Like you, I’ve said it till my head hurts … it’s about media and the LBGT media pundits:

1. Take control of the message. Steal their rhetoric. Accuse. Make it personal.

Our pundits and political orgs should be shouting, “Protect our children. Protect our kindergartners from indoctrination. Protect families. Protect Marriage.”

Whatever his faults, Dan Savage has proven, time and again, that the LBGT community can go into media, take off the gloves of courtesy, politeness, and pulled-punches, and play hardball. The media likes Dan because he gives great TV!

During TV interviews and open forums, we need to ACCUSE. Before they rattle off their own talking points, pose a question that they must address:

“Peter Sprigg, those who you cite as supporters and experts are time and again discovered to be pedophiles, people who protect pedophiles, and involved in every kind of sexual scandal .. why should we listen to you.” All true.

“Mitt Romney, your church is locking away gay youth in private prisons which mentally and physically abuse kids! How can you be a member and financial-supporter of a church, one which happens to considered a cult by many mainstream Christian denominations, that abuses kids?” All true.

Every time Maggie Gallagher faces off with the an LBGT pundit, she should ALWAYS be asked, “Maggie, you had a child out of wedlock, an unwed single Mom, isn’t it hypocritical to be barring others from an institution you thumbed your own nose at?” Anticipate her possible responses/rationales, and then be ready to decapitate her.

“Tony Perkins, you come on these shows and toss your values out there, but what your affiliation with the KKK and other known hate groups?” True.

At any mention of religious, faith and/or our founding father’s values should be met with, “Wait a minute, you’re just plain wrong, and you know it!” And then reel off the list of the mainstream denominations, Christian and Jewish, that are accepting of homosexuality as simply another image of God.

I recently had an exchange with an in-law who was going on about “our Christian nation, the values of the founding fathers, and our laws’ roots in Christianity.”

I was raised Episcopalian, and so I responded by informing him that the homosexual-accepting Episcopal church, which own roots are in the Church of England and English common law, was first established here in the early 1600′s, and that by late 18th C. was the spiritual home to many of our founding fathers and citizens … so if even one thinks it’s OK to let religion factor into our lawmaking, then the Episcopal Church should be a leading force. For the first time, I shut my stupid brother-in-law up.

These statements that should always be made in a face-off:

“Really, given your passion to protect you refer to as so-called traditional marriage, isn’t your ultimate, yet-to-be disclosed, goal to make divorce illegal in the United States? Forcing people to live in unhappy and/or abusive marriages? I mean, it’s only logical …” and, given these peoples’ stated goals, it is only logical.

To whomever a gay pundit is facing off against, this quiet stern statement should be made: “Do you realize you are personally attacking and insulting me and my family?” and then throw their words back at them, revealing the very real personal attack on that specific LBGT pundit.

2. Cut off donations to organizations like HRC until they grow some balls and go on the attack. Until their talking heads start playing true hard-ball instead of “aren’t I so professional and courteous even as the guy sitting across the table from me is, quite literally, making a lethal, personal, attack on me, my family, and my community.”

Nothing I’ve said above is untrue, and by forcing anti-gay pundits or interviewers to go off-script, to put them on the defensive, and to force them answer to the accusation of their personal insults to the man or woman sitting across from them, two important things happen: these people are exposed for who they really are and they spend their media time defending themselves instead of rattling off talking points.

Personally, I return to Dan Savage as a model to follow.

He’s not perfect, but he is a radical sex columnist, a guy who personalizes the insults thrown at the general LBGT community, a guy who lives in open relationship, a guy who creates vulgar definitions of politicians like Santorum … and yet, is welcome time and again by media..

(this is a bit of a rant, I know, but I’ve wanted to get this off my chest for a long time.)

I’m sure Mary Frances Forrester will take great comfort in the deferred-tax inherited assets, their mutual social security benefits, and her husband’s pension benefits she will receive as his LEGAL spouse. bee-yatch.

I know it’s easy misinterpret tone, so please know I ask this sincerely:

Women, where is your anger?

Where is an anger so strong that women flood this state’s capital and shut it down? Where is an anger so strong that every legislator who would vote for this is being hounded and shouted-down at home, at work, at public appearances?

This is not to say that men shouldn’t also be angry and active and engaged. But our bodies will remain our own, but our children – unwanted or not – will arrive without 9 months of pregnancy, without the danger and toll it takes on a woman’s body.

But I JUST DON’T UNDERSTAND.

After Dan White’s trial, men and women rioted.

During the early days of the AIDS, a relatively small group of men and women formed groups like Act-Up and Queer Nation and hounded the government and the FDA until action was taken. Sit-ins. Demonstrations. We left dying loved ones in the care of another in order to shut down the Golden Gate Bridge to show we would not allow “business-as-usual.”

When CA Gov Pete Wilson vetoed anti-discrimination legislation AB-101, we hounded and shouted-down Wilson at every public appearance for months and months. The New York Times reported that these demonstrations ruined Wilson’s, who had been touted as a Presidential contender, chance to run.

These things were accomplished by an unpopular and, demographically speaking, tiny group of lesbians, gays, and a handful of straight allies.

Women, where is an anger so strong that you travel to this state and SHUT IT DOWN?

I believe the NOM wins with this rhetoric because we do not take those words back and up the ante.

When faced with anti-(same-sex)-marriage initiatives like Prop 8, talking points and ad buys should be focused on the exact same things NOM says: a “yes” vote will harm children, harm families, harm marriage, will force more children into single parent homes, and force your children to be indoctrinated to others’ religious beliefs in the public classroom …

Once we say all that, we need to add to facts such: states which Protect Marriage and Families (by allowing same-sex marriage) have the lowest rate of divorce, etc. etc. etc.

We may want to focus on the “same-sex” aspect of these initiatives, but voters have proven time and again that they will buy into NOM-esque lies and mis-direction.

Most importantly, if “Gay, Inc” started focusing on protecting children, families, and the institution of marriage, they would not only be stealing NOM’s and its allies’ thunder, then the focus would indeed be on the truth.

And cynically and politically speaking, and given our record of loss after loss at the polling station, isn’t it time to try a new strategy which shifts the focus from the gay community to protecting gay families, which in the end, is still our primary goal?