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.
Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.
~ Martin Luther King Jr.
The morning of November 5th, 2008, was bittersweet. I awoke that morning, after Barack Obama's historic, with a sense of hope diminished by a nagging despair following the passage of Proposition 8 in California, which attempted to snatch away the equality that that the state Supreme Court granted to same-sex couples just months ago. The Obama campaign slogan, "Yes we can," was transformed into "Yes we did," by revelers in the streets of D.C. and in other locations across the country and around the world. I couldn't honestly join in the celebration without also reminding myself that "No, we didn't."
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare
In many posts here on the Blend, I've noted how some of the homobigots are really just concerned over an eight-letter word, "marriage". Not the hardcore Phelpsians, of course, but the "you can have all the rights of marriage, just call it something else" types. I've joked that gay folks could just call it "queeriage" and that would be that (separate but equal...)
Now, courtesy of an excellent piece entitled "Read page 36. They just cut Prop 8 to the bone." by an "activist progressive blogger lawyer" named Seneca Doane out at dKos, my hope is revived. If this analysis is correct, the California Supreme Court today decided that indeed, "queeriage" (or "marrije") is still legal in California:
Prop 8, now that the Supreme Court has stripped it down to a bare bone, does not say any of the following:
(1) It does not say that any provision of California law that invokes the label marriage does not also apply to these "civil unions" or whatever we call them -- how about "marrijezz"? -- that same-sex couples will henceforth undertake.
(2) It does not even say that these legal relationship aren't marriages. It just says that the voters decided that in California, if they occurred after a certain date, we aren't going to call them that. This isn't a minor point: it means that if a couple that has had a California "marrije" leaves the state, they have the right to say that they are "married" and have a correctly spelled "marriage" and -- when the Full Faith and Credit case eventually comes down -- have the same right to full faith and credit as does anyone from another state who got officially and legally married.
(3) It doesn't say that the participants in "marrijezz" can't call each other "husband" or each other "wife" -- or that they can't legally demand to be able to call themselves husbands and wives. This was, in the eyes of the California Supreme Court, entirely about cutting a particular tag off a dress before allowing same-sex couples to buy it. Do you think that the "this is called a marriage" tag is the same as the "I can call this man my husband or this woman my wife" tag? Nope -- that's a different tag. If voters want to eliminate the words "husband" and "wife" from same-sex partners, they have to pass a new initiaitve. Does that start to convey a sense of how deeply the Court carved down Prop 8 today?
I had never thought of "Marriage is to be defined as one man and one woman" that way. Can it really be so simple as a definition? Legally, men and women have the same rights and protections, but there is still an "M" and an "F" checkbox on government forms. Could it be that the end result of the gay marriage debate will be that all couples are equal, but they just check different boxes on a form?
I'll keep this short and hope it gets to the main page. The Guardian website posted the most wonderful series of video diaries made by gay couples in California, describing their lives, families, trials, tribulations and love. Also their responses to the passage of Proposition 8 and the effect that it has had on their marriages.
Every morning, my neighbor and her six-year-old daughter share a bus stop with a terrorist - or a member of a terrorist organization, at least. That's distressing enough, because my son rides the same school bus. But I recently discovered that the terrorist at my son's bus stop is me; his Dad, who puts him on the bus each morning. And another terrorist, his Papa, picks him up from school every day.
We became terrorists one morning in February 2006, when we got dressed up, put a coat and tie on our then four-year-old son, and drove to the state capitol.
(The Episcopal Church has been roiling for some time over inclusion and openly LGBTs. This diary has is interesting detail on where things stand. - promoted by Pam Spaulding)
This is background material in response to some comments on the "Bishop Robinson at Inauguration" threads.
A late 1970s bylaw indicates that gender, orientation are not to be considered in eligibility for seminary and for ordination, but a separate bylaw specifies that sexual activity should be conducted within the bounds of marriage. At the present, there is no official rite of marriage for same-gender couples in the Prayer Book; experimental rites have been used in some dioceses before 2006, and probably on the quiet after 2006 (see below). In actual practice, many gay or lesbian priests serve, and many have partners who are fully recognized as the (monogamous) spouses of the priests. Priests are hired by their parishes, but must be acceptable to the bishop of the diocese. Many bishops are actively welcoming, many are indifferent on the issue, and about 10% of the dioceses' bishops will not license gay/lesbian priests to serve in their dioceses.
Since 2003, the Episcopal Church (TEC) has been threatened with schism by the 10% of bishops who will not license gays/lesbians (and women, in some cases) as priests. TEC General Conference (House of Bishops, and House of Deputies (deputies are layfolk and parish priests)) approved Robinson as bishop in 2003, after his valid election by his diocese. My impression is that Robinson's support has increased considerably since then, and 90% of bishops find him perfectly satisfactory.
I thought it might be good to remind people of how well LGBs are doing in gaining recognition of same-sex relationships - here's a quick round-up of events over the last twelve months and likely moves over the next twelve (in no particular order):
The Nepalese Supreme Court ordered the new republic's Maoist-led government to legalise gay marriage or equal-to-marriage civil unions.
The Connecticut Supreme Court legalised gay marriage, and the citizens of Connecticut rejected a constitutional convention which could have eliminated the change.
The States of Jersey is set to begin debating a civil partnership law this year, having been considering it since at least 2006. If legalised, Guernsey and Gibraltar will be the only remaining European parts of the UK not to provide any recognition of same-sex unions (While Mann has no native law, the Manx government does recognise British Civil Partnerships). In addition, Glasgow's Lesbian Gay Bisexual & Transgender Network has begun lobbying the Scottish Parliament to legalise gay marriage. Holyrood has a strong track-record on LGBT rights and frequently takes an independent view from Westminster, so there's a good chance of Scotland becoming the first part of the UK to provide full marriage equality.
The Portuguese legislature rejected a bill that would have legalised gay marriage, however a case pending at Portugal's Constitutional Court could rule that the gay marriage ban contravenes constitutional protections on the basis of gender and sexuality.
I don't know if you're familiar with the movie "A Day Without A Mexican" but the basic premise that that you don't really understand what you have until it's gone and when that something you lose is a whole class of people it can create havoc. In this vein, some great guy named David Craig decided to put together his own real life version of this scenario and put together "A Day Without Gays" The event is set up as a cause on facebook.
We are calling for a nationwide strike and economic boycott by all members of our Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered community AND OUR STRAIGHT ALLIES on December 10th, 2008, International Human Rights Day.
WHY SHOULD WE DO IT?
Because LGBT workers, business owners, consumers and taxpayers contribute over $700 billion to the U.S. economy each year and should not be treated as second class citizens. See www.witeckcombs.com/news/releases/20080602_buyingpower.pdf
[snip]
Because Civil Unions are only legal in the state that offers them. Civil Unions don't include the 1100 marriage rights and benefits provided by the Federal Government. Separate but not equal is discrimination.
Because every couple in America has to get a marriage certificate from their state, whereas religious ceremonies are optional. No church or religious institution has or ever will be forced to marry anyone.
Because marriage should be a Right for all Americans, regardless of gender, race OR religion.
Because until ALL are equal, NONE are equal.
WHAT SHOULD WE DO?
Strike: call in gay, shut down your business, take the day off.
Boycott: don't buy anything or spend money.
Participate: visit www.daywithoutagay.org for a list of volunteer and/or protest opportunities.
Communicate: we need everyone's support!
Our co-sponsors include:
JOINTHEIMPACT.COM
DAYWITHOUTAGAY.ORG
DAYWITHOUTAGAY.NET
GAYS ON STRIKE (on Facebook)
WHY THE NAME "A DAY WITHOUT GAYS"? The name was inspired by the film A DAY WITHOUT A MEXICAN and the nationwide strike in 2006 called A DAY WITHOUT IMMIGRANTS, protesting proposed immigration laws.
KATHMANDU, November 17, 2008 - There were tears of joy in the Nepali LGBT community today when the Supreme Court published its full written decision on a petition demanding both protection and rights for sexual and gender minorities...
The decision includes the following requirement:
A seven-member committee to be formed by the government of Nepal to study the different same sex partnership/marriage bill/act in other countries and recommend the government to make same sex marriage/partnership act. Based on the recommendation of this committee, the government must introduce a same sex partnership/marriage act.
Homophobes like to scare people with the idea that the gays recruit innocent straight kids and that homosexuality is but one slippery slope away from pedophilia and bestiality. I endorse the opposite approach: the more anti-gay you are, the more I want to keep you away from the kids.
For years the Catholic Church has gotten the rap for the child sex abuse scandals they hath wrought. So when there is a hurricane to blame on gay folks, you know it's good Catholics like Pastor John Hagee who step up to the plate. (Whoa, major fail on my part. I can't keep track of which religion hates who anymore!) In this latest Prop 8 gay marriage battle in California, there was significant involvement (cue Dr. Evil, "One million dollars!") on the pro-8 side by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization.
(NYTimes) ST. GEORGE, Utah - Polygamy is probably here to stay. But child abuse in the polygamist world must be eradicated at all costs.
That was the two-part message here on Thursday night from top state officials from Arizona and Utah, who spoke - sometimes in impassioned tones, sometimes in exasperation - to a packed audience of fundamentalist polygamists and curious local residents.
"We do not plan a raid to end polygamy," said the Utah attorney general, Mark L. Shurtleff. "I know you're worried about that. We're not going to do it."
One thing I know, having grown up Mormon, is how well they can keep a secret. Keeping in mind the Mormons donated half of all the money given to support Prop 8, that's a whole lot of anti-gay for me to want to keep away from the kids. Could there be a few underaged skeletons in the temple closets?
We know how widespread the Catholic problem is. But, the Mormons have done a better job of hiding abuse. Last year, the PBS show, Expose: America's Investigative Reports, did a show on Peter Zuckerman, a reporter in Idaho Falls, Idaho, who busted open a scandal involving sex abuse, the Boy Scouts and the Mormons. Apparently, the Mormons pretty much control the Boy Scouts in several Western states. The perp involved in the case molested a lot of young kids and a lot of adults in the Boy Scouts and the Mormon Church knew what was going on and did nothing to stop it. In fact, they kept putting the perp in positions where he was in contact with kids. They went to great lengths to cover it up. After Zuckerman exposed the scandal, he was attacked personally. And, that included going after him because he was gay. Yeah, surprise. Supporters of the Boy Scouts and Mormons played dirty and launched homophobic attacks on the reporter. According to Zuckerman, there were times when he was actually fearful for his life.
One Idaho Falls business leader, Frank VanderSloot of Melaleuca, "The Wellness Company," (which owns Nicole Miller Skin Care), who is also a Mormon, bought full page ads attacking the series -- and the reporter who wrote it. One ad included an attack on Zuckerman's "homosexuality" claiming the gay reporter had a "personal ax to grind" because the Boy Scouts didn't allow gay reporters. Interestingly, Belinda Vandersloot, who appears to be the wife of Frank, donated $100,000 to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. That family can't get enough of the gay-bashing.
Zuckerman's full series, which originally ran in 2005 in the Idaho Falls Post-Register, can be found here. This wasn't an isolated incident. Subsequent investigations uncovered several other pedophiles in the Boy Scouts. The series led to a change in Idaho's laws on child abuse -- ending the statute of limitations for reporting the incidents.
I was a Boy Scout in Idaho for about three weeks. The reporter has it down; in my town, Boy Scouts and Mormon Church were essentially the same thing. Oh sure, you could join if you weren't Mormon, but you'd then be meeting at the Mormon Stake Center*, surrounded by Mormon kids, taught by Mormon Scoutmasters (who were the youth pastors on Sunday at the temple), introduced to Mormon scripture and practices, and forced to eat Jell-O. My God, the Jell-O!**
The whole thing set off my then-12-year-old creep-o-meter. I have no knowledge of anybody fooling around with the kids, but I didn't stick around very long to find out.
Wow. It's kind of unbelievable, really. You take something away from people, and they get angry. Take away hard won rights, and equal protection for those they love, and people get really angry.
In the week since, California has seen an outpouring of demonstrations ranging from quiet vigils to noisy street protests against Proposition 8, including rallies outside churches and the Mormon temple in Westwood as well as boycotts of some businesses that contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign.
Many of those activities have been organized not by political professionals and established leaders in the gay community, but by young activists working independently on Facebook and MySpace.
The grass-roots activism is a tribute to political organizing in the digital age, in which it is possible to mobilize thousands of people with a few clicks of a mouse. It has generated national attention -- and set up a series of Saturday demonstrations that organizers hope will attract tens of thousands of people to city halls throughout California.
But the demonstrations also have raised questions about whether the in-your-face approach will alienate voters, who may be asked one day to approve gay marriage. Twice in the last eight years, voters have rejected it.
"I think the No on 8 forces have devolved into mob justice," said Jeff Flint, a campaign strategist for the Yes side.
Mob justice? Please. Man, you haven't seen mob justice. If anybody got mobbed, it was the couples who saw their marriages voted - and their civil right to marry each other - voted out of existence. If that doesn't make you angry, there's probably something wrong with you.
It has been a strange couple of weeks. Just last week, I saw something that I never thought I'd see in my lifetime, and felt like I was witnessing it for all my ancestors who didn't live to see a hope fulfilled. But - with a "twoness of being" that DuBois probably didn't imagine when he coined the term - it was a deeply conflicted moment.
As a Black man, in that moment I felt like more of an American than I ever had before, like a barrier to full citizenship and belonging had been raised. As a gay man with a husband and a family, however, I ended up feeling like less of an American than I ever had before; divorced from the celebrating and even the historic significance of the moment by a barrier to citizenship and belonging that fell more firmly into place even as another one was lifted.
My response to the events of the past week have been informed by that "twoness of being," and a conflict that demands I prioritize one part of my identity over another. It's nothing new to Black gay Americans, and we often come down on different sides of that struggle. Lines are drawn, and suddenly I have to be careful of what I say. While I can't say which side anyone else should come down on, some of the rhetoric of the past week - particularly around race and marriage - is troubling.
Who'da THUNK Bernice would do this?
She certainly gives some pointed chapter & verse.
I know... this specifically addresses women in the church. But it's certainly a corollary to the SWMRs [Straight, White, Male Religionists] who are only trying to maintain CONTROL.
NEW HAVEN - Bunches of white balloons and giant sprays of long-stemmed red roses festooned City Hall here Wednesday morning, as one of the eight couples who successfully sued the state to allow same-sex marriage became the first to obtain a marriage license as the law took effect.
Ed. Note: I plan on writing something about black voters, the passage of proposition 8 in California, and the discussion that has ensued about whether the former failed in part because of the latter. In the meantime, I thought I'd republish some old content that might be relevant to the discussion.
(Originally posted on October 27, 2006.)
It's been an strange month to be black and gay in America so far. First there was the gay bashing that killed Michael Sandy in New York, and the disturbing news of Tyrone Garner's lack of a burial 37 days after his death with the possibility of a pauper's burial in the end. Those depressing stories were balanced out somewhat yesterday by the news of the New Jersey Supreme Court decision and the fact that a black lesbian couple was among the plaintiffs whose willingness to take a stand yielded that historic moment.
But even that good news was tempered by reading Keith's post about his speech at Central State University, a historically black college in Wilberforce, Ohio. It was the inspiration for the title of this post. I considered titling it "Hysterically Black Homophobia," because of the reaction Keith says his speech got. But it felt too serious a topic for snark, though the response of the students as described by Keith does indeed seem hysterical, and the homophobia at its foundation is historical.
I'd have written about it yesterday, but sometimes when they're angry people say things they either don't mean or that are said in a manner more inflammatory than constructive. For example, yesterday I probably would have written some things pretty inflammatory things about Black folks and religion. Would have meant them too, as much as the students who heard Keith's speech meant everything they said in response.
When I came out to my mom the first time, she seemed very okay with my sexuality. She wasn't angry. She didn't kick me out of the house. She was actually very understanding, said that she always kind of knew anyway. I thought to myself...GREAT! She's the evangelical type so, of course, she pushed a little literature about the Bible and gays my way, but upon seeing my lack of response, she stopped.
I say the "first time" I came out, because when I started dating my first girlfriend, my mom completely flipped -- as if I hadn't come out to her months prior. I don't know if it was the reality setting in or what, but it became the total ordeal that I see so many gay people write about. The crying, the yelling, etc. She still loved me, but our relationship (which had been so close before) was suddenly torn apart. We didn't talk much, she seemed very depressed, and she dove wholeheartedly into a right-leaning frame of mind. This disconnection prompted me to come out to my father. I was actually more afraid of coming out to him because, despite the fact that he and my mom are not together and it was my mom who basically raised me by herself, I have a deep respect for my dad and his opinion. Surprisingly, he said he figured it out (gee, am I really that obvious?), that he was glad that I was living my life truthfully, and that he would support me in any way he could.
I was so happy, but still so saddened by my mom's response. She completely divorced herself from any part of my life that dealt with being gay. We don't talk about it. If I happen to bring up a girlfriend or a recent gay issue in the news, she gets this far away look in her eyes, says "uh-huh" and changes the subject. So, it came as a surprise when I was talking to her the other day (I'm in Japan and she's in the US) and she mentioned Prop 8 in a round-about way...
It's pretty straightforward. You read the job description. You took the job. Now, do your job.
On Wednesday, San Diego County Clerk Gregory Smith said he would consider allowing clerks to bow out of processing such marriages if they had moral or religions objections.
"I was pretty shocked about all that, candidly, and pretty outraged," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told Reuters in an interview.
"This is a civil marriage that civil servants have a responsibility to provide, so for civil servants on religious grounds to start passing judgments, they, I think, are breaking the core tenet of what civil service is all about."
"I've got very strong religious beliefs. So now, all of a sudden, I don't have to do certain things, even though that's my responsibility as mayor?"
...The mayor, who said he will wed his actress girlfriend in a ceremony in Montana this summer, suggested that clerks who refused to marry gays in California should lose their jobs.
"If that is their job and they are going to be able to pick and choose based on their morality, then all of a sudden they are not doing their jobs," said Newsom, a Democrat thinking about running for governor to succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger.
"If you don't want to provide a marriage certificate and you've got a job that does that, then you should think twice about why you got the job in the first place and maybe you should get a new job," he continued. "Talk about a slippery slope, Mr. County Clerk down in San Dieg
Here's the thing, though. I'm willing to say the same thing for myself.
