Truth Wins Out: Hate Group "National Organization for Marriage" Caught Race-Baiting

TWO Condemns Anti-Gay Marriage Discrimination Group for Using Race-Baiting Strategy

Posted March 27th, 2012 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: John Becker, Director of Communications
Phone: 920-265-6023
Email: john@truthwinsout.org

Internal Documents Show NOM Displayed Staggering Disrespect for African-Americans, Latinos, Says TWO

BURLINGTON, Vt – Truth Wins Out expressed disgust today about newly-unsealed documents from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) — the organization that fights marriage equality nationwide — that reveal a vile and repugnant strategy of setting African-American, Latino, and LGBT minorities against each other through the shameful exploitation of race.
The documents, including reports and updates filed with NOM’s board of directors, explicitly state the organization’s disrespectful plan to exploit African Americans in the marriage equality battle. NOM’s strategic goal is to “drive a wedge between gays and blacks,” “[fan] the hostility raised in the wake of [California’s] Prop 8,” and “develop a media campaign around [African Americans’] objections to gay marriage as a civil right.” To assist in the electoral pushback against same-sex marriage, NOM seeks to enlist “attractive young black Democrats to challenge white gay marriage advocates.”

“The stunning degree of crass exploitation and diabolical political tactics revealed in these documents is unconscionable,” said Truth Wins Out Executive Director Wayne Besen. “This is a smoking gun that clearly shows a profound disrespect for the very minority groups that NOM is targeting. Clearly, divisiveness and dishonesty are what fuels the anti-marriage equality movement.”

NOM’s outreach strategy to the Latino community is also discussed in detail: “Our ultimate goal is to make opposition to gay marriage an identity marker, a badge of youth rebellion to conformist association to the bad side of ‘Anglo’ culture” and “a symbol of resistance to inappropriate assimilation.” One memo even referred to the anti-equality Latino leaders that NOM hoped to recruit as “ethnic rebels.”

“NOM’s strategy is patronizing, cynical, and disrespectful at its core,” said John Becker, TWO’s Director of Communications. “Any organization that resorts to such blatant manipulation for selfish political gain deserves widespread condemnation.”

Another section makes it clear that NOM intends to export its hateful bile beyond the borders of the United States, despite the devastating consequences that American-exported homophobia has already had in places like Uganda. The group states that it is in the process of “creating [templates] that can be used abroad” because it recognizes that “marriage needs to be a national (and ultimately international) effort.”
Still another section touts the group’s close relationship with Catholic bishops and reveals NOM’s plans to use those relationships to “equip, energize and moralize Catholic priests on the marriage issue.” The implementation of this strategy has been painfully obvious of late, as bishops have cracked down on priests who oppose the church’s persecution of LGBT people, a lesbian in a committed relationship was denied communion at her mother’s funeral, and a Catholic diocese forced one of its schools to fire its gay music director because he married his partner of 20 years.

“Today’s revelations,” said Becker, “prove what we’ve known all along: that NOM is willing to say and do whatever it takes – whether it’s blatant race-baiting, spreading malicious anti-gay propaganda, or using religious leaders as weapons with which to bludgeon LGBT people from the pulpits and in their parishes – in order to prevent loving, committed same-sex couples from winning the freedom to marry.”

Truth Wins Out is a national nonprofit organization that fights anti-LGBT extremism, religion-based bigotry, and the “ex-gay” myth. Its goal is to create a world where LGBT people can live openly, honestly, and true to themselves. TWO monitors anti-LGBT organizations, documents their lies, and exposes their leaders. It specializes in turning information into action by organizing, advocating, and fighting for LGBT equality.

Bitter Thoughts As New Hampshire Votes On Same Sex Marriage Rights Yet Again

Gen. John Stark coined "Live Free or Die!"

Today all eyes are on Concord, New Hampshire, where HB 437, sponsored by State Rep. David Bates, unsuccessfully attempted to rescind same sex marriage rights in New Hampshire. This vote has the attention of most of the country, if not the world, since New Hampshire is the birthplace of much of our nation's heritage and roots in valor and patriotism.

The motto of New Hampshire is "Live Free or Die!" and has come to serve as the battle cry in the spirit of valor and freedom that founded the United States. This phrase was coined by General John Stark, a revolutionary war hero who, at the request of the Massachusetts Minutemen (predecessors to the United States Marines) raced to their aid and helped hold Breed Hill, creating a condition so difficult for the British to invade that they had to change their plans, setting the stage for the Battle of Bunker Hill.

That motto stems from a letter sent 20 years after the Revolutionary war by Stark in which he states defiantly "Live Free or Die! Death is not the worst of Evils". He was talking about the opression of the British and was meant to inspire us to continue fighting for our freedom always. New Hampshire might have a lot of granite in it, but if you ask anyone who has been there they would tell you it is the resolve of the people that is the granite referred to in our nickname.

The ramifications of HB 437 isn't just about the freedom of same sex couples to marry who they choose; this issue runs much deeper in my eyes, but unlike Rep. David Bates, I am a native Granite Stater. 

I wonder what Stark would say today knowing that the freedoms he and thousands since have shed their blood and very lives to defend has become a political tool for one party to use against another as a wedge issue during a presidential election year by an outsider who came into our state and decided he knew better how to run our governent than we natives do.


This is according to Rep. Bates' own words shown in this 2006 campaign video he made:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ycNRzEuwqU&feature=related

My marriage to Raymond is protected (for the moment at least) by a grandfather clause which will establish a similar situation in New Hampshire that is now in place in California, where those who have already been married will continue to be recognized, but those seeking same sex marriage in the future will be turned away and asked to settle for civil unions. I fight this cause on principle alone; it's just not right.

New Hampshire had civil unions, they didn't give equal protections, and equality was important enough to our citizens that we enacted same sex marriage years ago.

No one has been able to prove any injury against one against this form of equality, if they could have we wouldn't be needing a vote. I like most people I know was raised to understand that if what you're doing harms others you should stop the moment you understand this to be true. However, I will not compromise my freedoms for unfounded fears and the use stereotyping meant to deny me my right to be judged by the content of my character and through my personal actions. I am an individual, not a faceless part of a malevolence aimed at harming society. We all deserve to be seen as such at least by our government.



Those of you who would allow yourselves the intellectual laziness of not checking all your facts should be ashamed of youselves. You've perpetuated this issue long enough, and it is a shame that I would hold myself to a higher standard (on which we as citizens voluntarily agree on) of honesty and failty to the oath we share than you if the situation were reversed. That standard being the Constitution of the United States.

In the end we will still have gay couples living together freely and openly as legally married. HB437, if ever motivated by something other than bigotry accomplishes nothing, other than to allow us to scuttle all that our state is known to be great for; fiercely defending liberty in all it's forms, NOT just the ones we agree with.

In my opinion the mere presence of this bill and the vote that takes place underscores "the death of reason" taking place across America today, where one man feels free to bear false witness against another while his cronies stand as judge and jury, and the public stands back, uneducated and uncaring about the outcome.



The real trouble comes when America realizes too late that the actions against same sex marriages throughout the country have been a test model for bigger things, and when those bigger things come those who stand to gain from lies they spread will have grown confident that we as a people will again stand back and do nothing, because that is what we have grown used to doing rather than defending what once cost us so much to gain.

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed." ~Adolf Hitler

In order to keep people informed here is the text of HB 437 being voted on today:

Floor Amendment to HB 437-FN

(2012-1288h)

Proposed by Rep. Bates

Amend the title of the bill by replacing it with the following:

AN ACT relative to civil unions and the definition of marriage.

Amend the bill by replacing all after the enacting clause with the following:

­1 New Chapter; Civil Unions. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 457-A the following new chapter:

CHAPTER 457-B

CIVIL UNIONS

457-B:1 State Recognition of Civil Unions; Purpose. The state of New Hampshire recognizes the civil union between one man and another man or one woman and another woman. The purpose of this chapter is to delineate the rights, obligations, and responsibilities of parties entering a civil union, to establish a process by which the civil union is established, and to provide a process for the dissolution of a civil union.

457-B:2 Requisites. Parties entering into a civil union shall be subject to the same requirements and conditions as contained in RSA 457, provided that civil unions shall only be allowed between one unmarried man and another unmarried man both of whom are at least 18 years of age or one unmarried woman and another unmarried woman both of whom are at least 18 years of age, subject to the prohibitions in RSA 457-B:3 and RSA 457-B:4 and provided that they are not in another civil union.

457-B:3 Civil Unions Prohibited; Men. No man shall enter into a civil union with his father, his grandfather, his father’s brother, his mother’s brother, his son, his brother, his son’s son, his daughter’s son, his brother’s son, his sister’s son, his father’s brother’s son, his mother’s brother’s son, his father’s sister’s son, or his mother’s sister’s son.

457-B:4 Civil Unions Prohibited; Women. No woman shall enter into a civil union with her mother, her grandmother, her father’s sister, her mother’s sister, her daughter, her sister, her son’s daughter, her daughter’s daughter, her brother’s daughter, her sister’s daughter, her father’s brother’s daughter, her mother’s brother’s daughter, her father’s sister’s daughter, or her mother’s sister’s daughter.

457-B:5 Forms, Documents, and Applications; How Performed. The secretary of state shall develop forms, documents, and applications for entering into a civil union, which shall conform to this chapter. Civil unions shall be performed pursuant to the provisions of RSA 457:31 and entered into pursuant to the analogous provisions of RSA 5-C:41-61. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require a minister or clergyman or clergywoman to solemnize or perform a civil union.

457-B:6 Rights, Obligations, and Responsibilities. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the parties who enter into a civil union pursuant to this chapter shall be entitled to all the rights and subject to all the obligations and responsibilities provided for in state law that apply to parties who are joined together pursuant to RSA 457.

457-B:7 Dissolution. Parties who have entered into a civil union who wish to dissolve the civil union shall do so pursuant to RSA 458.

457-B:8 Other Jurisdictions. A civil union or a marriage between a man and another man or a woman and another woman legally contracted outside of New Hampshire shall be recognized as a civil union in this state, provided that the relationship does not violate the prohibitions of this chapter.

­2 Marriage; Purpose and Intent. RSA 457:1 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

457:1 Purpose and Intent. The legislature finds and declares that:

I. The state has a compelling interest in recognizing and maintaining the distinctiveness of a marital union between opposite-sex couples due to its unique procreative potential.

II. Every child has a natural human right to love, support, and nurturing by his or her natural mother and father, whenever possible. Marriage is the primary social institution that promotes this ideal and encourages its achievement.

III. Only the union of one man and one woman shall be recognized as marriage in New Hampshire; except however, any marriage recognized as valid in the state prior to the effective date of this section shall continue to be recognized as valid on or after the effective date of this section.

­3 Marriageable. Amend RSA 457:4 to read as follows:

457:4 Marriageable. No male below the age of 14 years and no female below the age of 13 years shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage [that is entered into by one male and one female], and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void. [No male below the age of 18 and no female below the age of 18 shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage between persons of the same gender, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void.]

­4 Repeal. The following are repealed:

I. RSA 457:1-a, relative to equal access to marriage

II. RSA 457:31-b, relative to solemnization of marriage; applicability.

III. RSA 457:45, relative to civil union recognition.

IV. RSA 457:46, relative to obtaining legal status of marriage.

­5 Severability. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act is invalid, or if any application thereof to any person or circumstance is invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

­6 Ballot Question. There shall be placed on the ballot at the next statewide election a question to determine voter support for civil unions and defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The question on the ballot shall be: “Shall New Hampshire law allow civil unions for same-sex couples and define marriage as the union of one man and one woman?” The question shall be followed by 2 squares, one with the word “yes” beside it and another with the word “no” beside it. If no cross or mark is made in either of the squares, or if a mark is made in both of the squares, then the ballot shall not be counted on the question. The secretary of state shall certify the results to the legislature, and the results shall not be binding.

7 Effective Date.

I. Sections 1-4 of this act shall take effect March 31, 2013.

II. The remainder of this act shall take effect upon its passage.

AMENDED ANALYSIS

This bill establishes civil unions, defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and submits a question about the legislation to the voters at the next general election.

Laws Against YouTube Youth Violence Needed

Everyone knows that assault is criminal, and that it happens every day. We also know that violence in schools has led to a new phenomena taking form as YouTube fight videos. Children attack one another while a third party records the event, and it gets posted on YouTube.com as a form of entertainment. While we can expect our neighbors to be diligent in the raising of their children we cannot legislate it, and their will always be that certain neighbor's kid who has no parental block on his computer, and is sharing these dreadful videos with other children. We as adults need to step up to the plate and do something that makes a difference so that children cannot continue to share these videos with each other. So who is held accountable and why?

Personally I think Google, which owns YouTube, could be doing a lot more than they have to curb this issue. Their response is that there are too many videos to preview before making them public, however, viewers can file a complaint about the video to alert them that it is inappropriate in some manner. I believe that the measure of their response has been so meager that it approaches criminal accomplice to the delinquency of minors.

I've examined five videos to be sure they are inappropriate according to Google's own standards, and I have reported them to see just how long it takes Google to respond to these complaints and act in accordance with its own policies. Anyone can do this with a simple click of their mouse. To the right of the button marked "Share" underneath the video is the "Flag" option. When you hit this icon the following dialog appears:

Report this video as inappropriate

Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about the video, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates our Community Guidelines or isn't appropriate for all viewers. Abusing this feature is also a violation of the Community Guidelines, so don't do it.

It will then ask you to select a reason, to which you select "Violent or repulsive content" and a secondary menu appears offering the option "Youth Violence". The last step is to click on "Submit video for review". You'll know you are done when you have a response stating "Thank you for sharing your concerns".

Here are some excerpts defining those policies:

Graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone being physically hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don't post it.


Videos involving children (anyone under the age of 18) are particularly sensitive. Videos containing children should never be sexually suggestive or violent. Please be cautious when posting something involving a child. If you’re sharing a private moment or home movie, consider making it a private video so that only your family and friends can see it.



Here are the videos I have chosen as a test of Google's ability to police their own site when complaints have been made. Let the public can see the level of diligence Google has offered for such outrageous videos:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjHc8BkPFBM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W3t1CvxEWI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9CO3KP2_B0&feature=endscreen&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K5GONfVB88&feature=fvwp&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t983WCz9qhA

If these links lead you to a video that you can watch then Google has still not removed them. My question to the public is simple; now that you know, what are YOU going to do about it? Here is something to consider doing right now:

http://www.change.org/petitions/youtube-aka-google-stop-allowing-child-violence-videos-on-youtube 

Video: NH Rep. David Bates Speaks On Same Sex Marriage

Using God As An Excuse For Hate

Truth Wins Out: Tomorrow, We Tell Newt What You’ve Always Wanted to Say

Tomorrow, We Tell Newt What You’ve Always Wanted to Say

Posted February 8th, 2012 by Wayne Besen

Are you are sick and tired of serial adulterer Newt Gingrich preaching about the “sanctity of marriage?” At Truth Wins Out, we think it takes breathtaking chutzpah for Newt to deny loving, committed same-sex couples the same freedom to marry that he himself has enjoyed three times.
On Thursday, TWO is placing aprovocative full-page ad in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call slamming Newt Gingrich for his stunning hypocrisy. Our ad’s headline: “Newt Gingrich: Talks Like a Preacher, Lives Like a Porn Star.”
This controversial ad will be launched just one day before Newt speaks at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington. Conservative icons like Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, and Tony Perkins will all be attending. The ad will send a powerful message to all the self-righteous, hypocritical phonies at CPAC and expose the truth — they are not “pro-family,” just anti-gay.
Our ad closes by saying, “On behalf of loving, life-long same sex couples: Newt, you are a spectacular hypocrite. Shame on you!”
Can we count on you to stand with us? Please help TWO say “Shame on you, Newt!” with a strong voice. Help cover the cost of tomorrow’s ad.
The timing for this ad couldn’t be better. This week, Proposition 8 — California’s voter-approved ban on marriage equality — was again ruled unconstitutional in federal court. Gingrich wasted no time attacking the ruling, saying: “With today’s decision on marriage by the Ninth Circuit, and the likely appeal to the Supreme Court, more and more Americans are being exposed to the radical overreach of federal judges and their continued assault on the Judeo-Christian foundations of the United States.”
At Truth Wins Out, we believe that bigoted, self-righteous religious extremists like Newt Gingrich are the real threat to America, not loving and committed same-sex couples. His arrogant attacks cannot go unchallenged.
If you agree, I urgently you to stand with me today.
Our hard-hitting ad was expensive. Truth Wins Out needs your helpto cover the cost. Please join our effort to educate America and shame the hypocrites by making a tax-deductible contribution of $5, $10, or even $25 today. If you have more to give, please consider a $300 tax-deductible contribution — one hundred dollars for each of Newt’s marriages.
Thank you for your support. Together, we can push back against sanctimonious bullies like Newt and create a better world for future generations.
** TWO thanks our own Bruce Garrett for drawing the amazing cartoon!

Single Mother of Three Battles Inequality in New Hampshire School

I'm tempted to call it the magic headband. From the day the 8-year-old transgender student wore it to class, there was a transformation. The angry, screaming child who would flip over desks suddenly became a happy scholar.

Who could find problems with that?

ID note: To respect the privacy of all involved as this unfolds, this identifies the child only by first name, does not reveal the locale or school, and cites the grandmother as GM and mother as Mommy. 

Source note: My j-school/newspaper background normally has me going to multiple sources. This draws almost entirely on the candid conversation with GM. Future updates may include lawyers, the therapist, the principal or others, but there's plenty in the experiences from her view.

The principal of the school was among those who has not yet learned to deal with John presenting as Jen. In particular, she'd like Mommy and GM to punish Jen for using the girls restroom and apparently claims Jen will do so "over my dead body." Unfortunately, in New Hampshire, the legislature rejected the bill that would add legal protections to transgender children and adults. The other New England states prohibit discrimination based on gender identity.


For the rest of the article please CLICK HERE and be redirected to the excellent website of Mike Ball called "Marry in Massachusetts".

Facts to Consider About Newt Gingrich

Racism: Still Alive and Healthy

Today I passed along a picture on Facebook I received depicting starving children reaching out their hands on one side with a contrasting picture of women busily stuffing as many toys under arms and into their carriages as they can, with a caption the reads: "Define Necessity".

Apparently my spouse's friend Danielle Cole finds this picture offensive because she's black. To her, white men like myself don't see the plight of these children as disturbing as she does because we don't share the same skin color. Here is what was said to one another:

Danielle Cole · Friends with Raymond Grinnell

People need to stop making these things. Mostly, they don't care about those poor African children. SOME people in America spend way to much and it's a problem (largely middle and upper class people) however, using some sad picture of starving kids who we help to keep starving by how we benefit from their resources in America isn't going to change that. It's a rude way to make a point, by using African children to make you feel guilty while not really doing anything for either super consumerism or for those children. Just saying, they make me cringe and it's kinda offensive.

John Hosty-Grinnell 

Art doesn't always portray beauty, it's supposed to make you cringe. Clearly it got you to think about what it wanted, so the effect intended was created, making this art. Your opinions about why people make "these things" I find interesting. Do you know more about the artist than I? Because what I see is someone who cared enough to remind us all that we could spend a little less on ourselves and a little more on those in need. I shared it hoping to encourage others to give a little more this year, and to remind myself to do the same.

Danielle Cole · Friends with Raymond Grinnell

I see what's called poverty porn using the images of black Africans that next to nobody does anything to care about. The use of these people to make others feel bad does work but it still doesn't create social change and still ignores the ties between what they are showing is a problem and how that problem directly causes this type of experience for people around the globe. But it doesn't say that. It just says a simple message while using that image. I really think racially this is a fucked up thing to do and I can bet money the artist was white and not thinking about what images like these mean to actual Africans. This is not art. This is something to make one group of people feel better about their consumption habits and another to feel guilty, without examining how the U.S. and many of its residents benefit directly from the starvation of these children. I just find it disgusting.

John Hosty-Grinnell You seem to see color in both the children and the image of the artist your mind has brewed up. I see children in need, and it inspires me to help.

Danielle Cole · Friends with Raymond Grinnell

LOL. Well if you're self proclaimed "colorblind" and telling a black woman not to see "color" then we have nothing to discuss because you just won't get it. It's funny how that works but not surprising and this is exactly why I don't like these photos. Cause you "can't" see the color of these children and that completely obscures reality. Plain and simple. Furthermore, you won't be doing anything for those children. Most charities don't do anything to create sustainable economies for their home countries and take large chunks of money donated. This image doesn't inspire change, action or anything. It makes people pat themselves on the back and call it "art" which it really isn't. It's called photoshop which anyone can do, slap two pictures together and paste some words on top of it. But alas...

At this point I've had my fill and the gloves are off:

John Hosty-Grinnell OK, I think you've hit your bitchy quota for the evening, so run along with that racism bullshit and try selling it to someone else.

Danielle Cole · Friends with Raymond Grinnell

Ok. Thanks. White man telling me to run along with that racist bullshit. If you want to cling to your white privilege by patting yourself on the back thinking you've done something nice by posting this shitty, offensive picture, it's cool. But just know who it offends and who doesn't think it's cute. But you won't. You will stick with your Cape Cod circle of other white men doing the same thing and ignoring the reality of millions because it doesn't affect you. I wasn't being bitchy I was simply telling you why this IS OFFENSIVE. You are too good to learn or understand perspectives other than your own I guess.

Just before blocking me as a Facebook friend she had these final words she didn't post publicly:

Danielle ColeHonestly. FUCK YOU for saying I can't see past race because I'm black. You do see the irony in that right? Of course I can't. My whole life I've been reminded of that very fact. That I'm black. Even if I wanted to forget, white people like yourself have never allowed me to forget. Nor will my job prospects, the police, when I go to get an apartment or house or want a job loan. That's not cynical. It's called fucking reality. I see Raymond's brilliance has not rubbed off on you. Quite frankly, as someone who is also queer and understands a lot about that struggle, I find it quite disheartening when gay white men can't see my plight. But you wouldn't because the world sucks your cock for being white. And again, that's not cynical, it's the truth. Live in a bubble in your cape cod comfort for as long as you want but I am no longer associating with you.

Danielle, I feel bad for you. I feel bad for anyone who has poisoned themselves with their own hate to the point where strangers fit into stereotypes and are no longer individuals. Isn't that how racism starts? We predispose ourselves to the idea that we know what to expect from someone based on some immutable trait, like their skin color? Shame on you. Shame because someone who has lived with the stigma of being different like yourself should know you have no right to judge others in a way you do not appreciate. You are a hypocrite, and unfortunately there are all too many people like you who go spouting racist garbage and are left unchallenged. Until you know me better you have no understanding of my motivations, and all the cynical speculations you've thrown about show your character, not mine.

Talking With: Zach Wahls

Explanation for Prop 8 Court Status YouTube Video

Tell Me, Christian, That You Hear This Boy

From John Shore at LGBTQNation.com:

Evangelical, fundamentalist Christians — by which I mean, specifically, Christians who believe that being gay is a moral abomination, an appalling affront to God — talk to me, please, about this kid.

Tell me that your belief system didn’t help but the hot tears on this kid’s cheeks. Tell me that the bullies who torment this kid aren’t in any way encouraged or empowered by your tacit approval of their actions. Tell me that the shame this kid feels about himself has nothing to do with the shame that you believe all gay people should feel for themselves.

Tell me that you can’t comprehend the connection between your conviction that God finds homosexuals repulsive, and the fact that this kid finds himself so repulsive that he habitually cuts his own flesh.

Tell me, please, how you love this kid. Tell me how you understand his pain. Tell me how when he cries, you cry.

Tell me how you want to do everything in your power to make sure that no one, ever again, feels free to in any way victimize a young gay person.

A Christian myself, I am pleading with you to be honest with me about this.

Tell me, please, how none of this kid’s anguish has anything to do with you.

I’m listening. I really am.

We all are.

8 Year Old Activist Tells Bachmann "Mommy's Gay But She Doesn't Need Fixing"

Zach Wahls Speaks Out About His Same Sex Parents

TruthWinsOut Accused of Murderous Rhetoric by Ex-Gay Leader Greg Quinlan

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Wayne Besen, Executive Director
Phone: 917-691-5118
E-Mail: wbesen@truthwinsout.org

Greg Quinlan’s Defamatory Claims Are a Complete Fabrication and a Brazen Attempt to Smear LGBT Organization, Says TWO

Burlington, Vt. – Truth Wins Out reacted with outrage and disgust today to a television interview with Greg Quinlan, President of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX), who falsely claimed that TWO Executive Director, Wayne Besen, put a hit out on his life. Quinlan is also a lobbyist for the New Jersey Family Policy Council.
On October 7, 2011 Quinlan was interviewed on News-Plus with Mark Segraves (WDCW-TV). The comments, first noticed by Ex-Gay Watch, came to TWO’s attention on Tuesday.
Throughout the show, Quinlan distorts reality and flat out dissembles on several subjects. However, at the 10:38 mark he fabricates an alleged hit on his life. According to Quinlan:

“Truth Wins Out if you look further, including Wayne Besen. He’s asked for people, you know, somebody needs to run Greg over. He needs to be hit with a bus. Somebody should inject him with AIDS. Those are the things that Wayne Besen and Truth Wins Out says about me. That’s pretty hateful rhetoric.”
“The bizarre and defamatory scenario portrayed by Quinlan exists only in his own mind,” said Wayne Besen, Executive Director of Truth Wins Out. “What he said is entirely fabricated and a dishonest and brazen attempt to smear me personally, destroy my reputation, and discredit the good work of Truth Wins Out.”

The integrity of PFOX has long been questioned. Its former president, Richard Cohen, was expelled for life from the American Counseling Association for multiple ethics violations. A key member of the organization’s Speaker’s Bureau, Arthur Abba Goldberg, is a convicted felon sent to prison for financial fraud. In 2010, Quinlan attended a conference organized by Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, a group that is listed as a certified Southern Poverty Law Center hate group. During his speech at the meeting, Quinlan disparaged LGBT people and said that when he used to live as an openly gay man he wasn’t a “flaming faggot.”

“I wasn’t your flaming faggot, you know,” Quinlan told the chuckling crowd. “I can say that because I’ve been there and done that. You know, the one’s whose wrists are so limp that when the wind blows they slap themselves in the face. I wasn’t one of them.”
“It speaks to Quinlan’s character that he lies so easily and simply makes things up,” said TWO’s Besen. “I’d be willing to take a lie detector test to prove my innocence and to show that I’ve never said such vile words. Will Quinlan also take these tests to prove the ‘veracity’ of his calumny? Truth Wins Out is also exploring legal options at this time.”

Truth Wins Out is a nonprofit organization that fights anti-LGBT extremism. TWO specializes in turning information into action by organizing, advocating and fighting for LGBT equality.

YouTube Star Introduces "Tab for a Cause"

Going by the handle "Kayjen" this young man made a remarkable video mocking the "rationale" against homosexuality that went viral and has now received over 1.7 million hits. He obviously has a genuine love for humanity, hence his new project that I wish to share with those who care enough to listen. Thank you for your valuable time.

 Kayjen, in standing up when so many would not, and in showing your concern for those who suffer you've shown the world what a modern man can and should be. Your continued actions show the courage to dismiss ridicule you find unwarranted, while showing compassion to people in need. The world needs more examples like yours. You are a Good Samaritan whose example Viewers can follow by acting on "Tab for a Cause" themselves.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." ~Gandhi

N.H. panel votes to recommend gay marriage repeal | SeacoastOnline.com

By Norma Love

Associated Press

October 25, 2011 4:44 PM

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A New Hampshire committee is asking the House to repeal the state's 15-month-old same-sex marriage law and replace it with civil unions for any unmarried adults including relatives.

The Judiciary Committee voted 11-6 Tuesday to recommend repealing the gay marriage law and establishing civil unions for any unmarried adults competent to enter into a contract.

Related Stories

• N.H. House begins effort to repeal gay marriage
• Gay officer's spouse now allowed at military program
• Gay Guardswoman's fight taken to defense secretary
• Shaheen presses military on same-sex couple rights
• Soldier's spouse can't attend military program despite 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal
• Poll: Little support for gay marriage repeal in N.H.
• Rye resident honored by 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal
• Poll: Divisions persist on legal gay marriage
• Tribe's new law recognizes gay marriage
• Gay marriage: Awkward issue for some GOP hopefuls
• Couples wed in N.Y.'s first same-sex marriages
• 46 gay couples marry at Niagara Falls wedding
• Census: More gay couples living together in Maine
• Mass. city to pay wedded gay workers to offset tax
• N.Y. Gov. Cuomo makes major push for gay marriage

The bill isn't the same civil unions law that was in effect before gays were allowed to marry. That law granted gays all the rights and responsibilities of marriage except in name. The Legislature changed that to legalize gay marriage.

State Rep. David Bates, the bill's sponsor, said there is no reason to limit civil unions and the legal protections they provide solely to same-sex couples or speculate on the unions' sexual nature.

Anti-Violence Project: Boston Police Lacked Probable Cause for Unlawful Assembly Arrests

From the Anti-Violence Project of Massachusetts

In ordering protestors to leave the Rose Kennedy Greenway early Tuesday morning, the Boston Police Dept. invoked G.L. c. 269, § 1 which empowers the Mayor or police of a city or town to "[command] ten or more persons,  ... unlawfully, riotously or tumultuously assembled [to] immediately and peaceably to disperse [in the name of the Commonwealth] ...." In so doing, the Boston police blatantly disregarded the elements of the offense of "unlawful assembly" under Massachusetts law. As the Massachusetts Appeals Court has held, the crime of "unlawful assembly" requires that the persons so gathered "have formed a common intent to 'engage[] in a common cause . . . to be accomplished with violence and in a tumultuous manner... or 'through force and violence' ...." Commonwealth v. Abramms, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 576, 585-86 (2006)(Cites omitted.) "Thus, an 'essential element' of ... 'unlawful assembly' is 'the intent to commit an act of violence.'"Id. (Emphasis added." Only violent assemblies may be dispersed by order of the police under Massachusetts law. "[P]eaceful assemblies, [but] not violent gatherings, are protected by the First Amendment [and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights art. 19]." Id. at 587.

The Occupy Boston demonstrators on the Rose Kennedy Greenway were assembled peaceably. The only force employed on the morning of October 11, 2011 was that of Boston police officers dispersing a non-violent protest without a legal basis for declaring an "unlawful assembly." In invoking the "unlawful assembly" statute without probable cause and using force against citizens exercising constitutional rights, the Boston Police themselves violated "clearly established" federal and state constitutional rights, as embodied in the Abramms decision. See Glik v. Cunniffe, No. 10-764, slip op. (1st Cir. 8/26/2011.) In so doing, each and every police officer who participated in the forcible break-up of the assembly on the Rose Kennedy Greenway may have exposed him or herself to personal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/don-gorton/anti-violence-project-boston-police-lacked-probable-cause-for-unlawful-assembly-/10150350617283808

Police Use Violence Against Peaceful "Occupy Boston"

Taken from occupyboston.com:

Boston Police Brutally Assault Occupy Boston

At 1:30 this morning hundreds of police in full riot gear brutally attacked Occupy Boston, which had peacefully gathered on the Rose Kennedy Greenway. The Boston Police Department made no distinction between protesters, medics, or legal observers, arresting legal observer Ursula Levelt, who serves on the steering committee for the National Lawyers Guild, as well as four medics attempting to care for the injured.

Earlier in the day, an estimated ten thousand union members, students, veterans, families, men, and women of all ages marched from the Boston Common to Dewey Square, and then to the North Washington Bridge to demand economic reform on Wall Street and the end of special interest influence in Washington.

Following this massive outpouring of public support, dozens of police vans descended on the Greenway, with batons drawn, assaulting protesters and arresting more than one-hundred people. Members of Veterans for Peace carrying American flags were pushed to the ground and their flags trampled as the police hauled them away.

Following the raid, Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis made no mention of veterans, organized labor, students, or families, nor did he issue an apology for his department’s aggressive tactics. Since the beginning of its occupation, Occupy Boston has worked tirelessly and successfully to maintain a positive working relationship with city officials. Today’s reprehensible attack by the Boston Police Department against a movement that enjoys the broad support of the American people represents a sad and disturbing shift away from dialogue and towards violent repression.

Despite the city’s attempt to silence us, Occupy Boston remains, and bears no ill-will towards the men and women of the Boston Police Department who were simply following orders. We hope that someday the peaceful pursuit of economic justice will not provoke the beating of elderly veterans and the arrest of medics and legal observers. We encourage everyone who continues to feel as strongly as we do about limiting the influence of Wall Street on our democracy to join us tomorrow, and in the future, down in Dewey Square.

“We will occupy. We are the 99 percent and we are no longer silent.”

###

Occupy Boston is the beginning of an ongoing discussion about reforming Wall Street and removing special interests from government. The continuing occupation of Dewey Square (outside South Station) is just one of more than 120 separate Occupy encampments in cities across the nation and a symbol for “Occupiers” everywhere who support real and lasting change. Video: http://youtu.be/ZpttXetMX78.

Pictures of the night’s events.

http://www.necn.com/10/11/11/Mayor-Menino-on-Occupy-Boston-arrests/landing_newengland.html?blockID=575486&feedID=8498