The answer to the question is, actually, a simple one. They can move, but you still have other LGBTs who are born in your state; i.e., “born that way”, and still deserve to have civil and equal rights. Not to mention that if ALL the gays moved out of non-welcoming and gay-hostile states, you’d have a significantly decreased population and thus a decreased economy and less electoral votes. Is that really what you want?
“I think there should be a list of people who use unacceptable language”?? Apparently, Milbank hasn’t heard of the Commentator Accountability Project either.
The point that @bearpaw was trying to make is the debate of what forms of protest will harm or hurt us has been going on within the gay community since we started fighting for equality. ACT UP was viewed as very confrontational and very negative by a big part of the gay community. They felt that the actions that ACT UP was taking with their forms of civil disobedience was make the gay community look bad; was not helping us achieve equality and was definately NOT making the general public sympathetic the cause of fighting HIV/AIDS. Today we see those actions and protests as something different; something that we can be proud of. @bearpaws statement was not about equating kiss ins with disrupting church services, but equating the debate of harm or hurt to something that we largely look back on now as being a positive and very effect tool that helped to get us where we are today.
cowboyram commented on the blog post Obama visiting NC tomorrow to talk jobs; a reality check on the limits of indy blogging
While we might not be able to have the presidents ear one on one, we can get via the party-line known as twitter. I just tweeted the following:
@BarackObama @whitehouse any concern over how #ncga gay-marriage amendment may negatively effect job grown in #nc even with a #jobsact?
Re-tweet it or ask your own variation; electronically or in person. The bottom line is keeping attention focused on how an anti-gay amendment would NOT be economically smart.
cowboyram commented on the blog post It’s time for the ‘we need to protect marriage’ con to die
I disagree, swabby. It always counts because the bottom line, eventually, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon (an I am begining to believe more and more in my lifetime) these folks will loose. When they do it will become as Pam stated in her post on NOM and the Maine Campaign Finance loss pyrric victory. One that will leave a legacy of smarting for those who were not on the right side of history. Yeah, it’s hard; change is never easy, but it happens, even if, as Queen Laifah’s character says in Hairspray, one toe at a time.
In addition to combating the meme from the anti-gay groups, we, also, need to combat the apathay from people who may not go to the polls because there’s nothing of interest for them to vote on. The amendment doesn’t effect them directly, so *shrug*. We’re starting to see a change in that with businesses speaking up about the harm it causes to them for recrutment and retention. An argument that is helped by seening places where marriage equality is law and it’s tangible economic impact. We need to run more with this ball and get to making people care. Making them see who it may not effect them directly, but how it can and will effect them indirectly. If we do this, coupled with battling the decade plus old “protect marriage” parroting, then we can really achieve some change.
So feel a bit down for a little while, swabby, but then roll up your sleves and get to work to do everthing you can to ensure that this DOESN’T pass.
We should challange this bull-ca-ca-doo-doo wherever we find it. Thanks for the info on the 20 year old study, Pam. I’m sure there are some HIV POZ people who have managed to outlive the study itself.
Kudos to Robert Kellogg for challanging the group to meet in a more diverse setting.
Whenever we are in some kind of setting such as this, we should challange the speakers. Challange them with knowledge like Pam provides as well as challanging their ides of normal, moral, evil, etc. How would Rep. Torbett have responded if a member of the GLBT community stood up and asked “Am I evil?” just to dare him to say it directly to someone he’s speaking blanketly about and to say infront of a crowd of onlookers. What minds might have been changed (or at least started to question their belief) had they known the study Sen. Forrester study was 20 years old. Don’t let biggotry lie (in the literal and figurative sense), prod it, poke it, move it toward tolerance and acceptance!
cowboyram commented on the blog post Per Save California, Gay Activists Are “Kidnapping The Brains Of Our Kids”
I almost laughed out loud when Thomasson talks about the purpose of history is to learn lessons of the past and learn about what was wise and good vs. wicked and foolish. Did he even realize that he’s talking about the exact reason why GLBT figures should be included. It’s to learn lessons about our past and the wise and good from it. As to the wicked and foolish, I’m sure kids will be learning about that when they study Thomasson and NOM and other anti-gay organizations both now and definitely in the coming years.
As to the gays are diseased claims, that has to do with education, too. The reason for infection of HIV or ANY disease is due to lack of education (and lack of self-esteem caused by invisibility of GLBT people who have contributed to society. [duh!]). HIV infection doesn’t happen because your gay, it happens because your not educated about how to protect yourself from infection or you are educated by your careless about implementing what you know when you need to. HIV has nothing to do with demographics and does not discriminate about who it infects. The only discrimination related to HIV is the foolishness that comes out of the mouths of folks like Thomasson, which reminds me of the Bible; when Jesus talked about the only thing that defiles the body is what comes out of it!
I hope that Chaz mops up the floor with ALL the competition. How sweet would the revenge of that success be. Go Chaz!