Then They Came

April 1, 2010 at 8:36 am 63 comments

by Brian Leubitz

Sometimes, karma does funny things.  Like, say, when you want to ban the use of the new hate crimes law that protects the LGBT community in your state, but, well, it turns out differently:

A bill intended to remove hate crime protections from gays and lesbians actually takes away rights from everyone else because of a “legislative error,” according to one lawmaker.

Oklahoma State Senate Minority Leader Andrew Rice, D-Oklahoma City, said when the Senate passed Senate Bill 1965 on March 10, it eliminated hate crime protections for race and religion.

The bill states local law enforcement agencies should not enforce any sections of federal law under hate crimes statutes listed under Title 18 U.S. Code Section 245 unless they are in correlation with Oklahoma’s hate crimes laws.

But the protections for sexual orientation and gender identity in the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes, which passed Congress last year, are not listed under Section 245, but Section 249. (OUDaily)

First things first, really, this isn’t an April Fool’s joke. I thought that might be the case when I first heard of the story yesterday. But, nope, this really happened.

Now, it’s not actually law yet, it only passed the Oklahoma state senate, and can and will be amended if it emerges out of the state house.  Then it must go to Democratic governor Brad Henry. Henry would certainly prefer to never have to deal with this issue at all. However, he has been known to veto some right-wing populist bills in his time.

The other issue here is a legal one. Is it really ok to just pass laws saying that you aren’t going to enforce federal laws? Well, maybe.  Prosecutors generally have broad discretion in how, who, and why they prosecute crimes.  Now, if the state wants to limit their own staff, that might be kosher. But a law banning the use of the law? Well, that opens a whole can of worms regarding the relationship between states and the federal government.  The fact that this is potentially dangerous to our community (and all minorities in the abstract) is just a sideline in the legal argument.

But what is a sideline in the legal argument goes to the heart of what it means to be a minority, whether it is a sexual minority or any other. Once you go down the road of purposely excluding one group, it is not that great of a leap down the road to greater and greater exclusions for the sake of the favored groups.  But this thought is far better expressed by a poem normally attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller.

“THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

Entry filed under: Uncategorized.

Constance Wins on Both Fronts Yes, No, Maybe So

63 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Ronnie  |  April 1, 2010 at 8:58 am

    Since I already commented about this the other day… I have something new to add to this from advocate.com….

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/01/IM_GAY_License_Plate_Fighter_Found_Dead/

    Posted on Advocate.com April 01, 2010
    “IM GAY” License Plate Fighter Found Dead
    By Julie Bolcer

    The Oklahoma man who filed a lawsuit seeking the license plate “I’m Gay” was found dead inside his Norman apartment Wednesday, two days after he formally complained that Tulsa police officers beat him outside a gay club Saturday.

    (me) hmmmmmm…..coincidence?…..I think not….

    Keith Kimmel, 28, launched a legal battle last month with the Oklahoma Tax Commission for rejecting his application for a personalized license plate that said, “IM GAY.” Police are now investigating the cause of his death, as well as looking into his complaint of police abuse over the weekend, which he detailed in a blog post, according to Tulsa World.

    (me) sure the police are investigating….you know in a state that wants to take the gay out of a law whose main purpose is to protect LGBTQQIA people….right (sarcasm)……..

    “In it, he accused several unnamed Tulsa officers of misconduct, brutality, excessive force and lack of professionalism after he apparently was thrown out of the End Up Club at 5336 E. Admiral Place. “

    Kimmel said he received injuries from the encounter with police, and suffered insults about his weight and sexual orientation, according to Tulsa World.

    Tulsa police will expedite their internal investigation because a death is involved.

    (me) expedite?!……sure ok….I’ll believe that when I see it…..<3….Ronnie

    Reply
  • 2. Ronnie  |  April 1, 2010 at 9:15 am

    “Then They Came” poem…..

    You know, this is why I know Equality is so important…..because we actually do care about the protections of all those other groups …….but according to the reich, only their religious beliefs are protected by freedom of religion….only their words are protected by freedom of speech……only people that agree with them and live they way they want them too are protected by the constitution……that’s BS…..they are going the way of Hitler and eventually the entire world will be against them…..JMHGO…….

    Its says “We the People”….not….”Me the People”…..there is no “I” in America……wait?!….<3….Ronnie

    Reply
    • 3. Bry  |  April 1, 2010 at 11:48 pm

      …There is no ‘me’ in America…. wait

      There is no ‘us’ in the United States…. DAMNIT

      Reply
  • 4. Evan  |  April 1, 2010 at 9:59 am

    My partner was teasing me about not following some of the more ridiculous rules in our apartment building today. I jokingly replied, “I follow the rules, that I think apply to me.” In this case, there’s no joke. States are actively seeking ways to avoid following federal law.

    The intent behind OK’s action is part of a larger current that is essentially encouraging states to pass laws that “opt them out” of following federal laws that they don’t like.

    Don’t like Health Care Reform? Not going to follow it. Don’t like Hate Crimes legislation? Not going to follow it.

    While there’s an argument for federalism in these actions, it seems to conflict with the Rule of Law.

    Reply
  • 5. cc  |  April 1, 2010 at 10:36 am

    First Texas now Oklahoma! Only difference is Oklahoma was lucky to catch their mistake before it went into law! Texas not so lucky.

    Whoops: Texas voters might have accidentally made all marriages unconstitutional while banning same sex marriages back in 2005!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ann-radnofsky/authors-of-texas-marriage_b_366440.html

    Reply
    • 6. Waxr  |  April 1, 2010 at 1:41 pm

      Wait a minute. . . . You are saying this was passed by the voters? Doesn’t anybody in Texas know how to read?

      Reply
      • 7. cc  |  April 1, 2010 at 4:52 pm

        Nope doesn’t look like it, except for Barbara Ann Radnofsky (Texas Democratic candidate for attorney general) of course. Oh well they didn’t want the pesky repercussions of marriage anyway. So good riddance!

        Reply
      • 8. Rightthingtodo TX  |  April 2, 2010 at 1:20 pm

        I live here and intelligence isn’t a strong suit round these parts…’cept for Austin…blue dot and all.

        Radnofsky, Tena Callahan, Scott Jenkins

        Reply
  • 9. Kathleen  |  April 1, 2010 at 10:58 am

    Just subscribing

    Reply
  • 10. dieter  |  April 1, 2010 at 11:29 am

    Another frivoulous lawsuit against us horrible gays….

    http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/04/anti-gay-group-threatens-to-sue-feds.html

    Reply
  • 11. Bob  |  April 1, 2010 at 11:41 am

    Again, what a tangled web, so intricate and bound up are all these laws, granting rights, taking rights away, one authority over another, yadaydayada yada, it’s all very confusing, and also funny!!!!! Hope they permanently screw things royally, and not in the favour of the Reich.
    Speaking of which, The Poem, by Martin Neimoller, I think this is worth some further reading and research, just press on his name, and follow some interesting reading, about the origins of the Poem, how the churches dealt with the genocide of the jews, and how they came to write an apology for “collectivfe guilt” for not being true christians in the face of what was happening.
    It shows that history is repeating itself as Ronnie so often reminds us, but not only in the way we percieve it, but also in terms of the inner struggle withing the churches themselves. Neimoller was part of that inner struggle within the Lutheran Church, and although this position was mostly pushed by two women of the time, which is also fascinating, because women did not have the right to speak in the Church. So the men became the heroes, and because of their unpopular (but true) postion, lost their lives in the consentration camps.
    Today, in this genocide the Lutheran Church is again divided, and the major part the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, has done a study of human sexuality, and come out in our favour, while other synods of the same church, remain entrenched against us, just as happened in Neimollers time.

    In Canada the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada, follows in the footsteps of their American Sister, their is an ongoing study of Human Sexuality, to be followed by passing of a new statement, in 2011, I am waiting for the results of that study, and hope for truth to shine.

    I have personally requested my family, and our Church, Lutheran Church Canada, to partake in this bible study, they refuse, but I keep asking???????

    Keep the pressure on, change is gonna come, both in the laws, the way we interpret them, and in the core of peoples religious beliefs being challenged.

    Religious folk apply pressure internally, secular, or as I like to call them Free thinkers, whack away at the laws, because this time, they are coming for US (all of us)

    Reply
  • 12. Kevin S.  |  April 1, 2010 at 11:43 am

    Is it really ok to just pass laws saying that you aren’t going to enforce federal laws?

    Two words: Sanctuary cities.

    Reply
  • 13. Ronnie  |  April 1, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    Some other Headlines on advocate.com:

    1. Posted on Advocate.com April 01, 2010
    Transgender Job Seekers Face Discrimination
    By Julie Bolcer

    (me) It is now illegal in NY to do this and yet….shoop shoop

    2. Posted on Advocate.com April 01, 2010
    Transgender Woman Murdered in New York
    By Julie Bolcer

    (me) So NY does not pass marriage equality bill…..and hate crimes rise….the police suspect that it was a man that she was dating that strangled her…..but no arrests have been made…..the entire story is pissing me off

    3. Posted on Advocate.com April 01, 2010
    Christian Broadcaster Settles with Gay Employee
    By Julie Bolcer

    (me) I just love when then reich is filled with controversy and scandal but scream that other people are immoral…..Apparently the father of the “Christian” broadcaster who is being accused of harassment and discrimination paid $425 thou to “silence accusations of a gay tryst……who previously helmed TBN”…….Brian Dugger, the gay employee sued TBN for I believe 1.9 mill….sweet

    4. and Ricky Martin tweets thanks to fans…..you’re welcome Ricky…….<3….Ronnie

    Reply
  • 14. Don in Texas  |  April 1, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    The states are obligated to abide by federal laws through Article VI of the U. S. Constitution:

    “The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the Judges of every State shall be bound thereby, ANYTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING.”

    Remember, all members of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the states are bound by oath to support the Constitution before they enter into office.

    Given these provisions of the U. S. Constitution, no state can “opt out” of any measure enacted by the Federal government. The measure proposed by Oklahoma clearly violates the Constitution of the United States and Oklahoma legislators who attempt to pass it violate their oath to support the Constitution.

    The U. S. Supreme Court spoke forcefully about state defiance of federal laws and Supreme Court rulings in Cooper v. Aaron, which dealt with Arkansas’ attempts to defy court-ordered school desegregation back in 1957.

    The Court declared:

    “What has been said, in the light of the facts developed, is enough to dispose of the case. However, we should answer the premise of the actions of the Governor and Legislature that they are not bound by our holding in the Brown case. It is necessary only to recall some basic constitutional propositions which are settled doctrine. [358 U.S. 1, 18]

    “Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.” Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers’ “anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . . .” Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 524.

    “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: “If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . .” United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. A Governor who asserts a [358 U.S. 1, 19] power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, “it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . .” Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397 -398. . . .”

    It also should be noted that government does not confer rights on the people. Instead, the people withhold from government any power to diminish their rights, which exist whether or not government exists. The Constitution creates, defines and regulates government; it does not denigrate the rights retained by the people.

    Reply
    • 15. Ed-M  |  April 1, 2010 at 8:05 pm

      But that is all lost on the hateros… some of whom want to overthrow the Constitution and replace it with biblical sharia law, and others of whom want to secede from the Union and reconstitute the Confederate States of America, and the rest simply want to turn the clock back to the 1950s except on basis of race (otherwise they lose their critical mass sooner, not later).

      Reply
  • 16. Ronnie  |  April 1, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    I can’t…OMG….this is too funny……

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/01/RNC_Sends_Voters_to_Phone_Sex_Line/

    Posted on Advocate.com April 01, 2010
    RNC Sends Voters to Phone Sex Line
    By Advocate.com Editors

    Days after the Republican National Committee came under fire for paying for a $2,000 night on the town at a racy West Hollywood club comes news the organization sent out fundraising fliers intended to look like U.S. Census forms with a return number that leads to a phone sex line

    (me) Racy West Hollywood club?!……phone sex?…..ummmm……

    A voter in Minnesota got the flier and called the number to complain about it looking like a government document. Instead, the voter tells the Democratic Nation Committee, he got a message for “live, one-on-one talk with a nasty girl who will do anything you want for just $2.99 per minute.”

    (me) the funny part is that he/she probably got billed for the one minute it took to figure out that he/she was talking with a nasty call…..Maggie G., you’re giving your digits out now?……tisk tisk…..hehehehe….

    A spokesperson for the RNC wouldn’t say how many fliers had been mailed.

    “The number in question was a typographical error by a vendor used on this particular mailer — using 1-800 instead of 202,” said RNC Communications Director Doug Heye.

    (me) right because a 2 looks like an 8 or 0…blame someone else and don’t take responsibility for your scandal….typical….There is a video of “The Daily Show” report attached to the article…..<3….Ronnie

    Reply
    • 17. Ronnie  |  April 1, 2010 at 1:27 pm

      i’m sorry it was a he that reported the flier and called the number……but still….I’m sure some female religious repub called it and was like….WTJ…….and has denounced her phone and party and is reflecting on the sinful voice of nasty girl…..bwaaaaaaaaa…<3….Ronnie

      Reply
  • 18. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 1, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    Martin Niemöller’s quote is quite apt. I honestly wasn’t paying attention to the Prop 8 battle in 2008, and I thought the fallout over the result might translate to success for the No on 1 campaign in Maine – we saw how that turned out, then came the senate votes in New York and New Jersey. I have come to realize that marriage equality is part of a larger fight that the Religious Right is waging against science and history – we are really in this together. Ironically for me, I feel that the battle for marriage quality will be won first; as I have said before, please don’t forget us scientists and our historian colleagues when the bruised and beaten Religious Right comes after us with renewed vengeance.

    Reply
    • 19. David Kimble  |  April 1, 2010 at 5:37 pm

      “please don’t forget us scientists and our historian colleagues when the bruised and beaten Religious Right comes after us with renewed vengeance.”
      Exactly, Straight Ally #3008 – thanx for caring! <3 David

      Reply
      • 20. Bry  |  April 2, 2010 at 12:19 am

        I’m a Psychologist-in-Training, you have my support and the support of the APAs and all legitimate orgs

        Reply
    • 21. Bob  |  April 1, 2010 at 5:42 pm

      @ Straight Ally #3008 wow that’s a long handle, I mean a lot to type, wonder if we’ll all wind up with numbers before it’s over??

      Just wanted to say, now what you’re talking about there is some real collaboration, wasn’t that a theme of another thread, but wow, totally it’s so reassuring to feel like we’re on the same side, I mean , science, and history, that’s some heavy hitters, we do need to stick together, realize our common goal, which is freedom for the human spirit.
      Let’s not let them separate us, we’re in this one for all and all for one, so how can we include scientists and historians, in our battle for marriage equality, in a way that it all happens at once. What can we do for you???????

      Reply
      • 22. Kathleen  |  April 1, 2010 at 5:51 pm

        Did I post this here before? Am I the only who feels like an island in a sea of ignorance and insanity?
        http://news.harrisinteractive.com/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?BzID=1963&ResLibraryID=37050&Category=1777

        One of the interesting extrapolations from this survey is that 67% of conservatives think he is a socialist and 38% of conservatives think he does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do. So that means that at least 5% of conservatives think he’s a socialist who does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do. How’s that for an informed opinion?

        Reply
      • 23. Kathleen  |  April 1, 2010 at 5:52 pm

        the “he” I’m referring to is Obama. Somehow left that out when cutting and pasting.

        Reply
      • 24. Bob  |  April 1, 2010 at 8:07 pm

        @Kathleen, interesting survey, and I like your conclusion about the 5%

        I’m not sure I totally understand if the results are really saying anything other than he’s a magnet for wingnuts, and this is their time to all crawl out of the woodwork, it’s kind of revealing to see what we got, (the cristian militia, westboro baptist, wall street, big business all want a piece of this guy) he definetly has stirred the pot, as far as extremes, like oil and water.

        The one major thing is that somehow he won my heart, I still can’t believe anything negative about him, is that just wishfull thinking, you know rationalizing, how could my impressions have been so far off. I still can’t allow myself to go there.

        I’m still mesmerized by his grass roots mobilization of the masses, he has that ability, (just like Hitler) is he all good or all bad??????????

        Reply
      • 25. Kathleen  |  April 1, 2010 at 8:44 pm

        Bob, I think it’s also interesting to note that willingness to believe some of these whacko views correlates with less education.

        My personal view? I think Obama is a leader with vision and great intellect and an ability to have compassion with people not as well situated as he is. For all of those reasons I voted for him and, barring any massive faux pas, I will vote for him again.

        But he is also a politician. I’ve discovered over the years that I don’t really have a stomach for politics. It’s an ugly business — full of people who lie, scheme, lust, cheat. Even the most noble and ethical people wind up making deals in order to further their political agenda (sometimes with good intent) in a way that I just can’t live with. But that’s the ugly truth of the political arena, imo. The Dennis Kuciniches of the world just can’t get elected as president — I’m stunned that he gets elected to Congress!

        The last extended foray into politics for me was a big push, some eight or so years ago, into advocating for public transit in Los Angles County for people with disabilities. We managed to accomplish quite a bit in the short run (stopped an attempt to illegally cut services, more money from the County, reconstituted the Board of Directors of the paratransit service, the head of the service resigned, got community activists appointed to the selection committee for the new executive director, etc.) But eventually it just sucked my soul, being lied to right to my face by politicians who wanted our support, reneging on deals on which we’d relied. I had to stop; I just couldn’t deal with it.

        Reply
      • 26. Pam  |  April 2, 2010 at 6:24 am

        The job of president should only go to someone who is supremely qualified but doesn’t want it. I can’t remember who said (something like) this, but I’ve always thought it rings true. Only someone who doesn’t want the power for themselves should get it.

        Reply
      • 27. Bob  |  April 2, 2010 at 10:15 am

        Pam, I agree with that idea, but how could we implement it? I also heard it said that ,, a true diplomat, a statesman, who rises above politics and improves the lives of humanity, is a very rare creature, that only comes along every couple of generations, the rest of the time we’re stuck with the humdrum partisan thinking self serving egotists.
        We talk about that in Canada, in the sense that our last great statesman was Trudeau, in the 70’s, my god it’s frustrating waiting for the next light to shine and lead us forward.
        I think I really saw those qualities in Obama, I think most Canadians did, the difference is in the ablitity to lead a nation towards something, encourage us to reach platitudes. He has to be a risk taker, willing to loose his individual sense of power in order to accomplish his goal. I think Obama actually said that at some point, he would rather fail at his attempts, rather than not try at all.
        I see the situation before us is very enlightening, in that all these layers of laws that would have to be dismantled in order to provide equality, if you really look at them, they were all driven by fear. The laws were created because people feared what would happen if they didn’t make those laws.
        What I look for is Obama’s stated intent to dismantle those laws, which rightly so has struck fear in the hearts of those who created them, to gaurd themselves, well from folks like us.
        We could be proud to realize, that it is our push for equality that has brought out all the wing nuts, out there, so that they are visible, frightening as they are.
        What I’m watching for is Obama’s next moves, will he lead through the fear of the unknown, to that place we all see so clearly, and are longing for.
        Pam as a psychologist you know that times of crisis, (and yes I would say right now things are in a state of crisis), keep the pressure on, allow the crisis, encourage it, but be aware that this is happening, for this is the greatest moment of opportunity for change.

        Reply
    • 28. Ronnie  |  April 1, 2010 at 5:53 pm

      I love science and history….especially history…..so they will have to go through me first to get to you…..<3….Ronnie

      Reply
    • 29. Ed-M  |  April 1, 2010 at 8:30 pm

      SA 3008, they will come after ALL of us with a renewed vengeance. Science, history, reason, LGBTIQQ people and our allies, and natural reality ALL happily “conspire” (simply by existing) to refute their religion and their bible, which they venerate as an idol.

      They would love nothing more than another inquistion, where us LGBTIQQ people and other free-thinkers including liberal Christians are given brutal, tortuous and inhumane treatment, and cruel and unusual capital punishments. All sanctioned by their belief system, of course.

      Reply
    • 30. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 1, 2010 at 9:32 pm

      Thanks, you guys. ♥♥♥

      The easiest thing you can do is to watch what candidates – especially for school boards – and bills in your state legislature say about efforts to water down evolution education and about the “Christian Nation” idea, the two favorite techniques of the Religious Right. For example, antievolution bills are under consideration in Missouri, Kentucky, and South Carolina – when they talk about “weaknesses” or “disadvantages” of evolution, they are not talking about anything in peer-reviewed scientific papers. Stay informed – the National Center for Science Education and your state’s citizens for science group are great places for information. Speak up. Vote. Donate.

      Reply
      • 31. Kathleen  |  April 1, 2010 at 9:49 pm

        I find it stunning that in the 21st Century in the USA, we are having a battle about teaching science. (shaking head in disbelief)

        Reply
      • 32. dieter  |  April 1, 2010 at 9:59 pm

        The reason for them to not believe in evolution, is because they have NOT evolved….as evidenced by the states you mentioned that all have 6 million residents…and yet only 4 last names……
        just sayin

        Reply
      • 33. Bob  |  April 2, 2010 at 10:27 am

        Straight Ally #3008, I’ve been thinking a lot about your comments yesterday, and in what ways we could collaborate, It is really alarming to think that religion would be so antagonistic towards the scientific community.
        What I dreamed last night was that the great scientists of the nation, of the world, all went on strike, no more research into cures for cancer, AIDS, etc. shut down the space station, all, just stop, and demand religion to take it’s rightful place, (it does have one, but we have to teach that it’s place in the universe is not to be the enemy of science ) Scientists have to believe in themselves, science trumps religion, plain and simple, actually the two could compliment each other, their have been scientific studies into the effects of sprituality, but we cannot survive as a species if the two remain in conflict, The Church has to back off. we all need to tell it that.

        Reply
  • 34. Bolt  |  April 1, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    It’s fascinating how a bible thumping, republican black hole, known as Oklahoma, goes out of it’s way to make it an undesirable place to pass through, visit, or live, by showing disdain for an entire class of people.

    Don’t they know that we don’t need anything from them, or their state? Don’t they know that we fly over them, and that nobody, from anywhere in the world, has any interest in Oklahoma?

    Rather than their government being a bunch of graceless, religious, fascists hell bent on legislating legal intolerance, the least they could do for themselves is say, or do, something positive about it’s citizens.

    The state of Oklahoma doesn’t deserve the gay citizens that it has! Boycott everything from there!

    Reply
  • 35. Ronnie  |  April 1, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    OOOO…klahoma……where the wind comes sweeping down the plain……hehehehe……I couldn’t help it….I’ve been holding that in all day….<3…Ronnie

    Reply
  • 36. dieter  |  April 1, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    OK..It is now OFFICIAL:

    The HRC and Mr. Joe Solmonese have lost their collective minds!!!!

    HRC’s, executive director, Joe Solmonese released a press release inviting Palin to be the keynote speaker at their newly announced “Gays, God, and Guns” gala fundraiser taking place on July 4th, in the city of brotherly love, Philadelphia.

    Dear Joe…please leave us real gays alone and stick to what you know best…spending other peoples hard earned money, and getting fashion awards from all those fancy dinner parties you love to attend.

    anyone who supports this whackjob corporation, is not now nor will they ever be a FRIEND of mine.

    I would sooner invite a NOM member to my house than anyone who thinks HRC is a good thing.!!!!

    enjoy your photo op with Palin Joe…you clearly are desperate to be famous…
    unforunately you do not realize that you already are famous…for being the worst thing to happen to gay rights since Ann Coulter was Hatched.

    Reply
    • 37. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 1, 2010 at 4:01 pm

      April Fools’!!!

      Reply
      • 38. dieter  |  April 1, 2010 at 5:09 pm

        April fools my ass…..This is in line with Joe’s goal of trying desperately to reverse gay rights, so he can keep his cash cow alive.
        and April fools or not…HRC is the worst thing ever to align itself with gay rights..EVER!

        Reply
    • 39. Ronnie  |  April 1, 2010 at 4:22 pm

      ummmm…. <3..Ronnie

      Reply
  • 40. dieter  |  April 1, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    The kids at GUNN High School fight back against the WBC!!

    Reply
    • 41. B&E  |  April 2, 2010 at 8:16 am

      I was so moved by this short film. These young kids should be applauded for standing up and speaking out against WBC.

      Reply
  • 42. Ronnie  |  April 1, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    Sooooo….I believe Equality is about inclusion……If all did same…..”Imagine”……<3…Ronnie:

    Reply
    • 43. Kathleen  |  April 1, 2010 at 5:35 pm

      I really loved this performance of just her voice and a piano! I’m a fan, but this is a side of her as a performer I haven’t seen before… and I like.

      Reply
      • 44. Ronnie  |  April 1, 2010 at 5:48 pm

        I love her…..she is an amazing performer…..and true this is side she rarely shows but proves she’s a powerful force to be reckoned with….<3….Ronnie

        Reply
  • 45. Ronnie  |  April 1, 2010 at 6:36 pm

    Aweeeee….I’m happy and sad at the same time…..

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/01/Heartbroken_Male_Otters_Die_Within_An_Hour_of_Each_Other/

    Posted on Advocate.com April 01, 2010
    “Heartbroken” Male Otters Die Within an Hour of Each Other” By Advocate.com Editors

    Two elderly male otters who were best friends and lived side by side for years died within an hour of each other earlier this week. Zookeepers told the press they believe the second otter died of a broken heart.

    (me) They were soooooo Gay….and I love it…..

    Daz, 19, and Chip, 16, lived and died at Naturelands Zoo in Nelson, New Zealand. Their handler said they had been inseparable for nearly 15 years.

    (me) 15 years?…..geeze…..I want that……

    She said she believes they lived beyond the normal 14-year life span for otters because they had each other for company.

    (me) you see…… being in a committed gay relationship helps you live longer then your average life expectancy…..

    “They were a great pair of otters, they were interested in what was happening,” Gail Sutton told the press. “The only consolation from this is that they both went together because if one had gone without the other, the remaining one would have been really lost.”

    (me) “It must have been love, but it’s over now
    It must have been good, but I lost it somehow
    It must have been love, but it’s over now
    From the moment we touched till the time had run out”…….RIP Daz and Chip……<3….Ronnie

    Reply
    • 46. Ronnie  |  April 1, 2010 at 6:38 pm

      Oh and P.S. check out their picture….they are so cute together……<3….Ronnie

      Reply
    • 47. Kathleen  |  April 1, 2010 at 6:39 pm

      Awwwww….

      Reply
    • 48. cc  |  April 1, 2010 at 7:05 pm

      Oh this story brought tears to my eyes! How sweet and sad at the same time, and oh they were soo cute!

      Reply
      • 49. Bry  |  April 2, 2010 at 12:24 am

        That’s so sweet!

        Reply
    • 50. Ed-M  |  April 1, 2010 at 8:35 pm

      It brought tears to my eyes, too… <3 Ed-M

      Reply
  • 51. dieter  |  April 1, 2010 at 8:19 pm

    OK here we go…
    apparently the military has strong armed one of our allies to “change his mind” about statements he made regarding DADT.

    amazing change of circumstances.

    DADT aint going away…and Obama doesn’t give a shit.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100401/pl_afp/usmilitarygayrights_20100401234343

    Reply
    • 52. Bob  |  April 1, 2010 at 9:33 pm

      All that flip flopping, and I don’t mean the issue about hot bottoms!!

      Is really an indication of how they’re just winging all this, it actually shows a weakness on their part, they have no clue of how to deal with this,

      An outside party would be a good thing but only if it was picked by the LGBT community, something is not right about expecting someone to confide in their oppressors, without a moratorium. Sounds like the prime target for (but we asked them to participate and they wouldn’t, so we take that as unwillingness on their part, or acceptance of the way things are??????????????????

      Dieter DADT is going away, but we’re going to have to make it happen, the other day Hillary Clinton was in Canada, practically begging Canadians to keep a presence in Afhganastan, she said we work so well together, dahhhh!!!! that’s a nice admission Hillary, but our military embraces hot bottoms, fighting along with them, your guys are freakin out about that, I don’t know but maybe it’s a threat to masculinity guised in jealousy of not sharing , more hot bottoms for everyone. ooooh that hot bottom issue gets me all hot and bothered,

      Reply
    • 53. Straight Dave  |  April 2, 2010 at 9:22 am

      I immediately knew McHugh was incorrect as soon as I heard his original statements. He only retracted some of what he said because he didn’t have his ducks lined up in the first place. Not very professional preparation, IMO. But I don’t see it as mind-changing. It was necessary to clarify what was contrary to the actual facts of the situation regarding DADT.

      The Pentagon is walking a fine line trying to get candid responses from people who put themselves at risk by doing so. The fact that only one group of people put themselves at risk makes it harder to fairly weigh the answers received.

      As a practical matter, corporations do this all the time by using 3rd party web sites to conduct anonymous employee surveys. That could work for the military, but I’m not sure everyone fully believes that it is truly anonymous. Considering the consequences, and considering the ease with which all sorts of “private” information seems to float loosely around the internet, I would expect that some fraction of at-risk soldiers won’t feel comfortable taking that chance. I think the Pentagon/Congress needs to pass a waiver exempting any information collected by this survey from being used as the basis for any DADT dismissal action. Otherwise, they will likely have a watered-down and lopsided survey that is disproportionately straight.

      Reply
      • 54. Straight Dave  |  April 2, 2010 at 9:34 am

        Of course, they could avoid all of this drama if they just cut to the chase and killed DADT right up front. Then worry about the details of how to soothe ruffled feathers and enforce appropriate behavior afterward. Then they would get a much more candid survey. An I’ll bet you $10 that once this was a done deal a whole lot of attitudes would suddenly shift. That just human nature – resist like mad just on principle, but once it’s over act like it wasn’t so important after all. They only act like it’s important if they think there’s still a chance to influence things. Only the die-hard fringe continues to beat a dead horse. The Pentagon is making this a lot harder than it needs to be, sadly, by “trying to make it easy”.

        Reply
      • 55. Ed-M  |  April 3, 2010 at 5:34 pm

        Unfortunately, Straight Dave, the lunatic fringe are overrepresented in the US military, particularly those hateros from the religioous reicht.

        Reply
  • 56. Ronnie  |  April 1, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    Ummmmm…..No….I don’t know…not so much…..hmmmm….moving on….soooo…

    We give a damn #1…..<3….Ronnie:

    Reply
    • 57. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  April 2, 2010 at 9:17 am

      And for those who click on this to watch the short version, you also get to see the full version, as well as the short and full versions of We give a damn #2, and a beautiful acoustic version of “True Colors” by We give a damn’s founder, the Fabulous Cyndi Lauper.

      Reply
  • 58. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  April 1, 2010 at 9:48 pm

    Hopefully, the folks in the capitol in Oklahoma will wake up and see what a travesty and a tragedy they were about to enact and decide to just leave things the way they are, or pass legislation that will bolster the enactment of Shepard-Byrd in their state so that ALL citizens of Oklahoma will be safe from tyranny, or at least have legal recourse when they are victimized.

    Reply
  • 59. dieter  |  April 1, 2010 at 9:57 pm

    So I can marry my cousin…just not a man….

    ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — A Maryland delegate who sought to ban marriage between first cousins says he won’t push the bill this year.

    Delegate Henry Heller, D-Montgomery, said Thursday that some state lawmakers had concerns that his bill would lead to a debate over gay marriage.

    He said he agreed to drop the matter because he didn’t want to put colleagues in jeopardy in an election year.

    Heller is a retired special education administrator. He says couples who are first cousins are at an increased risk of having a child with birth defects.

    His bill would have exempted people who are over age 65 or infertile. Heller says he has no problem with those couples if they want the companionship.

    Reply
  • 60. Sagesse  |  April 2, 2010 at 8:39 am

    If this has been posted before I missed it. And I’ve never tried to post from YouTube before, so it may not work. Call me an enlightened luddite.

    Proceeds from the sale of the song go to Courage Campaign. http://www.op-critical.com

    Reply
  • 61. Straight Dave  |  April 2, 2010 at 8:46 am

    Admiral Mullen just went up a notch in my book.
    In the wake of Army Lt General Mixon’s attempt to fire up the troops to oppose Obama’s attempt to repeal DADT, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff essentially told the senior officers they had 2 choices: salute or resign.

    A partial quote starting @ 1:55:
    “….and all of us in uniform are obliged to certainly follow the direction of leadership right up through the president. And I’ve said this before, the answer…and you feel so strongly about it…the answer is not advocacy, it is in fact to vote with your feet.”

    Now we’ll find out how many are so deluded or bigoted that they do vote with their feet. If they can’t manage to be open to new ideas and evolve socially along with the rest of the world, I’m not sure I want them in charge of our young men and women. Good riddance!
    (my first embedded video – hope it works)

    Reply
  • 63. Mandy  |  April 2, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    I just want to say that I think that DADT should be repealed immediately and frankly should have never been created in the first place. That being said I am getting lost in the complexities of the military system and frankly it kind of scares me how much I don’t know about the military and who controls the military.

    It was always my understanding that the president was the commander in chief however congress controlled the power to declare war and the purse strings. Either I never knew or never really knew the implications of congress having the power to create military law. In theory it sounds good, checks and balances, until you have congress who is full of politicians (not lawmakers but politicians) and the executive branch is being weighed down by congress in order to repeal a law that hurts the people and the families of the servicemen and women of this country (not just lesbians and gays but everyone) .

    I could be viewing some of the main players in the repeal of DADT with rose colored glasses but I feel like you have these people who want to do the right thing and push for the repeal of DADT but are being hampered by a discriminatory law. Unfortunately military law is nothing like civil law where it feels like you can bend the rules and they cannot just unilaterally make changes without losing their job and losing people who want to do the right thing and they are in a position of power to do it.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,297 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...