The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
Yesterday I blogged about the evaluation of the civil unions law in NJ that was coming down the pike. It's now available at CivilUnionsDontWork.com, a site by Garden State Equality, which is also packed with videos of personal testimonies before the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission. GSE:
Since civil unions became law in New Jersey, Garden State Equality has received reports from hundreds of civil union couples who have told us their employers refuse to provide the equal rights and benefits the civil union law mandates. The failure rate of New Jersey's civil union law, in fact, is at least one in every five - and likely way worse because the ratio encompasses only the complaints that have come to Garden State Equality.
If New Jersey's civil union law were a person, it would be arrested for committing fraud.
In almost all the cases, the employers say they understand the law but that they will provide coverage only to married couples. The employers want to see the word "marriage."
There goes the argument that New Jersey's civil union law is new, give it time. Look at Vermont, where a number of employers aren't providing equal benefits to civil union couples to this day. Vermont enacted its civil union law back in 2000.
As Beth Robinson, a prominent Vermont attorney and civil rights leader, recently testified before the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission: "Based on the Vermont experience, I can tell you that it's just not true that if enough time passes, civil unions will achieve parity with marriage. Time does not fully mend the inequality inherent in two separate institutions."
Common sense, isn't it? Unless heterosexual couples are willing to convert their civil marriages to civil unions (fat chance there), the word marriage is relevant.
Indeed, Garden State Equality isn't fighting for the name "marriage" merely to achieve some moral or symbolic victory. We're fighting for the name "marriage" because it's the only label that will make an LGBT civil rights law work. Marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world consistently accepts.
For the very few who still ask, "So long as we get the rights, who cares what it's called?" the New Jersey experience has answered the question once and for all. You've got to care, because if a same-sex couple's relationship isn't called marriage, that couple may never see the rights.
This is why letting the civil unions experiment go forward in various states is a success for our rights in the long run -- without a doubt these CUs will be continue to be confirmed as inferior to civil marriage. There's no reason for them to exist when a recognized institution is already in place that grants legal responsibilities and rights across the board without question.
And that's the question that can and should be asked of the presidential candidates who support civil unions. New Jersey's path to marriage equality is clear and the state's process of assessing CUs in real world situations that can involve life and death makes it obvious that desire of candidates to tout second-class status is only a cover for public discomfort with tackling the issue.
A summary of the findings, which you can read in the PDF of the report, as well as two of over 100 videos of testimony on the failure of civil unions are after the jump.
L: Rev. Alicia Heath-Toby and Saundra Toby-Heath: Plaintiffs in New Jersey's marriage equality case, which led to civil unions but stopped short of marriage, say Saundra's employer won't grant benefits under New Jersey's civil union law. R: Beth Robinson: Vermont civil rights leader says Vermont is still having problems with its civil union law enacted in 2000 - that "it's just not true that as time passes, civil unions will achieve parity with marriage."
A snippet of the findings.
As a result of public hearings and testimony provided to the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission in 2007, the Commission unanimously issues the herein first interim report, which reveals:
1. For the overwhelming majority of civil union couples who testified, the federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act, commonly known by its acronym ERISA, is the reason employers have given for not recognizing their civil unions.
2. In Massachusetts, a marriage equality law has prompted many employers to provide equal benefits to same-sex wives or husbands.
3. The testimony presented by many civil union couples indicated that their employers continue to discriminate against them, despite their familiarity with the law.
4. Civil union status is not clear to the general public, which creates a second-class status.
5. The Civil Union Act has a deleterious effect on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex youth and children being raised by same-sex couples.
6. Many witnesses testified about the unequal treatment and uncertainties they face during a health care crisis, particularly in hospital settings.
7. Institutional interaction with civil union couples has been less than optimal.
8. Testimony indicates that the Civil Union Act has a particularly disparate impact on people of color. Dr. Sylvia Rhue, Director of Religious Affairs for the National Black Justice Coalition, testified:
Fourteen percent of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Americans are African-American. Forty-five percent of African-American same-sex couples reported stable relationships of five years or longer on the United States census. When employers fail to recognize civil unions as equal to marriage, the couples who get hurt the most are poor couples who are often African-American couples, who cannot afford thousands of dollars to hire fancy lawyers to draft documents like wills, health care proxies, and powers of attorney. And when employers fail to recognize civil unions as equal to marriage and deny health care benefits to civil union partners, there's a profound effect on those families' health care. Who are among the families who can least afford cuts in their health care? African-American families. Approximately one in five African-Americans is currently without health insurance, some of whom are in same-sex relationships.
9. The requirement that same-sex couples declare civil union status, a separate category reserved for same-sex couples, exposes members of the United States military to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
10. The classification of civil union may place marital status in question when one of the partners is transgender.
[A] client of my own, who wishes to remain anonymous for the same reasons, was a man who legally married a woman about 20 years ago and recently is transsexual. This client went through sexual reassignment surgery and is now legally a woman. However, the entire family remains together and is happy. However, even though the same two people remain married to each other because of her gender change this client is now married to another woman; in other words, a legally married same-sex couple in New Jersey. However, this client is concerned that she now is at risk of having her once valid marriage downgraded to a civil union. Is this what the legislation intended? Isn't it truly cruel to leave this family in legal limbo? And, of course, marriage
equality would solve this problem instantly.
