So which is it, FRC: Is Daniel a hero or an ‘anomaly’ who shouldn’t be ‘normalized’?

January 10, 2011 at 5:00 pm 64 comments

I’m guessing FRC thinks Danny is a hero, but still a sinner. -Adam

Cross-posted at Good As You

By Jeremy Hooper

The Family Research Council’s latest “Washington Update”:

201101101650

[SOURCE]

Hey FRC: You know how you could help reduce America’s finger pointing literally overnight? You could stop giving the middle finger to all humans that fall outside of your personally-palatable purview!

We are mothers, daughters, fathers, friends, lovers, interns, members of congress, heroes, and everyday Americans. We are families. When you all end your discriminatory “research” into what needs no cure, at least one of America’s vestigial woulds will begin to heal. Then, perhaps, we can finally work together to prevent actual tragedies.

Entry filed under: Community/Meta.

“Don’t mourn. Organize.” Parenting getting a little more equal

64 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Ann S.  |  January 10, 2011 at 5:04 pm

    FRC fail.

    Reply
    • 2. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 10, 2011 at 5:12 pm

      !! (for both Ann & Straight Ally) subs

      Reply
  • 3. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 10, 2011 at 5:05 pm

    Hey FRC: You know how you could help reduce America’s finger pointing literally overnight? You could stop giving the middle finger to all humans that fall outside of your personally-palatable purview!

    Then they’d have to find honest employment. Alas, there’s a ton of money in professional bigotry.

    Reply
    • 4. Kathleen  |  January 10, 2011 at 5:11 pm

      Reply
      • 5. Kathleen  |  January 10, 2011 at 5:15 pm

        Hm, let’s try subscribing again…

        Reply
  • 6. Polydactyl  |  January 10, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    “Hey, yeah, he’s a total hero and exlempary human being, but he’s still incapable of having a Real Family that should be protected under the law.”

    Reply
    • 7. Polydactyl  |  January 10, 2011 at 5:13 pm

      I mean exemplary. Spellcheck fail.

      Reply
  • 8. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 10, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    For me, the margin is “cut-off” on the right….can read the whole think at the cross-posted site “good as you”
    http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2011/01/so-which-is-it-frc-is-daniel-a-hero-or-an-anomaly-that-shouldnt-be-normalized.html

    Reply
    • 9. Kathleen  |  January 10, 2011 at 5:23 pm

      Same thing happened on the today’s earlier post with the Cleve Jones letter.

      Reply
  • 10. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 10, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    Exactly. If FRC really wants to end the finger-pointing, they need to begin by setting the example.

    Reply
  • 11. Sagesse  |  January 10, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    They’re so judgmental. Whether they’re lauding and approving, or vilifying, they’re convinced they know who’s good and who’s evil.

    One almost wonders if TP has heard that Daniel Hernandez is gay.

    Reply
    • 12. Ann S.  |  January 10, 2011 at 5:21 pm

      One almost presumes they haven’t.

      Reply
  • 13. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 10, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    When you all end your discriminatory “research” into what needs no cure, at least one of America’s vestigial woulds will begin to heal.

    They have made a career out of this – they will never end as long as they have an audience with a pocketbook.

    Reply
  • 14. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 10, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    The dedicated people that work with Gabrielle Giffords:

    Giffords’ staff still on the job

    The staff of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ office came to work at 8 this morning. Just like they do everyday, crammed into a small office.

    And after a moment of silence they started work. But trying to get back to normal, is just not possible.

    “We’re not closing. The government doesn’t close. Democracy doesn’t close. And this office is open,” said C.J. Karamargin, Giffords’ communications director.

    “Are you okay?”

    There was a lot of that today as the office tried to get back to normal. To begin work on constituency services, get the phone messages from the weekend cleared, and get down to doing the things a duly elected official needs to have done.

    Normal however is far away from here.

    “It is an important message for the community to know that this office is not going to be deterred by acts of violence.. And even acts of violence as unspeakable as this,” Karamargin said.

    What makes Giffords’ office different, while not unique in congressional circles, is the closeness of the employees. Turnover is rare. Smiles and hugs are the norm . . . and infectious..

    “You, as a member of the local press corps know, that when (Giffords) sees you at an event, the first thing she’s going to do is come over and hug you. I’ve been hugging every reporter that comes our way because this what Gabby would do. As she says, she’s a hugger.”

    More: http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=13818960

    Reply
    • 15. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 10, 2011 at 6:23 pm

      Thank you for posting this LLB. I just posted a comment that I hope those who have been affected by this tragedy see. I want them to know that it is not only Tucson and the state of Arizona that are praying for them and pulling for Gabby’s full and total recovery.

      Reply
    • 16. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  January 10, 2011 at 6:45 pm

      : D

      Reply
  • 17. Anna Bryan  |  January 10, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    Anyone know if AFER is considering requesting a stay now that the District Court has decided to ask the CA Supreme Court the certified question? This appears to be a 1-2 year delay typically and since it’s been a week and they haven’t even bothered to reply…

    Also, it seems since there is a standing issue, that someone could sue in California Courts and claim that there isn’t anyone to appeal and that the AG is currently bound by Judge Walker’s findings and required to cease discriminating against gays and lesbians in issuing marriage licenses. No?

    Reply
  • 23. Ronnie  |  January 10, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    (Head hits desk)…… 8 / …..Ronnie

    Reply
  • 24. Dave in ME  |  January 10, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    If Mr. Hernandez is gay, then he’s gay. He might be a good person, but in their eyes, he’s still gay. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Why would we expect anything different? These postings seem to just be a way to rile US up because I know that they fall on the deaf eyes of NOM, FRC, etc. Nothing we can say or do will make them change their way of thinking.

    Using cussing children-that will help spur us on, help them bolster their arguments against us, and help some fence-sitters go the other way.

    What is going on here?

    Dave in Maine

    Reply
    • 25. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 11, 2011 at 4:45 am

      The problems is, most “love the sinner” types don’t actually love the sinner, either. I bet it eats them up that it was a gay man the FRC has to praise for a courageous and heroic act.

      Reply
      • 26. Dave in ME  |  January 11, 2011 at 6:45 am

        I think that many do love us and I think that they don’t see any inconsistency. They can love what we do, whether it’s help save a life, deliver their mail, create the movies they watch, cut their hair, but that will never change the fact that we are still gay. And being gay is wrong to many of them.

        Maybe it’s something like a black man two hundred years ago. Sure, he’s nice and polite and does his labor well and treats all the white folk with the respect that they deserve, but really, he’s still just 3/5 a person and doesn’t have the right to being a full American.

        Dave C

        Reply
        • 27. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 11, 2011 at 3:08 pm

          Dave, I certainly hope you’re right. I’ve seen lots of evidence to the contrary in my life, but I hope you’re right.

          Reply
    • 28. Carpool Cookie  |  January 11, 2011 at 11:00 am

      [b]<>

      I don’t think that’s going to become a major trend.

      And anyway, it would probably be productive for people with these concerns (I don’t mean you, Dave) to address them to the group that actually made the video.

      By talking and talking and talking about it in other forums, it just gives it more exposure…which is the opposite of what they want, I thought (?)

      Reply
      • 29. Carpool Cookie  |  January 11, 2011 at 11:02 am

        Oops…this is what made me think of that:

        “Using cussing children-that will help spur us on, help them bolster their arguments against us, and help some fence-sitters go the other way. What is going on here?”

        Reply
  • 30. Rhie  |  January 10, 2011 at 8:05 pm

    Wait what’s wrong with parent 1 and 2? It includes all types of parents – including heterosexual biological parents. But logic isn’t their strong suit as we know.

    Reply
  • 31. matthew  |  January 11, 2011 at 1:06 am

    I guess now NOM want’s to protect the meaning of traditional passport formatting. Making them gender neutral will destroy the institution of passport printing!

    Maybe they can get a Constitutional Amendment going for that. lol

    The people deserve the right to vote!

    Reply
  • 32. Ed  |  January 11, 2011 at 1:36 am

    Ah yes….here we go…..set spinners to maximum….

    (Maggie talking about her debate with Evan at the Economist.)

    http://nomblog.com/3676/

    Reply
    • 33. Sagesse  |  January 11, 2011 at 4:54 am

      She’s thrilled that by the end of the debate, 37% of the respondents on the Economist’s site agreed with her. One question… up or down. Not a NOM poll :). The site does not say how many people voted, and supposedly a person cannot vote twice, but can change a vote as many times as they like.

      Reply
      • 34. Anonygrl  |  January 11, 2011 at 1:58 pm

        Interesting. Anyone here noticing that she and NOM are CLINGING to increasingly smaller % numbers?

        She is THRILLED that 37% agree with her? Maggie, do you realize that means you lost? And lost by a LOT?

        Reply
    • 35. Ronnie  |  January 11, 2011 at 8:04 am

      That woman is beyond pathetic….so sad….. : I …..Ronnie

      Reply
  • 36. Jaymax  |  January 11, 2011 at 2:59 am

    I just read Maggie’s blog and there is a poster there ranting about how Harry Hay was a Communist and is the founder of the gay movement, and Commies want to destroy famiies so therefore gays=Commies and want to destroy Familes….blah blah or some such rubbish. How does anyone take this bizarre nonsense seriously?

    Reply
    • 37. Ed  |  January 11, 2011 at 3:16 am

      That would be “Don”. I really have no idea where he gets all the communist stuff…..

      Reply
      • 38. JakeInPhx  |  January 11, 2011 at 5:44 am

        Harry Hay WAS an American Communist. The Party threw him out for being a “security risk” ’cause he was gay.

        Reply
      • 39. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 11, 2011 at 2:51 pm

        don must be possessed by the spirit of the late Joe McCarthy.

        Reply
    • 41. Chris in Lathrop  |  January 11, 2011 at 4:56 am

      They take it seriously because scapegoating is easier than dealing with your own personality flaws, it makes you feel superior to someone else, and because some people just need an outlet for their hate. I think all three fit Mrs. Srivastav.

      Reply
      • 42. Tomato  |  January 11, 2011 at 7:38 am

        Fits Jared Loughner, as well.

        Reply
    • 43. Dave in ME  |  January 11, 2011 at 6:47 am

      Don’t many Red regimes intern and execute homosexuals?

      Dave in Maine

      Reply
    • 44. Carpool Cookie  |  January 11, 2011 at 11:07 am

      Oh! I was just reading about him in Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights…an excellent book. He doesn’t have his own chapter, but he’s mentioned in other people’s recollections.

      Reply
  • 45. Kathleen  |  January 11, 2011 at 6:01 am

    From National Law Journal
    Log Cabin Republicans Ask 9th Circuit to Halt ‘Don’t Ask’ Discharges
    http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202477624066&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=The%20Recorder&pt=The%20Recorder%20News%20Alert&cn=20110111&kw=Log%20Cabin%20Republicans%20Ask%209th%20Circuit%20to%20Halt%20%27Don%27t%20Ask%27%20Discharges%20Premium%20Access%20Required&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

    For anyone who missed it yesterday, here’s the LCR filing with the court:

    Reply
  • 46. Kathleen  |  January 11, 2011 at 6:24 am

    Another report on yesterday’s ruling from the Saskatchewan Appeals Court.

    “The historical marginalization and mistreatment of gay and lesbian individuals is well known,” Justice Richards wrote. “They have been able to recently claim the right to marry only after travelling a very difficult and contentious road.”

    To have the government enact measures that now would allow commissioners to discriminate would be “a retrograde step — a step that would perpetuate disadvantage and involve stereotypes about the worthiness of same-sex unions,” he continued.

    http://www.thestarphoenix.com/life/Court+emphatic+ruling+rights+gays+laudable/4089393/story.html

    Saskatchewan ‘gets’ it. Come on, USA, time to catch up with our northern neighbors!

    Reply
    • 47. Kathleen  |  January 11, 2011 at 6:27 am

      If you’re interested in reading the opinion, you can get it at this site:
      http://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/

      Reply
      • 48. Chad  |  January 12, 2011 at 3:55 am

        OMG! That was an amazing read. I wish the judges in the US were that smart, and impartial. I wonder how much of it could used as applicable to the laws of the US. I think, quite a bit, actually. It would certainly fall under our core values, and apply to the same fundamantal freedoms we hold. I wonder if the Olson and Boies, or any of the judges of the 9th District, or SCOTUS are reading it. I know at least a few of them could learn from it. Especially when it comes to ballancing civil rights with core values.

        Reply
    • 49. Ann S.  |  January 11, 2011 at 8:58 am

      A commenter on another site, who is from British Columbia, said this:

      When My wife and i were looking for a commissioner, I didnt hide the fact it was a lesbian wedding. We had more than a few commissioners not even respond to our emails or call us back. In British Columbia (where I am) It is illegal as well for commissioners to outrightly refuse due to religion. I am so happy we got the lady we did, she went out of her way to make the ceremony perfect for us.

      Reply
      • 50. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 11, 2011 at 7:15 pm

        That takes me back to November 18, when BZ and I got married in CT. The hard part of our wedding was making all the arrangements for someone to be here and take my mother-in-law where she needed to go. But when we got to the Town Clerk’s office in Westbrook, the assistant clerk came around from her desk and asked if she could help us. When I said, “Marriage license,” all three of the ladies–the elected Town Clerk and both of the assistant Town Clerks sprang into action so fast you would have thought it was one of them who was getting married. And they were very happy to spring into action! In fact, they even called the JP who officiated to let her know we had made it into town and would be at her house shortly for the wedding. And the JP was a real sweetheart. Of course, as any of you who have gone to my blog and viewed the videos know, I ended up blubbering. I tend to get emotional when life-long dreams come true, especially when they are dreams that I grew up hearing would NEVER come true!

        Reply
        • 51. Chad  |  January 12, 2011 at 3:47 am

          I love that those dreams came true for you, Richard.

          Reply
          • 52. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 12, 2011 at 5:42 am

            So do we. And I am also hoping that this is only the beginning of good dreams coming true.

  • 53. Ed  |  January 11, 2011 at 6:49 am

    Hmm….

    Bob VanderPlaats + Bus tour = Oh man, here we go again.

    http://www.citizenlink.com/2011/01/marriage-advocates-take-their-message-to-iowa-voters/

    Reply
    • 54. Kathleen  |  January 11, 2011 at 6:57 am

      Looks like if we have tour trackers, at least they’ll get their meals covered. :)

      Reply
      • 55. Ed  |  January 11, 2011 at 7:11 am

        But I suspect that to get a meal, you would have to present your “Im not anti-gay, I just don’t want them getting married” coupon…..

        Reply
        • 56. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 11, 2011 at 3:53 pm

          I would be willing to do that. This is one time that lying would NOT be a sin. Better to lie than to starve oneself to death.

          Reply
      • 57. Kathleen  |  January 11, 2011 at 9:48 am

        You’re probably right. Besides, I think the food would taste weird – steeped in bigotry and all. :(

        Reply
      • 58. Anonygrl  |  January 11, 2011 at 2:03 pm

        This is an interesting tactic. They couldn’t get anyone to come out to hear their message when it was free, so now they are going to bribe people with a meal?

        What’s next? “Show up and we will give you $20 each!”?

        Reply
        • 59. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 11, 2011 at 2:05 pm

          And then require a $50 donation!

          Reply
    • 60. Anna Bryan  |  January 11, 2011 at 9:05 am

      YAY! maybe I’ll follow them so I have something to tweet about! Should be fun!

      Reply
  • 61. Bennett  |  January 11, 2011 at 7:28 am

    Documents should just list the parents. Period. If parants are equal, the order does not matter.

    Reply
  • 62. Michael Herman  |  January 11, 2011 at 7:56 am

    I just sent them a letter demanding that they change their motto, because they’re clearly ANTI-famliy and ANTI-freedom.

    Reply
  • 63. chris from co  |  January 11, 2011 at 8:10 am

    You know the more I think about the FRC and NOM I think they should be thanking us. We brought the marriage issue back to the country. For a long time marriage was just something many people just did. Not discussing its real importance. Because of this fight for equality we have rekindled the discussion on marriage and all of it’s benifits to our society. They have been out there on the road preaching to the youth and married people why the institution of marriage strengthens our country, and the absolute need for our country to have marriage’s to protect the well being of our childern and familys. Sure they do it and say that gays will harm marriage but the point is they are strengthening the debate on marriage, and in a scince has pushed for us to fight harder for it. Damn, I guess I owe them a thank you, for making me want what they have even more. I don’t agree with them on many issues but I do share the same view with them that marriage is important.

    Reply
  • 64. Chad  |  January 11, 2011 at 10:05 pm

    It’s difficult to understand why there’s even a debate on this issue, and only makes it even more obvious that the other side’s stance is based in prejudice. There can be no other explanation for it. This should even offend people who disagree with which sex should be placed first on the forms. This is not even necessarilly a GLBT issue. This applies to everyone, and is about choice. People, with the new forms, will have a choice over which parent to list first. In fact, there’s no reason that the sex of the parents even be listed, or which parent is which sex. The only reason for the designation is to purpetuate special beliefs about what the ideal family structure is. And that constitutes a special right. Neutralizing the forms to be as unspecific, and open-formatted as possible eliminates any uneccessary exclusions, or sanctification of special beliefs which are not held in common. There is absolutely no reason why the format can’t be changed to an inclusive one. Only certain groups, with their special agendas, are trying to implant meanings, and messages into what was probably never supposed to means anything, or send any messages. It was probably insufficient thinking on the part of the drafters of the origional forms. They probably failed to include gays unintentionally. But the same doesn’t go for FRC. They fully intend not only to exclude us, but also to shove it in our faces. They needs to keep their beliefs close to their hearts, and out of our faces. I don’t care what they believe in private as long as it doesn’t affect my life.

    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...