As I predicted in the post below this one, the haters at Protect Marriage have jumped on the "first graders go to gay wedding story." Above is a screencap of their site today where it is the top story.In the same week that the No on 8 campaign launched an ad that labeled as “lies†claims that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools to young children, a first grade class took a school-sponsored trip to a gay wedding. Eighteen first graders traveled to San Francisco City Hall Friday for the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The school sponsored the trip for the students, ages 5 and 6, taking them away from their studies for the same-sex wedding. According to the Yes on 8 campaign, the public school field trip demonstrates that the California Supreme Court's decision to legal same-sex marriage has real consequences.Of course, the Yes On 8 people fail to observe that the kids go to a private school, not public, and therefore would be unaffected by any curriculum decisions mandated by the state. Nevertheless, the folks that planned this field trip should have considered the possibility of the story being used by the Christianists as a giant "gotcha!" Really shitty timing.
"Taking children out of school for a same-sex wedding is not customary education. This is promoting same-sex marriage and indoctrinating young kids," said Yes on 8â€"ProtectMarriage.com Campaign Co-Manager Frank Schubert. "I doubt the school has ever taken kids on a field trip to a traditional wedding," Schubert said.
When asked by the Yes on 8 campaign, The San Francisco Chronicle reporter said she did not know if the school had ever sponsored a field trip for students to a traditional wedding. Telling the Chronicle that the field trip was "a teachable moment," the school's principal believes it is perfectly appropriate for first graders to attend a same-sex wedding. Officials in other school districts disagree.
"Prop. 8 protects our children from being taught in public schools that 'same-sex marriage' is the same as traditional marriage," said Santa Ana Unified School District board member Rosemarie "Rosie" Avila. "We should not accept a court decision that results in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn't be forced on us against our will," Avila added.
The Connecticut Supreme Court has just issued its ruling that gays may marry! This has caught a lot of us by surprise. But who cares? Woo hoo!Same-sex couples won the right to marry in Connecticut in an historic ruling by the Supreme Court today.What fantastic news! I'll be updating this post with more details shortly.
Citing the equal protection clause of the state constitution, the justices ruled that civil unions were discriminatory. In a 4-3 decision released at 11:30 a.m., the majority wrote that the state's "understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection."
"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," the majority wrote. "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."
Unsatisfied with the civil unions approved by the legislature in 2005, eight same-sex couples had brought the case, Kerrigan v. the state Commissioner of Public Health, after they were denied marriage licenses in 2004 by the Madison town clerk, who was following instructions issued by the state attorney general's office.
The state, arguing that civil unions already provide all the rights and protections of marriage, prevailed in a Superior Court ruling in July 2006. The couples appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which heard three hours of arguments on the case in May 2007.
Attorney Bennett Klein, arguing on behalf of the couples, told the court that civil unions were a "less prestigious, less advantageous institution."
UPDATE: From the court's ruling: (PDF via Towleroad)
UPDATE II: But things could also go like California."The issue presented by this case is whether the state statutory prohibition against same sex marriage violates the constitution of Connecticut. The plaintiffs, eight same sex couples, commenced this action, claiming that the state statutory prohibition against same sex marriage violates their rights to substantive due process and equal protection under the state constitution. The trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant state and local officials upon determining that, because this state’s statutes afford same sex couples the right to enter into a civil union, which affords them the same legal rights as marriage, the plaintiffs had not established a constitutionally cognizable harm. We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions.
We also conclude that (1) our state scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, (2) fo, (2) for the same reasons that classifications predicated on gender are considered quasi-suspect for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the United States constitution, sexual orientation constitutes a quasi-suspect classification for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, and, therefore, our statutes discriminating against gay persons are subject to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and (3) the state has failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage. In light of our determination that the state’s disparate treatment of same sex couples is constitutionally deficient under an intermediate level of scrutiny, we do not reach the plaintiffs’ claims implicating a stricter standard of review, namely, that sexual orientation is a suspect classification, and that the state’s bar against same sex marriage infringes on a fundamental right in violation of due process and discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of equal protection. In accordance with our conclusion that the statutory scheme impermissibly discriminates against gay persons on account of their sexual orientation, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case with direction to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment."
In Connecticut, a question is on the November ballot on whether to hold a constitutional convention. Supporters want to change the constitution to allow "direct initiatives," which would potentially open the door for anti-gay rights groups to seek a ban on same-sex marriage.
A rally sponsored by the conservative Family Institute to urge to court to reject the lawsuit and voters to approve the constitutional convention drew about 2,800 people to the state Capitol Sept. 28. GLAAD and Love Makes A Family have scheduled a rally at the Capitol at 5:30 p.m. today.
UPDATE III: Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell isn't pleased, but doesn't plan to seek an overturn of the court's ruling.Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who signed the same-sex civil unions bill into law, did not welcome today's state Supreme Court decision giving gay couples the right to marry, but she considers the matter settled.
"I disagree with today's State Supreme Court ruling but as governor, I will uphold it. I continue to believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. I also believe that the historic civil union law that I proudly signed in 2005 is equitable and just. We were the first state to enact such a law through legislative action and not a court mandate. "
But Rell also indicated she wants no part of a culture war trying to overturn it, a signal to conservatives that she will play no part in an effort to undo the decision by law or constitutional amendment.
"The Supreme Court has spoken. I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision - either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution - will not meet with success. I will therefore abide by the ruling."
The Courage Campaign is demanding that Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) come out of the closet and denounce Proposition 8. Rep. David Dreier: It's time to come out against Prop 8Go to the Courage Campaign site and sign their message to Rep. Dreier. There is a space for you to add a personal message to the closeted Congressman.
This November, Californians will vote on Proposition 8, a ballot measure that would, as the ballot description reads, "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."
On Tuesday, we sent a message asking you to pledge to defeat this measure and vow to Vote No on 8. Your response was overwhelming. Now it's time to put our elected leaders to that test as well.
Join us in demanding that Congressman David Dreier come out against Prop 8 as well with the rest of us fairminded Californians. Dreier voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment because he didn't feel it was appropriate for the Constitution to be used to restrict rights. Well, that's exactly what the right-wing extremists behind Prop 8 want to do with California's Constitution. That's why some Republicans, like Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger have stated their opposition to Prop 8.
RELATED: In 2004 Mike Rogers gave Dreier the Roy Cohn Award "in recognition of 24 years of working against LGBT rights while living as a gay man yourself."
McDonald's has told AFA they will remain neutral in the culture war regarding homosexual marriage. AFA is ending the boycott of McDonald's. As you know, AFA called for the boycott in May after McDonald's joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).As Jeremy at Good As You notes, the AFA has a track record of calling off a failed boycott and lying that the targeted company had agreed to the their demands. (As they did with Ford, who said they never stipulated to anything requested by the AFA.). More on this when I get it.
McDonald's said McDonald's Vice President Richard Ellis has resigned his position on the board of NGLCC and that his seat on the board will not be replaced. McDonald's also said that the company has no plans to renew their membership in NGLCC when it expires in December.
In an e-mail to McDonald's franchised owners the company said, "It is our policy to not be involved in political and social issues. McDonald's remains neutral on same sex marriage or any 'homosexual agenda' as defined by the American Family Association."
We appreciate the decision by McDonald's to no longer support political activity by homosexual activist organizations. You might want to thank your local McDonald's manager.
UPDATE: I've spoken to the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and they will be giving me a statement, hopefully later today.
UPDATE II: The NGLCC says they know nothing of the AFA's claims.
Like all our corporate relationships, McDonald’s USA has been a good partner with the Chamber. There has been no discussion between the NGLCC and McDonalds regarding continuing membership, nor has the NGLCC been notified of any move not to renew our work together. The NGLCC will continue to align with corporate America in support of equal opportunity for all of America’s worker and small businesses.Either the NGLCC got blindsided by their own vice president or the American Family Association is LYING. Again.
This sign was seen south of Mustion Creek on the west side of U.S. 63 (south central Missouri in the Ozark region). According to Fish Wars on Cars, the news media report says that neighbors of a Mr. Ronnie Ford saw him erect this sign on his property. Ford's response is that he doesn't know who put the sign there. Right.
Some letters to the editor of the West Plains Daily Quill about the sign:
Jay Thompson of East Peoria, Ill. wrote: "To the person who sent the "letter to the editor" in the Monday edition of the Daily Quill: What was erroneous about the message on the sign?"Carol Darschewski of Koshkonong wrote: "I heartily agree with Ms. Estes regarding the sign. There are more respectful ways of expressing one's opinion."
James E. (Jay) Gentry Jr. of Mountain Grove wrote in part: "I can find nothing wrong with this sign/cartoon, which is truthful by Obama's own statements. He's advocating abortions, same sex marriages, more and higher taxes to support his liberal agenda... and definitely outlawing gun ownership. If this is upsetting to Ms. Estes, then she should do some hard thinking about what is forthcoming if he is elected."
Kevin Collins of West Plains wrote: "In response to the letter on the Obama sign, the only one who would find that sign offensive is the one who agrees with same sex marriages and partial birth abortions. As far as ignorant country bumpkins are concerned, who is the most ignorant to believe that God is going to blink an eye at partial-birth abortions and same-sex marriages being OK? How can you take up for someone who will not even salute the American flag and who has never pledged his allegiance to the flag of this nation? What honor would it be to have him as the president of the United States of America?"
H/t, Jesus' General.
ConvergeSouth is only a few days away, and your blogmistress is looking forward to participating in the event; it's getting press.The annual ConvergeSouth blogging conference will take place Oct. 16-17 in Greensboro and will feature speakers and ideas on topics related to new media.On Friday I'll be on two panels (here's the full schedule):The keynote speaker on Friday will be Chris Rabb, a consultant, social commentator and "netroots" activist who is a principal with Visceral Ventures. Other featured speakers include blogging and podcasting pioneer Robert Scoble and Pam Spaulding, editor and publisher of the blog "Pam's House Blend," which focuses on gay rights and politics.
Thursday's session will include walking tours of Greensboro for attendees and a training session on video and photo editing.
The conference will take place at N.C. A&T University, which donates space for the annual event.
* What's the Point? A New Look at Social Networking (9:45-10:30 AM)
Moderator: Ed Cone
PANEL - Robert Scoble, Anil Dash, Pam Spaulding
People-powered Media and the Election
Moderator: Ed Cone
CLOSING PANEL - Robert Scoble, Anil Dash, Mathew Gross, Pam Spaulding
And it looks like only a few folks have signed up to have dinner with your blogmistress on Thursday night. There's still time! 
Robert Scoble, btw, is booked solid. I laughed while discussing this the other day, noting that if this was a conference on political blogging in DC, as opposed to a general new media conf my home state, it's likely I'd have more folks interested in breaking bread with me. 
I am rarely recognized (the Z-list celebrity that I am), outside of political blogging circles, so it was weird that I was recognized at, of all places, the SPCA of Wake County. Kate and I were putting in an application to adopt a dog (so it's on file if we find a new one to bring into our family), and a young woman working behind the counter walked by and stopped and tentatively said "Do you write a blog?" I said "yes" and she leaned over and whispered "Thank you for what you do." I said, "you're welcome" back, but it was so odd, as if she thought that asking was disturbing me by asking -- and the fact that she was so non-specific about recognizing me. I think she mentioned about reading an article about me before walking away, but that was all she said.
But back to ConvergeSouth...it's free and you simply have to sign up. The Thursday dinner sign up is here.
Some voters told reporters that they didn't want Obama to run, let alone win, should his very presence unleash the demons who have stalked America from Lincoln to King. After consultation with Congress, Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, gave Obama a Secret Service detail earlier than any presidential candidate in our history - in May 2007, some eight months before the first Democratic primaries.Rich goes on to illuminate the changes at the top of the ticket -- John McCain's apparent willingness to take the low road, first by sending out Palin to stoke the crowds about the Ayers matter, then doing next to nothing when the bigot eruptions occur."I've got the best protection in the world, so stop worrying," Obama reassured his supporters. Eventually the country got conditioned to his appearing in large arenas without incident (though I confess that the first loud burst of fireworks at the end of his convention stadium speech gave me a start). In America, nothing does succeed like success. The fear receded.
Until now. At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of "Treason!" and "Terrorist!" and "Kill him!" and "Off with his head!" as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets, are actually something new in a campaign that has seen almost every conceivable twist. They are alarms. Doing nothing is not an option.
Obama can hardly be held accountable for Ayers's behavior 40 years ago, but at least McCain and Palin can try to take some responsibility for the behavior of their own supporters in 2008. What's troubling here is not only the candidates' loose inflammatory talk but also their refusal to step in promptly and strongly when someone responds to it with bloodthirsty threats in a crowded arena. Joe Biden had it exactly right when he expressed concern last week that "a leading American politician who might be vice president of the United States would not just stop midsentence and turn and condemn that." To stay silent is to pour gas on the fires.What happened to that public bigot-averse John McCain? His polls sank, and as we all know, the Beltway consultant class set, well versed in catering to the public's base instincts and fears to drive the vote, went to their less-subtle race-baiting approach.It wasn't always thus with McCain. In February he loudly disassociated himself from a speaker who brayed "Barack Hussein Obama" when introducing him at a rally in Ohio. Now McCain either backpedals with tardy, pro forma expressions of respect for his opponent or lets second-tier campaign underlings release boilerplate disavowals after ugly incidents like the chilling Jim Crow-era flashback last week when a Florida sheriff ranted about "Barack Hussein Obama" at a Palin rally while in full uniform.
Is there still enough racism in America to prevent a black man from being elected president no matter what? And, will Republicans play the race card? The jury is out on the first question until Nov. 4. But we now have the unambiguous answer to the second: Yes.I've been saying that all year, haven't I? And this isn't a partisan matter. During the primaries we saw plenty of race-based dancing around the issue, and it was Mark Penn and Co. who led Hillary down that path. It was purposeful, because they are paid to win elections, not effect or promote social change, particularly about such a charged issue as race.
The continuing attempt to portray Obama as un-American, foreign, a terrorist is simply racism papered over with a new label. And the wingnut public knows it. That's why you saw Obama Waffles, and multiple instances of referring to the candidate as "uppity" by public figures. That's not even a racist dog whistle at this point.
The real question - does John McCain really believe in "Country First"? He has not, as his campaign chooses a very dark and frightening path in these last weeks, shown that he can close this out on a moral high note by challenging the vitriol -- and potential violence -- fomented by those tactics. He apparently has no one on staff ready to challenge him, and the GOP hasn't shown any desire to look in the mirror to see what it has wrought.
There are no black faces high in the McCain hierarchy to object to these tactics. There hasn't been a single black Republican governor, senator or House member in six years. This is a campaign where Palin can repeatedly declare that Alaska is "a microcosm of America" without anyone even wondering how that might be so for a state whose tiny black and Hispanic populations are each roughly one-third the national average. There are indeed so few people of color at McCain events that a black senior writer from The Tallahassee Democrat was mistakenly ejected by the Secret Service from a campaign rally in Panama City in August, even though he was standing with other reporters and showed his credentials. His only apparent infraction was to look glaringly out of place.A reminder of how bad this has gotten --
In Pennsylvania:
and look at this incredible exchange:
Man #1: "That guy gets elected, he hangs around with terrorists."
Filmmaker: "Who are the terrorists?"
Man #1: "Obama."Man #2: "Obama's a terrorist! You know that?!"
Man #3: "Obama's a Muslim, he's a terrorist himself!"
Filmmaker: "Do you really believe that, sir, that Senator Obama is a terrorist?"
Man #3: "I believe that he supports terrorism."Man #4 (walks by, randomly screaming): "Commie faggots!"
Woman #1: "Socialism! Communism!" (random people yell "Go to Russia!" "socialist swine" and "European socialist!")Filmmaker: "You think they should die?"
Man #5: "Everyone dies, don't they?"
Protestor: "Palin voted to have women pay for their own rape kits. My friends shouldn't have to pay for their own rape kits. How would you feel about that?"And this, in Ohio:
McCain supporter: "She should die!"
McCain supporter #2: "She should pay double!"
Related:
A sample of the comments:
"I think he (Obama) is a one-man terror cell."
"He's got the bloodlines...look at the name."
"There have been more personal interviews with Sarah Palin than Barack Obama."
* The GOP ticket draws, and apparently embraces, the bigot eruption crowd ("Sit down, boy")
* The hateful ignorance of the McCain/Palin base continues to spiral out of control ("I have read about him. He's an Arab.")
* Deranged McCain/Palin mob in Strongsville, OH; campaign caters to this base with new 'Ayers' ad
* McCain/Palin Mob, Part 2: more aggressive ignorance
* John McCain's rage - a national security concern
* Obama: Why won't McCain bring up Ayers to my face?
Visit www.2015Place.com
Contact Tom@2015Place.com for more info.
Subscribe to daily Email
0 comments:
Post a Comment