Dr. Omi Osun Joni L. Jones gives 6 rules for allies (cross race/gender/sexuality/nationality/religion etc) in her keynote speech given 2/19/10 at a luncheon sponsored by Abriendo Brecha Vll Conference and The Seventeenth Annual Emerging Scholarship In Women’s and Gender Studies Conference UT Austin (hat tip: Sharon Bridgforth):

Being an ally is a very challenging thing. It’s easy to say, “I’m an ally, I support you.” It’s very difficult to follow through on that. There are many ways I try to be an ally and often feel I fall short. I also get easily frustrated with alleged allies who choose not to measure up to the title.

I’d like to highlight Dr. Jones’s six rules with some of my own thoughts as well as some current events from as early as a few hours ago. You can read the full text of her speech here (PDF).

Rule #1: Allies know that it is not sufficient to be liberal. In fact, the liberal position is actually a walk backwards.

This is probably the hardest one. It’s a challenge both for allies as well as for those in-movement. I think today we saw an interesting juxtaposition between the HRC rally and the GetEqual direct action. HRC had Kathy Griffin who was taping for My Life on the D-List, and really, who cares? Lt. Dan Choi showed up and was like we can do better than a rally and went over and chained himself to the White House fence. He and two others were arrested (Towleroad has updated coverage here). The difference between the two is striking.

Allies who really care about standing up for oppressed groups have to do more than vote for democrats. Sometimes it takes more than just showing up at the rally! Action has to be taken. (Photo courtesy @piconico).

Rule #2: Be loud and crazy so _____ folks won’t have to be!

This is so true. I think many allies simply wait to be told by the oppressed group what they should do. What a difference it would make if groups didn’t always have to advocate just for themselves. In a way, this should be kind of obvious. Allies should care at least as much as any member of the group they are trying to be an ally to.

I was excited to see a Bilerico-led blog swarm today calling for passage of ENDA. Despite my impatience at employment inequality though, I have my reservations about the effectiveness of such a swarm when Congress is already being inundated with feedback on healthcare reform, which is why I haven’t actively participated. I did try calling Speaker Pelosi’s office, only to get a busy signal and then no answer.

But look at the participants in the blogswarm. It’s almost all the LGBT blogs you’d expect, which is great, but where are our allies? Daily Kos is apparently participating, but you can’t even find the swarm on the homepage! It shouldn’t be up to just the same old folks to be advocating against the same old inequality.

Rule #3: Do not tell anyone in any oppressed group to be patient. Doing so is a sign of your own privilege and unconscious though absolute disregard for the person with whom you are speaking.

I couldn’t agree more. And the cry of “wait!” takes many forms! The waffling and call for more studies on repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a great example. Anytime you hear “We’re not ready yet” or “We have to study this more” is just an excuse to delay justice. I’ve written on this one before, so I think we can move on.

Rule #4: Recognize the new racism, the new sexism, the old homophobia. It is institutional and structural… The absence of ____ in any space cannot be accounted for by chance or accident… Allies know that racism, sexism, and homophobia are real and NEVER tell people, “You could be wrong, you know.” Such a statement presumes that you have greater insights than those with lived experience inside of multiple oppressions.

This is also a difficult one, and one that I know I’ve definitely struggled with as a white man working to be a better ally. I think back to my recent outcry about the way my identity was edited out of my local newspaper. It really doesn’t matter if I’m wrong, I can’t change that the way my identity was edited out is only one of many microaggressions I have experienced for being gay. Seeing that incident as an attack on my identity is the only way I can see it, because I have to constantly be on guard for such attacks.

Rule #5: When called out about your racism, sexism or homophobia, don’t cower in embarrassment, don’t cry, and don’t silently think “she’s crazy” and vow never to interact with her again… Be grateful that someone took the time to expose yours—remember, exposure allows the wind to whip away isolation and fear. Exposure is a step toward freedom. Allies welcome an opportunity to see how their choices, ideas, words may be erasing those around them… Allies want to know when they have been contributed to the very oppressions they oppose. Allies know they are not above reproach.

I try to relish opportunities to admit that I’m wrong. That’s why I’m so willing to put myself out there. I can’t be afraid to be wrong, because then I will never learn and grow.

For example, I was totally against the National Equality March as it was getting organized. It seemed like it was not actually organized at all, I bought into what a lot of the big groups were saying about it, and it just didn’t seem like it would be effective. As it came together and I chose to participate, I saw just how important this new way of thinking about activism was. I saw how my socioeconomic privilege was actually clouding my ability to truly appreciate the importance of grassroots efforts toward queer equality. I was wrong for opposing it, and I’m glad I figured that out before it was too late.

There’s a reason I always encourage people to comment on my blog. I like to hear when people disagree with me! I like to argue and work through new understandings. I hope that as an activist and ally, I am not above reproach.

Rule #6: Allies actively support alternative possibilities… because allies believe “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house,” allies consider the transgressive power in alternative academic strategies, a power that works to undo patriarchy, white supremacy, the insatiability of capitalism, and heterosexism. Supporting alternative possibilities is the only way we can all dream ourselves into the world in which we want to live.

This is another one of the reasons I was mad about my newspaper’s censorship. I knew that my opportunity to perform was an opportunity to offer a liberated message, as it was for my graduate capstone. At the performance last night, I successfully did it again. My opening monologue included some vague allusions to my gay identity and I also sang “Maybe This Time,” complete with male pronouns, and people left the event asking if I was gay or not, because they weren’t sure. That was specifically my intent, and I was successful, but it would have made a lot more sense if the proper context had been set up in the article.

This also makes me think about how the rest of my professional field might feel about my blogging, as I wrote about last October. For higher education, blogging is still a unique medium. It’s not an academic journal, nor should it be read as one. There are surely folks who do not appreciate what I write, because it is not their tactic. Similarly, I disagree with the way social justice education is so focused within the academy and our professional organizations rarely speak outwardly about the values they claim to uphold. I’m proud I have this venue to creatively share some fresh points of view and get people thinking in new ways, as well as to push myself to continue to learn and think in new ways!

Being an ally is tough, and I know I feel very refreshed by Dr. Jones’s words. They present new challenges for moving forward, but I’d rather struggle toward liberation than settle for oppression.

» It’s named for a patron Saint who was a religious leader.

» It is a Catholic Holiday.

» It celebrates the superstition of luck.

» It celebrates believing in mythical creatures (whose myth also reinforces capitalism).

» Green is so not my color.

Here are reasons I do like St. Patrick’s Day:

» Green is so my blog’s color.

» Any excuse to include rainbows is a good one.

» Despite the clues in its name, most people forget it’s named after a saint.

» In US celebrations, there are no references to the religion behind the holiday.

» Did I mention there is Irish blood flowing through these veins?

» The primary celebration of the event is drinking and having a good time.

I actually think that if the Jews had led more crusades, we’d commit to the same level of celebration for Purim.

Be safe and have a good time everybody!!

So, believe it or not, I actually find myself trying to be tame when these issues come up. I want to be respected as an LGBT activist; in fact, I want to make a living as an advocate, so I walk that fine line. Potential employers and colleagues surely read this site from time to time; how many might think me “unprofessional” because I take the “controversial” perspective that spirituality needs to be challenged instead of reinforced? I wouldn’t say I’ve ever censored myself, but I have definitely bitten my tongue at times (or whatever the comparable blogging metaphor would be).  Today, I thought I would offer a peek at how I really think about these issues when they come up.

You might recall the recent story about a Catholic preschool that kicked out a student for having lesbian parents. It caught my attention, especially when Bill O’Reilly was willing to defend the student and challenged the Church. It was easy to reprimand the Church for this decision, and I went out of my way to make it clear my problem is with the Church, not necessarily all Catholics. This is what I said:

Do I hate all people who identify as Catholic? No. In fact, I really try hard not to hate any people.

Do I think all people who identify as Catholic are accountable for the actions of the Church that they support with their membership and tithing? Yes.

You can distinguish yourself and your beliefs from the Church all you want folks, but if you still leave a dollar in the basket at Mass, you are part of the problem. You are responsible for these actions and attitudes.

The question in the back of my mind this whole time though has been: What’s up with those lesbians sending their kid to a Catholic school? Is it the only nearby option or something? Sure, the Church’s actions are reprehensible, but no one’s surprised by that. The scorpion always stings the turtle; it’s its nature. So why did the couple get themselves into this mess? But, like a “good” activist, I didn’t go there; it’s all about respecting people’s own faith, remember?

Well, today the couple has spoken out about the incident, and I’m ready to call them out on their nonsense. You can read the full press release on Towleroad, but I will just be citing some excerpts. They start by telling us a little bit about their rosy little Colorado life.

We are not activists by nature. You have never seen us at protests or marching in parades. Up until this point, we have taken the typical passive approach of voting for candidates that represent our viewpoints and directing our charitable donations to organizations whose missions we support. We live in a liberal community, where we have always felt safe, comfortable, and accepted.

You know what? Not every gay person needs to be a gay activist. In fact, the ideal is a society in which no one has to be a gay activist. But, the people who currently don’t speak out or take action stand on the shoulders of those who do. It’s nice to see a same-sex couple leading a normal comfortable life, but that is not the reality for many people in this country. I don’t pity this family for their “ignorance is bliss” lifestyle. Much as they might like to pretend, they are not immune to all the bigotry in our society, and the crap they’re dealing with should be a wake-up call that they can’t just ignore the troubles of the world. (Spend too long at the Cabaret and you won’t realize the Nazis are taking over.)  As we’ll see from the rest of the statement, all they care about is getting pity for their own self-destructive decisions.

We went to enroll our oldest child in kindergarten at Sacred Heart of Jesus School, and were told that our children would not be welcome to continue their education there long term because of our sexual orientation. This came as a shock to us because our children had been attending preschool at Sacred Heart for three years.

You read that right. This couple has already been subjecting their children to Catholic doctrine for years and are eager to continue doing so.

We were told that families and students need to uphold church doctrine in order for children to be admitted. We were also told that our children would feel uncomfortable when taught about the “family unit”, and teachers might feel too intimidated by their presence to teach church beliefs.

Ummm… are you surprised? The Catholic Church only has one answer to the question, and they stick to it and dismiss any challenge to it. It’s clearly narrow-minded, and your family clearly doesn’t abide by it. What did you expect?

Regarding the school’s teaching about the ‘family unit’, we are unconcerned. Our children know that their family is different than most. They are well aware that many families have a mom and a dad, and we discuss different family models openly.

Seriously, how blinded by faith do you have to be to condone your kids being taught that their own family is wrong? That’s not the same as being taught about different kinds of families of equal value; that’s being taught values that conflict with the children’s own family structure.

Perhaps our biggest objection to the School’s decision is that we think that it is wrong to punish a child for who the child’s parents are. We do not think that this reflects what Jesus would have done. Jesus said, “bring the children to me.”

Of course he said that. You gotta brainwash the kids before those darn concrete reasoning skills develop! But honestly, I think the parents are just as accountable for this “punishment.” They are the ones forcing their kids to buy into a set of unfounded beliefs that condemn their own moms. That doesn’t confuse a kid: “Hey, hun, you have to fear this God and buy into everything the Church teaches and then he will shower you with love. Oh, but when we die, we’re going to Hell, so even though Catholicism will help you get into Heaven, you’ll never see us again… unless, of course, you turn out to be gay too, because then we can all spend an eternity in Hell together!”

It’s cruelty as far as I’m concerned. That scares a kid.

And it gets worse.

Some have suggested that we enrolled our children at Sacred Heart to make a political point. This could not be further from the truth. We were both born and raised in the Catholic faith. One of us went to Catholic school from preschool through high school, and the other attended a prestigious Catholic University. Our children’s grandmother and aunt were catholic school teachers for many years.

My mom used to say something about if everyone else jumped off a cliff, but here’s the kicker:

Furthermore, our children are Catholics. They have both been baptized, and we take them to church regularly at Sacred Heart. When we were allowed to have our children baptized (as recommended by the 2006 document ‘Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care’), we made a promise to raise our children in the Catholic faith.

No, ladies, they are not. Your children are not Catholics. They are children of Catholic parents. They were baptized without consent, they have been indoctrinated without consent, and they have been labeled without any opportunity to think for themselves or identify themselves. That, as far as I am concerned, is child abuse. Parental rights, my ass. It’s brainwashing and it’s despicable.

Although we do not see eye to eye with the Catholic Church on the issue of gay and lesbian relationships, we value what a Catholic education can offer our children from an academic, religious, and moral standpoint. As parents, our number one priority is and always has been the well-being of our children. We would never intentionally seek to further our own political beliefs at their expense.

I’ve got news for you, ladies. That is exactly what you are doing by forcing Catholicism upon them! You are giving money to an organization that regularly campaigns against your own rights to encourage your children to buy into the same load of homophobic bollocks just because it’s your personal prerogative to have their brainwashing match your own. You’d prefer they contribute to condemning gays and spend their lives fearing Hell. I can’t think of anything more selfish and less considerate for the well-being of your children.

Clearly this is an issue that strikes a nerve for many people. If any good can come out of all of this, perhaps it is getting people thinking and discussing issues of faith and sexual orientation. Our case is not unique. There are many other gay couples who have families and are struggling to reconcile their sexual orientation with their religious beliefs. We do not believe that homosexuality and organized religion need to be mutually exclusive. We have been touched by the outpouring of support from the Sacred Heart community and the community at large. Many of the people who stood up for us publicly did so at some risk to themselves and their families. We are humbled by their courage. We hope that in the future when we witness an injustice, we are brave enough to stand up to it like so many people did for us.

This is exactly what I was talking about at the top of this post. No one in the movement will speak out about this issue by condemning the Church outright, nor will they join me in calling out the lesbian couple at the heart of it. Too much hope is invested in changing the Church from within, regardless of how much damage it does in the meantime. But nooooo, we can’t call the Church out on their absolute bullshit, we just have to recognize that people struggle and support them in their faith. It’s pathetic, and I think it shows just how weak and scared the gay movement continues to be in the face of condemnation by religion. When psychologists condemned us, people lashed out, but religion gets a free ride. It’s wrong.

We never intended consciously for our family to be active gay rights advocates, but by living happy, successful lives it appears that is what we have become. We will continue to raise our children with strong Catholic values and hold faith that through our actions, we are doing our part to create a more loving, inclusive world.

As far as I’m concerned, you ladies are not gay rights advocates. You are spoiled by the comforts you have in your lives and you continue to support an organization both in words and financial contributions that inhibits many of the rest of us from accessing the same privileges. If anything, you are hurting our movement and your own family with your actions. You brought this all upon yourselves by buying into the nonsense of Catholicism and forcing it upon your children.

If anybody else wants to step in and defend this family, go ahead, but they will get no pity or respect from me. They’ve done nothing to deserve it.

A Promising Development

Last week, we finally received some good news about our efforts to level the playing field in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case. As you may recall, when the live testimony phase of the trial concluded in late January, our opponents “rested their case,” but our outstanding team of attorneys defending Prop 8 did not. The reason? Even at that late hour we were still waiting for Chief Judge Vaughn Walker to rule upon our significant pending motion, by which we asked the Court to direct the leaders of the No on 8 Campaign to release to us the same types of internal campaign memos, strategies, and communications that we at ProtectMarriage.com had long before already been forced to hand over to them to use as evidence during the trial.

I get when they use the mocking quotes to belittle our identities and such, but I still don’t get it when they use them for legitimate legal terms.

The thrust of this post is this idea that No on 8 should have to pour out all of their own documents. I’m not sure of the relevance of this, but I’ll let Andy blab for another paragraph before I explain why.

Under normal circumstances, judges ensure that the discovery and disclosure of potentially relevant evidence occur well before trial, and certainly no later than during the evidentiary portion of the trial. That is exactly what Judge Walker had ordered ProtectMarriage.com and the proponents to do. However, even as the trial was drawing to a  close, Judge Walker still had not taken up our “motion to compel discovery” which would have ordered the opponents of Prop 8 to also disclose any of their internal documents of the same kind we had been compelled to disclose. Of course we disagreed from the outset with the idea that any of these internal campaign records should have to be produced— by either side.  But once the ground rules had been laid to force us to disclose our confidential records, it was shocking and upsetting to see those rules not applied equally to our opponents.

Here’s the thing: Perry v. Schwarzenegger is about whether Prop 8 is constitutional. It’s not about whether Prop 8 is not constitutional. The Yes on 8/ProtectMarriage.com documents reveal the tactics and language that were used to promote the proposition, so they are directly relevant to the intentions behind the proposition. As we saw during the trial, the Yes on 8 Campaign clearly used intricate alliances among religious organizations to spread demonizing messages about gays and lesbians.

What relevance does the No on 8 Campaign’s materials have on a case on the constitutionality of Prop 8? Arguably, NONE. The No on 8 Campaign had nothing to do with the promotion of Proposition 8, which should be painfully obvious. The relevance is not the same.

So after the live testimony in the case had concluded, Chief Judge Walker referred our request for equal treatment to U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero.  Despite being outnumbered in the courtroom by 10-to-1, our attorneys clashed once again in the San Francisco Courtroom, arguing forcefully that the “No” campaign should be held to the same legal standards that the “Yes” campaign has had to endure in this case.  Last week, Magistrate Spero ordered the No on 8 groups (Equality California, Californians Against Eliminating Basic Rights, an ACLU campaign committee, and the No on Prop 8 umbrella campaign) to produce to our attorneys copies of all their internal documents “that contain, refer or relate to arguments for or against Proposition 8.”

They have until March 31 to produce these documents to us.

Damn; they never miss an opportunity to portray themselves as underdogs.

I disagree with Magistrate Spero’s decision. Arguments against Proposition 8 do not speak in any way to its constitutionality.

This is clearly about vengeance. Protect Marriage wants an eye for an eye. They had to go to all the trouble to reveal their internal documents, so they want their opponents to have to do the same thing. You know, just because.

So Andy, when you get all the documents on March 31, what are you going to do with them?

While this is good news for us, it clearly requires more work on our end to comb through potentially thousands of pages of memos, notes and emails in order to analyze and extract their impact on the case.  Even though the Perry case has been out of the headlines, the work for our legal team has not slowed. This is why we ask for your continued financial support as they work tirelessly on your behalf.

Ah, the true motive revealed. This is just to drain more money from gullible bigots. I can just see the thoughts of the average narrow-minded Yes on 8 Californian: “This gay marriage shit is messing up my life. I’m sick of it. Why’s this all still in question, anyways? Isn’t anyone working out there to make it all go away once and for all? Oh, Protect Marriage needs more money to go through a whole lot of irrelevant documents? Here’s a donation!”

I’m going to offer here and now that the documents will have a negligible “impact” on their case. The only difference they’ll make is allowing Pugno, Prentice, and team to live off the case longer. It’s pathetic, selfish, manipulative, and mean-spirited. Then again, so is everything about Protect Marriage.

Notably, when we sought to protect some of our internal documents as being confidential and privileged, our opponents cried foul.  Yet the executive director of California’s most influential homosexual activist organization is trying to make the case that records of communications from and to his group should be out of bounds.

Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors argues that, because EQCA “is a nonparty and because it worked to oppose Proposition 8, its internal campaign communications are not relevant and production would be unduly burdensome.” The ACLU is trying to sing the same song, arguing that the documents we seek are “irrelevant and privileged.”  Of course, prior to being mandated to turn over thousands of our own documents, we made almost exactly the same arguments to the court and yet were denied relief!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS7nqwGt4-I

It’s not fair!! We had to turn over our documents. Make them do it with theirs too!

Magistrate Spero noted in his ruling that “as was the case with the proponents, the documents and communications at issue may shed light on the meaning and impact of the messages that were sent to the voters. Thus, the subpoenaed documents are relevant and must be produced to the extent the documents…contain, refer or relate to arguments for or against Proposition 8.”

As I wrote above, there is little compelling explanation for the relevance of arguments against Proposition 8 as they were submitted to voters. If this were a debate, I could see it. But it’s not a debate. This is a case in the federal court system about the constitutionality of a law. The motives of the people who pushed for it are what matters.

But the legal shenanigans of our moneyed opponents continue: EQCA has appealed Magistrate Spero’s ruling to Chief Judge Walker, who has granted a hearing on Kors’ motion.  The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 16.

Remember, if you want Protect Marriage to properly “protect your marriage” (whatever the hell that means), they need money! Their opponents have it! And they’re involved in shenanigans! So PM needs more money too! To keep up with the shenanigans!

Did Pugno use “shenanigans” just because it’s St. Patty’s Day this week?

Perhaps we will hear something today about the outcome of the appellate hearing. In the meantime, how about you send us out with an inspirational message, Andy?

We will continue to keep you informed about the progress of this issue and how it may affect the scheduling of a date for closing arguments.  In the meantime, please continue to pray for our attorneys and their staff and all who are involved in this epic battle to preserve traditional marriage.

Yes, because they are so insecure they need to feel that they are doing the work of God. They can only do that if you waste your time spiritually stroking their egos!

What bollocks.

So there’s this group called the Coffee Party. It’s pretty much the perfect antithesis to the Tea Party. It started on Facebook, so it really is grassroots. It celebrates diversity. It celebrates different viewpoints. It wants people to engage in discussion. It wants people to engage because they want to, not because they’re frightened into doing so. To me, it just sounds lovely, and hey, it’s only like a month old, so who knows how much it could grow? (I contemplated using “percolate” here, but decided my readers would resent the pun.)

Well, you can tell WorldNetDaily is PISSED. And more importantly, you can tell they are insecure. How far they go out of their way to put down the Coffee Party in their breaking news story is just ridiculous! I will share some excerpts from this story (with red highlights) juxtaposed with excerpts from the Coffee Party website (with blue highlights).

WND:

Leading up to today’s “National Coffee Party Day” – the countrywide launch of a leftwing movement meant as an answer to the tea parties – a CNN article asked, “Will the Coffee Party rise to the scale of the Tea Party movement? Saturday is the first big test.”

If “scale” is indeed the measure by which the Coffee Party will be graded, however, today’s cup-o’-Joe kickoff has earned a resounding “F.”

By the way, WND never links to CNN, even when they directly cite it. Here’s the article. It’s probably because they don’t want you to see the ironic juxtaposition of these two paragraphs:

“This Coffee Party looks like a weak attempt at satire or a manufactured response to a legitimate widespread grassroots movement,” says Brendan Steinhauser (no relation to this reporter), director of federal and state campaigns for FreedomWorks, a nonprofit conservative organization that helps train volunteer activists and has provided much of the organizational heft behind the Tea Party movement.

“It’s driven from the top down and it’s not a grass roots movement driven from the bottom up,” Jim Hoft of the St. Louis Tea Party tells CNN.

At any rate, the top of the Coffee Party webpage proudly announces that National Coffee Party Day was a huge success. For marketing purposes, they probably wouldn’t have said anything different regardless, but it doesn’t look that different from the original tiny Tea Party gatherings from back before last April’s rallies.

But WND doesn’t want you to remember that there were gatherings before April 15:

Last year, the fledgling tea party movement scheduled nearly 2,000 gatherings on April 15, Tax Day. Over the summer, tea partiers packed health-care town halls by the hundreds, overflowing venues and leading to lines running around the block. On Sept. 12, the crowd of tea partiers that flooded Washington, D.C., was estimated into the hundreds of thousands, possibly topping 1 million.

It sounds very David and Goliath, don’t you think? Goliath wants to remind you how much they’ve grown and just how intimidating they can be! And let’s not forget how wildly inflated the 9/12 rallies were, with fake aerial photos and massive lies, though would you expect any different from Michelle Malkin? Nate Silver reminds us there no more than 70,000 people at that rally, which is quite a different number from Malkin’s 2 million claim.

Here’s some coverage on CNN about the weekend’s event:

A statement released by the party said “today’s coffee houses have been a huge success — both for Coffee Party USA and for democracy. All across the U.S., Americans from all political sides sat down for civil conversation and, of course, coffee.”

Hmm… even if there were only about 350 Coffee Parties, they sound a lot more productive than any Tea Party event ever. Two astounding things happened: people actually discussed issues and people actually drank coffee! See, I think that’s so respectable. The Tea Party is built upon teabagging, not tea, while the Coffee Party is just about coffee, like you’d expect.

After listing as many small numbers as they could, WND makes this claim:

WND contacted The Coffee Party USA for more precise headcounts, but received no reply.

Riiiiight. I hope the Coffee Party chose the tactic of only talking with legitimate news organizations, like, oh, I don’t know, CNN!

“They will make an effort to project this as the voice of a new ‘grassroots’ and ‘bipartisan’ political coalition,” commented Barry Willoughby, one of the leaders of a loose confederation in Florida calling itself the Naples Tea Party, in a Naples News opinion piece. “Does one really think the coffee party will receive a grassroots/bipartisan mantel that has forever eluded the left?“

Does anyone on the right even know what “grassroots” means? The mocking quotes annoy me so much. Let’s see how this accusation reflects how the the Coffee Party actually describes itself:

Coffee Party USA aims to reinvigorate the public sphere, drawing from diverse backgrounds and diverse perspectives, with the goal of expanding the influence of the People in America’s political arena. We do not require nor adhere to any preexisting ideology.  We encourage deliberation guided by reason amongst the many viewpoints held by our members. We see our diversity as a strength, not a weakness, because we believe that faithful deliberation from multiple vantage points is the best way to achieve the common good.  It is in the responsible and reasonable practice of deliberation that we hope to contribute to society.

Gosh, even if it never takes off like the Tea Party, that’s still refreshing. So what now, Wiloughby from Naples? Got anything else to say? (The answer is no, but he can quote somebody else.)

Willoughby then quotes a comment made by Charles Martel on Red State: “The problem with this, and any other wannabe leftist tea party equivalent is this: The tea party began and has flourished because those involved felt – rightly – that they had no voice in our country today, that they were being ignored or outright mocked by government and the media. The tea party has given us back power and a voice.

“Any such group on the left is going to run into the very real problem that they already have a voice,” writes Martel. “The media, Hollywood, academia, basically the entire government – they’re all saying the same thing this Coffee Party will be saying. And the movement loses any motivation and drive right from the get go.”

Sorry, Martel, but you are still outright mocked. You’re just scarier now.

Well, I think WorldNetDaily has done everything they can to call the Coffee Party puny, for now. How about we end with more refreshing language from the Coffee Party??

We are 100% grassroots.  No lobbyists here.  No pundits.  And no hyper-partisan strategists calling the shots in this movement. We are a spontaneous and collective expression of our desire to forge a culture of civic engagement that is solution-oriented, not blame-oriented.

To the Coffee Party, you have my kudos. Bringing people together to actually discuss issues is the foundation of effective democracy. As far as I’m concerned, every individual you bring to the conversation is worth at least 10 angry, racist, spelling-inept Tea Party drones. Keep up the good work!

(Just a reminder of how stupid the Tea Partiers are…)

In a surprise decision yesterday, the Board defeated by a 10-5 party line vote a proposal by Democratic member Mavis Knight that government classes teach about the Establishment Clause. Her proposal called for students to examine the reasons the Founding Fathers “protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others.” Republicans on the Board said that Knight’s proposal was based on an inaccurate interpretation of the Founder’s intent and was a half-truth that would play down the importance of religion to the Founders. (Dallas Morning News.)

In other words, the government said the school can’t teach the government policy about schools not teaching religion because religious people in the government believe that the government policy doesn’t say what it says and thus it shouldn’t be taught in schools at all. Why do I sense that they’d have no problem teaching that the founding fathers were full-throated evangelical Christians (even though we know they were at best, deist, if that)?

As a friend of mine just said, “We can’t even teach the Constitution without people’s fucking religion getting in the way.”

Ridiculous.

(Hat tip to vjack for introducing me to Religion Clause.)

The archdiocese defends these actions with the same old syllogism: 1) No sex outside marriage, 2) Marriage = man + woman, therefore 3) We hate gays. It’s not that they blatantly hate gays, they just inherently hate gays because of these other beliefs they have. Otherwise, they’re so loving!

It’s beyond me how you can use logic to defend beliefs; it doesn’t get much more oxymoronic than that. Then again, I learned how to think logically, so it’s pretty tough for me to sink back into that circular reasoning that keeps beliefs going.

At any rate, Bill O’Reilly recently had Father Jonathan Morris from West Palm Beach on to reiterate this same old bigoted nonsense. The amazing thing? O’Reilly, a Catholic himself, defended the lesbian couple! Has O’Reilly gone round the bend? Did Glenn Beck push FOX News so far right that O’Reilly popped out back on the other side? I doubt it. I’m certainly in no rush to praise O’Reilly, but I’ll give credit due when it’s due. He actually makes a pretty good argument. I’m sure his audience benefited from hearing him offer such a fresh perspective, especially when addressing such a smarmy priest. Check it out:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=be0Ln5xMHYU

Name: Terry Stone
Age: 59
Hometown: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Occupation: Executive Director, CenterLink
Why I Found Him at Creating Change:

Terry came to Creating Change because it is an opportunity to network with community centers and be a part of a great conference to discuss equality and learn from each other!

Why are community centers important to Terry? Because he serves as Executive Director of CenterLink, which connects the over 168 LGBT Community Centers found throughout 45 of the United States. Half of these centers half budgets under $50,000 with no full-time staff, but many are still the only LGBT presence in many of their regions. Community centers, like Cortland, NY’s run by Lisa Tibbles, connect folks to resources, organize for change, provide support for coming out, provide direct healthcare (40% of centers), and also work to serve the needs of LGBT youth, elders, and people of color.

CenterLink serves two important purposes. First, it helps the centers connect with each other, share ideas and resources, and collaborate regionally. Second, it helps advocate for all community centers nationally. This is essential to the queer equality movement because sometimes a community center is the only visible recruitment center and educational resource for potential activists.

Terry Stone has worked in the movement for over 20 years. He knows that we will see a day when there is no question that we’re all equal. A primary concern for him right now is finding ways for aging couples to access benefits like social security.

What He’d Change in America:

Terry thinks we need to change the focus away from looking at differences and looking at the bigger picture of all the similarities we have. This is true not just with LGBT issues, but in general with all matters of identity like race and gender.

We should always be asking ourselves: “How do our actions influence each other?”

The woman who offered to take our picture was apparently a professional photographer. I think she made us look great!

Recently, I did block the site “ladyboykisses.com” after one of my readers pointed out that the site used the offense terminology of “shemales” to advertise itself. I definitely do not want my readers to be uncomfortable or attacked, but as long as it’s not outwardly offensive, it can stay on the site.

Today, I noticed another interesting juxtaposition. Check it out (click to embiggen):

There are a surprising number of Scientology ads appearing here on the blog. They are incredibly vague and bizarre. For the record, SCIENTOLOGY is a dangerous cult who doesn’t care about your happiness, only about controlling your life and all of your assets! If you choose to click on an ad, do so very cautiously and do not buy in to anything they tell you!! With this in mind, their ads are kind of amusing. One says:

To love is the road to strength; to love in spite of all is the secret of greatness. Scientology.org

Huh? I actually kind of agree with that sentiment, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with the absurd beliefs (redundant, I know) and manipulative tactics of the Church of Scientology.

Here’s another:

Who am I? Where am I going? What am I? What do I want to be? What do I want to have? Scientology.org

Scientology offers the following answers, respectively: “Nobody;” “Broke;” “A pawn;” “Brainwashed;” “No free will.”

And here’s another:

You are not your name, your job, or the clothes you wear, so who are you? Scientology.org

That’s right, Scientology gets to decide who you are. By the way, I’m still Zack Ford, and that’s not changing any time soon.

Another:

Love, Hate, What is the answer? Scientology.org

What is the answer? What is the question?

And this one takes the cake:

You live. You hope. You dream. So who are you? Know yourself. Know life. Scientology.org

Scientology isn’t really happy about all that living, hoping, and dreaming. They’ll help you stop all that.

Anyways, if you see a Scientology ad, have a good laugh. If you think I should block these ads, feel free to comment and say so. I’ll consider it.

In case you missed it, here was the other funny ad juxtaposition I found last week. Enjoy:

That I know of, the Consortium is the first student affairs organization to speak out in this way. I’m proud of my colleagues in the Consortium for leading a trend of higher education professionals who preach what they practice.

Here is the full statement:

The Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals, a national organization of more than 400 college faculty, staff, and administrators who provide support and services to LGBT students, strongly urges institutions of higher education throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia to maintain protections based on sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression in statements of non-discrimination.

The lack of inclusive policies place students who might identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender (LGBT) at great risk, as discrimination against students, faculty and staff who are LGBT or perceived as LGBT is widespread.  A national campus climate study by Sue Rankin, entitled Campus Climate for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: A National Perspective, found that 41 percent of the self-identified transgender students who participated reported experiencing verbal and/or physical harassment on their campuses.  Many of the transgender participants were not open about their gender identity for fear of being harassed. Similarly, more than one-third of all LGBT respondent experiences some sort of harassment. In the same study, 74 percent of respondents rated overall campus climate as homophobic.

As educators and administrators, we are charged with ensuring that our campuses remain a safe, affirming environment for all students of all identities. One of the most important signposts of an institution’s welcoming environment is their non-discrimination statement.  These policies not only provide tangible support to those directly named, but also send a strong message that discrimination will not be tolerated.  By removing sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression, institutions essentially signal that discrimination against LGBT students, faculty and staff is acceptable.

We hope you will reaffirm your commitment to serving all students by maintaining named protections for LGBT people in statements of non-discrimination.

In Solidarity,

Executive Board

Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals