 V-Day San Francisco en Español 2011 [TVM] ORGULLOSAMENTE PRESENTA UNA PRODUCCIÓN DE: "Los Monólogos de La Vagina" Del premiado guión de Eve Ensler "The Vagina Monologues" TEATRO VICTORIA, UN SOLO DÍA MARZO 20, 2011 - DOS FUNCIONES 3:00 p.m. y 6:00 p.m. COMPREN SUS BOLETOS
V-Day San Francisco en Español 2011, se enorgullece de ser un participante en el V-Day 2011 de la campaña V-Day. Nos han concedido los derechos para una producción benéfica de V-Day de la premiada obra de _ Eve Ensler, Los Monólogos de la Vagina (En español) , en dos presentaciones el Domingo, Marzo 20 2011, en el Teatro Victoria en San Francisco para recaudar fondos y levantar conciencia para las organizaciones locales que trabajan en detener la violencia contra las mujeres y las niñas. En 2010, más de 4000 eventos a beneficio de V-Day se llevaron a cabo, producido por activistas voluntarios en 130 países de todo el mundo, la educación de millones de personas sobre la realidad de la violencia contra las mujeres y las niñas, tanto a nivel local como mundial. En 2011, V-Day de San Francisco en Español, seró uno de los miles de eventos en todo el mundo, canalizando su energía creativa en hacer una diferencia en el marco de la campaña de V-Day. Es nuestra intención hacer de V-Day de San Francisco en Español 2011, un gran éxito. Esto será posible, en gran parte, a través de la ayuda y la generosidad de los patrocinadores. Parte de lo que hace este evento tan especial, es la oportunidad que ofrece a las empresas y organizaciones en las comunidades locales - a participar en este movimiento global, para celebrar y honrar a las mujeres y las niñas en su vida y de la comunidad, para formar parte de una voz colectiva, una voz que se niega a ser ignorada, una voz que dice NO a la violencia contra las mujeres y las niñas. Todos los beneficios de nuestro evento serán donados a estas organizaciones, Casa Rosalie en San Francisco California y Casa Amiga en Ciudad Juárez, México.
"Tu tienes que ser el cambio que quieres ver en el mundo." -- Mohandas Karamchand Ghandi |
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Los Monólogs de La Vagina Regresa a San Francisco
Thursday, July 1, 2010
SF Gay Pride(?) 2010: Is YouTube Transphobic Wittmann51, DLC's Marshal Wittmann?
Or, I just got them confused?
Probably not judging by the overwhelmingly militaristic tendencies in his YouTube Channel's Videos, but since I do not know for sure, let's say I got them confused.
I'm more than a bit ticked-off by what transpired on the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade 2010.
This is how it started to raise our hopes that... Finally!!! Transgender Folk's Role in the struggle for equality, was to be recognized, at least in San Francisco where we had the first recorded act of Defiance, IN OUR HISTORY, against the abuse:
Trans People are LEADING the San Francisco Pride Parade
June 14, 2010, For Immediate Release
The Center of Excellence for Transgender Health is proud to announce that trans people will be the Lead Contingent for the 2010 San Francisco Pride Parade on Sunday, June 27th! The lead contingent directly follows the Dykes on Bikes and the official SF Pride float. This historic first is a wonderful opportunity to show that trans people are proud, united, and fierce!
"From the Compton's Cafeteria riot and the Stonewall rebellion through today, transgender people have always been at the forefront of the LGBT movement," said Amy Andre, the Executive Director of San Francisco Pride. In recognizing the many significant contributions of trans community members to the larger LGBT movement, San Francisco Pride honors our trans communities with the invitation to participate as the Lead Contingent for the Parade.
At El / La Para Translatinas, where we are always in action [MAYDAY 2010 (Our 4th year)], [Vagina Monologues in Spanish (San Jose, 2nd time & first in SF 2009] the excitement was so great! I, being the oldest of it's members, was very doubtful that it would really happen, how would be otherwise? With a large segment of the Gay community and parts of the Lesbian Community still exhibiting their historical active and latent Transphobia, why should this time be any different?
I told my younger and beautiful sisters, good luck! As for me, I will not march again in this Gay Parade until the LGBT community is fully inclusive - I was asked: Again? What do you mean? Well, I said, as a matter of fact, this will be the 11th year of my personal boycott of the Gay Pride Parade, which should be renamed, Gay Shame, the last time I was in it, was 1999.
Back to SF Gay Pride Parade 2010.
Albeit I didn't even go to watch it, I was curious if it had really happened and how did it look, I searched for videos and found the ones (3) posted by wittmann51, I viewed the first, which at it's end had the 'River City Gems' Contingent (Sacramento), I thought this was weird, because they were behind the Transgender Contingent, which was not leading the Parade, in fron of them was Cheer Started by a Gay Man and who do great work but, as far as I know, were not scheduled to lead the parade, but they were ahead of the Transgender People.
I don't know and maybe it really doesn't matter if they (Cheer) were thought more important or the Cheer group just cut in front, I'm inclined to think the latter is what happened, why not cut in front? After all, they are just Transgender Folk who will take it from us, least they be labeled 'divisive' or, maybe selfish or, discontent.
So, I started watching wittman51's video one, this is what I saw:
Dykes on Bikes
Mikes on Bikes
Cupcake Cars
SF Official Gay Pride Float was around here, I think.
Cheer San Francisco
Cheer LA
Cheer Sacramento
The Transgender Contingent, which included the River City Gems, marched in this slot, but it was cut out of the video, except for the Gems, which were shown.
See for yourself
This is the part that was cut out or, left out or, not included, whatever! (Aprox. 1:24 min.)
San Francisco Pride Parade 2010 Trans Contingent
I'm trying to figure out why, what was the objection? The many, many ENDA signs carried by my community?
I also ask: Is wittmann51 a Transphobic Gay? I saw the other 2 videos and there appears to be a lot of attention on his part for young, good looking gays.
Or, is he just another Transphobic Hetero Male?
Is he the same Marshall Wittmann of the DLC?
DLC Mooseshit: A Letter to Marshall Wittman - The BEAST: Buffalo's ...
DLC Moose Shit. Matt Taibbi ...Marshall Wittmann, the former legislative director for the Christian Coalition and also a veteran talking head of such
The reason I ask is that if you look at the videos in his YouTube Channel, would fit this guy's militaristic tendencies in them, I have not checked out all of his videos, but at a glance, it is about war plane, tanks, et al.
Whatever the case may be, he cut out the Transgender Contingent in SF Gay Pride(?) 2010 Parade.
As you may know, many of us in the Transgender Community have huge issues at how we are thrown overboard, under a bus or just left behind, the latest and most notorious is passage of an ENDA which also protects Transgender Folk.
Still remains to be seen if HRC and assorted Gays and Lesbians will leave us behind again, or if, for a change, this time they will not accept anything that it is not fully inclusive -- my money is on that is that if a bill which covers sex orientation but not transgender folk is offered and has a chance of passing, it will be another instance of 'we will come back for you transgender sisters and brothers' - don't worry, we will help you.
I hope I'm wrong in spite of decades of exclussion and discrimination Hate 101: Gay and Lesbian Transphobia - Historical, and also looking at the "Traditional Support" by the HRC Why The Transgender Community Hates HRC .
Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive, but since Sunday, I've cooking in my own juices and, by now, I need to get it out.
I also feel that the ENDA Bill will be again stripped of the protection clause/s for Transgender People.
Will the TG Community be thrown under de bus again?
Friday, November 20, 2009
IN MEMORIAM: TRANSGENDER DAY OF REMEMBRANCE - NOVEMBER 20
| TRANSGENDER DAY OF REMEMBRANCE November 20 | ||
 |  |
|
| "This day was set aside to memorialize those who were killed due to anti-transgender hatred or prejudice. The event is held in November to honor Rita Hester, whose murder on November 28th, 1998 kicked off the "Remembering Our Dead" web project and a San Francisco candlelight vigil in 1999. Rita Hester’s murder — like most anti-transgender murder cases — has yet to be solved.
Although not every person represented during the Day of Remembrance self-identified as transgender — that is, as a transsexual, crossdresser, or otherwise gender-variant — each was a victim of violence based on bias against transgender people. The Transgender Day of Remembrance serves several purposes. It raises public awareness of hate crimes against transgender people, an action that current media doesn’t perform. Day of Remembrance publicly mourns and honors the lives of our brothers and sisters who might otherwise be forgotten. Through the vigil, we express love and respect for our people in the face of national indifference and hatred. Day of Remembrance reminds non-transgender people that we are their sons, daughters, parents, friends and lovers. Day of Remembrance gives our allies a chance to step forward with us and stand in vigil, memorializing those of us who’ve died by anti-transgender violence." Note: The original post can be found at http://www.rememberingourdead.org/day/what.html The Remembering our Dead Web Project and The Transgender Day of Remembrance are owned by Gwendolyn Ann Smith, All Rights Reserved |
||
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Letter from GLAAD President on California Supreme Court Decision
 | |
  Above: See their story from | Dear Friends, Today’s decision by the California Supreme Court is a painful but temporary setback. We know in time we will achieve full marriage equality in California and across the country, but that doesn’t make today’s news hurt any less. In Service, |
Sunday, January 4, 2009
“Voters for Proposition 8 may have succeeded within the narrow confines of their belief system, they utterly failed as Americans."
Lavender Newswire
We’re here. We’re queer. We’re news junkies.
“While everyone who voted for Proposition 8 may have succeeded within the narrow confines of their particular belief system, they have failed utterly as Americans.”
SOURCE: LAVANDER NEWSWIRE
January 4, 2009
Good op/ed in this morning’s Napa Valley Register. I particularly like the not-at-all-impossible scenario of a Catholic voting majority in California and the subsequent potential for a constitutional amendment that would restrict marriage to “a man and a woman who have not previously been married.” (That would seem even more difficult an amendment to fight if Proposition 8 were allowed to stand; the addition of those six little words would indeed be merely an amendment, and not a revision.)
That everyone’s rights are now up for a vote is something the religious zealots refuse to discuss, for obvious reasons. Yet you can be sure that if, or perhaps when, their rights are on the line, they will experience a sudden epiphany about the value of separation of church and state. (Will I be there to defend their rights? As a good liberal, I should. As a mere mortal, I know I won’t.)
In diverse land, a narrow-minded vote
Nothing could better illustrate the deplorable condition of the California education system than the continuing furor over Proposition 8.
How else can a reasonable person explain the fact that, in the most ethnically and culturally diverse state in the country, the very diversity of which implies a wide range of belief systems, an amazing number of people don’t understand that their right to their particular beliefs is precisely what the Constitution exists to protect? …
Like the original Pilgrims, people of the Buddhist, Christian, Confucian, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim and Taoist persuasions — not to mention aboriginal faiths too numerous and esoteric to mention — have all at various times sought the protection of a constitutional government that distinguishes between beliefs and the right to hold those beliefs.
Never mind that all those belief systems disagree with one another — that’s a given. …
The question that such diversity raises is, how are all these people supposed to live in anything like harmony except by virtue of a system that prevents any one group from imposing its beliefs on all of the others? …
…[S]peaking of the Roman Catholic Church enables me to put the tire back on the road by way of an example. Considering the growing influence of the Hispanic community in California, it is not inconceivable that at some point in the near future it may comprise a voting majority.
Inasmuch as the Hispanic community is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, when that time comes it will be a matter of doctrine that marriage can only take place between a man and a woman who have not previously been married.
Will the people have spoken if they succeed in amending the state constitution to that effect?
I think we all need to pray on this matter — or should we chant? Before we do, however, we need to face the fact that, while everyone who voted for Proposition 8 may have succeeded within the narrow confines of their particular belief system, they have failed utterly as Americans. …
More at the link. Posted by: Sapphocrat
Friday, December 26, 2008
New book from John J. McNeill: 'Sex as God Intended'
Steve Rothaus' Gay South Florida
www.MiamiHerald.com/gay - For and about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people throughout Miami and Fort Lauderdale.December 25, 2008
Miami Herald Blog
A new book from John J. McNeill: Sex as God Intended. McNeill will be signing books Jan. 11 at Sunshine Cathedral in Fort Lauderdale. Here's the news release:
Lethe Press is proud to release the latest work from the acclaimed Biblical scholar John J. McNeill.
Noted biblical scholar, moral theologian, and psychotherapist John J. McNeill (The Church and the Homosexual) offers further insight into the portrayal of sex in the Bible and discusses how the original sex positive viewpoints have been twisted by the Church and society over the years. Citing the generally overlooked Biblical book The Songs of Songs, McNeill argues that human sexual activity represents a form of "play" that provides a source of pleasure, joy and love. From the beginning, he says, this is what God intended sex to be, not a cause of judgment, oppression, and resentment.
New York-based psychotherapist and retreat director Ken Page contributed the foreword. This volume also offers a Festschrift celebrating the life and work of John J. McNeill. In a collection of thirteen essays, voices of acclaimed religion scholars, theologians, ministers and teachers such as Mark Jordan, Robert E. Goss, Jim Mitulski, Mary Hunt, Mel White, Daniel Helminiak, and Troy Perry are raised to cite the influence McNeill's studies-and the example of his personal life-have had on their professional research and lives.
This book appears in coordination with the upcoming release of a video documentary about John McNeill, "Uncommon Jesuit," produced by Festschrift contributor Brendan Fay.
You can order at Queerbooks.com or at TLABooks or through Amazon or ask your local bookseller to carry John's latest book.
About John J. McNeill
McNeill was co-founder of the New York City chapter of Dignity, a group for Catholic gays and lesbians. For over thirty-five years, he has been active in a ministry to gay Christians through retreats, workshops, lectures, publications, etc. In 2007, he was the recipient of the Human Rights Campaign Lifetime Achievement Award.
McNeill is available for interviews and limited speaking engagements. He can be reached at jjmcneill@aol.com.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Rick Warren Saddleback Church Covers Up Extremist Ideology
Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008
 | Rick Warren Saddleback Church Covers Up Extremist Ideology |
The controversy over the plan to have right wing preacher Rick Warren give an official religious invocation to introduce Barack Obama’s Inauguration just grew another kink. It seems that Rick Warren’s church, the Saddleback Church, is engaged in a coverup designed to hide Rick Warren’s extremist ideology.
Soon after it was announced that its leader, Rick Warren, would be giving an invocation at the Inauguration, the Saddleback Church began taking down parts of its web site in an attempt to prevent people from seeing the kind of weird ideas that the church actually preaches. For example, on December 16th, the Saddleback Church web site had a page of questions and answers about its beliefs. Here’s what it looked like then:
Why the coverup if, as Rick Warren claims, truth is eternal? If Rick Warren is happy to preach these weird ideas to people at his church, then how come he isn’t willing to share them all with the rest of us? Come on, preacher Warren - let it shine, let it shine, let it shine! Truth is eternal, online. I discovered this coverup by looking at Google’s cache, and now, thanks to that, I’ve been able to save the page as a PDF, which you can see for yourself here. I’ve put it on the IrregularTimes.com server, where Rick Warren won’t be able to make it disappear.
What really tickles me is that this page is the Saddleback Church’s page of frequently asked questions. It’s right there in the name of the file: faqs_saddleback.asp - FAQs stands for frequently asked questions. But now, this page has been erased. What does that tell us about how Rick Warren and the Saddleback Church feel about questions?
Apparently, there are no frequently asked questions at the Saddleback Church. It’s not the kind of church where questions are appreciated. Rather, it seems that when church members bring up questions, they’re erased.
Actually, its not just the questions that are deleted from the Saddleback Church web site. Rick Warren’s answers to the questions are deleted too. Amongst those answers are the following nuggets:
- If you’re in debt, you shouldn’t stop giving money to the Saddleback Church, because you’re more likely to get out of debt if you give Rick Warren money.
- Stopping embryonic stem cell research is more important than curing grave and fatal illnesses. Rick Warren urges his followers to “speak out against overzealous stem cell research, even though you know it slows down the process of finding a possible cure for someone you love.”
- Jews should convert to Christianity, because the only sin for which we can go to Hell is “rejecting God’s saving solution in his son Jesus Christ.”
- Homosexuality is a sin, and so the Saddleback Church won’t accept homosexual couples as members. Church members ought to confront homosexuals and tell them that they’re sinners.
- Belief in evolution and belief in the Bible are incompatible.
- God gave human beings dominion over dinosaurs, which were around at the birth of human civilization - “Man and dinosaurs lived at the same time.”
- Plesiosaurs might not be extinct at all.
But this isn’t all - there’s a lot more to Rick Warren and Saddleback Church than just this one web page. A further search for other coverup materials seems to be called for.
ALSO AT "IRREGULAR TIMES"
Upcoming Activist Events
Light Up the Night for Equality2008-12-20, various times in Cities Across the Nation, Nationwide
Minneapolis Anti-DOMA Protest
2009-01-10, 12:30pm - 2:00pm in Minneapolis, MN
Senator Obama, STOP GOVERNMENT SPYING at DC Inauguration Parade
2009-01-20, 6:00am - 2:00pm in Washington, DC
Independent Dissent at the DC Inaugural Parade
2009-01-20, 12 Noon - 6 PM in Washington, DC
January 20, 2009 Pro-Constitution Demonstration in Washington, DC
2009-01-20, 12 noon to 6 pm, but you have to get there early! in Washington, DC
Grab the RSS feed for this list and put it on your website.
OBAMA, RICK WARREN, PROGRESSIVES, GAY RIGHTS, AND SOME PROVOCATIVE INSIGHTS FROM DON CHARLES
A CHRISTIAN VOICE FOR GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER RIGHTS
"A Church that doesn't provoke any crisis, a gospel that doesn't unsettle, a word of God that doesn't get under anyone's skin, a word of God that doesn't touch the real sin of society in which it is being proclaimed, what gospel is that? Archbishop Oscar Romero (1917-1980)
"Never let other people define your reality or put you into bondage to their ways of thinking." Jerry Maneker.
As you undoubtedly know by now, President-Elect Obama is having Rick Warren give the inaugural prayer at his inauguration.
Rick Warren has said that "...homosexuality is a sin and Jews will go to hell...."
He also shows himself to be clueless regarding Gay identity, using such a bizarre perceived correlate of same-sex love as marrying a pizza because one loves it.
Believe me, I couldn't make this stuff up!
In John Cloud's December 18th article, he states the following:
[Rick] Warren did have a message of hope for gays: they can magically become heterosexuals. (He didn't explain how, but I suspect he thinks praying really hard would do it, as if most of us who grew up gay and evangelical hadn't tried that every night as teenagers.) Homosexuality, Pastor Warren explained in the virtually content-free language of the dogmatist, is "not the natural way." And then he went right for the ick factor, the way middle-school boys do: "Certain body parts are meant to fit together."
More recently, Warren told Beliefnet that he thinks allowing a gay couple to marry is similar to allowing "a brother and sister to be together and call that marriage." He then helpfully added that he's also "opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage." The reporter, who may have been a little surprised, asked, "Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?" "Oh, I do," Warren immediately answered.
I've never considered Obama as anything but a political chameleon; a political opportunist, much like Bill Clinton, an avowed "liberal," who signed DOMA and DADT. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
I do confess to voting for Obama as the lesser of the two evils, as I couldn't see another term of a Bush Presidency in the personage of John McCain; the specter of Sarah Palin being a heartbeat away from the Presidency and, perhaps, the next President, was an intolerable nightmare to me.
Regarding Obama, I wrote the following in an email to my friend Don Charles:
With a straight face [Obama] touts equality for Gay people, but is against them marrying. How that double think was believed by so many people is remarkable in itself; the "Obamamania" that was expressed by so many liberals was disheartening when it was expressed prior to the election, and his betrayal of Gay people by his selection of Warren to give the inaugural prayer cuts to the quick for all those who thought he was any different than any other political opportunist.
So, Obama's a "friend" of Gays but also a friend of Warren's who lies about Gays and seeks to prevent their equal rights! All things to all people! That's the mantra of people who have no integrity, commitment, loyalties, or decency!
In this connection, I'm reminded of Jesus' saying: "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets." (Luke 6:26)
To seek common ground with those who, despite sanctimonious, and "spiritually" and politically correct, rhetoric, do no want full and equal rights for all people is questionable enough. However, to honor that person by choosing him to give the inaugural prayer upon your assuming the Presidency of the United States is quite another thing altogether.
By placing Rick Warren in this position, Obama is giving him legitimacy and credibility that promises to likely color the tenor of his Presidency! In the name of "building bridges" and "seeking common ground," Obama, and even some progressive activists, by placing on an equal moral footing those who seek to deprive Gay people of full and equal civil rights with those who believe that Gay people are deserving of full and equal civil rights, do a terrible injustice to all Gay people. They miss the mark regarding what is at stake in the fight for full and equal rights for LGBT people.
As stated in the Washington Blade:
You can't speak about "common ground" when a group of people's rights are being stripped away. And let's hear what in-limbo same-sex couples married in California think about calling [Rick]Warren "vital to the pursuit of social justice."
It must be noted that Rick Warren was solidly behind Prop. 8, stating the need to to preserve the biblical definition of marriage."
In conclusion, in an exchange of emails, Don Charles sent me the following email that he was kind enough to allow me to post today. It's right on the money, and deserves to be widely read and disseminated.
Here is what he wrote to me, and it certainly provides food for thought:
Jasmyne Cannick is known for putting her “Black concerns” ahead of her “Gay concerns”, but this time, she’s lost all sense of perspective. How could she defend Barack Obama’s showcasing of Rick Warren? It’s the exact equivalent of Franklin Roosevelt showcasing Father Coughlin, if Roosevelt had ever been so stupid as do it. She’s one of these Gay Democrats [who] are so enamored of Obama, he’d almost have to pull out a gun and shoot a Gay person before they’d criticize him.
Obama’s “coming together” justification for his Rick Warren invite is the most bogus thing I’ve yet heard him say. It’s so bogus, in fact, it insults your intelligence to even talk about it! If you legitimately want to bring people with conflicting views together, you have to lay a groundwork for that. You have to establish that the two sides even want to meet. You can’t just toss enemies together as if you were tossing ingredients for a salad!
But this isn’t a case of enemies being brought together. Gay people aren’t even in the salad mix here. There will be no Gay clergy on the inauguration stage. There’ll only be Joseph Lowery, a man whose support of marriage equality is suspect; I once heard him say on the radio that he didn’t think Gay couples should be allowed to marry. You already know, of course, that Jesse Jackson is also against Gay weddings in church?
Obama would never have a Lesbian or Gay clergyman blessing him, because that would piss off the Right Wing evangelicals he’s been courting since the primaries. He wants fundies as part of his re-election base, and he’s going after them aggressively; he doesn’t care if he disrespects us, because he believes we don’t have any choice but to support him. In other words, LGBT folk are being used as a carpet for him to walk on as he heads to the Oval Office. If you think Straight Black/Gay White relations are strained now, just you wait . . . things could get incredibly ugly.
How “fierce” a Gay Rights advocate is Barack Obama? So fierce that he’d give last-minute lip service to opposing Proposition 8 even while making it known that he agrees with Prop 8 supporters. So fierce that he would deny our constitutional right to marry the adult person of our choice. So fierce that he dares to characterize appalling anti-Gay hate speech as a mere difference of opinion that should be overlooked. I knew he had issues with Gay people as soon as I saw his macho “don’t-doubt-my-heterosexuality” reaction to a debate question about AIDS testing.
My opinion is this: Obama’s name should’ve been overlooked when progressive citizens voted last November 4. He lacks sufficient experience to lead this nation, his rhetoric is empty, and he’s ethically challenged. I’m afraid more and more people will share my opinion as his administration advances its agenda. We haven’t elected a leader, we’ve seated another craven politician in the mold of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. If that Lesbian or Gay Martin Luther King we’ve all been hoping for should appear on the scene right now, it wouldn’t be a second too soon!
Monday, December 22, 2008
"Please don't divorce...": These photos will break your heart
Dear Aurora, 
That was our community's reaction to the news that Ken Starr had filed a legal brief -- on behalf of the "Yes on 8" campaign -- to nullify the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in California between May and November of 2008.
It's time to put a face to Ken Starr's shameful legal proceedings. To put a face to the 18,000 couples facing forcible divorce by the state of California. To put a face to marriage equality.
Because, gay or straight, YOU are the face of the Marriage Equality Movement.
That's why, on Saturday morning, we launched the "Please Don't Divorce..." campaign, asking Courage Campaign members to send us pictures with a simple message: "Please don't divorce us," "Please don't divorce my mothers (or fathers)," "Please don't divorce my friends, Name and Name," "Please don't divorce Californians" or whatever you wanted to write after "Please don't divorce..."
Two days later, we're still receiving a stready stream of photos from couples, friends, families and even one from a cat. And now we want one from you.
These pictures will break your heart. They've made us cry, more than a few times.
http://www.couragecampaign.org/DontDivorce
Love. Not shame.
That was our community's reaction when thousands of people across California showed up on Saturday for "MILK plus LOVE," 51 screenings of "MILK" organized in 39 communities by the Courage Campaign in concert with Join the Impact's "Light Up the Night" candlelight vigil for equality.
Love. Not anger.
That was our community's reaction to the pledge to "Repeal Prop 8" launched by the Courage Campaign on November 7, signed by over 300,000 people, and supported by MoveOn, CREDO Mobile and Join the Impact.
http://www.couragecampaign.org/DontDivorce
If you think it's important to proudly stand up for marriage equality, please forward this message to your friends today -- before they go away for the holidays.
Thank you for everything you are doing to restore marriage equality and push for progressive change in California.
Eden James
Managing Director
P.S. On Friday, we asked you to sign our invitation to Pastor Rick Warren to participate in an open, honest debate about Prop 8 and same-sex marriage with Rev. Eric Lee, a strong leader on marriage equality in the faith community and in the African American community.
http://www.couragecampaign.org/RickWarrenDebate
..............
Courage Campaign Issues is part of the Courage Campaign's online organizing network that empowers over 300,000 grassroots and netroots activists to push for progressive change in California.
To power our campaign to repeal Prop 8, please contribute today:
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Not Another Word on Gay Marriage Until They Execute an Adulterer
The religious right picks and chooses which parts of the Bible they want to apply. And they choose based on which outsider group they would like to hate next. First, they emphasized slavery in the Bible when they wanted to hate black people. Now, they emphasize the parts condemning homosexuality so they can hate gay people.
They are completely and utterly disingenuous. They don't mean a word of it. They don't give a damn what the Bible says. They just want to use it as an instrument of hate.
The Bible says eating shellfish is an abomination. Yet there are no Red Lobster Amendments. The Bible says you shall not wear two different types of cloths at the same time. Yet there are no Propositions against cotton and wool combos.
The Bible says you should leave your family and join Jesus Christ. The religious right pretends that Jesus was about family values. He wanted you to abandon your family. Read the Bible.
The religious right pretends that the Bible says marriage is between one man and one woman. But that is a bald faced lie. Have any of these people ever read the Bible? The Bible is full of men taking on second wives, servants, prostitutes and concubines. And all the while, God heartily approves. How many wives did King David have? Eight? Twelve? Let alone his possibly gay lover, Jonathan.
Now the Bible says that a man shall not lie with another man. That is true. But it also says, in the same exact book, that adultery is an abomination. And the just punishment for this sin is execution. So, who will execute the first adulterer? Please step on up. May the one without any Biblical sin cast the first stone.
Here is a question no one can answer -- and lucky for the right wing, the media never bothers to ask -- why do you only focus on the part of the Bible against homosexuality but not on the part against adultery? It's one thing to say you're against adultery; it's another to take away their rights. How come no religious figure in this country has mounted a campaign to take away the rights of adulterers? Let alone execute them.
I'll tell you why. Because there are too many of them. Their followers are adulterers. They don't make for good scapegoats. They are not an easy target to ostracize and focus your hatred on. Gays are perfect. They are a small enough percentage of the population and different enough from the rest of us to be able to get people to focus their negative, barbaric instincts on them. The Bible is only a tool for this tribal, ugly tactic.
But I am tired of hearing people saying that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible when they never quote the rest of the Bible (probably because a great majority of church goers have never independently read the Bible or they have built up a reservoir of excuses for the parts they find inconvenient). So, from now, I would like to tell the Rick Warrens of the world, you are perfectly allowed to say how much you would like to take gay people's rights away from them based on the Bible so long as you agree to do one thing first -- execute an adulterer.
If you can do that for me, then I'll believe that you actually believe in the Bible literally and will accept your literal argument against homosexuality. Fair is fair. Step on up.
PS -- In case anyone is a maniacal literalist, please do not actually attempt to execute any adulterers or anyone else. Check yourself into a mental hospital instead because the seven headed dragon in Revelations could be out to get you.Thursday, December 11, 2008
Derechos Humanos LGBT, después de 60 años… siguen siendo una aspiración
Hace 60 años fue proclamada y adoptada La Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos. Para nosotras y nosotros seres humanos, lesbianas, trans, gays, bisexuales e intersexuales esto es una aspiración
Un día 10 de diciembre como hoy, hace 60 años en 1948 fue proclamada y adoptada por la Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas mediante la resolución 217, La Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos, fue el primer instrumento internacional de alcance universal, destinado a proteger los derechos de las personas, sin distinción de raza, origen o nacionalidad.
En su artículo 1 dice:
“Todos los seres humanos nacen libres e iguales en dignidad y derechos y, dotados como están de razón y conciencia, deben comportarse fraternalmente los unos con los otros.”
Para nosotras y nosotros seres humanos, lesbianas, trans, gays, bisexuales e intersexuales esto es un aspiración.
Podemos ver con estupor como la Iglesia católica no quiere que se despenalice la homosexualidad, condenando a la cárcel y a la muerte a la gente, rompiendo con su mandamiento NO Mataras.
Podemos ver como hay aquí en el Perú y en América Latina entera donde no está penalizada la homosexualidad, la gente se esconde temerosa por ser expulsada de sus centros educativos o de su trabajo o simplemente de sus casas.
Podemos ver mujeres aterrorizadas por la posibilidad de perder a sus hijos e hijas en razón de su orientación sexual a pesar de ser madres responsables y amorosas.
Podemos ver ancianos y ancianas que mueren abandonados porque no tienen derecho a heredar… no digo una fortuna… una pensión y un derecho a usar un seguro social de salud de su pareja.
Podemos ver a nuestras hermanas trans golpeadas y asesinadas por caminar… por simplemente caminar por la calle.
Esta situación nos reta a seguir soñando y luchando por ser iguales a ustedes… personas con derechos, esa es nuestra tarea tuya y mía, construir una sociedad donde toda la gente viva en su verdad y sin esconderse, donde seamos libres y podemos ser felices con respetuo mutuo viéndote sonreír y sonriendo contigo.
http://www.insurrectasypunto.org
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Same-sex marriage doesn't hurt marriage, but... how about divorce?
Dec 3, 2008, Aurora Grajeda, California
I can't argue with the logic, divorce destroys 50% of Marriages and I have to hear concrete cases about where or how same-sex marriage harms opposite sex marriages. On a side note, is there a Heavenly Court on this Earth to hear how in religious marriage, in front of God, there are vows to stay together until death, as far as I know, divorce is granted on civil courts; shouldn't divorce be granted on a religious court? Then the formerly married, but now 'single' individuals, marry again in a religious ceremony, sometimes in the same church. Therefore, the question to ask is, for all of the above, are divorces Godly legal? Ooooh, the hypocritical ironies, if they weren't so harmful, they would be delectable.
I did get some big laughs out of those "ban divorce" comments. Still, the issue is the definition of marraige. Ignoramuses want it to be legally defined as "between a man and a woman" - sane people might be missjudging their opponents depth of hatred and tenacity. Check out this article - the stats reinforce my caution in wanting to laugh the thing off. I won't be crying either. I'll be articulating - seriously. No, seriously - hey, oh - thanks for the laughs. Lisa
Poll: Socio-econ status played big role in Prop 8 - By LISA LEFF Associated Press Writer
Hi Aurora,Anything can be turned into comedy.
But when I read the comments of people who viewed Prop 8 the musical I can't laugh. There exists many people who believe that homosexuals do not deserve equal rights. I would easily make the leap that those same people would not be alarmed when gays are physically ridiculed, attacked, or murdered. Therefore I wonder if the slim victory in favor of Prop 8 was due to bias and not confusion.
The prop 8 musical certainly feeds the gay stereotype that many ignorant people use to cultivate their hatred.
I love a campy musical, but the Prop 8 phenomena has got me wondering if we are devolving - and should we take this issue more seriously?
See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die-- "Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more... A star-studded cast turns out for Marc Shaiman's "Prop 8 - The Musical."-- Protect Marriage, Protect Children, Prohibit Divorce Sign the petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/protect-marriage-protect-children-prohibit-divorce-- Vote No on Prop 8: Margaret Cho Can you still not figure out what California's Prop 8 actually means? That a "no" actually means you're for gay marriage? Let Ma... more >
I signed the petition hoping that many more people sign it in order to have more pro-Prop h8 people see their folly / hypocrisy.
We signed the "Protect Marriage, Protect Children, Prohibit Divorce" petition!
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/protect-marriage-protect-children-prohibit-divorce
Really, it's absurd to stop at divorce. I think we should amend the constitution of the entire country to say that all marriage ceremonies should exclude the words, "till death do us part," and that people should be forced to live with the rotting remains of their loved ones until they themselves die, and then the two can be sealed in lucite and sent into space to be beacons of what it means to be a truly civilized planet. It'll be a sign that says to anyone who passes by, "These people are serious about commitment, and serious about children."
After all, if we're going to return society to the rules of the Bible, this is only the start. Petitions against the consumption of shellfish and the blasphemous wearing of mixed fiber clothing next!
this sounds reasonable to me
this sounds reasonable to me
If we are really going to protect marriage and children from the threat of the decay of traditional families, then we also need to prohibit divorce.
After we protect marriage and children through nullifying divorce, we should continue this righteous and God-ordained crusade through further mandates. Perhaps we should work toward a mandatory marriage age for couples? Perhaps mandatory pregnancies? If, through some poor slight (or, more likely, a curse from God), the couple is unable to conceive, mandatory adoption could be implemented. These and many more spiritually-sound tactics are what's needed to truly ensure that our children and the sanctity of marriage are secured and blessed! * * * * * * Truly, the outcome of Prop 8 is a travesty. I had hoped that we were living in an age enlightened to the point where people of all persuasions would be allowed basic human rights. Obviously, I was mistaken.
Hey! If we are going to take away rights, let's be fair about it. Let's take away everyone's rights equally. Protect children by forcing people to stay in loveless marriages.
I thought marriage lasts until you or your spouse departs from this plane of existent. The mormon church teaches its members that divorce is an evil sin that shouldn't be acted upon. I was born and raised in a mormon household. I am not mormon anymore because of the fact that I am gay. I have been out to my parents and family since 1997. Of course, they think homosexuality is very wrong. They don't approve of me being myself. My mom at the very beginning told me to never send her any positive materials on the GLBT community. Today, she hasn't budged a single inch on her position with me. She also voted for Prop 102 in Arizona. My mom decided to divorce my dad when she wasn't happy with their marriage. She did divorce him and then married another man. She was willing to go against her own religion and commit an evil sin by divorcing my dad, BUT, she wasn't willing to go against THAT same religion and accept/support her own son who happened to be gay? That is not right!!! To me, she put her own selfish need to be happy above her own son's happiness. It is like she isn't willing to risk losing her religion but she is very much willing to risk losing her son. This has shown me how hypocritical the mormon church and its members are.
Let's get rid of marriage, so gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans Americans who cannot marry will be equally unhappy as those heterosexual couples who remain in married relationships, no matter how strong their relationship.
If marriage is to be sacred, divorce should be banned. Let all us hetero couples choose a "legal union" if we're too scared to pledge a vow for life.
I think we should add that all marriages must be sanctified by a certified priest or pastor who has gone to seminary and believes in the Christian faith. All those false doctrine marriages should be remade with Christian ceremonies. After we protect marriage by eliminating divorce, the next step must be to make sure only Christian marriages are recognized. No one is forcing you to be Christian (or straight), we are just recognizing what has always been (we only have a working history of 6,000 years, so give us a break!). If god sanctifies the union, and god is Christian (and Republican), then I don't think Jewish, Muslim, Unitarian. Mormon (come on, really?), or any other marriage meets that standard.
put that in your pipe and smoke it! reverse prop 8!!
As a God-fearing southern woman, I am signing this petition to stand against Proposition 8. The God I know loves all His children unconditonaly. How do we as a nation have the right to deny anyone the most basic right of choosing their own partner?
9:55 pm PST, Dec 3, Scott McPhail, California
So simple, yet so profound. Thank you to the architects of "Yes on 8". The ideas and words about protecting marriage have become a beacon of light to guide us all through the darkness of spiteful and divisive marketing campaigns whose sole focus was to create fear and uncertainty among cities and communities. Humanity will prevail.
# 4,940:
9:52 pm PST, Dec 3, Jessie M Potter, Washington
Let's make this country right once and for all!
# 4,939:
9:52 pm PST, Dec 3, Tim Sullivan, California
I am all for the sanctity of marriage and believe that divorce is against my religion and therefore should be amended to the Consitution of the State of California
# 4,938:
9:51 pm PST, Dec 3, Ben Henschel, Pennsylvania
With all of the violence in the world to be fighting against love is just wrong. Your bible is not my bible, your idea of traditional marriage is not my idea, so people need to stop thinking they have all this authority because they read a book. Everyone deserves the benefits of marriage...period.
9:49 pm PST, Dec 3, Richard Caton, California
Preventing divorce is a great first step; however, it needs to also be stipulated that those who have already been divorced must be reunited with their previous spouse, and they must live together. How can we allow those who have already violated the "sanctity of marriage" to continue doing so? What to do about the ones who have had 4 or 5 spouses could become a little complicated since the churches are so concerned about polygamy though - but hey, I'm sure those who supported Prop 8 can resolve it since they have all of the answers on how to protect marriage.
# 4,934:
9:46 pm PST, Dec 3, Matthew Baxter, California
Be careful what you wish for...
# 4,933:
9:43 pm PST, Dec 3, Simon Wickstrom, California
Divorce is the biggest threat to marriage that exists in our society. It is time we stamped it out. Ban divorce.
# 4,932:
9:42 pm PST, Dec 3, Heidi Neilson, California
This is the only true way to protect marriage.
# 4,931:
9:41 pm PST, Dec 3, Name not displayed, California
Wow...I would love to vote on someone else's rights for a change!
# 4,930:
9:39 pm PST, Dec 3, Shawn Wagner, California
# 4,929:
9:37 pm PST, Dec 3, Trey Richards, Texas
# 4,928:
9:36 pm PST, Dec 3, Name withheld, Illinois
If, by Constitutional law, I am entitled to partial rights; then, I will pay partial taxes. Oh and, should I ever be called for duty to protect "my" country, sorry but I have rights to fight for instead.
# 4,921:
9:22 pm PST, Dec 3, Robert Buechler, California
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I LOVE IT!! Sanctity of marriage?! Are you f'in kidding me? The divorce rate is now OVER 50 percent...there is nothing harmonious about that! This fight isn't over!
9:21 pm PST, Dec 3, Lisette Garcia, California
my husband and I believe that we are all equal. I'm tired of hearing the ignorant people fighting for this prop 8 . people come on It doesnt matter if gays get married I think that we all should have the same right. I know that this is one thing I shall fight for. Fight for the equal rights that gays and lesbians deserve.
9:20 pm PST, Dec 3, Name not displayed, California
Keith Olbermann said it best. "Sanctity of marriage...how many marriages like that have their bit?"
# 4,915:
9:20 pm PST, Dec 3, Gary Ducharme, California
Prop 8 had nothing to do with protecting marriage, and everything to do with homophobic discrimination. I am heterosexual and I don't believe in the bible, I do not believe that someone else's religious views should dictate what other people can do peacfully with one-another. Hate is hate is hate. Keep hate out of our constitution.
# 4,914:
9:18 pm PST, Dec 3, Gary Llero, California
Signature number 4,902: "Let's not stop there. Let's protect marriage even further. Children are the primary interest of marriage. It's about procreation. So, after we get rid of divorce, we should penalize those who enter marriage and do not have children. 9 months is all it takes (we'll even throw in a few months for good measure). If a married couple does not have at least one child by 1 year after marriage, their marriage is immediately annulled and they will be fined the equivalent of child support for the next 18 years. Those proceeds will go to support the age-old institution of marriage. Oh, and if it is discovered that you entered marriage knowing you couldn't have or didn't want children, you will be subject to jail time and a fine for fraud." This man is on crack. Sounds like something out of the novel "1984". Sir, please put down your pipe. You're from Florida, this doesn't affect you. FU*K Prop Hate!
9:13 pm PST, Dec 3, Marshall Gurley, California
In order truly to protect marriage and family rights, not only should divorce be outlawed, but if a woman becomes pregnant, she and the father should, by law, become married. Also, single women should not be able to become pregnant by artificial insemination. Children should have both a father and a mother.
8:59 pm PST, Dec 3, Aisia Davenport, California
I don't want my children taught that coming from a divorced home is ok. I don't want them to learn that there may be (too digusted to say but SINGLE Parents) raising children because "something didn't work out" Please California protect our children from the Divorce word. Keep protecting Marriage.
# 4,902:
8:59 pm PST, Dec 3, Name not displayed, Florida
Let's not stop there. Let's protect marriage even further. Children are the primary interest of marriage. It's about procreation. So, after we get rid of divorce, we should penalize those who enter marriage and do not have children. 9 months is all it takes (we'll even throw in a few months for good measure). If a married couple does not have at least one child by 1 year after marriage, their marriage is immediately annulled and they will be fined the equivalent of child support for the next 18 years. Those proceeds will go to support the age-old institution of marriage. Oh, and if it is discovered that you entered marriage knowing you couldn't have or didn't want children, you will be subject to jail time and a fine for fraud.
# 4,901:
8:59 pm PST, Dec 3, Noah Levin, New York
From the state that has some of the most divorces, adultery, and the biggest mockery of marriage - celebrity marriages, protecting marriage from loving gays is the most backwards thing this progressive state has done in a while.
4900:
Dec 3, 2008, Anonymous, Florida
It's about love and dignity, understanding human relationships, and stamping out discrimination. Get to know a gay person -- it can change your mind.
Dec 3, 2008, Albert Clay, Washington
Marriage is truly threatened by the 40+% of heterosexual marriages that dissolve in divorce. This must stop.
Dec 3, 2008, Katie Ashdown, Tennessee
Change we can belive in... huh? Way to go CA.
Dec 3, 2008, Kial Sankaran, Washington
I just simply hate hypocrisy, and that is why I am signing.
Dec 3, 2008, Anonymous, California
I thought this from the beginning... If the sanctity of marriage is the goal, divorce should be illegal. Time to vote again.
# 4886:
Dec 3, 2008, Aurora Grajeda, California
I can't argue with the logic, divorce destroys 50% of Marriages and I have to hear concrete cases about where or how same-sex marriage harms opposite sex marriages. On a side note, is there a Heavenly Court on this Earth to hear how in religious marriage, in front of God, there are vows to stay together until death, as far as I know, divorce is granted on civil courts; shouldn't divorce be granted on a religious court? Then the formerly married, but now 'single' individuals, marry again in a religious ceremony, sometimes in the same church. Therefore, the question to ask is, for all of the above, are divorces Godly legal? Ooooh, the hypocritical ironies, if they weren't so harmful, they would be delectable.
# 4884:
Dec 3, 2008, Kristopher Arcand, Massachusetts
After all, this is what they're asking for. You can't have one and not the other. Equal. Rights.
Dec 3, 2008, Mark Ruhl, Arizona
If the argument for Prop 8 is to protect marriage and childern, then this proposed proposition is essential to provide the same protection
Dec 3, 2008, Ryan Finn, California
I'm signing not just because I'm disappointed in my home state, but because of the discrimination I've experienced while attending med school in Pennsylvania.
Dec 3, 2008, Michael Halloran, Vermont
Wake up, people who voted for Prop 8. In the years to come, you are going to be viewed alongside those who opposed racially mixed marriages, school integration, and voting rights for women and blacks. None of you is worried about the "sanctity of marriage," you just hate gay people. But you will ultimately lose this battle. Our love is stronger than your hate.
Dec 3, 2008, Monica John, Korea, Democratic People's Republic Of
Marriage is not a joke. This is true that everyone should have a right to choose their own way but when it comes to making laws, state has to worker for the greater good. Same sex marrige has no reality and in the same way divorce distroys families and children. how can parents do this to their own children. Only selfish people can do this. State has to make laws for everyone not just one group. Moreover, only children coming from an emotionally healthy family can build a healthy society. THIS ALSO MEANS KIDS RAISED BY MOTHER AND FATHER NOT TWO MOTHERS AR TWO FATHERS............... SO YOUR SOCIETY FROM MENTALLY SICK CRIMINALS.............
# 4875:
Dec 3, 2008, Javier Galito-Cava, California
Isn't sanctity of marriage what people are so concerned about? Or was it just another hypocritical act of bigotry?
# 4866:
Dec 3, 2008, Paul Jenson, California
Make divorce illegal. I find it horrendous that people would treat others as second class citizens in this day and age.
Dec 3, 2008, Sheena Ramirez, Louisiana
Even as a heterosexual woman, this is the one political agenda that I full heartedly support. No one should ever be denied rights because of something out of their control...
Dec 3, 2008, Donald Gray, Florida
Really protect marriage...ban divorce!
Dec 3, 2008, Ann Heitland, Arizona
Married: 8/9/2008 after a 24 year engagement. We'll never divorce.
Dec 3, 2008, Samantha Beck, Illinois
Hahaha this is amazing.
Dec 3, 2008, Oscar Salgado, Illinois
Protect marriage and ban divorce for couples married in any church and at a city hall.
Dec 3, 2008, Mike Lauro, Arkansas
Keep up the fight. Join your local grassroots organizing groups and work for change. My husband and I married in California on 08/08/08. We always introduce ourselves as each others husband to everyone we meet. Educate people by telling your story.
Dec 3, 2008, Gary Willis, Kentucky
I refuse to be treated as a second-class citizen!
# 4856:
Dec 3, 2008, Rachel Williams, Oklahoma
Divorce killed the dinosaurs.
# 4854:
Dec 3, 2008, Gina Piazza, California
I want to protect the the very meaning of "sanctity" and "marriage" and "protect children" from the evils of divorce and protect heteros from themselves! Save the meaning!!!
Dec 3, 2008, TRACEY THOMAS, Texas
i'm signing to ensure that those who passed prop. 8 are serious about protecting marriage and will therefore outlaw divorce. otherwise they'll simply prove that the only real motivation behind prop. 8 was the discrimination of homosexuals, lesbians, and bisexual citizens from their legal right to enter into marriage with the legal/consenting adult of their choosing...