There are several buzzwords that the Right uses when it comes to decisions they don’t agree with. We’re all familiar with “activist”, as in an “activist judge” when it comes to the Right losing a lawsuit, whereas when there is a decision that comes down on the Right’s side, they do nothing but praise the justices for their work (like the NRA’s espousing of the “historic ruling” by the US Supreme Court in Columbia v. Heller).
So take the recent article on the ABC News website about the “Delicate Path for Gay Marriage in Red States“. Mixed throughout the story are quite a few conservative terms/allusions. In the very first sentence, Evan Wolfson from the Freedom to Marry Coalition, is labeled an “activist”. And it’s not until the 9th paragraph that it’s even mentioned that Wolfson is from an official organization. Then it goes on to mention Wolfson is “forcing social change” on other states in the second paragraph. They even mention Wolfson several times, but don’t quote him at all until the end of the article – but they sure get quotes in from marriage equality opponents early on in the article.
The final straw, for me is this bit:
Wolfson’s group, Freedom to Marry, is scouring Oklahoma and Utah for same-sex couples who can put a human face on the new rights.
Scouring? Because what – there isn’t a single gay couple in Oklahoma or Utah that wants to get married? I think Wolfson has the couples that have brought the lawsuits which have ruled bans against marriage equality are unconstitutional. Sure, they may be looking to add to that list of couples, but they’re not having to “scour”.
It’s articles like this that really leave a dirty taste in my mouth for what passes as mainstream media reporting these days.
I’m just wondering, after reading the latest from the NRA, if there is anything they’re not capable of doing, and any occasion they’re not capable of sullying?
The latest, of course, is that Martin Luther King, Jr. may not have been killed if he had been carrying a gun. How can someone with a straight face actually say that? King was standing out in the open, on the balcony in front of his room at the Lorraine Motel when the gunshot rang out without warning.
Someone please tell me – without some sort of warning shot or notice, how in the hell is it that if King had a gun, that he “might not have been killed”? Sorry, that’s just not going to happen. That’s the NRA, trying to write a pretty version of revisionist history in an effort to get their message across.
Next someone’s going to try and tell me that the NRA said something crazy like, if teachers at Sandy Hook had been armed, the tragedy may not have happened. Wait, what?
I admit I didn’t watch the entirety of ABC’s This Week Sunday show with Mary Matalin, just a clip. All I needed was her little excerpt, and that was enough to get me riled up. What was it that she said? This:
“All of my gay friends think he looks so buff in his shirtless publicity photos.”
What made it worse was the fact that everyone around the table seemed to have laughed, and not a soul really called her on it. That is not only bullcrap, but is massively offensive as well.
Why do I say offensive? Because Matalin basically just reduced every single gay person as only being concerned with a person’s physical appearance, and nothing else. And the fact that she wasn’t corrected was even more offensive.
If I, as a gay man, started saying, “Maybe Mary Matalin needs to worry about staying home and pleasing her man,” or “Mary Matalin needs to go home and make a nice brunch for her husband,” or even, “Mary Matalin is a woman, and therefore, she shouldn’t even be listened to – Colossians 3:18,” then I would be absolutely vilified by the people on that panel. That would be so enragingly offensive, that I would never hear the end of it.
But somehow it’s okay for Matalin to reduce the entire gay community to just a sex-crazed, shallow group that cares about nothing but themselves and physical appearance.
Well screw that.
If there was any doubt that this man is going to run for President of the United States in 2016, this quote – or should I say Freudian slip – from his press conference today kills it.
Emphasis is mine.
So there we have it; the first non-declared official candidate for 2016.
Reporting the facts, it seems, is now not something reporters actually do. All they need to do is pander the the lowest common denominator, and they think they’re doing their job.
This is a stupid example, but an example nonetheless. Yahoo!, which is constantly trying to reinvent itself, is piggybacking on iOS7 with their new “My Yahoo” redesign – but that’s not the story. The story is how Apple’s Tim COok recently joined twitter. It describes his account, describes his first tweet, and a few other things.
What did they leave out? Cook’s Twitter handle.
C’mon – isn’t that – I don’t know – relevant to the story?
Facts… Who needs ’em? Not Yahoo!
So there’s a new Miss America crowned. She’s beautiful, she’s talented – and oh yeah, she’s of Indian descent.
CNN did an article on the racists and how they came out of the woodwork to insult the new Miss America. But there’s something in the article that just makes my blood boil. Here it is (emphasis mine):
Despite a night of firsts, a tired theme emerged following Davuluri’s victory: Racists took to Twitter to lambaste the pageant for picking an Indian-American. They were none too kind to Davuluri herself, either, with one particularly uninformed tweeter calling her a Muslim.
Seriously, CNN? Since when is being called a Muslim something bad? This is not just ridiculous, but it’s bad reporting as well.
But then again, what do you expect from “info-tainment news”?
I normally check a few blogs to keep up with what’s going on in the world – and today, JoeMyGod.com has a doozy!
There’s a “Christian” (note the quotes) radio host named Kevin Swanson. In his latest broadcast, he urges people who talk to gay newlyweds to urge them to die on their wedding day. Isn’t that nice? So sweet…
And people wonder why gay people push back against preachers to do nothing but spew hate!
Now that Prop 8 has been sent back to California, and DOMA is dead, Rachel Maddow said something about inequalities between LGBT couples married in a state like Iowa, California, or Washington, and then moving on to a state like Utah or Mississippi where marriage equality is against the law. Up in Michigan, there’s a lesbian couple that a Federal judge has ruled can challenge Michigan’s ban on marriage equality.
Is this the case that will ultimately bring marriage equality nationwide?
Like in Loving v. Virginia, a mixed-race couple got married outside of Virginia, then returned to their homestate, only to be jailed for simply marrying. It went to the Supreme Court, where of course interracial marriage was deemed constitutional, and the couple was seen as married nationwide. Loving v. Virginia also struck down interracial marriage bans across the country. Now I’m wondering if this case, the DeBoer and Rowse case in Michigan, will be that case – the Loving v. Virginia case to bring marriage equality, striking down all state constitutional bans.
I’d watch this case close, especially if the couple is married in another state or country. It could have nationwide implications…
…I was sent something called “The Top 100 Marriage Equality Blogs”. These are some of the best blogs out there, and there will be many posts to come based on whatever decision the Supreme Court hands down.
So head over to read the list. And get ready for the 10am Eastern, 7am Pacific ruling. Best place to watch it live will be SCOTUSBlog, where they’ll have information and documentation in real-time, as it happens.
Like this is news to anyone in the GLBT community. Ever since their merger, ExxonMobil has been no friend of the GLBT community, and probably never will. At least not until the current generation of management is ousted.
But I’m specifically talking about ExxonMobil discriminating against applicants that are GLBT in hiring practices. A little test was done where 2 nearly identical resumes were sent in – one was a woman with a good GPA at college that had indicated she volunteered at LGBT organizations. The other was similar, but had worse grades – but didn’t have anything to indicate the applicant was anything but heterosexual.
The “heterosexual” resume got the callback.
This doesn’t surprise me at all, especially since I’ve personally been through two different jobs that had “problems” with me being homosexual. I left those jobs and never looked back. And anyone who works at ExxonMobil or who is looking for a job there, may I suggest you leave for a company that appreciates you for you?