01.30.10
Posted in D's Thoughts at 5:48 pm by pikapp44
Gay groups are calling CBS homophobic for agreeing to air an antiabortion ad featuring Tim Tebow and not the ad for gay dating website ManCrunch. By changing its policy on advocacy ads, CBS invited the outrage.
By agreeing to show an “uplifting” antiabortion ad and rejecting a Super Bowl-style ad (read: funny) for a gay dating site, CBS is already feeling the effects of its decision to air “advocacy” ads for the first time on Super Sunday.
Working in a tough advertising climate, CBS surprised many Americans by explaining a new policy on advocacy ads after news emerged that it had agreed to show an antiabortion ad featuring Florida QB Tim Tebow and his mom, Pam.
That decision caused an uproar over the ad itself, the sponsor (the conservative organization Focus on the Family), and the prospect of politics seeping into a three-hour block where most Americans are trying to escape from the daily grind.
CBS opened itself to criticism
But after CBS on Friday rejected a potentially controversial ad from ManCrunch, a Toronto-based gay dating site, it opened itself up for criticism – which came fast and furious. The so-called “man-kiss ad” shows two football fans touching hands over a bowl of potato chips, which then leads, as the ad implies, to a make-out session.
“CBS has a problem when they do something like this at the same time as they allow an anti-gay group like Focus on the Family to place ads during the Super Bowl,” says Jarrett Barrios, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD.) “This network should come clean to the public about what’s going on because this seems to be a homophobic double standard.”
Pop culture expert Robert Thompson at Syracuse University agrees that CBS has opened itself up for criticism by accepting advocacy ads. But the network is also right, he says, when pointing out there’s a key difference between an advocacy ad from Focus on the Family and a commercial ad by Man Crunch.
Sources tell the Hollywood Reporter that the network felt the site was trying to generate free publicity by the “tried-and-true” method of submitting an ad they know will be rejected.
‘Ridiculous Super Bowl stunts’
Indeed, “it’s the time of year for ridiculous Super Bowl stunts, in which companies claim they’ve been censored by the hosting broadcast network and then laugh as gullible media outlets run with the story, but never checking to see if the ads were censored – or even if the company had the money to run it in the first place,” agrees Ad Age.
A ManCrunch.com spokesperson said the company had offered to pay for the $2.6 million ad slot up front. CBS tells Entertainment Weekly the network has no record of such an offer.
Essayist Michael Rowe on Huffington Post sides with ManCrunch’s assertion that CBS is discriminating against progressive ideas.
“The problem is not with the quality (or not) of the ManCrunch ad,” he writes. “The network’s rejection of it merely highlights the obvious: that CBS had already decided where its ethical priorities lay when they accepted the commercial from Focus on the Family last week. Those priorities clearly don’t lie with women, or with progressives, or with any group that happens to find itself on Focus on the Family’s no-fly list.”
But CBS has turned down other ads this year, including a racy one from GoDaddy.com, which stars a football player who becomes a fashion designer. “This ad has the potential to offend viewers,” CBS wrote to GoDaddy.com.
Permalink
Posted in D's Thoughts at 5:41 pm by pikapp44
The recent death of a Missouri Highway Patrol trooper is putting the rights of same sex couples in Missouri under a microscope. The long-time partner of Corporal Dennis Engelhard believes he should receive death benefits.
43 year old Kelly Glossip says he and Engelhard were together for nearly 15 years. Yet, he says he’s being ignored when it comes to the agencies who normally reach out to the families of fallen law enforcement officers.
“He was my true love and he always referred to me as his one and only true love and the man of his dreams,” Glossip said. “We were hopelessly in love with each other.”
Engelhard was killed on Christmas day while waiting with the driver of a disabled car for a tow truck. He got out of his vehicle and was hit by a passing SUV. It happened on Interstate 44 in Eureka.
Glossip now feels he’s been left out in the cold when it comes to financial benefits normally paid to the families of officers killed in the line of duty. He says he has not been contacted by any of the groups that normally offer those benefits.
Glossip believes that has at least something to do with Missouri’s law forbidding same sex marriages. That’s a law he thinks needs to be wiped out.
“I should have the same rights as any other spouse, as heterosexuals would have. And I just don’t understand why people are so bigoted.”
Backstoppers paid $5000 to Engelhard’s parents. The group says it didn’t know about Glossip’s and Engelhard’s relationship.
The Masters, a group dedicated to helping the families of fallen Missouri Highway Patrol troopers, says they are still reviewing the case.
And for their part, the Missouri Highway Patrol tells us some of Engelhard’s benefits will be paid out according to beneficiaries he listed. But a spokesperson says Glossip is not eligible for any benefits through Engelhard’s retirement pension because the two aren’t legally married in Missouri.
Glossip has a 17 year old son from a previous relationship who he says considered Dennis his step-father.
Glossip is now worried about losing the home he and Engelhard lived in together and his car.
He does say Engelhard’s family is helping him pay bills.
Permalink
01.29.10
Posted in D's Thoughts at 7:35 pm by pikapp44
Score one for Focus on the Family in the Social Values Super Bowl — the advocacy advertising contest that will fill the airwaves between scattered moments of NFL football February 7.
CBS has rebuffed the publicity-seeking entry from a new gay dating service, Mancrunch. The company had pounced on a chance to present their ad when they heard time was still for sale for the big game.
Ah, but they missed the fine print: CBS’s newly announced ad standards are for advocacy ads promoting a point of view. So far, the only one booked for the family audience is one starring Tim Tebow and underwritten by conservative evangelical Focus on the Family.
CBS spokeswoman Shannon Jacobs is quoted by CNN Money saying:
After reviewing the ad, which is entirely commercial in nature, our standards and practices department decided not to accept this particular spot … We are always open to working with a client on alternative submissions.
OK folks, if you want to advocate for gay rights or marriage, perhaps — but don’t appear to enjoy same sex contact in an ad airing during a game where grown men will be knocking each other nearly senseless — you still have an opening.
Advocacy commercials should be banned. There are plenty of programs that discuss controversial topics and display controversial behavior. The people who want to watch that sort of thing can watch it there.
Permalink
01.28.10
Posted in D's Thoughts at 2:49 pm by pikapp44
College football star Tim Tebow says that he does not fear the backlash surrounding his upcoming appearance in a pro-life ad from Focus on the Family to be aired by CBS during the Super Bowl.
According to The Palm Beach Post, the University of Florida quarterback defended the 30-second ad in which he and his mother are expected to discuss her decision not to have an abortion in 1987 despite advice from doctors after she contracted an infection while traveling abroad. She gave birth to a healthy boy, Tim.
According to the Associated Press, a coalition of women’s groups led by the Women’s Media Center urged CBS to drop the ad on Monday, arguing that it should be rejected in part because it is sponsored by Focus on the Family.
“By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers,” said the letter.
A spokesman for Focus on the Family told the AP that CBS carefully examined the group and found no reason for rejecting the ad, which would cost between $2.5 to $2.8 million. As a national network, CBS has policies that would preclude the broadcast of certain types of advocacy ads.
In 2004, CBS rejected an ad from the United Church of Christ that highlighted the group’s welcoming stance toward gays and lesbians.
Permalink
01.23.10
Posted in D's Thoughts at 4:18 pm by pikapp44
Patrons of one of Orlando’s popular gay nightclubs said the tire-slashing of more than two dozen cars goes beyond an act of criminal mischief.
Some said it smacks of a hate crime.
“There are cars at the nearby apartments, and I have not heard of any tire slashing happening there Monday night,” Revolution patron Miguel de Arias said Tuesday. “It’s been Latino gay night here for years, and someone had to know that to do what they did.”
Monday night at Revolution is billed as an evening catering mostly to Hispanic gays and lesbians.
Orlando Police aren’t ready to classify the incident as a hate crime, spokeswoman Sgt. Barbara Jones said. It is considered a criminal mischief case because there is no proof that it meets state hate-crime standards.
State law defines a hate crime as any criminal acts that show prejudice based on race, religion, ethnicity, color, ancestry, sexual orientation or national origin.
Orlando police reports show someone slashed and deflated the tires of nearly 30 vehicles parked in a lot along South Street, east of Bumby Avenue, sometime Monday night or early Tuesday morning.
The slashings occurred despite the fact the club pays two off-duty Orlando police officers $35 an hour to patrol areas around the club and the fact surveillance cameras monitor activity in the lot, Revolution owner Craig Mestel said.
Many of the club’s patrons park in that lot, which is not owned or maintained by the owners of the nightclub. Some car owners paid a tow truck to remove their vehicles; others left their disabled cars in the lot.
Mestel said he is temporarily contracting with a private agency to add more security.
If detectives confirm the tire-slashing incident as a hate crime, it will be the second such crime in the city in the past two months.
Orlando police reports show someone defaced the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Community Center and the gay-owned Ritzy Rags, both on Mills Avenue, with a spray-painted swastika and anti-gay slurs in November. Police estimated the damage in that incident cost about $1,000.
Representatives from Equality Florida, a gay-rights organization; members of the American Civil Liberties Union, Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer and the local gay community denounced the vandalism of the gay community center and gay business.
Donors gave money to purchase security cameras and volunteers painted over the slurs.
Michael Vance, executive director of the center, said many visitors called after the incident and asked if it was safe to return.
“We were not going into the closet and hiding who were are because of this,” Vance said. “We turned it around and painted a rainbow on the side of the wall with the help of the entire community. It gave us a sense of closure.”
Ritzy Rags owner Leigh Shannon, whose shop sells hair pieces for people with cancer, costumes and makeup for local actors, as well as dazzling gowns for female impersonators, said the vandalism left him with a sense of uncertainty.
“I do think it was a hate crime, but I was left with so many questions. Was it against me? Was it against my shop? I don’t know.” Shannon said. “I think I’ve ruled out that it’s anything personal, but it’s still very hurtful.”
Permalink
01.22.10
Posted in D's Thoughts at 4:52 pm by pikapp44
I was proud to testify this week in what I believe will soon be seen as one of the defining civil rights cases of our time, Perry v. Schwarzenegger. I did so as a Republican mayor, a father, and a former police chief with over 26 years of experience on the force. But I also testified as an American who has seen the effects of discrimination - and who believes that discrimination against anyone, anywhere, is unacceptable.
My thinking on this important issue has evolved significantly in the past few years. Not long ago, I believed that civil unions were an acceptable alternative for same-sex couples. Like many people, I mistakenly thought there was no difference between a civil union and a marriage.
My eyes were opened in 2007, when I had to decide whether to support a ban on same-sex marriage in my capacity as mayor of San Diego. Through conversations with friends and supporters, I realized that my position was inconsistent with one of my core principles as a police officer and as mayor, which is that every community deserves to be treated with equal dignity and respect.
The irony is that I held this mistaken view about marriage equality even though my oldest daughter, Lisa, is a lesbian. When she was growing up, Lisa was my constant companion on weekends as I ran errands and did chores around the house. I called her my shadow. We are as close as a father and daughter can be, and when she came out to her family, my wife and I told her we loved her and only wanted her to be happy.
Running for mayor in 2005, when my city had a host of financial and legal problems, I did not believe that marriage equality was an issue for city governments to address. When I was asked, I said I supported civil unions, believing they were an acceptable compromise on a divisive issue. I frankly did not give the issue much thought.
Then two years later, the City Council passed a resolution supporting a court challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage. I had 10 days to decide whether to sign or veto the resolution.
I was advised that signing the resolution could end my political career, because I would be reversing a position I took as a candidate, and potentially alienating my Republican base. Lisa, who had worked to my campaign, told me she would support my decision because it was important for San Diego that I remained its mayor.
As late as the evening of the ninth day, I believed I would veto it.
That night, my wife and I hosted a gathering of gay and lesbian friends and neighbors in our backyard. I told them I intended to veto the resolution. Then I listened as they explained how disappointed and hurt they were that I would want to deny them a fundamental civil right, the right to marry the person you love and have that marriage recognized by the rest of society.
About 15 people spoke that night. But before the first one was finished, I shared their disappointment. It was then that I realized that all opposition to same-sex marriage, including my own opposition, was grounded in prejudice.
I knew my position was wrong, and that marriage equality was an issue I needed to address as mayor. And I knew I would sign the resolution.
The next day, I explained my position to the citizens of San Diego. The press conference became an instant hit on YouTube. As I said that day, I hope that everyone will find someone they love deeply, someone with whom they can share life’s experiences and grow old together. I cannot look anyone in the face and tell them that their relationships, their very lives, are any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife.
Sometimes I find it hard to believe that I came so close to making the wrong decision, and to endorsing government-sanctioned discrimination. As it turns out, I was reelected to a second term the next year. My position on marriage equality definitely made it more difficult. But I know I would have regretted vetoing that resolution a lot more than losing that election.
Now, more than two years later, I have testified in federal court about my decision and the rationale behind it. I told the court that, as someone who has spent most of his lifetime in public service, I understand that when government tolerates discrimination against any class of people, it makes it easier for citizens to do the same thing.
I was proud that Lisa was in court with me, along with her wife, Meaghan, whom she married in Vermont last month. Meaghan is like another daughter to me, and she has brought great happiness into our family.
The defendants in this case — those who would deny equal rights to others — would like us to believe that they are the true victims of discrimination. They argue that their opposition to marriage equality has made them targets of violence. They’ve made this argument as their excuse for withholding documents from the public, and it is as self-serving as it is inaccurate.
From my own experience as a police officer and mayor, I can say that the overwhelming evidence is that violence is directed against gays and lesbians, not those who would deny them equality.
In my own city, there have been terrible hate crimes committed against gays and lesbians, including a savage beating just a few years ago of a young man attending the Pride Festival. The perpetrators of this type of violence are only encouraged by those who want their own prejudices to be validated through government-sanctioned discrimination. It’s like giving them permission.
History tells us that the first step toward true equality has always been equality under the law. Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is no different than denying black people the right to sit in a “whites only” section of the restaurant. The law and our own experience tell us that “separate but equal” is an oxymoron. Separate is never equal.
I’m happy that Lisa and Meaghan were able to marry — as would be anyone who knows them and sees their love and commitment to each other. But I’m also saddened to think that because some people would deny them this fundamental civil right, they had to been married 3,000 miles from their friends, co-workers and family. I hope that Perry v. Schwarzenegger changes that, and that America renounces this type of discrimination, as it has so many others.
Permalink
Posted in D's Thoughts at 4:20 pm by pikapp44
Plaintiffs prepared to rest their case Friday in the federal trial over California’s Proposition 8, setting the stage for backers of the ban on same-sex marriage to open their direct line of defense.
“We’re pleased with the way it has gone,” said David Boies, an attorney for the gay couples that want to wed. He said he set out to prove that marriage was an important right, that gays were harmed by being denied it and that marriage wouldn’t be hurt by extending it to same-sex couples. “We’ve proven all three of those,” he said.
Defense lawyer Andy Pugno said his side would present evidence from experts that traditional definitions of marriage between heterosexual couples have special benefit for children and for society.
Over the past two weeks, the plaintiffs have sought to prove through experts and personal testimony that the gay-marriage ban harms gays and was motivated by hatred toward them. On Thursday, they introduced testimony from a backer of the ban, Hak-Shing William Tam, who said he thought legalizing gay marriage would lead to legalizing prostitution and sex with children.
Judge Walker told lawyers Friday that he wanted to hear closing arguments made to him at a later time—not immediately after the defense rests its case—because he wanted more time to review the evidence.
Permalink
01.21.10
Posted in D's Thoughts at 11:35 am by pikapp44
In an historic meeting last week talks took place between Jewish community leaders and Jewish members of the LGBT community.
Members of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV) met with GLBT members of the Jewish community last Thursday to discuss inclusion, acceptance and visibility of GLBT Jews in the JCCV.
However, Michael Barnett coordinator from social and support group for GLBT Jews, Aleph Melbourne, told MCV the discussion became volatile.
“I found it a very hostile event, the president and the immediate past president both attacked me personally in front of about ten other people,” Barnett said, “they mocked and laughed at me when I made suggestions about how we can move forward and when I questioned some of their views and attitudes. I found it was very confrontational and wasn’t very civil.”
Barnett said he suspects the talks were prompted by recent negative media reports on the JCCV’s attitudes towards homosexuality.
“There could be some pressure to appear to be engaging with us in some dialogue without actually genuinely wanting to do it, possibly from some funding sources. I feel they are not really being genuine in wanting to talk to us.”
Permalink
01.20.10
Posted in D's Thoughts at 6:45 pm by pikapp44
Opponents know their chances of success are slim, but they are looking to the November election in hopes Republicans will regain control of the Statehouse and succeed then in repealing the law.
Right now, Democrats are firmly in charge and appear eager to dispose of controversial measures early in the session to avoid lingering debate in an election year. Gay marriage opponents know that and are focusing on a bigger prize: voter sympathy.
In recent weeks, opponents began a grass-roots effort to challenge the law indirectly by suggesting New Hampshire’s 400 House members and 24 senators aren’t representative of the people’s wishes. They point out that in the 31 states where voters have had a say, gay marriage has been rejected.
They plan to raise the issue at town meetings this spring in hopes of passing nonbinding resolutions that will pressure lawmakers to present them with an amendment that defines marriage. They also hope their effort will help elect anti-gay marriage candidates in November.
State Rep. David Bates, a Republican from Windham, is organizing the petition effort to put gay marriage before town voters. He said Tuesday that petitions have been certified in 108 towns. He expects petitions to be completed by a Feb. 2 deadline in about 150 of New Hampshire’s more than 200 towns that hold meetings each spring. Petitions must be signed by 25 registered voters in the town to be put on the agenda.
Kevin Smith, executive director of the conservative Cornerstone Policy Research, agreed Tuesday there’s not much chance the gay marriage law will be repealed this year. Though he supports repeal, Smith said he is focusing more on the proposed constitutional change and will urge lawmakers to let voters decide the issue.
“People really want an opportunity to have a say,” he said.
Janson Wu, staff attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and other gay marriage advocates argue the size of New Hampshire’s Legislature makes it one of the most representative democratic bodies in the world.
“New Hampshire realizes it is just wrong to vote on people’s rights,” Wu said.
A ballot amendment would make New Hampshire a battlefield similar to other states where millions of dollars is spent by groups outside the state, Wu said.
New Hampshire’s law legalizing gay marriage took effect Jan. 1. New Hampshire joined Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont in allowing the unions.
California briefly allowed gay marriage before a popular vote in 2008 banned the practice; a court ruling grandfathered in couples who were already married. Last year, Maine lawmakers approved gay marriage, but voters overturned the law in a referendum.
Smith said he’d expect gay couples married in New Hampshire before a repeal or constitutional amendment would retain their statuses, much as couples in California retained theirs.
Permalink
01.16.10
Posted in D's Thoughts at 11:42 am by pikapp44
The US Supreme Court decided on Friday to intervene for a second time this week in an appeal by gay marriage opponents who claim public disclosure of their names and addresses could lead to threats, harassment or intimidation.
Permalink
« Previous entries · Next entries »