wakingupnow.com

This Poor, Traumatized Child

robtish — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:25:14 +0000

Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further.
— National Organization for Marriage

An innocent child has a complete breakdown on his first exposure to same-sex marriage.

Irony in Virginia

robtish — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:11:20 +0000

Virginia governor Bob McDonnell has a really sly sense of humor. Or he’s a horse’s ass.

On Feb 5, McDonnell reversed the policies of the two previous governors by NOT including sexual orientation in his executive order banning discrimination in state employment.
On March 10, McDonnell issued a directive telling state agencies not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but this directive — unlike an executive order — is not legally binding.

No other category has been subject to this treatment. The executive order covered race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, political affiliation, and disabilities. Only sexual orientation protection has been downgraded from “executive order” to toothless “directive.”

The irony is funny sad funny sad stupid. By issuing a mere directive telling the state not to discriminate against gays, McDonnell is…discriminating against gays.

Cleavagefield

robtish — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:10:58 +0000

The Cleavagefield Cast

The Cleavagefield Monster

A few days ago I couldn’t resist recording a movie called Cleavagefield on HBO. This was the description:

Naked and scared women run from a monster in Los Angeles.

That was the whole story. It must have been the shortest pitch meeting in history.

http://wakingupnow.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/cleavagefield_pitch2.mp3

Those wacky heterosexuals. Bless their little Freudian hearts.

Betraying Your Own Supporters

robtish — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:43:56 +0000

A couple weeks ago I wrote about Janice Shaw Crouse’s assertion that gay families are nothing more than a group of people. The more I wrote about this — the more I thought about it — the more she seemed like a monster, and as you’ll recall, my spirit faltered a bit at the prospect of calling her one.

I shouldn’t have worried. Janice Shaw Crouse isn’t just out to get us; she’s willing to betray her most ardent supporters in order to promote her own brand of bigotry. This week she’s pushed on them a common lie about same-sex parenting. Compare this statement from her recent column, Five Myths about Same Sex Marriage, to the findings of the American Psychological Association (especially the parts I’ve highighted):

Janice Shaw Crouse

American Psychological Association

Social science research sends a clear and unequivocal message: the married couple, mom-and-dad family is best for children — not just good, but best in comparison to any other household arrangement…American children are at risk in carefully-documented ways when they are raised in any household but a married mom-and-dad family: They make worse grades, are likely to drop out of school, more prone to getting into trouble, have greater health problems, are more likely to experiment with drugs and/or alcohol, and will likely engage in early sexual activity and thus be more likely to contract a sexually-transmitted disease, have an abortion(s) and/or teen pregnancy.

Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.

How to explain the discrepancy? Is it simply that Janice Shaw Crouse is no mental health professional, just a former speechwriter for Bush the First and now a political commentator for Paranoid Concerned Women for America? Actually, it’s worse than that.

When Janice Shaw Crouse — and the National Organization for Marriage, and Focus on the Family, and the Traditional Values Coalition — crow about their research, they’re doing something almost unbelievable: They’re citing studies that didn’t look at same-sex couples at all.

Good lord, even the National Organization for Marriage admitted as much to its readers. Janice Shaw Crouse, though, leaves that bit of information out. It’s a sad day when you’re not even as honest as NOM.

Here’s what troubles me. Janice Shaw Crouse is writing this article for her core audience. She knows these people are counting on her for the truth and will believe what she tells them. And she doesn’t care. She’s happy to deceive them if it will advance her political goals. I know this is naive, but my gut tells me she ought to honor some measure of trust with this small, select crew. But she won’t do it. She’s not treating them as readers. She treating them as dupes.

Calling Out Bigotry

robtish — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 05:08:30 +0000

Maggie Gallagher loves to complain about being called a bigot. It’s a favorite talking point. She writes whole columns about it. In fact, I’d bet she hopes people call her a bigot, just so she can roll around some more in the broken glass of victimhood.

The problem with this pose is that she runs a website. And on that site is a page called “SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Answering the Toughest Questions.” I see much claptrap on that page, but one mild statement shines out as the most offensive of all. She suggests this answer to a frequent question (or so she claims):

5. Why do you want to interfere with love?
A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

Logically, this answer is easy enough to pick apart. Certainly we’d laugh at the idea that there is a specific kind of love common to every husband/wife couple. There’s not even a love requirement for marriage in the first place, much less a legal obligation to feel some vague, undefined “special love.” In fact, Maggie and her ideological kin would argue that lack of love is no reason for heading to divorce court.

But NOM’s offense to logic isn’t what pisses me off. It’s the implication that gay and lesbian couples aren’t capable of feeling the same sort of love that straight couples can. Even more outrageously, that we can’t feel the same love for our children that straight couples can.

No. No, no, and no.

Gays and lesbians are not lacking in our ability to love. It’s literally dehumanizing to claim such a thing — to argue that we’re missing some essential component of what makes people human.

Is Maggie Gallagher a bigot? I can’t claim the right to judge the whole of her character. But in this case, to be sure, the answer she gives is the answer of a bigot. So Maggie, if you want, cry victim and roll around in that broken glass. You’re the one who put it there.

Talking Points

robtish — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:36:44 +0000

When I made the “Talking Equality” video, I almost cut one line because it seemed so goofy, shticky, and unserious: To critics like Bill O’Reilly, who said marriage equality would lead to people marrying dogs and goats, I said, “A goat would be more likely to eat a marriage license than to sign one.”

It turned out to be some people’s favorite line.

I’m not a big fan of the talking-point style of debate, but I’m a realist, too, and I know many of the people we need to convince won’t sit still for a five-minute lecture. And are even less likely to bother remembering it.

I also know that I can be a bit, well, long-winded (is anyone even still reading this far?), so I’m setting a little goal for myself to create very short statements on key issues. For instance, here’s one for the pedophilia controversy:

If your son needs a babysitter, you’d be safer asking your brother’s boyfriend than your sister’s.

I like it because it has a high WTF? quotient and could make your listener demand an explanation. Which is what we want.

Audio from Signorile Interview

robtish — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:39:10 +0000

Here’s a recording of my interview on Michelangelo Signorile’s show. I’ve listened to it once. Somebody really needs to mellow out, slow down, and focus when he’s all excited about being on the radio.

Rob on Signorile Show

Jon Stewart Scores Again

robtish — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:23:28 +0000

Because nothing says “heterosexual”…

robtish — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 06:48:39 +0000

…like a video about getting dominated by a sweaty, shirtless man. With a literal phallic twist at the end.

UPDATE: The guy who uploaded the video has taken it down. I guess this fierce warrior against equality just couldn’t handle being teased.

Seriously? Did no one say, “Guys, that doesn’t look like a thumbs-up…”?

BTW, here’s the he-man who posted this fantasy.

NOM: Just Makin’ Stuff Up

robtish — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:57:42 +0000

Reaction from the National Organization for Marriage on the Supreme Court’s refusal to shut down marriage equality in DC:

While same-sex marriages will be permitted in the District for the time being, NOM will continue to fight to get an initiative on the ballot to restore marriage to what it has always been — the union of one man and one woman.

Somebody needs to reread their Old Testament. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon? And the Bible even offers guidance on how to treat your first wife when adding a spare:

If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

Now we know: The folks at NOM are proudly religious, but when the Bible conflicts with a talking point, we see which one they throw in the trash.