This is the "Defence" of marriage we are up against. As a Treker, I am offended that this guy would assume that Data would want to marry a human. LOL
News and Commentary About My Gay World
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Maggie Gallagher's testimony convinces Maryland Senator to vote for marriage equality
Caught a tweet from Pam Spaulding about how NOM's Maggie Gallagher's testimony against marriage equality in Maryland was successful (in helping our side.) Here's the story:
Maryland – The Senate Judicial Proceedings committee heard 7 hours of testimony last night on whether or not to legalize gay marriage, including from NOM’s Maggie Gallagher. Now one Senator, who was previously a foe, has said her testimony convinced him to support marriage equality.Senator James Brochin (D) was one of the few Democrat Senators who was opposed to gay marriage. But after listening to testimony from Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization For Marriage (NOM), he’s said that her “demonization” of gay families has convinced him that he should side with marriage equality.
Well done Maggie!
National Organization for Marriage (NOM) expenses in sending Maggie Gallagher to testify against Marriage Equality - $1000's
Maggie Gallagher's hateful testimony getting votes for marriage equality - priceless!
Maryland - Hundreds crowd Senate for hearing on same-sex marriage
11:09 p.m. EST, February 8, 2011
Hundreds of activists on both sides of the same-sex marriage divide swarmed the Maryland Senate office buildings Tuesday, with advocates sharing personal anecdotes and opponents issuing warnings as lawmakers considered legislation that would allow gay couples to marry.
The majority of senators on the 11-member Judicial Proceedings Committee have co-sponsored the bill, and opponents acknowledged that their efforts would probably not change any minds. It's the first year that the measure has received such support on the panel, a development that has sparked momentum for it.
Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, who opposes gay marriage, assessed the legislation's chance of clearing the full Senate as better than 50-50. Advocates are optimistic that it will pass in the House of Delegates; Gov. Martin O'Malley has said he would sign such a bill.
But opponents vowed to fight it.
"The hearing is a chance to demonstrate the multitude of people on the other side and the diversity of people on the other side," said Mary Ellen Russell of the Maryland Catholic Conference, the lobbying arm of the state's Catholic bishops. "I think it is fairly certain that minds have been made up … but what the final version of the bill looks like could change."
The debate Tuesday wandered from broad philosophical questions about ideal child-rearing practices to the societal benefits of marriage and the impact of divorce. Senators probed witnesses on technical issues, such as whether the bill, which its authors have named the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, offers adequate shields to those who want no involvement in same-sex marriages.
Thirty minutes before the hearing, the committee room was filled with red-shirted supporters of gay marriage seated side-by-side with opponents. A state trooper told activists standing in the aisles they'd have to watch from a spillover room in another part of the building. That chamber also filled up, and at times the arguments spilled out into the hall.
Roughly 150 signed up to testify, prompting committee Chairman Brian Frosh to limit statements to three minutes.
"We are likely to hear just about everything that is possible to hear on this issue," the Montgomery County Democrat said. The committee could vote on the bill as soon as next week.
Sen. Richard S. Madaleno, the Senate's only openly gay member, was among the first to address the panel. He talked about his spouse.
"Under Maryland's civil law, he is a legal stranger to me," the Montgomery County Democrat said. "He is just my partner. Even that term cheapens our relationship."
But opponents said the institution of marriage would be cheapened if the definition were expanded. Victor Kirk, pastor of the Sharon Bible Fellowship in Lanham, called the legislation a "slippery slope" and said its supporters are demanding "over-tolerance."
"If this bill passes what next?" he asked. "What if a father wants to marry his daughter? Or a brother and sister want to marry each other?"
He acknowledged both scenarios are "preposterous" in the current culture. But 20 years ago, he said, the same would have been said of gay marriage.
The legislation would repeal a 38-year-old provision in Maryland law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The two-page bill includes a section saying that religious institutions would not be compelled to perform same-sex marriages.
But opponents said those protections are inadequate. They say the bill would do nothing to shield businesses or individuals who want to steer clear of aiding such ceremonies.
Senate Minority Leader Nancy Jacobs gave the example of a small wedding cake business that might not want to provide confections for a gay marriage. Another example was a hypothetical court clerk whose religious convictions might make him or her unable to issue a marriage certificate to a gay couple.
Bill sponsor Sen. Jamie Raskin noted that state law already bars hotels, motels, and restaurants from turning anyone away based on sexual orientation.
"People who are operating substantial businesses have to be open to all members of the public," the Montgomery County Democrat said.
Washington and Lee University law professor Robin F. Wilson pressed the issue, testifying that the legislation would offer only "faux protections" to those religious entities that would want to steer clear from same sex marriages.
She noted that in some states adoption agencies connected with religious groups do not have to place children in couples with marriages that didn't fit their beliefs. Two states, she said, allow religious groups to limit spousal benefits to heterosexual employees. Sen. Christopher B. Shank, a Washington County Republican, opposes the bill, but said he might propose amendments to include more protections.
Several Republicans — including Sen. Allan Kittleman, the former Senate minority leader — testified in support of the bill.
"Despite rumors to the contrary I'm not leaving the party," Kittleman joked. He stepped down from his leadership position last month after members of his caucus expressed outrage that he was considering sponsoring a civil unions bill. He has since thrown his support behind marriage.
Austin R. Nimocks, a lawyer for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, argued that marriage is intended to create a "stable union for the sake of responsibly producing and raising the next generation."
"By adopting same-sex marriage you are telling those families that mothers and fathers don't matter," said Nimocks, who has testified around the country against gay marriage. He ruffled feathers on the committee when he suggested that there was a valid argument for single parents to rear children but not for ame-sex couples to be parents.
He defined the ideal environment for raising children as "with a married mother and father in a low-conflict household."
The testimony at times hit close to home for senators. Kathleen Boucher, a former staff attorney to the committee, said that when she worked there a decade ago "slurs" against gays and lesbians "were commonplace."
She said she left her job in the legislature because she and her partner wanted to have a child — and the state would not put the partner on the insurance plan.
"Do you want to continue to live in a state where people have to pack up and leave jobs they love?" she asked.
At a news conference earlier in the day, the daughter of a lesbian couple pleaded with lawmakers to allow her moms to marry.
Glen Dehn, a gay Baltimore man who has been with his partner for nearly 33 years, described the day as "almost a celebration."
But Lisa Polyak was more cautious. The Baltimore woman recalled feeling "crushed" in 2007 when Maryland's highest court rejected a constitutional challenge to Maryland's law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
"It has taken years for us to get back up on our feet," she said.
The majority of senators on the 11-member Judicial Proceedings Committee have co-sponsored the bill, and opponents acknowledged that their efforts would probably not change any minds. It's the first year that the measure has received such support on the panel, a development that has sparked momentum for it.
Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, who opposes gay marriage, assessed the legislation's chance of clearing the full Senate as better than 50-50. Advocates are optimistic that it will pass in the House of Delegates; Gov. Martin O'Malley has said he would sign such a bill.
But opponents vowed to fight it.
"The hearing is a chance to demonstrate the multitude of people on the other side and the diversity of people on the other side," said Mary Ellen Russell of the Maryland Catholic Conference, the lobbying arm of the state's Catholic bishops. "I think it is fairly certain that minds have been made up … but what the final version of the bill looks like could change."
The debate Tuesday wandered from broad philosophical questions about ideal child-rearing practices to the societal benefits of marriage and the impact of divorce. Senators probed witnesses on technical issues, such as whether the bill, which its authors have named the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, offers adequate shields to those who want no involvement in same-sex marriages.
Thirty minutes before the hearing, the committee room was filled with red-shirted supporters of gay marriage seated side-by-side with opponents. A state trooper told activists standing in the aisles they'd have to watch from a spillover room in another part of the building. That chamber also filled up, and at times the arguments spilled out into the hall.
Roughly 150 signed up to testify, prompting committee Chairman Brian Frosh to limit statements to three minutes.
"We are likely to hear just about everything that is possible to hear on this issue," the Montgomery County Democrat said. The committee could vote on the bill as soon as next week.
Sen. Richard S. Madaleno, the Senate's only openly gay member, was among the first to address the panel. He talked about his spouse.
"Under Maryland's civil law, he is a legal stranger to me," the Montgomery County Democrat said. "He is just my partner. Even that term cheapens our relationship."
But opponents said the institution of marriage would be cheapened if the definition were expanded. Victor Kirk, pastor of the Sharon Bible Fellowship in Lanham, called the legislation a "slippery slope" and said its supporters are demanding "over-tolerance."
"If this bill passes what next?" he asked. "What if a father wants to marry his daughter? Or a brother and sister want to marry each other?"
He acknowledged both scenarios are "preposterous" in the current culture. But 20 years ago, he said, the same would have been said of gay marriage.
The legislation would repeal a 38-year-old provision in Maryland law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The two-page bill includes a section saying that religious institutions would not be compelled to perform same-sex marriages.
But opponents said those protections are inadequate. They say the bill would do nothing to shield businesses or individuals who want to steer clear of aiding such ceremonies.
Senate Minority Leader Nancy Jacobs gave the example of a small wedding cake business that might not want to provide confections for a gay marriage. Another example was a hypothetical court clerk whose religious convictions might make him or her unable to issue a marriage certificate to a gay couple.
Bill sponsor Sen. Jamie Raskin noted that state law already bars hotels, motels, and restaurants from turning anyone away based on sexual orientation.
"People who are operating substantial businesses have to be open to all members of the public," the Montgomery County Democrat said.
Washington and Lee University law professor Robin F. Wilson pressed the issue, testifying that the legislation would offer only "faux protections" to those religious entities that would want to steer clear from same sex marriages.
She noted that in some states adoption agencies connected with religious groups do not have to place children in couples with marriages that didn't fit their beliefs. Two states, she said, allow religious groups to limit spousal benefits to heterosexual employees. Sen. Christopher B. Shank, a Washington County Republican, opposes the bill, but said he might propose amendments to include more protections.
Several Republicans — including Sen. Allan Kittleman, the former Senate minority leader — testified in support of the bill.
"Despite rumors to the contrary I'm not leaving the party," Kittleman joked. He stepped down from his leadership position last month after members of his caucus expressed outrage that he was considering sponsoring a civil unions bill. He has since thrown his support behind marriage.
Austin R. Nimocks, a lawyer for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, argued that marriage is intended to create a "stable union for the sake of responsibly producing and raising the next generation."
"By adopting same-sex marriage you are telling those families that mothers and fathers don't matter," said Nimocks, who has testified around the country against gay marriage. He ruffled feathers on the committee when he suggested that there was a valid argument for single parents to rear children but not for ame-sex couples to be parents.
He defined the ideal environment for raising children as "with a married mother and father in a low-conflict household."
The testimony at times hit close to home for senators. Kathleen Boucher, a former staff attorney to the committee, said that when she worked there a decade ago "slurs" against gays and lesbians "were commonplace."
She said she left her job in the legislature because she and her partner wanted to have a child — and the state would not put the partner on the insurance plan.
"Do you want to continue to live in a state where people have to pack up and leave jobs they love?" she asked.
At a news conference earlier in the day, the daughter of a lesbian couple pleaded with lawmakers to allow her moms to marry.
Glen Dehn, a gay Baltimore man who has been with his partner for nearly 33 years, described the day as "almost a celebration."
But Lisa Polyak was more cautious. The Baltimore woman recalled feeling "crushed" in 2007 when Maryland's highest court rejected a constitutional challenge to Maryland's law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
"It has taken years for us to get back up on our feet," she said.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
American Family Association: Native Americans Are Morally Disqualified To Own Land Because They Have Rejected Jesus
More shit from Bryan Fischer.
How DARE he call Native American beliefs "darkness of indigenous superstition" !! Just because they believe in something else and are not willing to give it up, they should not have their land?!!! This man not only has A LOT of twisted thoughts and anger, but he is on the radio and A LOT of sheep listen to this crap. Some of them are politicians running for office. Is that scary or what?! Would you vote for someone who listens to this kind of twisted thinking daily?
It is getting easier and easier to see why they are on a hate list.
Crosspost from joemygod.com
According to the American Family Association, Native Americans are "morally disqualified from sovereign control of American soil" because they rejected early efforts to impose Christianity upon them. Bryan Fischer explains:
The native American tribes ultimately resisted the appeal of Christian Europeans to leave behind their superstition and occult practices for the light of Christianity and civilization. They in the end resisted every attempt to “Christianize the Savages of the Wilderness,” to use George Washington’s phrase. They rejected Washington’s direct counsel to the Delaware chiefs in 1779, “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ.” Thomas Jefferson three times signed legislation appropriating federal tax dollars for the evangelizing of the Native American tribes. It all came to nought, as one tribe after another rejected the offer of spiritual light and advanced civilization. God warned the ancient nation of Israel not to lapse into the abominable practices of the native peoples “lest the land vomit you out...as it vomited out the nation that was before you” (Lev. 18:28). Time eventually ran out for the Canaanites, because they filled up the full measure of their iniquity. Time ran out for the native American tribes for the same reason.
According to Fischer, even 21st century Native Americans have no moral right to what little land they still have: "Many of the tribal reservations today remain mired in poverty and alcoholism because many native Americans continue to cling to the darkness of indigenous superstition instead of coming into the light of Christianity and assimilating into Christian culture."
NOTE: Despite Bryan Fischer's incessant onslaught of racism and vile naked Christianist bigotry, his American Family Association radio show remains a popular destination for potential 2012 GOP presidential candidates.
NOTE: Despite Bryan Fischer's incessant onslaught of racism and vile naked Christianist bigotry, his American Family Association radio show remains a popular destination for potential 2012 GOP presidential candidates.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Quote Of The Day - Bryan Fischer
I will never understand why this man and many like him, get so worked up about strangers desires. Who I choose to spend my life with is of NO CONCERN OF YOURS. What we do in the bedroom is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
He uses some pretty graphic language in this rant. "Jump your bones" ? "Rammed down the throats"?
This man and several other orgs. are band together to stop the repeal of DADT based on their own imagined fears.
Keep in mind it is our brave LGBT troops that are the greater risk. They will not be jumping out of the closet because of people like Bryan Fischer. Life in the service will stay just like it is now. Every one of our troops are doing the job they were trained to do. They will be a shining example for the world.
"If you’re a service member with privacy concerns, forget about it. You will be forced to share open-bay showers with leering homosexuals and living quarters with fellow soldiers who may want to jump your bones. The repeal of the ban on homosexual service was rammed down the throats of the American public in a shameful and undemocratic lame duck session of Congress, by lawmakers who had been voted out of power by the American people."The Democrats’ death rattle could be heard from coast to coast, but they reached out from the grave and grabbed the military by the neck in one final frenzied spasm. Well, there is a new posse in town, many of whom campaigned as friends of the family and supporters of sexual decency. As Chris Christie has said, perhaps now is the time for pro-family Republicans in the House to 'put up or shut up.' So who will step forward at this moment and demonstrate the leadership necessary to save America’s national defense from this disastrous exercise in social engineering?" - American Family Association radio host Bryan Fischer, joining the call to defund the repeal of DADT.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Gingrich Defends Marriage
"Look, I'm quite happy to say I come out of a tradition, which is several thousand years old, that says marriage is between a man and a woman. And I'm prepared to defend that tradition. And I happen to believe it. And I think I have as much right to my belief as you have to yours." - Newt Gingrich
Please lets not forget that he left his first wife while she was suffering from cancer for his mistress. He married the mistress and started cheating on her. He is now working on the third "Traditional Marriage". Maybe the definition of "Traditional Marriage" should be amended to state that "as long as each marriage is between one man and one woman at a time". I thought being a Serial Adulterer was against the top 10.
You can keep your traditional marriage just let me have mine .
Please lets not forget that he left his first wife while she was suffering from cancer for his mistress. He married the mistress and started cheating on her. He is now working on the third "Traditional Marriage". Maybe the definition of "Traditional Marriage" should be amended to state that "as long as each marriage is between one man and one woman at a time". I thought being a Serial Adulterer was against the top 10.
You can keep your traditional marriage just let me have mine .
SPLC Alert: Anti-Gay Christian Group Lies In Fund-Raising Letter About Hate Crimes
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center's HateWatch column, the Traditional Values Coalition is raising money by claiming that the 2009 passage of the Matthew Shepard Act outlawed the Bible as "hate literature."
The Christian Seniors Association (CSA), a front group of the TVC, recently sent out a fundraising letter claiming that the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) of 2009, which added sexual orientation to the classes protected by federal hate crime legislation, “makes the Bible illegal ‘Hate Literature.’” The letter further claims that “under this law, criticism of homosexuality is deemed discrimination – just like racism,” and ultimately, the intent of the law is to “outlaw Christianity.” Scary stuff. Except that none of it is true.The SPLC points out that the good Christians at the TVC have a long track record of shady fundraising, including one mailed campaign that pretended to be from the federal government.
The CSA – which bills itself as “America’s Christian alternative to the far-Left AARP” – has a history of fundraising letters that prey on unfounded fears and, in some cases, even mimic government documents. In 2006, the CSA mailed out bogus “U.S. Taxpayer Census” forms. The packet included a survey about Social Security and dark warnings about politicians raiding the program for personal gain. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the mailing did not explicitly point out that money donated to the CSA would go directly to the TVC.The head of the CSA is married to Andrea Lafferty, the daughter of Lou Sheldon, who is the founder of the certified hate group, the Traditional Values Coalition. Just keeping that ill-gotten money in the family.
Just So We're Clear....
Award winning blogger Joe Jervis at joemygod.com
Just So We're Clear....
Gay boycott = radical homosexual intimidation.
Christian boycott = taking their business elsewhere.
Everybody got that?
Howard Stern on the word "Fag"
I was never a big fan of Howard Stern but I have listened to him over the years. . My son had me sit and watch his movie a while back and I have to say I was surprised. I have a greater respect for him and what he does because of the film. Thank you Howard for this sound bite. I am sure it will make it around the net and change some minds. Nice picture too.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
SOUTH DAKOTA: Republican Lawmaker Proposes Mandatory Gun Ownership
Read this short piece from jomygod.com then read what I think after.
South Dakota Tea Party-backed GOP state Rep. Hal Wick has proposed a bill that would require every adult in the state to by a gun "sufficient to provide for their personal self-defense."
I understand what Rep. Hal Wick is trying to do and why but I think he has a point.
I have never owned or carried a firearm. I know plenty of people who own guns and have shot a large variety of them. Thanks to my brother John, I have been schooled in safety
and maintain sidearms.
I think every child from K-12 should have several classes each year on safety so when they turn 21, they are required to carry some sort of sidearm.
Why should the bad guys be the ones with the guns? If every person was packing, no one would pull a gun.
I believe there would be a decrease in crime when everyone knows that everyone else has firearms.
I hate to refer to a gun as a weapon because it is only a weapon when it is in the hands of the bad guy. It would even the playing field between us and the bad guy.
There will be some casualties at first. People who did not pay attention, drug users, drunks, and ass holes to name a few.
I figure if we can't get rid of them, then everybody should have one. For most of our history as a nation we all had a gun. A rifle was a tool for hunting, competition, protection from unwanted creatures, and bumps in the night.
The bad guys take the chance you may be armed but the odds are you are not so they have the advantage. Take away the advantage and the odds change dramatically. Now they have to take the chance you don't know how to use it but education will fix that.
I know this sounds like a strange thing for me to say because I am all about compromise and warm fuzzy bunnys but I believe that knowing every person is armed and ready would force people to work out their differences and try harder to keep the peace rather than resort to violence.
South Dakota Tea Party-backed GOP state Rep. Hal Wick has proposed a bill that would require every adult in the state to by a gun "sufficient to provide for their personal self-defense."
The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.” The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”Wick's bill, of course, is meant to mock "Obamacare" as being as equally unconstitutional as mandating gun ownership. Over at Salon, however, Alex Pareene points out that there's nothing unconstitutional about a state requiring one to purchase a gun.
No one expects the bill to become a law, but these guys are just trying to make a point, and that point is that they don't even understand conservative talking points about the individual mandate. The argument against the individual mandate is that the federal government doesn't have the power to compel people to purchase private insurance. It is not about what states can and can't do. That's kind of the fundamental issue, actually. The role and powers of the federal government.
I understand what Rep. Hal Wick is trying to do and why but I think he has a point.
I have never owned or carried a firearm. I know plenty of people who own guns and have shot a large variety of them. Thanks to my brother John, I have been schooled in safety
and maintain sidearms.
I think every child from K-12 should have several classes each year on safety so when they turn 21, they are required to carry some sort of sidearm.
Why should the bad guys be the ones with the guns? If every person was packing, no one would pull a gun.
I believe there would be a decrease in crime when everyone knows that everyone else has firearms.
I hate to refer to a gun as a weapon because it is only a weapon when it is in the hands of the bad guy. It would even the playing field between us and the bad guy.
There will be some casualties at first. People who did not pay attention, drug users, drunks, and ass holes to name a few.
I figure if we can't get rid of them, then everybody should have one. For most of our history as a nation we all had a gun. A rifle was a tool for hunting, competition, protection from unwanted creatures, and bumps in the night.
The bad guys take the chance you may be armed but the odds are you are not so they have the advantage. Take away the advantage and the odds change dramatically. Now they have to take the chance you don't know how to use it but education will fix that.
I know this sounds like a strange thing for me to say because I am all about compromise and warm fuzzy bunnys but I believe that knowing every person is armed and ready would force people to work out their differences and try harder to keep the peace rather than resort to violence.
Check out the ART !!!!
Google has launched Art Project, an interactive site allowing users to wander around the world's great museums and zoom in on masterpieces with great detail.
This is awesome! The zoom is amazing. You can create your own gallery of favorites.
A MUST SEE.
This is awesome! The zoom is amazing. You can create your own gallery of favorites.
A MUST SEE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)