74 yr old pro-gay protester arrested for kissing anti-gay preacher on the cheek

The Jezebel!

A 74-year-old gay rights advocate has been charged with simple assault after she planted a kiss on an anti-gay protester in North Carolina.

The incident took place in the town of Salisbury this past Saturday, which was Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Day, by declaration of the town’s mayor.

According to the Associated Press, Joan Parker admits that she kissed preacher James Edward Belcher on the cheek at the event, at which Belcher was one of roughly 200 anti-gay demonstrators who had showed up to protest, despite lacking the proper permits.

Read the rest of this post...

A touch of homophobia from the Economist

Was that photo really necessary? Choosing the most outrageous photo to symbolize their "gay" coverage is something the American press (other than Fox News) stopped doing a good decade ago. And in this case, the story is about marriage, not men who feel the need to walk half-naked in public.  It's hard to believe a magazine like the Economist (which I once wrote for as a stringer) would have the poor taste to publish that photo with this story.

As an aside, I think guy in the photo is a moron for dressing like that in public. It seriously doesn't help the cause of marriage, not to mention, who needs to see you in your thong anyway? But there's no excuse for the Economist choosing a sensational photo of a half-naked faux gay married couple to basically diminish the seriousness of its own story, and worse, our desire to be treated equally by the state.

UPDATE: A twitterer noted that the Economist has long supported gay marriage, and even did a cover story on it. And that's great. I'm not trying to say that they're a bunch of homophobes, but the choice of this photo for this story was homophobic. It's a problem we had to deal with all the time in the states during the 1990s, and before. It needs to never happen again. Read the rest of this post...

Leading Nevada Conservative: "gay marriage is coming. Nationwide. It's inevitable"

Via The Strip Podcast, an interesting development on marriage from a hard-core conservative -- just as the GOPers are planning their presidential debate:

As the New York State Legislature works into the night on a track to become the largest state to grant marriage equality to same-sex couples, the effort to make this happen in Nevada may have hit a turning point today as well.

Chuck Muth, the outspoken conservative activist whose wrath is feared by most Republican elected officials in Nevada, wrote this in his daily email blast that goes to GOPers and journalists:

Many, if not most of you won't like this but gay marriage is coming. Nationwide. It's inevitable. It's only a matter of time. It can and will be delayed, but not stopped. And eventually, it will be as acceptable as black/white marriages. The problem isn't letting gays into marriage, but having already let the government into marriage.

As an economy based almost solely on tourism and entertainment, Nevada -- and especially Las Vegas -- should accept reality, embrace the inevitable, repeal the state's ban on gay marriage, and scarf up on the tourism bonanza that would result rather than suck hind teat behind the likes of Hawaii and New York.

I suspect that Muth has uttered similar views before, but it's especially notable because this missive will be read more closely than most as it also announces that the GOP presidential debate he was helping organize has been postponed from July. And I know that Muth has never been all that interested in the Sharron Angle-Richard Ziser wing of the Nevada Republican universe because he doesn't think the guvmint belongs in personal lives any more than in anything else they're in.

It is inevitable.

Would be great to see top Democrats in Nevada, like Majority Leader Harry Reid, announce support for marriage, too. Read the rest of this post...

Michele Bachmann's husband/strategist: Gays are "barbarians" who need education, discipline

Listen for yourself to the latest attack on the LGBT community from the Bachmann family. This one comes from her husband, Dr. Marcus Bachmann, who like his wife, seems particularly obsessed with the LGBT community:

As first reported by the Think Progress blog, Marcus Bachmann, who in March was described by former Minnesota Republican Party Chairman Ron Carey as part of Michele's "brain trust," was a guest on the Christian-based "Point of View" radio talk show on May 12, 2010, where he came out strongly against the LGBT community.

"We have to understand: Barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined. Just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn’t mean that we are supposed to go down that road. That’s what is called the sinful nature. We have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings from moving into the action steps," Marcus Bachmann said.

Dr. Bachmann sure sounds like an advocate for ex-gay therapy,which he has promoted that in the past, via Think Progress: Along with offering faith-based counseling at his clinic, Bachmann also gives presentations at various conferences. In November 2005, he and Rep. Bachmann both ran sessions at a “Minnesota Pastors’ Summit” in Eden Prairie, Minnesota: hers focused on the gay marriage amendment she was trying to push through the state legislature, and his was titled “The Truth About the Homosexual Agenda.”

One of the people present for Dr. Bachmann’s talk almost had to leave the room because “there was so much bile.” Curt Prins, a marketing executive who identifies as gay, reported that Bachmann believed homosexuality was a “choice” rather than due to genetics:

The climax of the presentation was when, according to Prins, Bachmann brought up “three ex-gays, like part of a PowerPoint presentation.” The trio, two white men and a black woman, all testified that they had renounced their homosexuality. “One of them said, ‘If I was born gay, then I’ll have to be born again,’” Prins recalls. “The crowd went crazy.”

Now, listen:



Got that? We "gay barbarians," need to be disciplined?!!? Okay. Read the rest of this post...

As Mayor, Rahm Emanuel now supports marriage equality

In Washington, Rahm Emanuel engaged in political homophobia. Not homophobic in the traditional definition, but sure thought acting on gay issues was politically dangerous. They're the people who like the gay money during campaigns, but not doing the gay legislation once they win. As Chief of Staff, Rahm had a 1993 view of equality. And, don't think people working in advocacy didn't know this.

Now, as Mayor, Rahm is a supporter of marriage equality:

BLITZER: Is it a big deal or a little deal, from your perspective, that the president, at least so far, refuses to endorse gay marriage?

EMANUEL: Wolf, whatever perspective I have, I'll share with him. I'm proud that here in the city and the state, let me give one example of why I love -- why I think this job is so important.

Illinois passed a civil union. Worked on it as a candidate as well as a mayor-elect, making phone calls to finally pass that. A member of my staff, in fact, in this room, I oversaw the first kind of official thing, one of the first official things of my job, within the first 30 days, actually, a union between -- between my senior adviser and his partner.

Later that day, the governor and I went to a ceremony in Millennium Park, where 30 couples and another member of my cabinet was getting married to her partner, getting -- going into a civil union.

BLITZER: Is the marriage issue, though, significant?

RAHM: I think it is -- it is a significant issue. I would hope that the state would move in that direction. I don't take -- I don't just drive past the fact that here in Illinois, we have civil union. We have a hate crimes legislation nationally that was passed and signed by President Obama. That he repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Tremendous progress has been made across the country on a value statement. And I think that's very important.

Read the rest of this post...

FBI invited vicious homophobes from Westboro Baptist to speak at training of agents

NOTE FROM JOHN: I'm not sure I agree that this is beyond the pale - see my note at the end of this post.

WTF?

The FBI said Wednesday that members of an anti-gay fundamentalist group participated in the bureau's training of police officers and FBI agents - a move the bureau says it will take steps to remedy in the future.

The bureau extended the invitations to Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., for training this spring at two bureau facilities in Virginia: Quantico and Manassas.

Westboro has stirred widespread outrage with raucous demonstrations at the funerals of U.S. military service members. The group contends God is punishing the military for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

Our tax dollars at work.

According to the article, the FBI is going to require additional layers of review before speakers are selected to speak to FBI agents in order to train them. Even though the agency attempts to clarify they were in no way expressing any kind of approval for the group, it certainly is a boneheaded move -- and I'm sure Westboro is going to smugly exploit it in an attempt to legitimize their lunacy.

And, I just don't think the military families who had their family member's funeral protested by Westboro Baptist is going to like this news very much, either.

NOTE FROM JOHN: I'm divided on this one because I'm not convinced the FBI didn't invite these people specifically because the thinks they're crazy. I talked to Joe about this this morning. He says he can understand how it might be helpful for the FBI to meet crazy extremists, but he doesn't think they should be invited on to official government facilities. He fears that gives them credibility that they'll then use for recruiting ("look how seriously the govt is taking us," they'll tell recruits). And fair enough. But I can imagine why the FBI doesn't want to go walking into Camp Phelps, or the KKK headquarters, and have to worry about an ambush.

I get that it's offensive to some. I had the same initial reaction when I saw the headline to the article. Then, on reading the article, something in my gut said "this isn't the whole story." I then found another article that said the following:

Timothy Phelps, Fred's son, told Dina Temple-Raston of NPR that he was told the program was meant to teach agents "how to stay measured when they are speaking with a witness or a suspect with whom they have a strong, visceral disagreement." He contends he didn't realize he was going to be studied as an example of a domestic terrorist. [emphasis added]

And they invited the KKK at one point as well.

I see Joe's point. And maybe there's a less "official" way they could interview radical groups to train their agents. I just feel in my gut that the more FBI agents who are familiar with these kind of wackjobs, the better they can do their job and protect all of us. What do you think? Is the program too offensive, or is it in the end a good thing? Read the rest of this post...