Original Article - First “Married” Homosex Couple in New York DIVORCE

Soon after New York passed the Marriage Equality Act on June 24 last year, Katie Marks and Dese’Rae Stage began planning their wedding day. A licensed masseuse and a photographer, both 28, the couple had been dating since 2008 and were already planning to get married — in Boston over the Memorial Day weekend of 2012 — but the euphoria of the moment moved everything forward. “It was kind of one of those things, to be a part of history,” Des says. On July 30, the first Saturday that gay marriages could be performed in New York City, Katie in a magenta dress and Des in skinny jeans and pink Chuck Taylors joined 23 other couples at the Pop Up Chapel, a one-day wedding event in Central Park, as part of New York City’s first wave of legally married gay couples. By January, though, things had started to come apart. Des and Katie have since separated and moved out of their Washington Heights apartment. They’re now one of the first married gay couples — if not the very first — in New York to divorce. “I feel like I’m the president of the loneliest club in the world,” Des says. “I was the first gay person in my group of friends to marry, and now I’m the only gay divorcée I know.”

“Of course, the news made us sad,” says Bex Schwartz, one of the Pop Up Chapel’s organizers, “but as ministers who perform weddings, marriage equality means marriage is marriage. Unfortunately, the other side is divorce is divorce.”

For all the best intentions, nearly half of U.S. marriages end in divorce. In a Williams Institute study by M.V. Lee Badgett and Jody L. Herman from November 2011, the authors chronicled data to provide a picture of the need for legal recognition of same-sex marriage and divorce. “In the U.S., over 140,000 same-sex couples have formalized their relationship under state law and nearly 50,000 have married,” they write. “The data show that same-sex couples marry at much higher rates than they enter civil unions or other legal statuses…. When a state allows marriage for same-sex couples, over 60 percent of those who marry come from other states.” Their research found that on average the divorce rate for same-sex couples is similar to, though slightly lower than, the rate for different-sex couples. About 1.1 percent of same-sex couples in legal unions end their relationship, they found, while about 2 percent of married different-sex couples divorce.

Few couples go into a marriage expecting to end up on the wrong side of these statistics. State by state, bit by bit, advocates of marriage equality have celebrated victories — like New York becoming the sixth state to allow gay marriages, Obama’s long-awaited personal support, or the court reversal of California’s Prop. 8 — and have mourned setbacks — like North Carolina voters adopting a same-sex marriage ban. But the d-word almost never comes up. It’s certainly not a pleasant topic. And, indeed, there’s even a bit of fear: If we acknowledge that gay marriages can (and, based on the statistics for heterosexual couples, many of them will) fall apart, does it weaken the case for those marriages having existed in the first place? Of course not: Everyone should have a right to marry as well as to divorce. But we need to acknowledge that the rights of marriage are as much about moments of crisis as they are about the moments of happiness: when a spouse loses a job, the law continues health care benefits under COBRA; when a spouse is injured, the law grants hospital visitation rights; or when a spouse dies, the law provides Social Security benefits and inheritance. So, too, are divorce rights — all the mechanisms jurisdictions have devised to divide a love broken, property, finances, and child custody — most needed when a wedding day’s joy has long faded.

In the six states that allow same-sex marriage—Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Vermont—plus the District of Columbia—heterosexual and gay marriage and heterosexual and gay divorce are still not quite the same things, largely because of the federal benefits gay couples don’t receive by marrying and federal protections they don’t have while divorcing. That gap is greater in states that only legally recognize civil unions, state-registered domestic partnerships, and limited rights statuses of same-sex couples, and even greater still in states that don’t recognize the relationships at all. Gay divorce is still largely “uncharted territory,” says Elizabeth Schwartz, a lawyer practicing in Florida.

In New York, gay divorce is recognized because gay marriage is recognized, but that’s not the case everywhere. In Florida, for example, where gay marriage is not legal, same-sex couples who have married in another state are reliant on the discretion of judges. “What I’ve been seeing,” says Schwartz, “are people who’ve said, ‘Wow, is it possible for me to divorce without having to move to that state [where they were married] and get residency?’ And when there’s fighting over kids and assets—if you’re not in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, there’s no alimony. You have to count on the generosity of your ex.”

The Pop Up Chapel website still bears the engagement photo in which Katie’s lips are pressed to Des’ cheek. “They’ve accumulated quite the furry family, but also look forward to meeting the children they’ve named and have yet to conceive. All in all, they complete each other, and they think that’s pretty awesome,” reads the accompanying text. Des is quoted, “I know we’ve already started a life together, but I can’t wait to be able to call her my wife.”

They’d gone to middle school and high school together, but went their separate ways before reconnecting on MySpace in 2008. On July 24, the first day that New York clerks issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Des and Katie picked theirs up at the City Clerk’s Office in downtown Manhattan. “Couples were getting married and coming out of the courthouse, and there were musicians playing. I got chills every time a couple came out,” Des told me when I met with her at a bar in SoHo, her mood more somber than the festive events she remembered, or, for that matter, as I remember. At the time, I was covering New York’s first same-sex marriages for the Village Voice. I’d spoken to Des about how excited she was to be married. You could hear it in her voice. The New York wedding would be the “no-stress” one, Des told me then, to be followed by the bigger formal ceremony in Boston. There would be cupcakes. The couple seemed giddy, thrilled, and very publicly in love.

That Saturday, July 30, their wedding day, Des says now, was the kind of whirlwind any bride speaks of. “It went by so fast. We got our hair done, we got our makeup done. We changed, we went to Central Park. We forgot to eat, so we went to Whole Foods, and we’re like, We’re eating at Whole Foods and we’re about to get married. It was surreal. I was so excited.”

After the wedding, Des wrote on her blog, in a post titled “We Did It!”,

That was seriously the best day of my life. Yes, I’m speaking in clichés, but seriously. If I could just re-live that day a couple of times to experience it more, I’d be happy. I mean, I am happy. Ecstatic. But I’d be happier with a do-over or two. Instead, it lives in memory, and in the photographs…

While the right to wed legally (in some states, that is) has inspired a wave of new couples to tie the knot, the opposite side of that is the fallout that occurs when things don’t work out. And, as several lawyers told me, gay couples often jump into marriage the same way many heterosexual couples do: Eager, euphoric—and without much time and attention given to the possibility of things going wrong.

“Most people aren’t checking with their lawyer before they get married,” says Schwartz. “They’re doing what straight people do: ‘I’m excited, let’s get married, and work out the problem later.’” Shannon Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, told us, “Every time a state gets rid of a marriage bar, there’s a flood of couples. That makes sense, and maybe some people do it impulsively, caught up in the moment. But it’s a serious step, and it has significant legal consequences.” On the sort-of-bright side, Minter adds, “I think we will continue to see people divorce. But nothing has humanized gay couples more than for straight people to realize gay couples need to divorce, too.”

“We have 34 [gay divorce] cases right now in the office, compared to 150 [heterosexual] divorce cases,” says Raoul Felder, a New York divorce lawyer who has handled numerous high-profile breakups including Rudy Giuliani’s split from his wife of 18 years, Donna Hanover, while he was mayor of New York. Felder’s growing case file did not yet include couples who’d wed in New York starting last June; instead they are couples who’d married in other states, like Massachusetts. With New York divorce law requiring marriages to be “irretrievably broken” for at least six months before couples can file for a no-fault divorce (which is itself relatively new in New York state, adopted only in 2010), cases like Des’ and Katie’s will be some of the earliest to come down the pike. Felder added that gay divorces are currently “filtering down at a faster rate than heterosexual divorces.”

The patchy legal protections for gay couples who are married or have civil unions provide vengeful exes all sorts of ways to get back at their former spouses. “I met with two different women breaking up with their partners with whom they’ve been for more than 20 years,” Schwartz told us. “Both of these women in one way or another were like, ‘I don’t want her to be out on the street, I want to be fair.’ Then I have people who come to me and say, ‘This person never works, do I have any obligation?’ There’s what the law requires and what law and ethics require. Plenty of people take homophobic positions, using the law to their advantage.” She adds, “The kid thing is the heartbreaker. A biological mom saying, thanks for everything, you’re out of luck,” to her former partner, who has no legal rights to the child. Or, with a 401(k), she explains, “there’s a mechanism for dividing that asset upon a heterosexual divorce,” but it does not exist for gay couples even in states where their marriages are recognized. “Overall,” she says, “there’s a sense that we’ve been crafting our way into this marriage, we’ll have to craft our way out. We have the added obstacle of not having a legal system to arbitrate, so it’s up to us.”

The Internet can be a tough place to showcase a relationship, but it’s a tougher place for one to implode. Along with photos of the happy couple on Des’s blog and on the Pop Up Chapel site to serve as a reminder of what was and what now is not, there was an online chronicle, tumultuous, emotional, and vengeful at times (much has since been deleted) of the couple’s divorce-in-progress, on social media sites and Internet forums.

“January 28 is the day I can really pinpoint that something started,” Des says. Katie had become involved with another woman, whom she’d met via the social media site Instagram. Prior to that, as Des tells it, “There was never an indication of anything wrong. I was so invested in being married.”

I was in touch with Katie as I gathered the facts for this piece. There are two sides to every story, particularly in a breakup, and I offered her the chance to share hers and to respond to Des’s statements about the dissolution of their marriage, as well as to talk about her feelings on gay divorce in general. Ultimately, she declined to comment, explaining, “Although we are on good terms currently, it took us a long time to get here. Des is very open with what happened between us and her entire life really. I am the absolutely opposite.”

On February 3, Des found suspicious emails between Katie and another woman. “Somehow, between the 22nd and the 3rd of February, I lost my wife,” she says. A month of attempting to work things out followed, with phone calls and visits with families, talks, and tears, but the end, for Des, was finding out that Katie had gone to visit the other woman, now her girlfriend, in Tampa in March. “During that process everyone said, you’ll know your boundaries, and I just felt, if she’s in Tampa with the girlfriend, I’m done,” she said.

Her reaction was to post about what was happening on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Sometimes Des’s posts also involved talk of new women she was seeing. “All the stuff that came out publicly, on social media,” Des told me, “I don’t regret it. I was feeling vindictive. I knew her family would sweep [the breakup] under the rug. Was it immature or unkind, yes, but I don’t regret it.”

Now, Des says, “I’m trying to find the most loving way to get us through this practically — divorce paperwork, credit card bills — and personally — with the hope of maybe someday being able to carry on a friendship — but I do believe we never should have been anything more than friends.”

Some states and judges have upheld draconian policies against gay divorce; you hear about cases in which people are “wedlocked,” says Schwartz, which seems particularly ironic as those states don’t support gay marriage in the first place. “If you’re against same-sex marriage, you certainly should be for divorce,” Schwartz says. “My sense with judges granting divorces [in non-recognition states] is that they’re finding that the law preventing relationship recognition is against public policy, and they don’t see a downside to letting people out. I imagine that providing this one small measure of dignity to this couple is more important or outweighs the risk to society to not do it.”

Not allowing same-sex couples to get divorced has led to another problem, too: Bigamy. “People are jumping in without being informed, get out, and jumping into another relationship,” says Schwartz. Minter adds, “It is a very serious problem, and we’re going to see more of those situations—where people find themselves in really awful legal situations, where the couple didn’t divorce because they couldn’t. If one of them moves to a state where the marriage is recognized, that person could come along, or creditors could come after them. We are already seeing cases where people don’t understand they cannot re-marry. We’re starting to see cases where there’s a second marriage.”

There’s also the emotional side of divorce, ratcheted up even further with gay couples, says Felder. “The antagonism and anger in these divorces is enormous,” he says. “These people have been so misused by the system and treated so shabbily. When they’re finally able to get married and it doesn’t work out, there’s a terrific letdown. Gay women who have children, one way or another—they had to go through a lot more. But that’s the price of progress, you’re dealing in a zone of very raw emotions now.”

As painful as all divorces can be, few carry the weight of history. “When the Marriage Equality Act was passed, I felt I’d been granted an amazing privilege: a set of rights I would cherish forever because they would protect my family,” Des told me, “So, to me, this divorce struck deeply on more than just a personal level. It was political, too. The feeling of that privilege having been squandered is soul-crushing.”

Her best memory of her and Katie together, she says, was of the banter, the back and forth, the easy teasing relationship the two had. “ I loved our road trips and our mutual love of bad pop music. We had fun cooking together. For a while, we were able to carry on a surface relationship (including divorce jokes),” she says, “but as of late, I’ve found that maintaining a dialogue with her hurts me.” The pain is a point they can agree on. “I don’t think there is a difference between hetero and gay divorce,” Katie told me. “They both suck.”

Original Article - Jew Hatin’ Elmo Kicked Out of Central Park Zoo!

Police removed a mentally disturbed man in an Elmo costume from New York City’s Central Park Zoo on Sunday afternoon.

The man was spouting anti-Jewish insults, including encouraging visitors at the zoo to read “The International Jew” — an anti-Semitic series of pamphlets published by Henry Ford.

The anti-Semitic Elmo made his first appearance in 2009 in Times Square, demanding people give him money to take pictures of him. Berating people who refused to give him money, Elmo said, “Elmo needs to make a living too.” He popped up again in 2010.

When observers Sunday told the Elmo to get a real job, he responded by saying, “I’m not making money because the Jewish costume companies are harassing me.”

Apparently, the slow economy has had an effect on even society’s most beloved figures.

Original Article - Larry Brinkin, S.F. Gay Rights Icon, Arrested on Child Porn Charges (Homosex=Pedosex)

(Update 3:30 p.m.): SF Weekly has obtained the search warrant, which details the items police seized from Brinkin and his husband’s home. Those items include computers, videos, VHS tapes, and a floppy disc. Read details of the search warrant after the jump
Original story: Police say they arrested 66-year-old Larry Brinkin, the high-profile gay activist, on possession of child pornography on Friday night.

Brinkin, a community icon who led the fight for the city to recognize same-sex partnerships, was arrested and booked into San Francisco County Jail, police said.

He posted bail and was released Saturday, according to a jail spokesman. Police Spokesman Officer Albie Esparza would only say that the case was still under investigation, and would give no more details at this time.

Brinkin retired from the Human Rights Commission in 2010, and has been a beloved member of the gay community, with the Board of Supervisors even declaring the first week of February as “Larry Brinkin Week.” At the time of his retirement, he earned more than $135,000 yearly.

We put in a call to Theresa Sparks, executive director of the Human Rights Commission, told us this allegation is “beyond hard to believe.”

“It’s almost incredulous, there’s no way I could believe such a thing,” Sparks told us. “He’s always been one of my heroes, and he’s the epitome of human rights activist — this is man who coined phrases we use in our daily language. I support Larry 100 percent, hopefully it will all come out in the investigation.” (Update 3:30 p.m.): According to the search warrant, SFPD acted after receiving a tip from the Los Angeles Police Department, which obtained from AOL an e-mail exchange between a Los Angeles user and [email protected] Police say they linked the AOL address to Brinkin’s IP address; he is owner of the account and paid for AOL service with his credit card.

The warrant claims these e-mails contained images of children as young as perhaps a year old being sodomized by and performing oral sex on adult men. [email protected] — whom the police allege is Brinkin — provided graphic commentary on the photos of interracial adult-child sex. Comments included “I loved especially the nigger 2 year old getting nailed. Hope you’ll continue so I can see what the little blond bitch is going to get. White Power! White Supremacy! White Dick Rules!”

The AOL e-mail account was also linked to Yahoo! Groups centering around discussions of child porn, according to the search warrant. Investigators say they additionally found e-mails sent from Brinkin’s now-defunct city e-mail account to [email protected]

I never thought that by eating Cheerios for breakfast I would be supporting gay marriage. Your decision to pander to same-sex marriage activists has forced me to choose between your food products and my conscience. As long as food is produced by other companies my conscience is going to win out over the desire for another bowl of Lucky Charms. Until you stop supporting this radical social agenda I must, in good conscience, look for substitutes that I can purchase instead of the following brands.

• Betty Crocker
• Good Earth
• Muir Glen
• Big G Cereals
• Green Giant
• Nature Valley
• Bisquick
• Haagen-Dazs
• Old El Paso
• Bugles
• Hamburger Helper
• Pillsbury
• Cascadian Farm
• Jus-Rol
• Pillsbury Atta

• Cheerios
• Kix
• Progresso
• Chex
• Knack & Back
• Total
• Cinnamon Toast Crunch
• La Saltena
• Totino’s/Jeno’s
• Diablitos Underwood
• Larabar
• Trix
• Fiber One
• Latina
• V. Pearl

• Food Should Taste Good
• Liberte
• Wanchai Ferry
• Frescarini
• Lucky Charms
• Wheaties
• Fruit Snacks
• Macaroni Grill
• Yoplait
• Gardetto’s
• Monsters
• Yoplait France
• Gold Medal
• Mountain High

 

Your diversity policy claims to respect “not just the primary areas such as gender, race and sexual orientation – but also cultural aspects including values, preferences, beliefs, and communication styles.” However, your public opposition to the Minnesota Marriage Amendment overtly disrespects the values and beliefs of many of your employees. To avoid misleading the public and potential employees regarding the true position of General Mills, I ask that you remove this misrepresentation from your website and any written materials unless or until you decide to actually follow through on your commitment to true diversity.

It’s not the role of corporate management to unilaterally endorse a controversial political issue unrelated to a company’s core business – particularly when doing so will alienate a large percentage of customers, employees and shareholders. I urge you to reconsider your decision to support same-sex marriage and to publicly oppose the Minnesota Marriage Amendment.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN PETITION – SUPPORT TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE!

Original Article - Syria Shoots at Second Turkish Aircraft

Syria has attempted to shoot down a second Turkish aircraft searching for missing pilots, Ankara announced Monday.

Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc told a news conference the Turkish plane, which was searching for the jet that was shot down last week, was not damaged in the incident.

He met with reporters following a seven hour cabinet meeting that focused on Syria’s attack last week on Turkey’s war plane.

The F-4 reconnaissance aircraft was allegedly shot down while still technically in international air space near the border with Syria – about 13 nautical miles away, according to Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.

Arinc added that Syria would not go unpunished for shooting down the aircraft, which Ankara said was on an unarmed training mission to carry out a radar system test. Both of the pilots who were aboard the aircraft are still missing.

Ankara said that Turkey would protect itself against Syria’s “hostile action” within the framework of international law. Syria gave no warning before opening fire.

Turkey has called on NATO to convene a meeting Tuesday over last week’s attack on its aircraft.

Original Article - When Supreme Court Rules on Health Care: Democrat Strategy Memo. Exclusive!

House Democrats should launch a media blitz as soon as the Supreme Court rules Thursday on President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, according to a strategy memo obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times.

The memo, from the House Congressional Democratic Leadership operation, advises members to be on the alert Thursday morning to “quickly and effectively” communicate with media and constitutients “as soon as the decision is announced.”

The memo outlined a game plan to use traditional media–plus FaceBook and Twitter to “serve as a way to inform your followers of the Court’s decision while adding your voice to the conversation. Members should be prepared to have a concise message to send through these accounts once the decision is released.”

Of course, there is also the usual press release: “Members should be prepared to have a statement written quickly, once the decision is released, to send to press and post on his or her Congressional website.”

After the first wave of comments, House Democrats next are advised to hold a telephone town hall Thursday and through the week.

“While still in Washington, a tele-town hall will allow Members to speak directly with constituents about their positions and answer questions stemming from it.”

There are certain rules about taxpayer funded communications that Members have to be careful about, the memo stated.

“Be mindful of tele-town hall franking rules if your office is in a blackout period and contact the House Administration Committee at 202-225-2061 with any questions. A draft script for announcing a tele-town hall to your constituents and vendor resources are available on DemCom.”

There are also some more standard suggestions, such as booking interviews with editorial boards, reporters and bloggers. “Before the ruling is released, contact print reporters, bloggers, and television stations to schedule an interview following the announcement. Members can also contact local editorial boards about the possibility of penning an op-ed following the ruling.”

That can be buttresses with mail and e-mail. “Once the decision is released, compose correspondence to send those writing and calling your office, as well as targeted constituents in your district.”

The Supreme Court is ruling as members head home for a summer break. Members are being encouraged to “hold events underlining the importance of the Affordable Care Act,” with guidance available to work “with health care groups and how they can help you find Americans and small businesses benefitting from the law for your event.”

There are even suggested sample events, such as holding “a press conference with those helped by the law, such as young adults able to stay on their parents’ coverage, seniors paying less for prescription drugs, or women whose gender will no longer be considered a pre-existing condition.”

Original Article - Janet Mefferd: Gay-Marriage Talking Points – Why Do They Sound So Familiar?

“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” (Proverbs 14:12)

American conservatives have borne the brunt of several gut punches in the last few weeks over the issue of legalizing so-called homosexual marriage.

First, country singer Carrie Underwood — whose fan base includes large numbers of political conservatives and evangelical Christians — revealed that the church she attends is gay-friendly, adding: “As a married person myself, I don’t know what it’s like to be told I can’t marry somebody I love, and want to marry. … I definitely think we should all have the right to love, and love publicly, the people that we want to love.”

Next, former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne, released a statement regarding the so-called homosexual marriage of their daughter, Mary, to Heather Poe. The Cheneys’ take: “Mary and Heather have been in a committed relationship for many years, and we are delighted that they were able to take advantage of the opportunity to have that relationship recognized.”

Finally, traditional marriage supporter David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, announced in a New York Times op-ed that he’s switched sides on the issue. Why? Said Blankenhorn: “I do believe, with growing numbers of Americans, that the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over. Whatever one’s definition of marriage, legally recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for basic fairness.”

Why do such notables think so-called homosexual marriage is a good idea? Let’s summarize:

The Underwood Rationale: Gay marriage is only fair. And heterosexuals who disagree are selfish.

The Cheney Rationale: Gay marriage is only fair. Our daughter and her partner have been committed to each other for a long time.

The Blankenhorn Rationale: Gay marriage is only fair. And heterosexuals who disagree are mean.

Hardly Lincoln-Douglas material, but there it is. But how did this reasoning come out of the mouths of people who aren’t abashed liberals? And why are their arguments so … well … lackluster and shallow?

It should first be noted that none of their “arguments” are really arguments, from the standpoint of reasoned debate on the morality and/or wisdom of legalizing so-called homosexual marriage. Here’s what they really are: regurgitated talking points, continually reinforced by an insidious social movement that wants unanimous compliance on its immoral agenda — an agenda that many more Americans would reject if it were brought into broad daylight, where all its lies, obfuscations and straw men could be exposed.

The talking points are, by design, shallow. You’re not even supposed to realize they exist. Deep reasoning is the enemy of this movement, so references to religious morality or natural law, if they come up at all, are ridiculed. After all, every reasonable, enlightened person knows this agenda is about Fundamental Fairness and Personal Choice. You already know this social movement well.

It’s called the Abortion Lobby.

Wait, you say. That should have been “the LGBT Lobby,” right? No, indeed. Because the LGBT talking points coming from the mouths of many well-meaning Americans today are not only not arguments. They’re the same old talking points used by radical abortion activists to deceive previous generations. They’ve just been retooled for a new marketing campaign.

But are the two agendas really that much alike? You decide.

1. Both agendas operate as anti-child cultures of death. Abortion kills children. Homosexual behavior can’t create them.

2. Both agendas falsely play on people’s unnecessary fear and guilt by focusing on the micro personal story, rather than the macro moral issue. For abortion activists, the question often was framed thusly: “What if your daughter found herself in a crisis pregnancy? Shouldn’t she have the right to choose?” The LGBT activist subtly alters his question to this: “What if your daughter announced she’s gay? Shouldn’t she have the right to choose whom to love?” And, of course, if your answer focuses on deeper questions about the effect on society of embracing abortion on demand or so-called homosexual marriage, rather than personal love for your own flesh and blood, then you look like a jerk. This is why the questions are put the way they are. “This isn’t about society. It’s about your daughter. Don’t you love your daughter?” LGBT activists have gained many a quasi-conservative convert just because that person had a gay daughter, son or friend and couldn’t look beyond the love lines. Emphasizing the personal is a very effective tactic, and both lobbies have used it successfully. The abortion lobby did it by making men scared to offend women. The LGBT lobby does it by making heterosexuals scared to offend homosexuals. Same tactic, different objective.

3. Both agendas rely heavily on Orwellian Newspeak. For the abortion activists, the terminology is “a woman’s right to choose,” “reproductive health decision” or “termination of pregnancy.” No mention of babies. For the LGBT activists, the terminology is “equality,” “civil rights” and “love.” No mention of sodomy.

4. Both agendas count on the media to frame the agenda for the general public, reporting only stories that make the agenda look good and its opposition look bad. From Planned Parenthood to women who have had abortions to abortionists themselves, the media dutifully paints the pro-abortion zealots as selfless heroes who just care about women. One-sided stories are vital to the cause, which is why you’ll rarely see more than a token quote from a pro-lifer in any major news report on abortion. And if you’re waiting to see an expose on Planned Parenthood or actual pictures of dismembered babies on a nightly TV newscast, keep on waiting.

The LGBT activists enjoy the same treatment. To the media, homosexuals are an honorable and severely oppressed victim class, and they’re all born gay — no exceptions. Consequently, you’ll only see media portrayals of Awesome Homosexuals. They’re sensitive, good-looking and saintly; they’re wonderful friends with brilliant minds, sharp wits and caring personal advice at the ready. And they’re everywhere: on TV, in the movies, on the news, in the White House (except the non-Awesome ones who recently got caught flipping off portraits of President Reagan). Which brings up a periodic problem the media has when the storyline doesn’t go as planned: you know, like when actress Cynthia Nixon declared that for her, being gay is a choice. Or when singer Melissa Etheridge’s partner, Julie Cypher, left her, with this exit line: “I’m not gay.” But when Jerry Sandusky or Catholic priests sexually abuse little boys, you won’t see any media outlet raise the slightest question about the accused’s sexual preferences. Not relevant, homophobe. End of debate.

5. Both agendas have succeeded by obfuscating the physical death, pain or injury that comes from embracing their agenda. When, again, was the last time you saw a major network broadcast photos of dismembered preborn children? Oh, yes, we already covered that. Never. Similarly, why don’t we ever see a major news analysis on the health risks of homosexuality, as reported on the website of the Centers for Disease Control? http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

Iguess we are all to believe that the moment America’s First Gay President repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” all the health risks of homosexuality magically went away. Not relevant, homophobe. End of debate.

6. Both agendas have thrived by relying on the Saul Alinsky-esque tactics of targeting, freezing, personalizing and polarizing their opponents. There are no reasonable, honest and fair debates with the Abortion Lobby or the LGBT Lobby. It’s not how they get stuff done. It’s all about making the opposition look bad, in order to skirt the real issue of whether or not their agenda is moral or good for society. So in the agenda-pushing scheme of things, those who support abortion are reasonable, freedom-loving people with a sense of fairness, and those who don’t are judgmental, religious zealots. Those who support so-called homosexual marriage also are reasonable, freedom-loving people with a sense of fairness. And those who don’t are judgmental, religious zealots. See how easy that was?

7. Both agendas seek “religious cover.” It’s why you see stories like the recent news report on the Washington, D.C.-based “Christian” obstetrician, who changed his mind on abortion and decided to start killing preborn children out of his great “compassion” for women. Or why the senior religion editor at The Huffington Post breathlessly reported a story over the weekend about religious people “celebrating” LGBT Pride. Again, religious people who embrace abortion or homosexuality — even if they’re violating the very tenets of their own religion by doing so — are good. But religious people who oppose those practices are evil, bigoted, homophobic and — let’s face it — probably hiding a secret abortion or same-sex affair.

Here’s the bottom line: When LGBT activists say gay marriage should be a choice because it’s only fair, remember the abortion activists said abortion should be a choice because it’s not fair to force a woman to give birth. When LGBT activists try to make it about your gay daughter, remember abortion activists tried to make it about your pregnant daughter. When LGBT activists decry opponents as mean heterosexuals, remember abortion activists decried opponents as mean men.

But now that we’re 40 years past Roe v. Wade, many of us can see that the abortion agenda never was about “our pregnant daughters” at all. And it wasn’t about creating a more fair, equal society. It was, at root, about sexual freedom with no consequences. A freedom that has cost an entire generation of children — roughly 53 million babies to date — their lives. And for what? Now that Social Security is in its death throes, one could argue that having 53 million more young adults in America right now might have been a good thing for all of us. That cursed hindsight.

By contrast, the LGBT agenda hasn’t been fully realized — yet. They say they want equality, fairness, civil rights. It’s about sexual freedom, but it’s really about state-sanctioned sexual freedom, one that will create a whole new definition of morality and civilization. That’s a big change, one that will be nearly impossible to reverse. So it’s about more than shrugging your shoulders about the two nice guys down the street who want to be married. It’s also about accepting that, if homosexual couples are allowed to marry in the United States, the state — as it has in the case of our newly “open” military — takes the official position that homosexuality is morally right. If you’re a Christian family who believes that God was telling the truth in Romans, Chapter 1, you’re the intolerant one under the new morality. And you’ll have to be dealt with, in ways we have yet to see.

We do have an inkling of what’s ahead, though, as seen in places like the U.S. military and some college campuses. When homosexual “rights” are recognized, religious rights — guaranteed in our First Amendment — are trumped. Even Equal Employment Opportunity Commission appointee and radical lesbian Chai Feldblum has said that when homosexual rights and religious liberty come into conflict, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

And don’t forget that once the American public accepts that we must legally recognize a homosexual’s “civil right” to marriage, how can we long deny those same “civil rights” to polygamists and polyamorists? Don’t they have “love?” Don’t they deserve “equality?” Look for those dominos to fall, too, probably more quickly than any of us can imagine.

The American people were fooled once before by the talking points of a radical social agenda, and millions of innocent children paid the price for it with their precious little lives. That is why it is imperative that before fully embracing another radical social agenda in America, we jettison the talking points we’ve been given and give laborious, sober consideration to the myriad religious, moral, philosophical, biological, natural-law and political arguments against it.

It’s only fair.

Original Article - Homeland Security Suspends Immigration Agreements with Arizona Police (FUBO)

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.

“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.

The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.

“We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona,” the official said.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona may not impose its own penalties for immigration violations, but it said state and local police could check the legal status of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are in the country illegally.

That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status — but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls.

Federal officials said they’ll still perform the checks as required by law but will respond only when someone has a felony conviction on his or her record. Absent that, ICE will tell the local police to release the person.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the court’s decision frees police up to perform immigration checks. In anticipation of the ruling, she issued an executive order calling for guidance to be issued to every police department on how to fairly carry out the law.

“We will move forward, instructing law enforcement to begin practicing what the United States Supreme Court has upheld,” she said.

But the Obama administration is under pressure from immigrant-rights groups to cut down on the number of people it is deporting and has taken a number of steps to try to limit deportations of rank-and-file illegal immigrants and focus instead on those with criminal records or repeated immigration violations.

Last week, Mr. Obama said he would halt deportations for most illegal immigrants under 30 who were brought here as children.

On Monday the administration officials also said they are ending the seven 287(g) task force agreements with Arizona law enforcement officials, which proactively had granted some local police the powers to enforce immigration laws.

The task forces, named for the section of law that allows them, have proved popular among many localities but have been a political headache for the Obama administration, with immigrant-rights groups saying they led to abuses.

On Monday the administration officials said they had concluded the seven agreements they had signed with various departments in Arizona weren’t working and took the Supreme Court’s ruling as a chance to scrap them.

Original Article - Fellow Inmates Taunt Homosexual Rapist Sandusky with Song

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

 

RUSH: Jerry Sandusky guilty on Friday night. They took him to jail. Did you hear what happened in jail? They sequestered him in the sexual pervert wing, but it was within earshot of the rest of the prisoners. And the rest of the prisoners had a song for him. In fact, I’m not gonna tell you what the song is. I’m gonna see if we have it on the Prophet System. We’ll take a break and if we have it I’ll come back and play it, ’cause the inmates sang a song for him once he got there. Let’s take a brief time-out and I’ll check and see if we’ve got it. We should. I mean, I know we do.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

THE WHO: (Music: Brick in the Wall)

RUSH: Jerry Sandusky goes to jail, and the inmates sing a song to him from Pink Floyd.

THE WHO: We don’t need no education.

RUSH: Stick with it, folks. The meaningful lyrics will pop up any moment here.

THE WHO: We don’t need no thought control.

RUSH: This works on a lot of levels, actually, today.

THE WHO: No dark sarcasm in the classroom. Teachers, leave them kids alone.

RUSH: There it is! There it is! “Teachers, leave them kids alone.”

THE WHO: Hey, teacher, leave them kids alone.

RUSH: They sang it to Sandusky.

THE WHO: All in all it’s just another brick in the wall.

RUSH: (laughing) They sang it to Sandusky when he got to jail Friday night.

THE WHO: All in all you’re just another brick in the wall.

RUSH: “Hey, teacher, leave them kids alone.”

CHILD CHORUS: We don’t need no education. We don’t need no thought control. No dark sarcasm in the classroom. Teachers, leave them kids alone.

RUSH: There you have it. That’s pretty much it. They had Sandusky on suicide watch on Friday night. What does that actually mean? Do they actually have somebody there watching? They patrol your cell? I know they take the belt away and sharp objects, but do they actually have eyeballs on the prisoner?

 

END TRANSCRIPT

Original Article - Seeing an Obama Army in Gay Pride Legions

To most passers-by, the tens of thousands of people who jammed the sidewalks of Greenwich Village on Sunday were just the typical tank-top-clad revelers of a gay pride weekend.

But to Aaron Levine, a 19-year-old, clipboard-toting volunteer sent there by the Obama campaign, everyone was a potential get. A group of twenty-somethings huddled in the shade under a Starbucks awning trying to stay cool: “They’re perfect,” he said. The long line outside the Duplex, a nightclub with views of the parade route: “They have nothing else to do now but sign up. It’s great.”

Mr. Levine was one of hundreds of Obama field staff members and volunteers who fanned out at a dozen gay pride celebrations across the country over the weekend with a meticulous set of marching orders from the Chicago campaign headquarters: Get names, cellphone numbers, and e-mail and home addresses. But most important, get commitments to volunteer.

At times, the parades could have been confused for Obama campaign rallies. In Chicago on Sunday, 300 of his campaign staff members and volunteers marched down Halsted Street through the heart of the gay district to chants of “Four more years! Four more years!” Along Fifth Avenue in New York, a group of about 200 Obama supporters who walked the parade route were cheered by crowds waving powder-blue “L.G.B.T. for Obama” placards, referring to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. “Obama! Obama!” the onlookers cried.

While gay men and lesbians have been one of the most reliable Democratic voting blocs, supporting Democrats over Republicans by a ratio of about three to one in recent elections, the Obama campaign is capitalizing on what its strategists say is a perfect election-year opportunity. Just over six weeks ago, Mr. Obama declared his support for the right of gay couples to marry, which strengthened his political potency among gay people. Before the marriage announcement, even many of Mr. Obama’s top gay donors had questioned his commitment to their issues.

Now, campaign officials and other top Democrats said this was their best chance yet to convert enthusiasm among gay men and lesbians for Mr. Obama into more than just votes.

“It’s like shooting fish in a barrel this year,” said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic consultant who supervised the field operation for Senator John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign in several battleground states. “I think this year you’ll have not only people who say they will vote for him, but you will get a higher percentage of people who will actually be willing to do something for him. I think people are just tremendously grateful.”

Over the coming weeks, the campaign will begin contacting those who signed its commitment forms to try to recruit them for any number of jobs like making phone calls or getting on a bus for a day trip to swing states like Pennsylvania.

Gay pride marches are the Democratic Party’s equivalent of Tea Party rallies. There are few places this year where the Obama campaign is likely to find more motivated and supportive voters. “Pride is probably the best opportunity to engage the community in large, concentrated numbers,” said Jamie Citron, the national L.G.B.T. vote director for the Obama campaign.

The campaign’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender outreach is a vast undertaking that includes not just cities with large gay populations like New York but less obvious places like Council Bluffs, Iowa; Durango, Colo.; and Dayton, Ohio.

When gay and lesbian leaders in Columbus, Ohio, were planning their event for this month, the Obama campaign called them to ask if they could play a taped message from the president.

“They wanted to know if we had the ability to put it up on a big screen,” said Karla Rothan, executive director of Stonewall Columbus. Ms. Rothan did not have a big screen to offer, but she did have a booth in her festival and a spot in the parade for Obama volunteers, and the campaign jumped at the opportunity.

On the parade route in Cleveland on Saturday, Obama workers in a tent in Voinovich Park registered hundreds of people to vote.

In Denver last month, the chief executive of the GLBT Community Center of Colorado, Carlos Martinez, received an e-mail from the White House asking him to attend the June 15 reception for L.G.B.T. Pride Month. “At first it was like, ‘O.K., is this real?’ ” Mr. Martinez recalled. The Obama campaign, he added, has had a noticeable presence beyond just the gay pride events last weekend.

“I think they’re looking to really communicate what the president has done for the L.G.B.T. community. And with the White House,” Mr. Martinez said, “they haven’t always done a good job of that.”

The organizational presence at gay pride events underscores how tight the Obama campaign believes this election will be — and how no constituency is too small to overlook.

These efforts come at a critical time for gay civil rights, one that gives Democrats an opportunity to make the case that the differences between the two parties on gay issues could not be starker. Two requests for review of same-sex-marriage rulings are headed to the Supreme Court, numerous gay rights cases are being argued in lower courts, and marriage initiatives will be on the ballot in November in Washington, Maryland, Maine and Minnesota.

“It’s one of the sleeper issues in this race, because I really do think this comes down to ‘What does it mean to be American?’ kind of stuff,” said Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, a Democrat.

In New York on Sunday, the Obama contingent was tame compared with other parade participants. There was no stereo blaring Whitney Houston or the Weather Girls, and no float festooned with rainbow streamers or muscled go-go boys. But that did not dampen enthusiasm on the sidewalks, where people were grabbing Obama Pride stickers by the handful.

Diane Rose, a 51-year-old psychotherapist from Harlem, said she voted for Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election and considered herself a Republican. But as she marched in the parade with her lesbian partner, she paused briefly from handing out Obama stickers to ponder her change of heart. “Doing this,” she said, referring to his embrace of gay rights, “especially as an African-American Christian, he took a bold stand and risked losing a big constituency.”

The campaign has benefited from the growing acceptance of gay rights. A case in point: Mr. Levine, a straight Northwestern University student who gave up his summer to volunteer. Before they set out among the parade crowds, he and others working for the president were given a crash course in the art of the hard political sell.

“Once they’ve given you their info,” said Jerry Polner, 59, an accountant from Brooklyn who volunteers for the campaign, “they’re going to say, ‘I’m busy. I’m getting my bowling ball redrilled next week.’ ” Be persistent, Mr. Polner told them.

As the staff passed around Obama-themed stickers and buttons to hand out, Mr. Polner reminded the workers of a hard-and-fast campaign rule: “No button without a commitment.”

This guy is scum. And the New York Times are scum for trying to "normalize" his pedophile/homosexual behavior as "O.K.". ...

>>>This is a public copy of an email sent to all the people listed on the Innovations and Courtyard Traditions ...

Filthy scum...watch your backs.

We Win- You Lose, Shitbag!

“Right now I can fit in with the push-up bras and stuff,” she said. But she wants to take hormones ...

Remember, the Liberals say that someone who is homosexual is that way because God made them that way, and they ...

Message to Huckleberry: The Order allows illegals 30 years or younger who have resided in the USA illegally for at ...

What this naive writer fails to understand is that a voting block only gets "hooked up" when there is a ...

Way to go...now New York needs to let the people vote, rather than let the homosexuals buy judges and government ...

Perhaps IV drug users should be allowed to donate as long as they used uncut stuff and don't share needles. ...