by Gatito Grande » Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:15 pm
Out by Ben Varkentine » Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:48 pm
Quote:
Anti-Gay Marriage Advertorial Rankles 'Washington Post' Readers
By Joe Strupp
Published: November 23, 2004 4:35 PM ET
NEW YORK A 16-page advertising insert espousing a strong argument against gay marriage ran in some editions of The Washington Post Sunday, sparking more than 1,000 e-mails and phone calls, according to Ombudsman Michel Getler, who said most of the comments opposed the publication as offensive.
"They were overwhelmingly negative about the Post distributing this thing," Getler told E&P, noting that many of the responses were from outside the Post circulation area, indicating a formal campaign against the publication may have begun. "People were upset and they let the paper know."
The advertorial did not run in the metro edition of the Post, according to Getler, but could be found in about 200,000 zoned copies. It was labeled "BothSides Magazine" and appeared to be a creation of Grace Christian Church, with support from a number of Virginia area churches.
Formatted like a magazine, the publication included articles that argued against comparing gay-marriage rights to civil rights and criticized same-sex couples as parents.
"In the homosexual marriage movement, they have moved beyond asking for tolerance and are demanding a national endorsement," one column states. In another Q&A section, the publication says, "Q. What is wrong with letting homosexuals marry? A. Everything. Marriage is defined by the God of nature, and a wise society will protect marriage as it has always been understood."
Although the publication was clearly marked as advertising in several locations, and carried a note on the second page stating it "is not a product of the Washington Post," newspaper officials said it drew an angry reaction from many readers.
"It is not something everyone agreed with," said Publisher Boisfeuillet Jones Jr., who said the advertisers had a right to pay for placement of their viewpoint. "I'm not going to say I agree with it, but it is a case where we went through the vetting process."
Neither Jones or Getler would reveal how much the paper received to run the insert, nor how many readers might have canceled subscriptions due to its distribution. Officials in the Post circulation department did not return calls to E&P. Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. declined comment.
"It seems to have struck a nerve," said Marc Rosenberg, manager of corporate and public policy advertising for the Post. "The key issue is that it is clearly identified as an advertising message."
Editors of the insert could not be reached for comment Tuesday. The entire magazine is available online at http://www.bothsidesmag.com.
"We will not allow something hateful to go in the paper," Jones said, indicating he did not believe this incident involved a hateful message. "Gay marriage is a public issue and matter of public debate, and we believed its point of view has a right to be expressed."
Getler agreed, but pointed out that the insert could have been more clearly differentiated as an ad. "It looked a little bit like an editorial product," Getler said. "They might have insisted more that this be in a format that was clearly not a magazine. You could argue that the disclosure could have been larger. But the Post did not commit a sin by accepting it."
Several e-mails Getler received, however, blasted the paper for running the insert. "The Washington Post lost a few notches of respect in my opinion," one e-mail said. "And that is all a paper really ever has." Said another, "The fact that the Post ran an advertisement whose clear purpose was to drive a wedge between two minority groups (blacks and gays) and which gave a voice to people who practice quack science and sell it as gospel is simply disgusting."
Jones would not say whether he would approve of a similar publication being inserted in the future. "It would depend on what is in it," he added.
Quote:
NOTE: ONCE AGAIN, PLEASE FORWARD THIS NOTE TO YOUR FRIENDS BY EMAIL, TO YOUR FAVORITE BLOGS, ETC. THANKS, JOHN
Yes, if you had an ounce of respect left for the Washington Post, feel free to let it go now.
Their response to the virulently anti-gay magazine insert - inappropriately called "Both Sides Magazine" - they distributed with last Friday's Post is, quite simply, appalling. Not to mention intellectually dishonest. The way they trivialize our concerns, suggesting we're simply mad because the religious right disagrees with us about gay marriage! Yeah, it had nothing to do with the fact that they printed outright lies about us all dying young, based on studies by a quack kicked out of the major medical associations 20 years ago. Among the man's other studies: one that says 17% of gay men eat feces. He's also the guy who championed the "gays are pedophiles" myth. But no, the Post thinks our concern is our fear of debating gay marriage. Right.
And now this means their ombudsman will likely write some hideous story in next Sunday's Post about how this pamphlet isn't hateful at all! Please feel free to contact him again after reading the update below (his contact info is at the bottom of this email), and also contact Eric Grant, the Post's Director of Communications Affairs. The number is 202 334-6466. These guys need to get the point that this isn't about gay marriage. It's about promoting Mengele-esque science that was debunked 20-30 years ago. Would the Post permit someone to run ads with equally quack science attacking blacks and Jews?
Thanks to all who sent me jpg copies of the Washington Post anti-gay insert. RawStory.com has been kind enough to host the zipped file for us (so you can download it faster)
Quote:
A few of the Post's responses:
- Marc Rosenberg, manager of corporate and public policy advertising for the Post. "The key issue is that it is clearly identified as an advertising message."
MY RESPONSE: No, the key issue is not whether it's clearly identified as advertising. The key issue [is] quoting fallacious "scientific studies."...Hell, the Washington Post wouldn't even publish my online ad going after Dick and Mary Cheney because it included a cartoon-swear-word - you know, #^$&* Yes, cartoon swear words were too much for the Post, even though it was clearly an ad that I paid for, but saying that gays die at the age of 41 while straights die at 69 or 75 is a-okay.
- "We will not allow something hateful to go in the paper," Post Publisher Boisfeuillet Jones Jr. said, indicating he did not believe this incident involved a hateful message. "Gay marriage is a public issue and matter of public debate, and we believed its point of view has a right to be expressed."
MY RESPONSE: Not a hateful message? Really? How do you feel about the studies showing blacks to be phsyically inferior to white people? Ads for skin creams that can make black people white, making civil rights legislation unnecessary since black people who choose not to use the cream have "chosen" to be black? Any views on Hitler's scientific theories on Jews? What an absolute crock to suggest that the problem with that pamplet is that it simply "talks" about gay marriage. The problem with that pamplet is that it promotes Nazi-esque quack science claiming gays are somehow inferior physically to straight people and therefore don't deserve civil rights. For the Post to suggest otherwise is intentionally intellectually dishonest. They know damn well what our complaint is about.
- Post Ombudsman Mike Getler: "They might have insisted more that this be in a format that was clearly not a magazine. You could argue that the disclosure could have been larger. But the Post did not commit a sin by accepting it."
MY RESPONSE: Ah, gotcha. So the trick is that David Duke just needs to use a really large font that says "THIS IS AN AD" when he runs an ad-magazine denouncing your black and Jewish readers as racially inferior. That's really your position? Because you're about to inspire someone to raise some cash to run such an ad. And if you kill the ad, you're going to get a civil rights law suit. And if you run the ad, you're going to have a riot from DC's black community on your hands, and no more black subscribers.
Yes, it was quite gracious of the Post to ignore the question of whether they would print an attack on affirmative action (a valid public policy discussion) that included passages from the Bell Curve, the 1990s book that argued blacks were less intelligent and thus committed more crime, etc. Bet the Post would [have] NO PROBLEM with that kind of logic being printed. Or are lies about those inferior gays all dying in their 40s somehow less offensive than lies about blacks all being stupid?
ACTION:
Contact the Post's ombudsman, Mike Getler. Try to explain to him why you consider this flyer (below) hateful, and be sure to ask him how the Post would feel about a similar ad about Jews or blacks and their physical inferiority to other races and peoples, and how that relates to those minorities not deserving civil rights:
- ombudsman@washpost.com
- (202) 334-7582
Ben
"One voice is easily ignored or silenced, but when other people add their voices to yours, you become a chorus not easily ignored."--Wil "Just A Geek" Wheaton
by Gatito Grande » Wed Nov 24, 2004 4:36 pm
Quote:
Note from Ben: Some of John's responses in the below section have been slightly edited by me...I think his feelings were--understandably--running hot when he wrote them and he wasn't always as coherent as he might have been.
(I'll write back to the mo'fo' . . . when I think I can keep from threatening him w/ bodily harm 
)
Out by justin » Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:19 pm
--
Homer Simpson: When will people learn, democracy just doesn't work.
by Gatito Grande » Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:08 pm
Out by Ben Varkentine » Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:15 pm
Ben
"One voice is easily ignored or silenced, but when other people add their voices to yours, you become a chorus not easily ignored."--Wil "Just A Geek" Wheaton
by sam7777 » Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:55 pm
Quote:
Egale Canada will join the many other groups peacefully protesting the erosion of justice, freedom and equality in the United States and worldwide because of the policies of the recently re-elected President George W. Bush.
Egale Canada will participate to highlight Bush's regressive anti-equality stance and his refusal to extend to LGBT people many of the human rights in Canada.
"Not only has the United States failed to make significant progress towards full LGBT equality under Bush," said Gilles Marchildon, Egale's Executive Director, "but by supporting a constitutional amendment to entrench the exclusion from marriage of same-sex couples and by opposing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Bush has clearly aligned himself with those who oppose the right of LGBT Americans to live their lives safely, openly, and free of harassment and discrimination."
"The United States calls itself the land of the free, and yet LGBT Americans are not free from discrimination in the workplace, or from the threat of homophobic and transphobic violence in their daily lives," said Egale spokesperson Chris Boodram. "When will Bush's administration stop opposing equality for LGBT Americans and begin working to guarantee freedom for all Americans regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity?"
Marchildon said there are many pressing needs, but Bush could certainly start by ending marriage and workplace discrimination rather that seeking to entrench it, and support legislation to protect LGBT Americans from the violence, hate, and discrimination that so many of them still experience daily. [
by Ben Varkentine » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:30 pm
Quote:
Can't make this nonsense up.
A bill by Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, would prohibit the use of public funds for "the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle." Allen said he filed the bill to protect children from the "homosexual agenda."
"Our culture, how we know it today, is under attack from every angle," Allen said in a press conference Tuesday.
Allen said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed.
"I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them," he said.
Contact info for Rep. Allen is here. Give him a call.
You have to wonder if Lynne Cheney's lesbian novel, Sisters, will be the first on the pile.
Ben
"One voice is easily ignored or silenced, but when other people add their voices to yours, you become a chorus not easily ignored."--Wil "Just A Geek" Wheaton
by Kieli » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:32 pm
Quote:
Methodist clergy convict lesbian minister
Verdict sets stage for Pa. woman to be defrocked
Jacqueline Larma / AP
Supporters of the Rev. Irene Elizabeth Stroud demonstrate outside her church trial in Pughtown, Pa., on Wednesday.
The Associated Press
Updated: 4:51 p.m. ET Dec. 2, 2004
PUGHTOWN, Pa. - A jury made up of United Methodist Church clergy convicted a lesbian minister Thursday of violating church law by openly living with her partner in a committed relationship.
The Rev. Irene Elizabeth Stroud could be defrocked as a result of the ruling, which came on the second day of her church trial. The same 13-member jury was set to meet Thursday afternoon to decide her penalty.
Methodist law bars “self-avowed, practicing homosexuals” from the ministry. Nine votes were necessary for a conviction and the jury voted 12-1 to find Stroud guilty.
Last conviction of gay cleric in 1987
The last time the 8.3 million-member denomination convicted an openly gay cleric was in 1987, when a New Hampshire church court defrocked the Rev. Rose Mary Denman.
Last March, a Methodist court in Washington state acquitted the Rev. Karen Dammann, who lives with a same-sex partner, citing an ambiguity in church law that the Methodist supreme court has since eliminated.
Before the jury returned, Stroud, 34, told reporters that whatever the verdict, “This case has shown how divided we are” over the role of gays in the church. She had expected to be convicted.
Stroud, associate pastor at Philadelphia’s First United Methodist Church of Germantown, set the case in motion last year when she announced to her bishop and congregation that she was living in a committed relationship with her partner, Chris Paige.
At her trial, Stroud’s defense was dealt a blow when the presiding judge Joseph Yeakel, the retired bishop of Washington, D.C., excluded expert testimony from six defense witnesses who believe the church’s gay clergy ban violates its own legal principles.
The senior pastor of Stroud’s church, the Rev. Alfred Day III, attempted to raise a similar issue when he took the stand, saying “I believe that even the testimony of Scripture is far from clear on this subject.”
‘More muddle than clarity’
“We have more muddle than clarity,” he said. But the prosecuting attorney, the Rev. Thomas Hall of Exton, Pa., asked Yeakel to strike Day’s statement and the judge instructed the jury that “constitutional issues are not before this court.”
Stroud’s defense counsel, the Rev. J. Dennis Williams, said in closing arguments that “the heart of the issue is whether all United Methodists, regardless of status, are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities.”
“I only wish you could hear the full testimony we wished to present,” Williams said.
But Hall told jurors they had a duty to “hold a good pastor accountable to the standard with which we all live” under the Methodist Book of Discipline.
The basic facts in the case were never in dispute, since Stroud had declared she was gay.
The only two defense witnesses to be called were Day and the senior pastor who supervised her in Westchester, Pa. Both lavishly praised her performance in preaching, teaching and pastoral work. Hall agreed with that assessment.
Stroud’s supportive Philadelphia congregation has already agreed that she can continue doing her work as a lay employee without clergy status. However, she will be unable to celebrate baptism or Communion.
Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.
by Ben Varkentine » Sun Dec 05, 2004 2:20 pm
Quote:
“Only three people know what really happened that night,” retired Laramie Police Chief Dave O’Malley said. “One of them is dead and the other two are known liars and convicted felons — murderers.”
O’Malley was a detective with the Laramie Police when 21-year-old Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered six years ago.
He was one of several people interviewed for ABC’s 20/20 that aired Nov. 26. He said that the interview and the way the show was ultimately put together has left him angry.
O’Malley was notified about a week in advance of the ABC crew’s arrival for the interview. He invited them into his home and they stayed for “maybe three to four hours.”
He did not see the tape until the night the show aired.
The people interviewed for the show did not surprise him. He was, however, surprised that “a production as popular as 20/20 would hinge all of their support for their theory on meth addicts, Doc O’Connor and two convicted murderers … it did not surprise me the way the thing came out.”
O’Malley said that he did find out what the focus of the show was shortly after the interview was over and the crew left Laramie. Someone with the crew had left copies of e-mails on his dining room table — 10 pages of information discussing the overall focus of the program and “their pre-conceived focus that this was not a hate crime. This was a drug crime. That’s what they went with,” he said.
When he was approached by the producers of this particular segment, O’Malley said he had a weird feeling. “After 30 years, you learn to trust your gut instinct. I asked them specifically if they were coming to do something from a particular angle … I wanted to be able to answer intelligently, think things out.”
In the conversation with the producers, O’Malley was assured that the report would be objective, six years after the actual event.
Prior to the arrival of the 20/20 crew, he had heard that the show might be more about the methamphetamine issue. When they arrived at his home, O’Malley asked a few questions of his own.
“I was trying to be comfortable … and I felt comfortable. But when Elizabeth Vargas got into the methamphetamine portion of it, it surprised me,” he said. “Actually, it made me extremely angry and, in my opinion, these guys lied to me.”
During the segment of the 20/20 program, O’Malley said that he believed that Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, the two Laramie men convicted in Shepard’s death, intended to rob the University of Wyoming student. But, for reasons only McKinney and Henderson know, something happened and the killing became a hate crime based on Shepard’s sexual orientation.
“My feelings have been that the initial contact was probably motivated by robbery because they needed money,” O’Malley said. “What they got was $20 and a pair of shoes. … then something changed and changed profoundly.”
McKinney told investigators that “he only had to hit Matt once to get his wallet,” O’Malley said. “But, we will never, ever know because Matt’s dead and I don’t trust what they (McKinney and Henderson) said.”
One of the things O’Malley said during his interview with Vargas was kept in. However, he said, “I think the only reason they put in the part about the transformation I may have had personally, was because they were trying to show there was some good, regardless of what happened, that had come out of Matt’s death,” he said.
O’Malley said that if the 20/20 crew had been objective, they would have learned that a lot of what was said by Kristen Price early in the investigation was corroborated. Price also told authorities that McKinney and Henderson had not used any methamphetamines for several days because there was no money.
“That night (Oct. 6), they bought two pitchers of beer with pennies, nickels and dimes,” he said. “Also, after they were arrested, they exhibited no withdrawal symptoms whatsoever. A person who has been on a meth binge, there will be withdrawal symptoms apparent.”
20/20 did not discuss the expertise of the arresting officer.
“Flint Waters is a trained narcotics officer. … in controled substances,” O’Malley said.
Waters reported that Henderson exhibited no signs of being under the influence of meth, just an odor of alcohol.
O’Malley said that 20/20 failed to report on the jailhouse letters that McKinney had written — letters that added information that this could have been a gay-hate crime.
The 20/20 segment with McKinney indicated that he, along with his lawyers, had concocted this gay panic issue, but, according to O’Malley, police interviews with McKinney showed that he had already started that (the gay panic issue) without the benefit of council.
“The statements he made, the fact that after he was sentenced he was high-fiving other inmates and signing autographs in the jail — if it wasn’t motivated by bias, he was sure eating that up.” O’Malley said.
Shepard was struck between 19 and 21 times, all to the face and head area.
“It was a concentrated effort to destroy somebody,” O’Malley said. “I believe it was triggered because Matt was gay. I’ll go to my grave believing that.”
O’Malley said that “It is abysmil that they (20/20) don’t present the other side of the issue … to be objective in their reporting.”
Ben
"One voice is easily ignored or silenced, but when other people add their voices to yours, you become a chorus not easily ignored."--Wil "Just A Geek" Wheaton
by Ben Varkentine » Wed Dec 08, 2004 2:36 pm
Quote:
WHAT MAKES A PARENT? The American Civil Liberties Union issued a friend-of-the-court brief today in a case that highlights the very scary dangers of the gay-marriage amendments that passed across the country. In 1999, a lesbian couple, Tina Burch and Christine Smarr, had a child in West Virginia. Smarr, the biological mother, was killed in a car accident in 2002. Her parents have spent the last two years seeking to take custody from her partner (the surviving parent) in West Virginia's courts. The ACLU explains that:
Following Smarr’s death, her parents, Paul and Janet Smarr, sought to take custody of Zachary. The trial court sided with Burch and awarded her primary custody, with visitation rights to the grandparents. The court found Burch to be Zachary’s “psychological parent” – one who, while not related to a child biologically or through adoption, has functioned as a parent in every way. West Virginia appeals courts have recognized psychological parents in the past, but never involving gay couples.
The Circuit Court reversed the trial judge’s ruling, deciding to remove Zachary from a parent he has lived with since birth and give custody instead to his grandparents. The Circuit Court refused to apply the psychological parenthood doctrine in the context of a gay couple. The case is now before the West Virginia Supreme Court on appeal. Burch has been allowed to maintain custody of Zachary pending a decision by the high court.
Despite having raised the 4-year-old since birth, the non-biological mother is forced to fight to prove she is the parent of the child. In the wake of restrictive gay-marriage amendments, with more and more states denying rights to gay and lesbian couples that heterosexual couples take for granted, this will not be the last suit of its kind.
Ben
"One voice is easily ignored or silenced, but when other people add their voices to yours, you become a chorus not easily ignored."--Wil "Just A Geek" Wheaton
by sam7777 » Tue Dec 28, 2004 12:18 pm
This is the result of the republican defense of "family values" and their hateful anti-gay laws. I wonder if the 70% in those states that passed anti-gay laws give a shit about what happens to the people they have demonized.Quote:
Gays and lesbians are increasingly becoming targets of hate crimes in Florida, according to data released Monday.
Race remains the No. 1 motivating factor in hate crimes, accounting for about half of the 275 cases reported in the state in 2003, the most recent year for which there are statistics. But the percentage of hate crimes linked to the victim's sexual orientation has reached an all-time high of 20 percent.
State Attorney General Charlie Crist said the annual report shows a "clear pattern of growth" in hate crimes based on sexual orientation, which have "increased relentlessly." In the past four years of reports, Florida law-enforcement agencies have documented 194 such crimes, tallied by the number of victims rather than the number of incidents. That four-year total was slightly more than the combined number for the first eight years of hate-crimes reporting.
Gay and lesbian groups aren't surprised. They say the 55 crimes reported in Florida in 2003 are reflective of increased nationwide hostility toward their community sparked by recent "anti-gay" legislation such as sodomy laws and marriage bans.
The groups say the passing of such laws sends the message that it's OK to lash out at them.
"We're the last vestige of acceptable hate," said Richard Haymes, the executive director of the New York City Gay & Lesbian Anti-Violence Project, a 25-year-old nonprofit victims-services agency. "When the highest leader in the land calls for a constitutional amendment against our community, it trickles down."
_____________________
I still see dead lesbian cliches
by FineyMcFine » Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:34 am
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests
