Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Cutest Commercial Ever

Advertisements

From DCRTV.com:

Rush Jests During Obama Speech – 1/20 – “Where’s Puff Daddy?” Rush Limbaugh said during the post-inauguration poem. “I’m still waiting for a rhyme here, it’s a poem,” Limbaugh added. Heard via WMAL and WCBM. Adds a local radio listener: “Rush Limbaugh – speaking over Barak Obama during the (inauguration) speech – sounds like the ‘stupid’ kid talking out loud while the new principal is speaking to the school. Shut up Rush, you sound like a bitter, racist pig. The man is the president, can’t you let him speak? You have all the time in the world to blast him later on”…..

Sharpton Gets It

How huge would it be if Sharpton could rally his old civil rights pals to help with getting gay marriage passed…?

Sharpton decries churches pushing Prop. 8
Atlanta alliance forms to counter anti-gay religious rhetoric
By MATT SCHAFER, Southern Voice | Jan 12, 5:17 PM

From the pulpit of Tabernacle Baptist Church on Sunday, Rev. Al Sharpton called out the Mormon Church and other conservative faiths for mobilizing to support Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage in California while refusing to be as involved in any other social concerns.

“It amazes me when I looked at California and saw churches that had nothing to say about police brutality, nothing to say when a young black boy was shot while he was wearing police handcuffs, nothing to say when the they overturned affirmative action, nothing to say when people were being delegated into poverty, yet they were organizing and mobilizing to stop consenting adults from choosing their life partners,” Sharpton told a packed audience on Jan. 11.

“There is something immoral and sick about using all of that power to not end brutality and poverty, but to break into people’s bedrooms and claim that God sent you,” Sharpton added.

Sharpton came to Atlanta to celebrate the launch of the Alliance of Affirming Faith-Based Organizations. Started by Rev. Dennis Meredith, who recently came out as bisexual, the Alliance includes Dr. Kenneth Samuel, pastor of Victory for the World Church; Rev. Paul Graetz of First Metropolitan Community Church; Rev. Geoffrey Hoare of All Saints Episcopal Church; and Rabbi Joshua Lesser of Congregation Bet Haverim.

During the First Annual Human Rights Ecumenical Service to launch the Alliance, Meredith laid out his vision for the new organization. The service for human rights will be held annually at a different church in Atlanta each year. Sharpton will serve as the national face of the organization and help to recruit new members, Meredith explained.

“We’re going to be the voice for those who cannot speak for themselves,” Meredith said. “If we have to go to a high school, we’ll go to a high school. If we have to go to a college, we’ll go to a college. … Somewhere there has to be a religious voice to counter the other religious voices that preach intolerance.”

Meredith said he hopes to raise enough money to hire an executive director who could see to the day-to-day operations of the Alliance while working to be a force for change.

In his remarks, Samuel preached against the idea that civil rights should not include gay rights.

“Martin Luther King Jr. lead a broad-based coalition, and those who claim that civil rights belong exclusively to black folks don’t know the history,” Samuel said.

“[King] used a methodology from India… brought to him by a black gay man, by the way, named Bayard Rustin. Even the song ‘We Shall Overcome’ was written by a white German, so I don’t know why in the world black folks think we have an exclusive claim to civil rights.”

Sharpton called out ministers who speak out against politically popular causes, but don’t have the courage to live their convictions.

“I am tired of seeing ministers who will preach homophobia by day, and then after they’re preaching, when the lights are off they go cruising for trade,” Sharpton said, his words generating a roar of response from the crowd.

He continued in his refrain that speaking out in support of Proposition 8 while remaining silent on issues like homelessness and poverty was an untenable position.

“We know you’re not preaching the Bible, because if you were preaching the Bible we would have heard from you,” Sharpton said. “We would have heard from you when people were starving in California, when they deregulated the economy and crashed Wall Street you had nothing to say. When [alleged Ponzi schemer Bernie] Madoff made off with the money, you had nothing to say. When Bush took us to war chasing weapons of mass destruction that weren’t there you had nothing to say. … But all of a sudden when Proposition 8 came out you had so much to say, but since you stepped in the rain, we gonna step in the rain with you.”

Should political donors be disclosed? I certainly believe so, but since there are some that have faced pressure for their contributions to pro-8 groups, these two individuals below feel that they should not face actions for supporting the removal of rights. I love that some people just cannot understand the need for people to take responsibility for their actions. What a load of crap from the Wall Street Journal:

Donor Disclosures Has Its Downsides

Supporters of California’s Prop.8 have faced a backlash.

By John R. Lott Jr. and Bradley Smith

How would you like elections without secret ballots? To most people, this would be absurd.

We have secret balloting for obvious reasons. Politics frequently generates hot tempers. People can put up yard signs or wear political buttons if they want. But not everyone feels comfortable making his or her positions public — many worry that their choice might offend or anger someone else. They fear losing their jobs or facing boycotts of their businesses.

And yet the mandatory public disclosure of financial donations to political campaigns in almost every state and at the federal level renders people’s fears and vulnerability all too real. Proposition 8 — California’s recently passed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage by ensuring that marriage in that state remains between a man and a woman — is a dramatic case in point. Its passage has generated retaliation against those who supported it, once their financial support was made public and put online.

For example, when it was discovered that Scott Eckern, director of the nonprofit California Musical Theater in Sacramento, had given $1,000 to Yes on 8, the theater was deluged with criticism from prominent artists. Mr. Eckern was forced to resign.

Richard Raddon, the director of the L.A. Film Festival, donated $1,500 to Yes on 8. A threatened boycott and picketing of the next festival forced him to resign. Alan Stock, the chief executive of the Cinemark theater chain, gave $9,999. Cinemark is facing a boycott, and so is the gay-friendly Sundance Film Festival because it uses a Cinemark theater to screen some of its films.

A Palo Alto dentist lost patients as a result of his $1,000 donation. A restaurant manager in Los Angeles gave a $100 personal donation, triggering a demonstration and boycott against her restaurant. The pressure was so intense that Marjorie Christoffersen, who had managed the place for 26 years, resigned.

These are just a few instances that have come to light, and the ramifications are still occurring over a month after the election. The larger point of this spectacle is its implications for the future: to intimidate people who donate to controversial campaigns.

The question is not whether Prop. 8 should have passed, but whether its supporters (or opponents) should have their political preferences protected in the same way that voters are protected. Is there any reason to think that the repercussions Mr. Eckern faced for donating to Prop. 8 would be different if it were revealed that instead of donating, he had voted for it?

Indeed, supporters of Prop. 8 engaged in pressure tactics. At least one businessman who donated to “No on 8,” Jim Abbott of Abbott & Associates, a real estate firm in San Diego, received a letter from the Prop. 8 Executive Committee threatening to publish his company’s name if he didn’t also donate to the “Yes on 8” campaign.

In each case, the law required disclosure of these individuals’ financial support for Prop. 8. Supposedly, the reason for requiring disclosure of campaign contributions is to allow voters to police politicians who might otherwise become beholden to financiers by letting voters know “who is behind the message.” But in a referendum vote such as Prop. 8, there are no office holders to be beholden to big donors.

Does anyone believe that in campaigns costing millions of dollars a donation of $100, or even $1,000 or $10,000 will give the donor “undue” influence? Over whom? Meanwhile, voters learn little by knowing the names and personal information of thousands of small contributors.

Besides, it is not the case that voters would have no recourse when it comes to the financial backers of politicians or initiatives. Even without mandatory disclosure rules, the unwillingness to release donation information can itself become a campaign issue. If voters want to know who donated, there will be pressure to disclose that information. Possibly voters will be most concerned about who the donors are when regulatory issues are being debated. But that is for them to decide. They can always vote “no.”

Ironically, it has long been minorities who have benefited the most from anonymous speech. In the 1950s, for example, Southern states sought to obtain membership lists of the NAACP in the name of the public’s “right to know.” Such disclosure would have destroyed the NAACP’s financial base in the South and opened its supporters to threats and violence. It took a Supreme Court ruling in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) to protect the privacy of the NAACP and its supporters on First Amendment grounds. And more recently, it has usually been supporters of gay rights who have preferred to keep their support quiet.

There is another problem with publicizing donations in political elections: It tends to entrench powerful politicians whom donors fear alienating. If business executives give money to a committee chairman’s opponent, they often fear retribution.

Other threats are more personal. For example, in 2004 Gigi Brienza contributed $500 to the John Edwards presidential campaign. An extremist animal rights group used that information to list Ms. Brienza’s home address (and similarly, that of dozens of co-workers) on a Web site, under the ominous heading, “Now you know where to find them.” Her “offense,” also revealed from the campaign finance records, was that she worked for a pharmaceutical company that tested its products on animals.

In the aftermath of Prop. 8 we can glimpse a very ugly future. As anyone who has had their political yard signs torn down can imagine, with today’s easy access to donor information on the Internet, any crank or unhinged individual can obtain information on his political opponents, including work and home addresses, all but instantaneously. When even donations as small as $100 trigger demonstrations, it is hard to know how one will feel safe in supporting causes one believes in.

Mr. Lott, a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, is the author of “Freedomnomics” (Regnery, 2007). Mr. Smith, a former Federal Election Commission commissioner, is chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics and professor of law at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio.

Obama’s First Huge Mistake

Dear President Elect Obama:

It is not okay to allow hatemongers to participate in your inauguration behind the baseless excuse that doing so “brings people together.” The presentation of a wide range of  views during the inauguration is fine. When those views subject a group of people to feeling like second class citizens, they are no longer fine.

Rick Warren strongly supported Proposition 8 in California and, in doing so, helped to take away citizen’s rights away by use of a constitution for the first time in this country’s history. Instead of allowing Warren to participate on January 20, you should be publicly denouncing his behavior and views.

Do you really expect the LGBT community to believe that you are going to work for gay rights when you take such a massive misstep out of the box? Instead, I am saddened and offended by your complete lack of good judgment.

I urge you to step up and cancel your invitation to allow this man to deliver your invocation.

Regards,

Eliot

Day Without a Gay

I work form home so I wouldn’t be missed. However, not answering calls and emails would definitely be noticed. Does it matter that I am not out at work lol?

—–

The HR office has probably never encountered this before: People across the country are being urged to skip work Wednesday after calling in “gay.”

The loosely organized protest, called “Day Without a Gay,” is intended as a statement against California’s ban on same-sex marriage, along with other political developments considered anti-gay.

Some are calling for a boycott of all economic activity to highlight the gay community’s financial power. Others want gays and lesbians to spend the day volunteering for worthy causes to demonstrate their compassion, which could win new sympathy to their cause.

In Chicago, the Gay Liberation Network has called for an 11 a.m. rally outside the County Building, 118 N. Clark St., to call for granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Network co-founder Andy Thayer said he didn’t expect people to actually “call in gay,” but added that “many people will find one way or the other to not be in work that day, because we’re sick of being treated like second-class citizens.”

The motto has stirred a tempest of online debate about the wisdom of skipping work during a recession. Sean Hetherington, a West Hollywood, Calif., comic and personal trainer who helped devise the event, said the slogan wasn’t meant to be taken literally. But noting the flood of media attention it has attracted, he was unapologetic.

“I’m happy with the way we did it,” he said. “We’re keeping gay people in the spotlight.”

A sensible judge in Florida ruled in favor of gays adopting. One small step forward….Let’s hope the state’s appeal is defeated.

A Florida circuit judge Tuesday struck down a 31-year-old state law that prevents gays and lesbians from adopting children, allowing a North Miami man to adopt two half-brothers he and his partner have raised as foster children since 2004.

“There is no question, the blanket exclusion of gay applicants defeats Florida’s goal of providing dependent children a permanent family through adoption,” Judge Cindy S. Lederman wrote in her 53-page ruling.

“The best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.”

The state attorney general’s office has appealed the decision.

She said there is no moral or scientific reason for banning gays and lesbians from adopting, despite the state’s arguments otherwise. The state argued that gays and lesbians have higher odds of suffering from depression, affective and anxiety disorders and substance abuse, and that their households are more unstable.

Lederman said the ban violated children’s right to permanency provided under the Florida statute and under the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. Whether the ban violated the state’s equal protection clause by singling out gays and lesbians should be considered, she said.

Lederman’s ruling paves the way for Martin Gill to legally adopt the two half-brothers, ages 4 and 8, whom he has cared for since December 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union said.

The two boys, who are referred to as John and James Doe in court documents, were removed from their homes on allegations of abandonment and neglect.

“On that December evening, John and James left a world of chronic neglect, emotional impoverishment and deprivation to enter a new world, foreign to them, that was nurturing, safe, structured and stimulating,” Lederman wrote.

In 2006, the children’s respective fathers’ rights were terminated, court documents said, and they remained in the care of Gill and his partner.

“Our family just got a lot more to be thankful for this Thanksgiving,” Gill said Tuesday, according to the ACLU, which represented him.

Florida is the only state that specifically bans all “homosexual” people from adopting children, although it does allow them to be foster parents.

This month, Arkansas voters approved a ballot measure to prohibit unmarried partners — same-sex or opposite-sex couples — from adopting children or from serving as foster parents. The measure is similar to one in Utah, which excludes same-sex couples indirectly through a statute barring all unmarried couples from adopting or taking in foster children.

Mississippi allows single gays and lesbians to adopt, but prohibits same-sex couples from adopting.

Neal Skene, spokesman for the Florida Department of Children and Families, said the appeal was filed so a statewide resolution on the law could be determined by an appellate court. He noted that another Florida circuit judge declared the law unconstitutional this year but that ruling had not been appealed.

“We need a statewide determination by the appellate courts,” he said.

Gill’s adoption petition cannot be approved until the appeal process is finished, Skene said, but the children will remain in Gill’s home.

“These are wonderful foster parents,” Skene said. “It’s just that we have a statute, [and] the statute is very clear on the issue of adoption.”

Several organizations — including the National Adoption Center, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics — have said that having gay and lesbian parents does not negatively affect children.

The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a nonprofit organization that studies adoption and foster care, hailed the decision.

“This ban, which was the only one of its kind in the country, has done nothing but undermine the prospects of boys and girls in the foster care system to get permanent, loving homes,” said Adam Pertman, the Adoption Institute’s executive director, in a written statement.

“So this decision by Judge Lederman is a very important, hopeful ruling for children who need families.”

source: cnn.com