Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘proposition 8’

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.”

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

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

Read Full Post »

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.”

Read Full Post »

“Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man,” the unanimous opinion striking down the couple’s conviction said, “fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
Anna Quindlen
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Nov 24, 2008

One of my favorite Supreme Court cases is Loving v. Virginia, and not just because it has a name that would delight any novelist. It’s because it reminds me, when I’m downhearted, of the truth of the sentiment at the end of “Angels in America,” Tony Kushner’s brilliant play: “The world only spins forward.”

Here are the facts of the case, and if they leave you breathless with disbelief and rage it only proves Kushner’s point, and mine: Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving got married in Washington, D.C. They went home to Virginia, there to be rousted out of their bed one night by police and charged with a felony. The felony was that Mildred was black and Richard was white and they were therefore guilty of miscegenation, which is a $10 word for bigotry. Virginia, like a number of other states, considered cross-racial matrimony a crime at the time.

It turned out that it wasn’t just the state that hated the idea of black people marrying white people. God was onboard, too, according to the trial judge, who wrote, “The fact that He separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” But the Supreme Court, which eventually heard the case, passed over the Almighty for the Constitution, which luckily has an equal-protection clause. “Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man,” the unanimous opinion striking down the couple’s conviction said, “fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

That was in 1967.

Fast-forward to Election Day 2008, and a flurry of state ballot propositions to outlaw gay marriage, all of which were successful. This is the latest wedge issue of the good-old-days crowd, supplanting abortion and immigration. They really put their backs into it this time around, galvanized by court decisions in three states ruling that it is discriminatory not to extend the right to marry to gay men and lesbians.

The most high-profile of those rulings, and the most high-profile ballot proposal, came in California. A state court gave its imprimatur to same-sex marriage in June; the electorate reversed that decision on Nov. 4 with the passage of Proposition 8, which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. The opponents of gay marriage will tell you that the people have spoken. It’s truer to say that money talks. The Mormons donated millions to the anti effort; the Knights of Columbus did, too. Like the judge who ruled in the Loving case, they said they were doing God’s bidding. When I was a small child I always used to picture God on a cloud, with a beard. Now I picture God saying, “Why does all the worst stuff get done in my name?”

Just informationally, this is how things are going to go from here on in: two steps forward, one step back. Courts will continue to rule in some jurisdictions that there is no good reason to forbid same-sex couples from marrying. Legislatures in two states, New York and New Jersey, could pass a measure guaranteeing the right to matrimony to all, and both states have governors who have said they would sign such legislation.

Opponents will scream that the issue should be put to the people, as it was in Arizona, Florida and California. (Arkansas had a different sort of measure, forbidding unmarried couples from adopting or serving as foster parents. This will undoubtedly have the effect of leaving more kids without stable homes. For shame.) Of course if the issue in Loving had been put to the people, there is no doubt that many would have been delighted to make racial intermarriage a crime. That’s why God invented courts.

The world only spins forward.

“I think the day will come when the lesbian and gay community will have its own Loving v. Virginia,” says David Buckel, the Marriage Project director for Lambda Legal.

Yes, and then the past will seem as preposterous and mean-spirited as the events leading up to the Loving decision do today. After all, this is about one of the most powerful forces for good on earth, the determination of two human beings to tether their lives forever. The pitch of the opposition this year spoke to how far we have already come—the states in which civil unions and domestic partnerships are recognized, the families in which gay partners are welcome and beloved.

The antis argued that churches could be forced to perform same-sex unions, when any divorced Roman Catholic can tell you that the clergy refuse to officiate whenever they see fit. They argued that the purpose of same-sex marriage was the indoctrination of children, a popular talking point that has no basis in reality. As Ellen DeGeneres, who was married several months ago to the lovely Portia de Rossi (great dress, girl), said about being shaped by the orientation of those around you, “I was raised by two heterosexuals. I was surrounded by heterosexuals. Just everywhere I looked: heterosexuals. They did not influence me.” As for the notion that allowing gay men and lesbians to marry will destroy conventional marriage, I have found heterosexuals perfectly willing to do that themselves.

The last word here goes to an authority on battling connubial bigotry. On the anniversary of the Loving decision last year, the bride wore tolerance. Mildred Loving, mother and grandmother, who once had cops burst into her bedroom because she was sleeping with her own husband, was quoted in a rare public statement saying she believed all Americans, “no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.” She concluded, “That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

Read Full Post »

The following are people or organizations that felt the need to donate to groups that supported California’s Proposition 8. Since they felt so strongly about taking away rights granted to California citizens, I am sure that they want the world to know their feelings as well. Here’s a few dozen to start. I highlighted those that were “generous” to give $500 or more. The other 32,000+ are coming.

MR. RANDALL MCNEELY    APO    AE    LOCKHEED MARTIN NETWORK ENGINEER    $100.00
JACQUELINE HUTCHINS    ANCHORAGE    AK    N/A    HOMEMAKER    $100.00
MR. LAWRENCE CUTTING    ANCHORAGE    AK    MARSH CREEK    SAFETY PROFESSIONAL    $100.00
SHERRY LILLY BATTLE GROUND    WA    BATTLE GROUND SCHOOL DIST    TEACHER    $100.00
DIANNE GRAHAM    BETHEL    AK    LOWER KUSKOKWIM SCHOOL DISTRICT LIBRARIAN    $100.00
DONNA MARSH    PETERSBURG    AK    N/A    HOMEMAKER    $150.00
MR. JARRETT BARRETT    WASILLA    AK    AMERICAN HYPERBARIC CENTER    HYPERBARIC TECHNICIAN    $100.00
MR. JONATHAN TAYLOR    AIRDRIE    AL            $100.00
GAYLE FAIRLESS    HUNTSVILLE    AL    DOD/DIA/MSIC/MSA3    GENERAL ENGINEER    $100.00
GAYLE FAIRLESS    HUNTSVILLE    AL    DOD/DIA/MSIC/MSA3    GENERAL ENGINEER    $100.00
MR. WALTER MORGAN    MOBILE    AL    SDT, INC.    TELECOM SERVICES    $250.00
MR. WALTER MORGAN    MOBILE    AL    SDT, INC.    TELECOM SERVICES    $100.00
MR. WALTER MORGAN    MOBILE    AL    SDT, INC.    TELECOM SERVICES    $250.00
MR. JOHN ENSLEN    WETUMPKA    AL    N/A    RETIRED    $100.00
MR. LYLE JACKSON    LITTLE ROCK    AR    SELF – LYLE JACKSON    INVESTOR    $250.00
MRS. SHAE CHECK    APACHE JCT    AZ    N/A    HOMEMAKER    $750.00
MR. DAVID HAGA    AVONDALE    AZ            $100.00
BETSIE PINCKARD    CHANDLER    AZ    N/A    HOMEMAKER    $100.00
MR. DENNIS NEWMEYER    CHANDLER    AZ    INTEL ENGINEER    $1,000.00
MR. EARL GOODMAN    CHANDLER    AZ    GOODMAN, GENE, DTL, INC.    PRESIDENT    $9,999.00
MR. JOHN BUDD    CHANDLER    AZ    SOUTHWEST DENTAL GROUP ORTHODONTIST    $300.00
MRS. NICOLE HALL    CHANDLER    AZ    N/A    HOMEMAKER    $100.00
HEIDI PETERSEN    GILBERT    AZ    N/A    HOMEMAKER    $2,500.00
MR. CURTIS HEYMAN    GILBERT    AZ    RISE ABOVE DEBT RELIEF    DEBT COUNSELOR    $100.00
MR. MICHAEL MARCHESE    GILBERT    AZ    GRAND CANYON COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS COO    $100.00
MR. RICK SMITH    GILBERT    AZ    N/A    RETIRED    $100.00
MRS. AMY SEITER    GILBERT    AZ    N/A    HOMEMAKER    $100.00
MRS. IRIS PEARSON    GILBERT    AZ    N/A    RETIRED    $100.00
STEPHANIE NEWITT    GILBERT    AZ    APPLE BLOSSOM PRESCHOOL    EARLY CHILD EDUCATOR    $100.00
MR. CORY WILKIN    GLENDALE    AZ    LA COUNTY    HR ANALYST    $100.00
MR. MICHAEL CRIDDLE    GLENDALE    AZ    HEALTHWOOD DENTAL    DENTIST    $250.00
MR. ROBERT HILL    GLENDALE    AZ    CITY OF PHOENIX    FIREFIGHTER    $100.00
MRS. LINDA MECHAM    GLENDALE    AZ    N/A    HOMEMAKER    $50.00
MRS. NANNETT HINTON    GLENDALE    AZ    N/A    HOMEMAKER    $100.00
DEANNA ANGLIN    MARICOPA    AZ    N/A    RETIRED    $500.00
DEANNA ANGLIN    MARICOPA    AZ    N/A    RETIRED    $500.00

ELIZABETH RUBEN    MESA    AZ    N/A    HOMEMAKER    $100.00
ELONA COOLEY    MESA    AZ    N/A    RETIRED    $500.00
JAN BROCK    MESA    AZ    BROCK, CRAIG & THACKER ARCHITECT    $100.00
MR. ALLEN MERRILL    MESA    AZ    LEGAL SOLUTIONS    PARALEGAL    $100.00
MR. CHARLES GREER    MESA    AZ    N/A    RETIRED    $500.00
MR. KEITH GRIFFIN    MESA    AZ    GRIFFIN BROS    CONTRACTOR    $100.00
MR. RUSSELL TIPTON    MESA    AZ    R THOMAS TIPTON DMD MDS ORTHODONTIST    $1,000.00
MR. SCOTT RANE    MESA    AZ    US FOODSERVICE, INC ACCOUNTANT    $100.00
MRS. HELEN BOLTZ    MESA    AZ    TRESSIDEROL-KINLEY    CHEMICAL PLANT MANAGER    $5,000.00
MRS. LADAWN POWELL    MESA    AZ    N/A    RETIRED    $100.00
MR. BENJAMIN MISHLER    PHOENIX    AZ    ERIC BENEFIELD DDS DENTIST    $100.00
MR. BENJAMIN MISHLER    PHOENIX    AZ    ERIC BENEFIELD DDS DENTIST    $50.00
MR. DAVID SUNDHEIMER    PHOENIX    AZ    BANNER ARIZONA MEDICAL CLINIC PHYSICIAN    $1,000.00
MR. DAVID SUNDHEIMER    PHOENIX    AZ    BANNER ARIZONA MEDICAL CLINIC PHYSICIAN    $1,000.00

MR. JAMES DANOVICH    PHOENIX    AZ    JAMES V DANOVICH CPA CPA    $100.00
MR. JOHN JARVIS    PHOENIX    AZ    N/A    RETIRED    $100.00
MR. BARRY WILLIS    PRESCOTT    AZ    BARRY WILLS DDS    DENTIST    $100.00
COOLEY FAMILY INVESTMENT LLC    QUEEN CREEK    AZ            $10,000.00
MRS. SANDRA CARR    QUEEN CREEK    AZ    N/A    HOMMAKER    $100.00
AMY SMITH    SCOTTSDALE    AZ    ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND LAWYER    $101.00
DENICE RASMUSSEN    SCOTTSDALE    AZ    N/A    HOMEMAKER    $250.00
MR. BEN DIBBLE    SCOTTSDALE    AZ    N/A    RETIRED    $2,500.00
MR. GERALD HACKERT    SCOTTSDALE    AZ    N/A    RETIRED    $50.00
MR. GERALD HACKERT    SCOTTSDALE    AZ    N/A    RETIRED    $50.00
MR. GREGORY SCOTT    SCOTTSDALE    AZ    ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND MEDIA RELATIONS DIRECTOR    $200.00
MR. JAMES GOTTRY    SCOTTSDALE    AZ    ADF MARKETING / COMMUNICATIONS    $210.00
TERESA ANDERSEN    SCOTTSDALE    AZ    N/A    HOMEMAKER    $500.00
PATSY SEYMORE    TAYLOR    AZ    N/A    RETIRED    $100.00
MR. BRUCE EKHOLT    TUCSON    AZ    SIATECH CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL    TEACHER    $100.00
MR. TYLER MOTT    TUCSON    AZ    WELLS FARGO BANK    PERSONAL BANKER    $100.00
MRS. HELEN MOULTON    TUCSON    AZ    N/A    HOMEMAKER    $35.00
MR. SAM STOVALL    WADDELL    AZ    WESTERN HOSPITALITY INS    INSURANCE AGENT    $50.00
MR. SAM STOVALL    WADDELL    AZ    WESTERN HOSPITALITY INS    INSURANCE AGENT    $50.00
STACIE POWELL    YUMA    AZ    MARINE CORPS COMMUNITY SERICES    FAMILY READINESS OFFICER    $100.00

Source: California Secretary of State. If you’re on this list by mistake, take your complaint to the California Secretary of State, not me.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »