought would appease the uber-homo-hostile Yehuda Levin, there is now the realization that unfettered anti-gayness will not fly in New York. And whereas there was once “not one iota of respect” for even civil unions, there is now the suggestion that the anti-civil union, pro-”let the people vote” Republican candidate has the exact same position as the pro-civil union, anti-vote-on-marriage President:

1) I am a live and let live person.

2) I am 100% against discrimination of any group. I oppose discrimination of any kind in housing, credit, insurance benefits or visitation.

3) I am 100% against hate crimes in any form.

4) I am in support of civil agreements and equal rights for all citizens.

5) My position on marriage is based on my personal views. I have the same position on this issue as President Barrack (sic) Obama. I have previously stated I would support a referendum by New York voters. I have proposed Initiative and Referendum so New Yorkers can decide important issues like this.

6) The portrayal of me as anti-gay is inconsistent with my lifelong beliefs and actions and my prior history as an father, employer and friend to many in the gay and lesbian community.

The full “apology”: Carl Paladino…apologizes? [NYDN]

Mmm hmm, Carl. And we’re enjoying that oceanfront midtown Manhattan apartment you sold us too!




Good As You

—  John Wright

DOMA repeal nowhere to be found on Democrats.org web site, weird DADT ‘sensible’ repeal

Jesus, the tire tracks on my back are really smarting today. The DNC has apparently boarded the bus that is driving over LGBTs and the immigration reform folks today with a lovely revamped site on “Civil Rights” that’s, to be charitable, going in the the wrong direction. I can’t help but cringe at the bitter irony of the logo:

Change that matters. Stands up for an ideal (if not civil rights, I suppose re-election is an ideal). And a tiny ripple of hope…well that sure sums it up doesn’t it, LOLOLOL?

OK, on to the content…keyboard protection on.

Civil Rights are not just abstract principles. They represent nothing less than our ability to provide for ourselves and our families and to live free from discrimination or persecution. For decades, Democrats have fought for these values, working to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to fully participate in our society-to live in a place where there are no second-class citizens, where each of us can go about our lives without fear of discrimination.

For too many though, this ideal is still far from a reality. Democrats are committed to:

  • Strengthening the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to better protect voting rights;
  • Enacting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which includes measures prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity;
  • Ensuring full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples;
  • Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security;
  • Ending racial, ethnic, and religious profiling; and
  • Building a fair and more equitable criminal justice system that provides non-violent offenders a second chance at a rehabilitated life.

Wait – what happened to one of the promises candidate Barack Obama made during the campaign — repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act? Nowhere, people. Not a priority, not on the list anymore. I guess that went up in smoke with the whole “full civil unions” (where’s that going to come from?) hoo-hah.

And tell me what is a “sensible way” to repeal DADT? It sure can’t be by giving troops freepable surveys to fill out, non-confidential feedback e-boxes, and asking spouses what they think about enlisted homos moving next door. I guess “sensible” is whatever Bill Gates approves of.

This situation is so damn sad — and unnecessary from a PR perspective if you want to at least string along LGBTs to open the gAyTM. They aren’t even trying anymore.
Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

—  John Wright

Wait, NOM doesn’t know that they’re the ones wrecking the GOP’s future? Weird. Everyone else does.

On “Top Chef,” the contestants are always talking about being thrown under the bus (i.e. being sold out by one of their fellow contestants). Well today, it’s Chef NOM who’s serving up a heaping slice of nonsense over a bed of victimization, coated in a warm B.S. drizzle, and it’s those cooks in the GOP kitchen who prefer a more moderate temperature who are supposedly spoiling the feast:

Prediction: after Mehlman announced he’s gay, you will see an increasingly coordinated campaign by certain GOP establishment elites to jettison the marriage issue, an issue about which the majority of Americans–and 80 percent of Republicans–agree.

GOP Elites Try to Throw Marriage Under the Bus [National Organization For Marriage]

Only thing here? It’s Maggie Gallagher and NOM who have been throwing marriage — and, by extension, the GOP’s identity — under the bus for the past decade or so! Forget circus peanuts: It’s gay people’s marriage licenses that Maggie and crew have been using to tease the elephant, getting the party off course of so many actual societal discussion, and trampling so much good will under the pachyderm’s considerable feet. And increasingly, we’re seeing how the gumbo makes Dumbo feel all of his first four letters.

If there ever was a bipartisan bus in this country that might’ve been headed towards a shared sense of progress, then “the fight to save marriage™” will surely go Images-1down in history as one of the most ignoble, wantonly divisive, cruelly obnoxious reasons for that bus’ derailing. Those Republicans who are making some sort of good faith attempt at unifying or at least getting us past the contentious conversation that surrounds this issue are the ones who are trying, to varying degrees, to wipe the “marriage wars” stench from society’s taint. They are not the ones leaving skid marks on marriage, history, and the Republican party!




Good As You

—  John Wright

GOP Senate candidate Mark Kirks’ ex-wife gives weird answer to question whether Kirk is gay

Chicago Magazine:

CF: What about the rumors that Mark Kirk is gay?

KV: That’s been going on since he first ran. It’s highly unusual for a man to have been married to a woman for eight years and not produced children. And it’s unusual for a man to have not been married until he’s 40 years old. [Kirk was 41]. So people get suspicious. It’s human nature. When we don’t understand something, we want to attach an explanation to it. It’s not an accurate explanation that Mark is gay, but nevertheless, that’s how some people choose to reconcile it.

It’s not an accurate explanation? Weird way to deny your ex is gay. How about, he’s not gay. It’s not an accurate explanation? Try this. Ask your wife, husband, father, mother, child – anyone you know who is straight – if they’re gay. See if any of them – any of them – respond with “it’s not an accurate explanation.” I’m gonna bet the house that no one does.

So is she suggesting he’s bisexual? Chicago Magazine took this as a denial. It’s not quite a denial actually. It sounds like she’s hedging.




AMERICAblog Gay

—  John Wright