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.
(Thanks for posting, Kathy (of Birmingham Blues). Is Roy still traveling with his granite slab of the Ten Commandments? - promoted by pam)
So. Blog Against Theocracy. I'm trying to think of something brilliant and profound to say, but right now my daughter is across the hall with my nephew and his boyfriend. They're IM'ing funny cat pictures to me, and I'm supposed to react to each one. It's hard to focus, but they're making me laugh.
If the people who want to make America a "Christian" nation had their way, how would my life change? Well, for starters, men like Roy Moore would be in a position to actually use that "power of the sword" that he wants to hang over the heads of gay people. My brother, my brother-in-law, my nephew, and his boyfriend would all be considered threats to my children. We wouldn't have fun mornings, hanging out and laughing. More likely, our house would be a stop on the Underground Railroad for gays and lesbians trying to get out of the country.
You think it can't happen? Only if we refuse to let it. Those same people who want to make their interpretation of Christianity the official faith of the United States have been using gays and lesbians as scapegoats and fundraising tools for years. They've fomented hatred and violence against those who are different. It's the fear of the "other" that is essential to authoritarian faith and government.
Right now, I live in a world where I can associate openly with my gay and lesbian friends. No one can keep my daughters away from their uncles or from our adopted nephew, a young man whom they treat as a beloved brother. Still, he's part of our family because his parents disowned him -- after the pastoral "counseling", public shaming, and exorcism (yes, exorcism) failed to make him straight. My brother and his spouse can't legally marry; they can only breathe mutual sighs of relief that their families love them dearly and would never interfere in their life decisions.
The religious right has made common cause with political conservatives at the national level to say that the majority, on a state-by-state basis, should decide the rights of this particular minority. And then they've followed up with the money and demagoguery to ensure that states like mine get busy re-banning gay marriage. And not only that; there have been repeated attempts to ban adoptions to gay parents (despite the hundreds of Alabama children in state care waiting for loving parents), and two years ago one of our state Representatives introduced a bill that would have banned books and plays by or about gay people. If the federal government had taken that approach during the civil rights era, we'd almost certainly still have some states with segregated schools, bans on interracial marriage, legal employment and housing discrimination based on race, and blatant denial of voting rights for people of color.
Gays and lesbians will never have the numbers necessary to win at the ballot box. That makes it essential for allies like me to speak up, loudly and often, and insist that their rights be protected just as ours are. We must stand up against those who use their particular religion as a basis for state-sponsored bigotry. Remember, they need scapegoats. If we don't act now, we might find ourselves, somewhere down the road, with targets on our own backs.
It's time to recognize a politician with a spine: Dan Zwonitzer, a straight state rep in Wyoming -- a Republican -- who voted to defeat a bill that would have allowed Wyoming to ban recognition of legal same-sex unions -- it died in committee.
Activist Michael Petrelis dropped him a kind note for his bravery, and Zwonitzer in his reply said that -- no surprise -- the Rep. is receiving the expected awful emails from the voices of intolerance (he emailed me and said that the majority aren't coming from folks in his district).
What makes Zwonitzer inspiring and so deserving of praise is that the risk he took, in Red State America, as a straight ally. He was willing to put his neck and political career on the line to do what is right -- he is a Republican doing so at a time when Democrats in much more favorable political environs are spineless, calculating and treating us like ATMs and pariahs as it suits them.
Even more, Zwonitzer not only voted against the measure, but he gave an impassioned speech in favor of equality that I am sharing with you after the fold.
(Kathy's spot-on about this; it's hard to contain the rage and disbelief -- the last thread on the BS in Massachusetts yesterday is way over 100 comments at this point. Vent some more. - promoted by pam)
Despite the high court's ruling that all citizens, regardless of race, are guaranteed equal protection under the law, the legislature voted today to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would permit white voters to deny certain rights to the black citizens of the state of...
Um, wait. What I meant to say was, the high court of the state of Massachusetts declared that every citizen, regardless of sexual orientation, has the right to marry. And now the Massachusetts legislature has taken the first step to place a constitutional amendment banning any new gay marriages on the 2008 ballot. Because, after all, it's really important to let the majority rule on the rights of minorities.
If we'd only done that back before the civil rights movement, the citizens of Alabama would certainly have granted Rosa Parks a seat at the front of the bus without all those messy protests. And "separate but equal" schools? Why, they would have been voted down by an overwhelming majority in every state. There was no need for those activists judges to rule in Brown v. Board of Education.
