Tag Archives: San Francisco

Cowardly, bigoted Barack Obama defers the dream yet again

Gay rights advocates Sergio Llanos, left, of Queens, and Vito Hernovich, of Manhattan, chant slogans during a rally for same sex marriage outside the LGBT gala fundraiser where President Barack Obama

Protesters take part in a demonstration supporting same-sex marriages outside Sheraton Hotel where U.S. President Barack Obama was attending a function in New York

Associated Press and Reuters photos

My sentiments exactly: Actual gay-rights activists protest outside of the gala fundraiser that “LGBT” sellouts held for Barack Obama in Manhattan today. To continue to support Barack Obama’s perpetually deferred dream of equal (and not “separate but equal”) human and civil rights for non-heterosexuals and non-gender-conforming individuals is treason against the cause.

I remember my visit to San Francisco for the Castro Street Fair in October 2007. (No, it wasn’t one of those San Francisco street fairs where you see any nudity or sexual activity — unfortunately…)

I remember being given, at the street fair, a sticker with the 2008 Obama presidential campaign logo on it, incorporating the rainbow that symbolizes the “LGBT” “community.”

(I use quotation marks around those because “LGBT” always sounded like a type of sandwich to me, and it always has struck me that we creative gay men and lesbians and other non-heterosexuals and non-gender-conforming individuals — we queers — could have done much, much better than that, and “community” infers connections that, in my observation, don’t actually exist.)

I remember the Obama rainbow sticker from October 2007 not only because I actually put it on, which I usually don’t do when I’m handed stickers (but I did that time because at that time I actually had some hope for change), but also because the fucking sticker ruined my faux suede shirt, off of which the adhesive didn’t want to come.

I just did a search for the image, and I do believe that this is the image that I’m talking about:

2007-08-09-obamapridecol.jpg

Interestingly, the above image comes from a short August 2007 blog post in which gay author Dan Savage snarkily observes: “He was first out of the gate with a rainbow logo, so I guess I’m obligated to vote for this guy. Must… obey… rainbow…”

The sarcastic Savage had a point. The “Democratic Party” has devolved into a collection of identity groups at whom empty promises are thrown and whose financial support and votes are taken for fucking granted by the “Democratic” operatives who believe that they’re smarter than everyone else.

But I, for one of millions, took Obama’s 2008 campaign promises seriously. (No, those trusting souls who are lied to are not stupid or even naive. They are the victims of fucking liars.)

“I believe that gay couples deserve the same legal rights as every other couple in this country,” The Associated Press reports Obama said today at a swank “LGBT” fundraiser in Manhattan.

However, the AP also notes that, paradoxically, Obama’s official stance on the issue of same-sex marriage remains what it has been for a long time now: that he supports separate-but-unequal civil unions over same-sex marriage but that he nonetheless believes that it should be up to each state to determine whether or not it will have legalized same-sex marriage.

Wow.

Until 1967, it was up to each state to decide whether or not to outlaw mixed-race marriage — until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that year, in Loving vs. Virginia, that it is unconstitutional for any of the states to outlaw mixed-race marriage.

So the “states’ rights” “argument” that Obama still is using  just doesn’t fucking cut it for me, and do I really need to go there on the perverse irony of the nation’s first black president actually fucking advocating the idea of “separate but equal,” the bullshit justification that the segregationists used for racial segregation?

Also in October 2007, besides being introduced to the Obama rainbow sticker, I met my husband Tony (no, not at the Castro Street Fair [not that there would have been anything wrong with that…]).

I write “husband” because we are, where it really counts, married. October 13, 2011 will be our fourth anniversary of having been together in our monogamous relationship.

In those four years, we’ve had our ups and downs — just like a marriage. Sharing a bed, celebrating holidays and our anniversary and our birthdays together, dealing with unglamorous but necessary everyday tasks like shopping, laundry and doing the dishes, and my having taken care of him when he’s been sick — it sure the hell feels like a marriage to me.

But I can’t legally say that Tony is my “husband” because same-sex marriage is legally tied up here in California right now.

So here it is, almost four years later from when the fucking Obama ’08 rainbow sticker ruined my fucking shirt, and Obama very apparently still hasn’t budged a fucking inch from where he was then.

“So, yes, we have more work to do,” Obama said today at his little fundraiser, according to the AP. “Yes, we have more progress to make. Yes, I expect continued impatience with me on occasion.”

That Obama has acknowledged our “impatience” isn’t nearly fucking enough for me. His acknowledgment of our “impatience” is a scrap of a scrap of a scrap to me, but apparently we of the “LGBT” “community” are to be in such fucking awe of The Great Obama that we’re just supposed to shut the fuck up now because Hey, he has acknowledged our “impatience”!

I gave Obama hundreds of dollars in Round One. In Round Two, he gets not a fucking penny from me.

And in November 2008, when I walked into my neighborhood polling place, I still wasn’t certain who, in the end, would get my vote for U.S. president. I had it narrowed down to Barack Obama or Ralph Nader.

I filled in the oval next to “Barack Obama.”

That’s a mistake that I won’t make again in 2012.

Barack Obama can continue to claim that he is still “evolving” until his lips are even bluer. If I stated that my views on racial segregation or the legality of mixed-race marriage were still “evolving,” I — appropriately — would be called a racist and a white supremacist.

Yet it’s supposed to be perfectly fucking acceptable that Barack Obama allegedly is still pondering the morality of any of the states refusing to legally allow any two consenting adults to marry each other, giving them the same legal rights, benefits and responsibilities as any other couples who legally may marry.

Gay indeed is the new black, and I’m one faggot who isn’t going to take it up the ass from the “Democratic Party” anymore.

At least the majority of the traitors who comprise the Repugnican Tea Party are up front about wanting to keep non-heterosexuals and non-gender-conforming individuals in third-class-citizen status.

The “Democratic Party,” on the other hand, tells us non-heterosexuals and non-gender-conforming individuals that it wuvs us and it wants our money and our votes (which for the most part it takes for granted — where else are we going to go, right?), but tells us that we have to keep waiting, keep waiting, keep waiting, keep waiting, keep waiting…

This dream perpetually deferred is fucking bullshit, and until and unless Obama the coward and his cowardly cohorts decide to man up and join the rest of us who are fully evolved, the “Democrats” can kiss my fucking ass.

I’d rather the Repugnican Tea Party traitors win elections than to continue to have the “Democrats” as my frenemies.

I’m gay, but that doesn’t mean that I have no fucking self-esteem and that I can be punk’d forfuckingever.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Team Obama’s response to Dittygate only proves protesters’ point

I was going to write about it right after it happened, but I didn’t, but it’s back in the news again, so now I will.

On Thursday, April 21, the Obama administration was pretty fucking embarrassed when a short video of an incident at a fundraiser in San Francisco leaked out.

Obama wasn’t at the fundraiser to discuss anything controversial. He was there to collect his loot and go.* It was supposed to be a carefully controlled event — like one of “President” George W. Bush’s.** However, his fundraising spiel was interrupted by a group of protesters who started singing a little song about the Obama administration’s inhumane treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning, who is accused of illegally leaking information to WikiLeaks.

Their lyrics conclude thusly: “We paid our dues; where’s our change? We paid our dues; where’s our change?”

Yeah, that’s what millions of us whom the Obama administration has punk’d would love to know.

If you haven’t already watched it, you can watch the short video here.

In the video, Obama obviously is pissed off, but he has come this far in politics by pretending to be cool in all situations, no matter fucking what — he apparently calculated long ago (correctly, probably) that an “angry” black man never could be president of the United States (an angry white man like John McCainosaurus, who nearly had strokes from his fits of rage during his presidential debates with Obama, however, can be president).

Of course, I prefer honestly expressed feelings of anger over insincere bullshit that is a transparent effort to cover up one’s anger, which is what Obama demonstrates in the video. After the protesters sing their little ditty, he says, quite insincerely, “That was a nice song. You guys have much better voices that I have,” and even says “Thank you very much.”

“Thank you very much”?

These protesters infiltrated Obama’s swank fundraiser only to remind him that there are some of us who feel that we paid our dues but have yet to see the promised change. And the short video of the protest song went fairly viral.

The Obama administration’s only saving grace is that this incident didn’t really hit the national news until Friday, April 22, so the story didn’t become the national story that it otherwise would have had the incident happened earlier in the week.

The Obama administration should have let Dittygate go, but instead it apparently chose to start a fight with The San Francisco Chronicle — whose reporter got the video.

Reports The Associated Press:

San Francisco — The White House says a San Francisco Chronicle reporter broke the rules when she put down her pen and picked up a video camera to film a protest. The newspaper says the Obama administration needs to join the 21st century.

The conflict hit the newspaper’s front page [yesterday] with a story about coverage of the protest during President Barack Obama’s speech last week at a private fundraiser.

It highlights the perils that arise when traditional arrangements between news organizations and politicians meet the modern reality that anyone with a smartphone can become a video journalist.

Reporter Carla Marinucci had White House permission to cover the fundraiser as a so-called “pool” reporter, meaning she could attend as long as she shared her notes with the White House to distribute to other reporters. Pool reporting is a common arrangement among media organizations and in-demand politicians to avoid overcrowding of smaller events.

Marinucci was covering the event when about a half-dozen protesters who paid a combined $76,000 to attend the breakfast broke into a song chastising Obama for the government’s treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst suspected of illegally passing government secrets to the WikiLeaks website.

“We paid our dues; where’s our change?” the protesters sang.

Although a print reporter, Marinucci is seldom seen without a small video recorder while covering politicians. She captured video of the protest, which was posted with her written story in the online edition of the Chronicle and on its politics blog.

White House officials say that breached the terms of her access, which stated Marinucci was to provide a print-only report.

“The San Francisco Chronicle violated the coverage rules that they — and every other media outlet — agreed to as part of joining the press pool for that event,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said. “If they thought the rules were too restrictive they should have raised that at the beginning.” [Yeah, so their reporter could have been tossed out, right?]

Editor Ward Bushee said in the Chronicle’s story [yesterday] that the paper acted within its rights to cover the newsworthy incident.

He also said White House officials in off-the-record conversations Thursday threatened to bar Marinucci from pool coverage of future presidential appearances. He added that the officials, whom Bushee did not name, threatened to freeze out Chronicle and other Hearst Newspaper chain reporters if they reported on the threat against Marinucci. [Emphasis mine.]

“We expect our reporters to use the reporting tools they have to cover the news, and Carla did,” Bushee said in the Chronicle story. The White House rule against print reporters shooting and posting video is “objectionable and just is not in sync with how reporters are doing their jobs these days,” he said.

After Josh Earnest, another White House spokesman, told the Politico website that officials had not made such threats, Carney said in a statement [yesterday] that “no reporters have been banned from covering future presidential events.”

“The White House of course would have no problem including any reporter who follows the rules in pool-only events,” he said.

The White House should rethink those rules in an era when few reporters limit their coverage to just one medium, and when several other attendees not with the media were taking their own video of the protest, Bushee said. The protesters’ own footage ended up appearing on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.”

The fundraiser came a day after Obama appeared at the Palo Alto headquarters of Facebook, praising the social media giant for enabling a more open, two-way conversation between citizens and politicians. The president said he was interested in holding the event, billed as a social media town hall, because young people especially were now getting their information through a range of different media. [Emphasis mine.]

Dan Gillmor, a media critic and head of the Knight Center for Digital Media Entrepreneurship at Arizona State University, said the White House needs to update the rules for its pool reports to match the realities of 21st-century reporting. …

It’s not really that, that Team Obama is composed of a bunch of luddites. It’s that the Chronicle had the audacity to embarrass The Great Obama of Oz. The Chronicle pulled back the curtain to reveal the petty, vindictive, insincere little man behind the curtain. The Chronicle, with the video, showed us something that we never were supposed to see.

A mere written description of the protest at the fundraiser wouldn’t have fully captured it, and while a mere written account of an event can fairly easily be disputed, a videorecorded account cannot so easily be disputed — which is why the “transparent” Team Obama maintains that only written descriptions are allowed: to avoid embarrassment and poor P.R., not because they don’t understand today’s communications technologies, which they fully exploit in their record-level fundraising, for fuck’s sake.

Ironically, in its response to Dittygate, Team Obama has only strengthened the protesters’ charge, “We paid our dues; where’s our change?” Yes, one of the many things that Barack Obama promised but has yet to deliver is a more transparent presidency.

Instead, we’re seeing more of the same, with Team Obama threatening to punish the Chronicle — and indeed, its entire parent company — because one of its employees actually made something transparent. (I believe the Chronicle over Team Obama, hands down, by the way; I believe that Team Obama threatened to exclude the reporter from future events and then threatened to exclude the entire media organization if their threat to the reporter were made public.)

And Team Obama can’t blame the Chronicle for embarrassing Obama.

It’s not the Chronicle’s fault that Obama has reneged on so many of his campaign promises to the point that protesters paid more than $75,000 to crash his exclusive little cash ’n’ carry. The fault for that lies squarely in the lap of Obama.

Barack Obama embarrasses himself.

*I know that this is how it is with the Clintonistas, the DINOs, such as Barack Obama.

Back in the day I coordinated Meetups for John Kerry’s run for the White House. (Howard Dean was the favorite of the “netroots,” but I viewed Kerry as much more likely to be able to deny George W. Bush a second term.) When I coordinated the monthly Meetups for several months, the participants talked about those issues that concerned them. They appreciated having such a forum with like-minded others.

But after it was clear that Kerry, who came back from political death like Lazarus, was going to win the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, a self-serving Democratic Party hack hijacked the Meetups and made them all about fundraising. She was in it for herself, even going so far as to tell the participants that when they donated money to the Kerry campaign, they needed to use a special code to designate the region when, in fact, it designated her as an individual fundraiser.

In a nutshell, under the hack’s “leadership,” the Meetups became fundraisers. Her contempt for others is what we see in the DINOs, who regard others only as ATMs.

Speaking of which, in my many months of helping out with Kerry-for-president efforts, I was quite disappointed by the Kerry fundraising events that we of the middle class, which the Democratic Party is supposed to be all about, cannot afford to attend. The Chronicle reports that “high-end” tickets to the Obama fundraiser at “the swank St. Regis Hotel” in San Francisco on April 21 “started at $5,000 and went up to $35,800.”

Another reason, probably, that cameras weren’t allowed…

**And Team Bush was fairly good at making sure that only loyal fans ever made it inside any of Bush’s appearances, but perhaps because he wasn’t on his own home turf, Bush did have, late in his unelected rule, that Iraqi guy throw a pair of shoes at him…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Stop male genital mutilation

Oh, those moonbatty San Franciscans! They’re trying to get the banning of circumcision in San Franciso on the city ballot.

Horrors! Slicing off an infant’s foreskin is a God-given right!

Except that it isn’t.

It is what it is: male genital mutilation.

There is consensus that female genital mutilation, even for — perhaps especially for — religious reasons should be banned throughout the United States of America, but male genital mutilation widely is considered normal. (I guess that in essence we tell our male newborns: “Man up, you fucking baby!”)

So it (genital mutilation) seems to be a line-drawing game. Involuntarily slicing off a female’s clitoris (and perhaps other portions of the external female genitalia along with it): Bad. Clearly. Duh! Involuntarily slicing off a male’s foreskin: That’s perfectly OK, you moron!

“Opponents say the [San Francisco anti-circumcision] ballot measure would never stand up in court because it violates the freedom of religion clause of the U.S. Constitution,” notes SFGate.com.

Yet parents may not withhold certain medical treatments from their children because of religious beliefs, courts have ruled; the state’s interest in protecting the safety and well-being of the children within the state trumps the parents’ religious beliefs in these cases, the courts have ruled.

So again, this is a matter of degree.

To believe that non-medically necessary circumcision is OK is to say that a little genital mutilation is OK. Just not a lot of genital mutilation. (Non-medically) castrating an infant due to the parents’ religious beliefs, for instance, obviously would be illegal and immoral.

Non-medically necessary circumcision is, at the very least, child cruelty.

There will come a day, if we human beings have not destroyed our species by then, that future generations will regard the dead practice of circumcision as what it is (well, was): a cruel, barbaric, unnecessary practice based on religious custom (that is, based upon ignorance/superstitution).

There is no God. Therefore, there is no God who gives a shit as to whether or not a male still has his foreskin or not.

Most parents who still circumcise their infant sons, I believe, do so primarily because it’s just custom. I don’t believe that it’s a deeply religious thing for them. It’s just what you do: snip it off. (That reminds me of the joke that I tell when eating rings of calamari with friends at a restaurant: that calamari is what they do with the discarded foreskins. And that if they fried them, they could make something a lot like pork rinds…)

My fraternal twin some time ago asked our mother why she had us circumcised. My mother, who never has been religious — never took us to church, never talks about God or Jesus or any other of that hocus-pocus bullshit — answered him that that’s just what parents did.

You just did it; you didn’t think about it.

But we need to take an actual look at what we actually are doing: We are taking a knife to an infant and slicing off a portion of the infant that in the vast majority of cases we don’t need to slice off.

And this has to cause the infant pain. We probably don’t need our earlobes, but few would argue that it’s OK to lop off an infant’s earlobes. (Indeed, what if a parent’s religious beliefs mandated that the infant’s earlobes be chopped off? Would the religious beliefs trump the earlobes?)

Homo sapiens wouldn’t have come this far (I do believe that we are at around 7 billion human beings on the planet) if evolution had fucked up the reproductive function, for fuck’s sake. The foreskin is not the problem that so many claim that it is.

For any actual foreskin-related pediatric medical problems, such as chronic phimosis that does not respond to other treatments, if involuntary circumcision truly is medically necessary, then fine, do it. But to perform the procedure routinely on male infants is child cruelty.

And if it’s a religious thing, why not let the male decide for himself when he turns 18? I realize that the Old Testament prescribes eight days for circumcision, but if one believes in a God that truly gives a shit about foreskin status, wouldn’t God’s attitude on the matter be better late than never? At least an average 18-year-old could decide for himself.

I never got the choice, and neither have millions of other victims of male genital mutilation.

The practice of routine circumcision is backasswards and needs to go. No one has the constitutional right to mutilate, in the name of religion, the genitalia of his or her childeven ” just a little.”

P.S. Take a look at these pictures of a circumcision procedure and tell me that this is not genital mutilation. The author of the website predictably claims HIV/AIDS prevention as a justification for circumcision, but that is FUCKING BULLSHIT.

The real “reason” for the vast majority of circumcisions is: “That’s the way we’ve always done it!” Mindless circumcision mindlessly was performed long before HIV/AIDS ever came on the scene, so HIV/AIDS prevention is a bullshit defense of the child cruelty that is non-medically necessary circumcision.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

‘8: The Mormon Proposition’

DVD review

Tyler Barrick and Spencer Jones, both raised in Mormon families, were married in San Francisco’s city hall during the window period in 2008 in which same-sex marriage was legal in California. Their marriage remains legally valid, but Proposition 8 put an end to further same-sex marriages. Barrick and Jones are featured in the documentary “8: The Mormon Proposition.”

I’m glad that they made a documentary — a pretty good one, too — about the Mormon cult’s behind-the-scenes push for Proposition 8, the ballot initiative in California that in November 2008 wrote discrimination into the state’s constitution, invalidating the state’s Supreme Court’s May 2008 ruling that to prohibit same-sex marriage violates the rights guaranteed to Californians by their state’s constitutution.

Let me state right off that I fucking hate the fucking Mormon cult.

I could, but I won’t, go into detail about the Mormons’ fucktarded, backasswards beliefs, such as that non-whites aren’t white because they were punished by God (yes, the Mormons are huge old fucking white supremacists); that their “prophet” (a stupid old evil white guy named Thomas Monson, who even has his own website) literally receives communiques from God (Monson “is the only person alive who can receive revelation for the entire [Mormon cult],” his website proclaims); that their polygamous founder, Joseph Smith Sr., in the late 1820s transcribed golden plates given to him by an angel fucktardedly but appropriately named Moroni (these golden plates, which contained the Book of Mormon, reportedly were taken back by the angel, conveniently); and that when good Mormons die they get to be gods of their own planets (which is even better, I’m guessing, than the bevy of virgins that good Muslim men are promised in the afterlife).

Frankly, the Mormon cult is lucky to be able to get away with what it gets away with, most notably and probably most destructively, its routine brainwashing of its youth, who have no fucking choice. Those born into Mormon families, if they reject the toxic, bullshit belief system that is crammed down their throats from birth, risk being ejected from their own families.

When belief is tied to life’s necessities, such as food and shelter, that’s not spirituality; that’s the pyschological enslavement of other human beings (a.k.a., too often, as “religion”). And that is evil, and that is nothing that Jesus Christ taught, and there is nothing to fucking debate about it.

And this evil perpetrated by the Mormon cult on a daily business is perfectly legal. In fact, even non-Mormons support the Mormons’ right to brainwash and thoroughly pyschospiritually destroy their offspring for life. This is called “religious freedom.”

Speaking of which, I remember when a co-worker of mine and I happened to be walking around the state Capitol here in Sacramento on our lunch break in late October 2008 and we quite unexpectedly happened upon a large group of wingnuts demonstrating in support of Prop H8 in front of the Capitol.

On their blue-and-yellow “Yes on 8″ signs were the Orwellian slogans “Restore Marriage,” “Protect Marriage,” “Prop 8 = Free Speech,” ”Prop 8 = Religious Freedom” and “Prop 8 = Less Government.”

As I noted of these slogans/“arguments” just after Prop H8 narrowly passed in November 2008:

“Restore[/protect] marriage”: How do same-sex couples harm heterosexual couples’ marriages? If heterosexual marriages are in trouble, don’t the heterosexual couples need to do something about it? The divorce rate was sky high long before gay men and lesbians ever got the legal right to marry in any state.

“Less government”: Wait a fucking minute. “Less government”? The government telling two consenting adults that they may not get married is less government? How?

“Free speech”: Yes, you have free speech. You may hold the most hateful beliefs that you want and you are pretty free to say whatever hateful things you want. But what right do you have to infringe on someone else’s rights?

[“Religious freedom”:] These motherfucking haters, if it is their religious belief that same-sex marriage is wrong, are perfectly free not to marry someone of the same sex. Their religious freedom is in no way infringed upon by two other consenting adults marrying each other.

If we actually are to buy this argument that to offend someone’s religious beliefs is to infringe upon his or her religious freedom, then we must make interracial marriage illegal too if it should — gasp! — offend someone’s religious beliefs. (What about the eating of certain foods? Should pork be banned by constitutional amendment because its consumption offends some people’s religious beliefs? Where would it end?)

The bottom line is that the homo-haters have no actual legal, moral or ethical arguments against same-sex marriage. They have only blind hatred, and they fabricate “arguments” to try to legitimize and sanitize their hatred.

The overarching “argument” by the homo-haters that their civil rights — religious freedom, freedom of speech, parental rights, etc. – are actually being violated by gay men and lesbians being granted equal civil rights is beyond insane.

“8: The Mormon Proposition” — narrated by Dustin Lance Black, the gay (ex-?)Mormon who, ironically, won an Oscar for his screenplay for the film “Milk” — makes it clear that the stupid evil white men who run the Mormon cult are not satisfied with having control only over the hearts, minds and genitalia of their Mormon mindslaves. They want control over the entire nation, if not also the entire planet.

And it is at that point, when the Mormon cult no longer is content to mind its own fucking business, but wants to convert all of us to Mormonism, that the Mormon cult deserves to be brought down. (And no, I don’t rule out violence if necessary. An unprovoked, direct strike at our equal human and civil rights deserves a strong response, and if violence ever is called for, then so be it.)

“8: The Mormon Proposition” masterfully exposes how the Mormon cult has tried to hide behind its anti-non-heterosexual crusade by creating front organizations (most notably, the National Organization for Marriage* [which, ironically, actually is for fewer marriages]) made to look as though it’s a grassroots effort rather than what it actually is: a crusade of the Mormon cult. “The Mormon Proposition” also details the history of the Mormon cult’s involvement in denying equal human and civil rights to non-heterosexuals, starting with the battle over same-sex marriage in Hawaii in the 1990s.

“The Mormon Proposition” showcases two young gay (ex-?)Mormon men who wed when same-sex marriage was legal in California and follows their story, which includes ostracization from their family members (although the mother of one of the two young men is very supportive of him and the cause of equal human and civil rights for all Americans; she rocks).

I’m not decided whether the two young men are given too much attention in the documentary or whether it’s a strength of the documentary that their case is a thread that runs throughout it. In either case, though, they are an adorable couple, and if you are sane you can’t help but feel happy for them and you can’t imagine that anyone could be so miserable and hateful as to try to take their happiness away from them.

Also featured in “The Mormon Proposition” is Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate (now known as a national group called Rights Equal Rights), whose advocacy for equal human and civil rights and whose counter-crusade against and exposition of the “Christo”fascist Mormon cult I admire greatly (but I’m not big on his bid to run for president in 2012 on the Repunignican ticket; there’s no way in hell I’d vote for a Repugnican, but especially not for a gay Repugnican).

Karger’s Californians Against Hate website sums up the Mormon cult’s support of Prop H8 rather succinctly in a post on July 8:

During the summer of 2008, we discovered the active involvement of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) in Prop 8. The Mormon Church had taken over virtually every aspect of the Yes on 8 campaign.

Mormon families contributed approximately $30 million of the $40 million raised, the Church produced 27 slick commercials, put up an expensive website, bused in thousands of volunteers from Utah [and] had massive phone banks, yet only reported a mere $2,078 in non-monetary contributions three days before the election.

Two weeks later I filed a sworn complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) against the Mormon Church for not reporting its vast financial involvement in the campaign.

The commission prosecuted the case, and conducted an unprecedented 19-month investigation of the Salt Lake City-based church’s finances. Three weeks ago the FPPC found the Mormon Church guilty of 13 counts of late reporting and they were fined $5,539. That was the first time a religion was found guilty of election irregularities in the 36-year history of the FPPC.

How the Mormon cult retains its tax-exempt status regardless of its well-documented illegal involvement in politics eludes me. The Mormon cult should have been fined millions of dollars and lost its tax-exempt status. That it did not shows how scared the powers that be are of the “Christo”fascists of the Mormon cult.

One thing in “The Mormon Proposition” that I’m not thrilled about is to watch people cry over the passage of Prop H8 when the Mormon cult had to lie and cheat in order to “win.” When you have to lie and cheat to “win,” your “cause” is fucking weak. It’s actually good news that the Mormon “Christo”fascists had to resort to their anti-Christian deception and lies to “win.” It proves that unless they wear sheep’s clothing, the majority of the voters will recognize them as the wolves that they are. The Mormon “Christo”facists don’t have the power of the truth behind them.

And despite the tens of millions of dollars and the manpower that the Mormon cult pumped into Prop H8, it didn’t win by a huge margin. It won by only 4 fucking percent. That’s not what I’d call a fucking landslide.

The latest Field Poll on the issue, taken in late June and early July, indicates that if same-sex marriage were put on the Californian ballot today, Prop 8 would be reversed, with 51 percent supporting same-sex marriage, 42 percent opposed and 7 percent undecided. (It seems to me that most of the undecideds would end up in the pro-same-sex marriage camp, since the hardcore homo-haters already know who they are.)

My fellow non-heterosexuals need to stop crying and start fighting, which includes educating themselves and others on how and why Prop H8 passed in the first place. While I’m happy to see that the 52 percent support for Prop H8 in November 2008 appears to have dropped 10 points to 42 percent today, 51 percent of Californians in favor of same-sex marriage is still too close for comfort.

“8: The Mormon Proposition” is a great teaching tool, and I recommend it for everyone who gives a shit about equal human and civil rights for all Americans.

While I can’t support him for president, I wholeheartedly agree with Fred Karger’s proclamation that:

Younger people who begin to realize that they might be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer will soon be afforded all the same rights as their brothers, sisters, friends and neighbors.

That is what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

We will settle for nothing less.

Amen.

*Speaking of NOM, headed by the grotesque wingnut Maggie Gallagher, who really needs a dildo, a wingnut recently showed up at a NOM event holding this sign:

gay-hate-sign.jpg

Yes, many if not most of the “Christo”fascists believe that non-heterosexuals should be executed — just like it is the case in theofascist nation of Iran. (Thus, I think of the “Christo”fascists as the “American Taliban.”) 

This is why I never rule out violence against the “Christo”fascists.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Is this the face of the future?

This undated photo provided by the San Mateo Sheriff's department ...

Associated Press photo

So this 48-year-old virgin (well, if I had to bet on it, I’d put my money on his still being a virgin) was arrested by the FBI yesterday for allegedly having harassed and threatened Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi via telephone.

The Associated Press reports that

Several federal officials said [the man] made dozens of calls to Pelosi’s homes in California and Washington, as well as to her husband’s business office. They said he recited her home address and said if she wanted to see [her home] again, she would not support the health care overhaul bill that since has been enacted.

The wingnut, Gregory Lee Giusti, of San Francisco, at least actually resides in or around the district that Pelosi represents…

The AP gives some interesting tidbits about Giusti, such as that he apparently managed to speak directly to Pelosi via telephone at least once, but I found this one to be the most interesting:

Sister Lorna Walsh, community operations manager of the Mercy Housing complex where Giusti lives, said he had lived in the subsidized housing for almost 10 years.

Subsidized housing?

Um, isn’t that socialism?

What kind of follower of Ayn Rand is this guy?

But seriously, this guy seems to have significant emotional and social issues, and he’s just the kind to be riled up by the right wing, with its talk of “reloading” and fighting the “tyranny” (um, democratically elected lawmakers and leaders democratically passing legislation is democracy, not “tyranny,” just because you disagree with them ideologically).  

Of course, when one of these wingnuts really goes off the deep end and kills someone, or maybe blows some shit up, killing many, the right-wing noise machine will claim no responsibility whatsofuckingever.

Yet all you have to do is go over to the Repugnican National Committee’s website and see things such as a PhotoShop job of Nancy Pelosi engulfed in flames, reminiscent of the good old days of witch burning, or see her on the RNC’s home page (as I type this sentence, anyway) portrayed as a wicked puppet master.

Pelosi isn’t the democratically elected speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, you see.

No! She’s an uber-villainess who must be destroyed!

Hey, I’m all for free speech, but if anything serious happens to Pelosi or to President Barack Obama or to one of the other favorite targets* of the Trinity of Wingnuttery — the Repugnican Party, the “tea party” and FOX “News” (I’ll include Rush Limbaugh and all of the other wingnut commentators with FOX) – then we have that unholy trinity to blame. Squarely.

I don’t peruse the wingnut blogosphere — I find that idea as palatable as taking a trip to the bowels of hell — but my guess is that the wingnuts already are making a martyr out of Giusti, ignoring the fact that threatening the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives is a federal offense, and are asserting that she-tyrant Nancy Pelosi will have the FBI come get you next!

Pelosi and Obama are the two Democrats the wingnuts hate the most; Pelosi’s main crime is that she presides while possessing ovaries, and Obama’s, of course, is that he presides while black.

I’m not sure which one of them the right-wingers hate more, and perhaps it’s a quandary for them as to whom they should hate more: the liberated woman or the black guy. (The RNC, at least, seems to use hatred of Pelosi more than it uses hatred of Obama in order to raise money. I mean, isn’t “Pelosi” Italian for “Satan”?) 

What this nation really needs is a black lesbian president.

Then, the wingnuts will just spontaneously combust.

*Speaking of targets, I just can’t post this graphic from Repugnican and “tea party” queen Sarah Palin-Quayle’s Facebook page often enough:

And I find it interesting that Palin-Quayle has been involved with all three branches of the Trinity of Wingnuttery, the “tea party,” FOX “News” and the Repugnican Party.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

California Supreme Court wusses out; so we take it to the ballot next year

Emily Drenne, a same sex marriage advocate, wears a wedding ...

Supporters of same sex marriages block the streets in a civil ...

A same sex couple kiss as a man is arrested in a civil disobedience ...

A same sex couple kiss before being arrested for blocking the ...

An unidentified same sex marriage advocate is held by San Francisco ...

Supporters of same sex marriage block the streets in a civil ...

Same-sex marriage advocates block a street after the California ...

A same sex couple kiss before being arrested in a civil disobedience ...

Associated Press and Reuters photos

Civil disobedience rocks: Activists for equal human and civil rights participate in civil disobedience today in San Francisco, where the California Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that it was upholding Proposition H8, which reversed the court’s 4-3 ruling a year ago this month that same-sex couples have the legal right to marry under the state’s Constitution. The lone dissenting justice in today’s 6-1 decision, Carlos Moreno, correctly wrote in his dissent that denying same-sex couples the right to legally marry “strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution” and that Prop Hate represents a “drastic and far-reaching change.”

So if 52 percent of California’s voters voted against mixed-race (heterosexual) marriages, as 52 percent of the state’s voters voted in November against same-sex marriages, the will of the voters in that former case would be shot down as an obvious unconstitutional violation of equal human and civil rights.

But clearly, it’s still wide open fucking season on non-heterosexuals; the haters need some historically oppressed minority group to continue to oppress.

Gay truly is the new black.

The California Supreme Court took the cowards’ way out and refused to do the right thing. Today the seven-member court announced that by a vote of 6-1 it would not strike down Proposition H8. (The court unanimously decided to protect those 18,000 or so same-sex marriages that were performed between June and November, when same-sex marriage as legal in the state, however.)

Which means that the fight for equal human and civil rights for non-heterosexuals in California, in the United States, and in the world goes on.

We who believe in freedom and in equal rights for all probably would win at the ballot box in California in 2010; if not in 2010, then in 2012.

We need to put the issue in front of the California voters at every opportunity that we can until we win.

That’s how you win: by fighting. By never giving up.

We fight on. Until we win.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Film review: “Milk”

Sean Penn (center) and Diego Luna (far right) in Gus Van Sant’s film about slain 1970s gay-rights icon Harvey Milk, which evil, liberal Hollywood is going to award some Oscars.

I remember when I used to see containers of homogenized milk labeled as “homo milk” and jokingly thinking: Gee! They make milk just for people like me!

OK, I got that out of the way, so now I can proceed to write about Gus Van Sant’s “Milk”:

Wow. What a film.

Usually when they hype a film I’m disappointed when I see it, but “Milk” — which I saw today with my closest female friend (and lately I’ve been dragging her to so many gay-related things that I’m thinking that she and I need to go to a monster truck rally very soon in order to balance it out) — exceeded my expectations.

There’s a little bit of sappiness in “Milk,” especially at the end, but in “Milk” gay-rights-movement icon Harvey Milk is portrayed as a hard-nosed politician who even manipulated — hell, who even more or less manufactured — events for political gain more than he is portrayed as a martyred saint.

I haven’t read the late gay journalist Randy Shilts’ biography of Milk, The Mayor of Castro Street, a copy of which I’ve had for years and years, but in “Milk,” Harvey is portrayed as having apparently betrayed his eventual assassin, fellow San Francisco Supervisor Dan White, after they had agreed to help each other win what the other wanted on the city’s board of supervisors (which is the equivalent of a typical city council).

In “Milk” Harvey Milk is portrayed as having gotten at least a bit drunk on power (after he finally won an election), such as in the scene in which he threatens the late San Francisco Mayor George Moscone that if Moscone doesn’t do what Milk wants him to do, Moscone will lose the support of the gay community, spelling the end of Moscone’s political career. Harvey played hardball, if “Milk” is historically accurate.

Oh, hell, I’ll just come out (so to speak…) and say it: “Milk” isn’t too shy to portray the possibility that Milk contributed to his own murder by having antagonized, unnecessarily, his nemesis White.

Not that White had to resort to murder, but he was pushed, if “Milk” is historically accurate. Milk had gotten what he wanted — a gay-rights city ordinance passed — by an overwhelming vote of the board of supervisors, so there was no reason, that I can tell, that it would have harmed Milk, politically, to have stayed out of the issue of whether White should have been allowed to return to the board of supervisors after he had resigned, citing his too-low salary as the reason. 

I congratulate Van Sant’s “Milk” for portraying Harvey Milk as a flawed hero. Power corrupts even the best of us.

I found “Milk” inspiring — I probably finally will read Shilts’ biography of Milk, and I probably will volunteer at my local gay and lesbian community center on “Day Without a Gay” on Wednesday — and it moved me to tears more than once or twice during its two-hour run, and it’s not many movies that can induce me to shed a tear.

It’s too bad that “Milk,” with its rather extensive portrayal of the defeat of the odious anti-gay Proposition 6, was released after the narrow passage of the odious anti-gay Proposition 8 last month, but, I suppose, better late than never. “Milk” can only help the campaign to overturn Prop 8, and since the wingnuts, who are utterly lacking in talent and brains, can’t make a film that anyone would want to see, they have no answer. 

“Milk” is going to be to the gay community what “Brokeback Mountain” was, but while “Brokeback” only indirectly tackles the issue of gay rights, “Milk” tackles the subject head on, and does it with the star power of Sean Penn as Harvey Milk, Josh Brolin as Dan White, and James Franco as Milk’s long-time love Scott Smith.

Poor Sean Penn probably will get a best-actor Oscar, and that all he had to do was kiss the gorgeous James Franco to get it. I hate Sean Penn! No, but seriously, Penn did a kick-ass job as Milk, and Franco did a great job, too; the actors’ intimate interactions are quite convincing as two men who love and who are in love with each other.

Josh Brolin turned in another of his usually reliable performances (I didn’t like “No Country for Old Men” overall, but I liked Brolin’s performance in it), playing a Dan White who seems, with his obsession over homosexuality, possibly to be a closet case and who is more of a sympathetic character in “Milk” than you would have expected him to be.

Diego Luna did a great job as Jack Lira, Milk’s spitfire Latino lover who came after Milk and Scott Smith split up. Just as the real-life Lira apparently got second billing to Smith, so, it seems, Luna’s great performance as Milk’s passionate and unstable lover Lira is getting second billing to Franco’s performance. (Just don’t do anything crazy, Diego!)

Emile Hirsch as young activist Cleve Jones is getting rave reviews, but I think that Luna worked harder. Hirsch is best in the scene in which he and Milk first meet, but Luna’s role, it seems to me, was more demanding.

Like “Brokeback Mountain” was nominated for several Oscars, expect “Milk” to be nominated for several Oscars, too — and expect the wingnut motherfuckers to bitch and moan once again about how liberal Hollywood loves to give Oscars to movies about fags.

I expect an Oscar win for Penn and for director Van Sant, whose departure from his often-eccentric cinematic style (“My Own Private Idaho,” “Even Cowgirls Get the Blues,” and “Elephant” come to mind) seems to have been done with a best-director Oscar in mind. “Milk” just might win best picture, too, which would nice after the passage of Proposition Hate — er, 8.

My grade: A

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized