naamah_darling: The Punisher skull with a red ribbon barrette. (Punisher Ribbon)

I'm late to saying anything, but on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern ruled that Oklahoma's anti-marriage law violates the 14th amendment and is therefore unconstitutional.  You can read the document here.

Nobody's marching to the courthouse to get their papers yet, things are still kind of up in the air, but we've gotten this far, and that's a hell of a lot farther than I expected us to get this soon.  I thought we'd have to be dragged kicking and screaming, but Kern's language is a powerful blow.

In the conclusion of the court ruling, Kern eviscerates nearly every justification for denial of equal benefits under the law, using other court rulings to prove that denying marriage rights to same-sex couples is unjustifiable and irrational.  About the only thing he didn't attack is the assertion that if same sex couples are allowed to marry, there would be nothing to stop people from marrying (and fucking -- that's where all the pearl-clutching comes in) animals, appliances, cartoon characters, or children.  I'm assuming he considered addressing that beneath his attention.

This article by David Badash at The New Civil Rights Movement is pretty excellent as far as overviews go, but I'll pick a few passages.  Emphasis added.

The Court recognizes that moral disapproval often stems from deeply held religious convictions. However, moral disapproval of homosexuals as a class, or same-sex marriage as a practice, is not a permissible justification for a law.

A same-sex couple’s inability to “naturally procreate” is not a biological distinction of critical importance, in relation to the articulated goal of avoiding children being born out of wedlock. If a same-sex couple is capable of having a child with or without a marriage relationship, and the articulated state goal is to reduce children born outside of a marital relationship, the challenged exclusion hinders rather than promotes that goal.

Same-sex couples are being subjected to a “naturally procreative” requirement to which no other Oklahoma citizens are subjected, including the infertile, the elderly, and those who simply do not wish to ever procreate. Rationality review has a limit, and this well exceeds it.

The Court cannot discern, a single way that excluding same-sex couples from marriage will “promote” this “ideal” child-rearing environment. Exclusion from marriage does not make it more likely that a same-sex couple desiring children, or already raising children together, will change course and marry an opposite-sex partner (thereby providing the “ideal” child-rearing environment).

In addition, the Court cannot discern how exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage makes it more likely that opposite-sex marriages will stay in tact (thereby remaining “optimal” child-rearing environments).

Exclusion of just one class of citizens from receiving a marriage license based upon the perceived “threat” they pose to the marital institution is, at bottom, an arbitrary exclusion based upon the majority’s disapproval of the defined class. It is also insulting to same-sex couples, who are human beings capable of forming loving, committed, enduring relationships. “‘Preserving the traditional institution of marriage,’” which is the gist of Smith’s final asserted justification, “is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples.”

The conclusion is simple, short, and sweet:

Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed. It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights.

Bam.

There you have it.

This isn't going to stop.  This isn't a thing that can be turned back.  We have to keep fighting, the struggle still requires us to remain fully engaged, but this is most definitely a struggle we can win if we continue to demand that all adults be allowed to marry as they wish.

Oklahoma's littered with failure on the civil rights front so I think it's far too late for me to salvage any pride in my state, but I am damn proud of Kern.  If you wish to thank him personally for standing up for Oklahomans' marriage rights, drop him a line:

TERENCE C. KERN, District Judge
224 S. Boulder Ave., Room 241
Tulsa, OK 74103
918.699.4770

Because I rather imagine he's getting a lot of hate mail right about now, and some encouragement might be nice.

Originally published at Silver Into Steel.  Comment where you like!

naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Default)
Authos Say Agents Try to "Straighten" Gay Characters in YA

We all heard about how Jessica Verday pulled her story from an anthology when the editor asked her to change a character's gender so that the romance would be a straight romance. Well, if you didn't hear about it, there's Verday's post about it, and you can find a lot more here at Cleolinda's LJ post.

Well, now authors Rachel Manija Brown and Sherwood Smith report that an agent from an agency representing a bestselling YA author in their genre called them and . . .

. . . [The agent] offered to sign us on the condition that we make the gay character straight, or else remove his viewpoint and all references to his sexual orientation.

Rachel replied, “Making a gay character straight is a line in the sand which I will not cross. That is a moral issue. I work with teenagers, and some of them are gay. They never get to read fantasy novels where people like them are the heroes, and that’s not right. . .

When you refuse to allow major characters in YA novels to be gay, you are telling gay teenagers that they are so utterly horrible that people like them can’t even be allowed to exist in fiction. . . .

We wrote this novel so that the teenagers we know—some of whom are gay, and many of whom are not white—would be able, for once, to read a fun post-apocalyptic adventure in which they are the heroes. And we were told that such a thing could not be allowed. . . .

This isn’t about that specific agent; we’d gotten other rewrite requests before this one. . . .

We absolutely do not believe that all our rejections were due to prejudice. We know for a fact that some of them weren’t. . . .

We are avoiding names because we don’t want this story to be about one agent who spoke more bluntly than others whose objections were more indirectly expressed. Naming names can make it too easy to target a lone “villain,” who can be blamed and scolded until everyone feels that the matter has been satisfactorily dealt with.

Forcing all major characters in YA novels into a straight white mold is a widespread, systemic problem which requires long-term, consistent action.

When we privately discussed our encounter with the agent, we heard from other writers whose prospective agents made altering a character’s minority identity—sexual orientation, race, disability—a condition of representation. But other than Jessica Verday, who refused to change a character’s gender in a short story on an editor’s request, few writers have come forward for fear of being blacklisted.

We sympathize with that fear. But we believe that silence, however well-motivated and reasonable from a marketing point of view, allows the problem to flourish. We hope that others will speak up as well, in whatever manner is safe and comfortable for them.

The overwhelming white straightness of the YA sf and fantasy sections may have little to do with what authors are writing, or even with what editors accept. Perhaps solid manuscripts with LGBTQ protagonists rarely get into mainstream editors’ hands at all, because they are been rejected by agents before the editors see them. How many published novels with a straight white heroine and a lesbian or black or disabled best friend once had those roles reversed, before an agent demanded a change?

This does not make for better novels. Nor does it make for a better world.

Let’s make a better world.


And then, wonderfully, they go on to give suggestions on how to address the issue as an editor, an agent, a writer, a reader, or just someone with internet access, ending with the advice:

"Please link to this article. (If you link on Twitter, please use the #YesGayYA hashtag.) If enough people read it and take the suggestions, enormous and wonderful changes could take place."

Yes.

There is also I am Not a Secondary Character, a fabulous article by Sarah Diemer over on Muse Rising about gay main characters in YA fiction . . . or rather, the lack thereof.

She gives an excellent and wonderful-to-read breakdown of good reasons to write gay characters and bad reasons, but she also strongly and poignantly makes a point about the value of gay characters to gay kids.

It’s no secret that there are pitifully few YA books that contain queer protagonists. It’s insulting and frustrating. Insulting, because there are lots of queer kids out there, I promise you, and frustrating because we aren’t doing better by them. We have absolutely no problem writing about zombies feasting on flesh or end of the world scenarios involving cannibals, but the thought of two girls creating a lasting relationship is an impossibility in YA literature? Really? Really?

I want to know why. I want to know why this is such a difficult concept for us to grasp, why our gay youth not only have no choices in the literature they read, they’re expected to read the straight ones. Like: gosh, they won’t mind! They’re not stupid. They know the world caters to the straight population, because it has for so long and it keeps on spinning–why throw off that center of gravity? (Said with the ultimate of sarcasm.) But I can tell you, absolutely, without a doubt, that they are desperately looking for people like them in literature and finding hardly anything to read.

. . .

Gay kids aren’t a “plot point” that you can play with. Gay kids are real, actual kids, teenagers, growing up into awesome adults, and they don’t have the books they need to reflect that. Growing up, my nose was constantly stuck in a book. Growing up as a lesbian, I was told over and over and over by the lack of gayness in said books that I did not exist. That I wasn’t important enough to tell stories about. That I was invisible.

Why are we telling our kids this? Why are we telling them that they’re a minority, and they don’t deserve the same rights as straights, that they’re going to grow up in a world that despises them, that the intolerance of humanity will never change, that they’re worthless.

It’s not true.


I think that we will see, in our lifetimes, a sea change, and by the time I am an old woman I think that the stigma against gay people will be much reduced (not gone, but things will be better than they are now). The thing is, while I do believe that, I also know that it will not happen if we don't make it happen. The future is not fixed, we have to destroy the barriers in the present and then bring it into being, and perhaps the most powerful force in the world for creation and destruction both is the word, whether written or spoken. And we must do it. We owe it not just to the kids who have suffered in the past, but to the kids in the future that we can still help. We know they will come. Can't we give them a better place to come to? I won't ever have kids, but this still matters to me.

Will YA books with queer main characters reduce the stigma against gay people? Perhaps, if enough kids read them. But that isn't the whole point, or even, I am coming to think, the most important point. The point is that having even one place to go that is safe is enormously empowering, especially for kids already on the margins, and if we give these kids such a space in the form of fiction, we are making them stronger. We are not arming them for battle, or even armoring them. We are simply giving them the courage to fight. We are showing them their reflection and saying "You exist. Here you are. Here are all the things you could be. Now go and be them." And that is better than any sword and better than any shield.
naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Gay Agenda)
I've been seeing this link thrown around a lot in the last few days:

National Organization for Marriage tour coordinator Louis J. Martinelli comes out in favor of gay marriage.

I am really happy to see someone change his mind about this issue, especially someone who has – or had – some clout with a hate group like NOM.

I don't think he deserves thanks or congratulations for changing his mind. I don't think someone that once held destructive, hateful views, and has reversed his stance on part of them, should be thanked for that. I think that not believing hateful, damaging things that cause other people suffering is the least we should require of a civilized human being.

I do think that anyone who speaks out in favor of equal marriage rights should be thanked, even though it is the baseline right thing to do, because to do so is still to invite criticism and opposition from those who oppose basic civil rights for all.

I do think that it is a remarkable thing to see someone so closely connected to the anti-marriage movement change their mind, and admit to it publicly.

I don't think his beliefs have done a complete 180. He has only changed his stance on legal marriage.

Reading between the lines of the article linked above, it is possible to see that Martinelli's views were both ill-informed and reprehensible:

Ironically, one of the last tour stops added to the itinerary was Atlanta and I bring this site up because it was in Atlanta that I can remember that I questioned what I was doing for the first time. The NOM showing in the heart of the Bible-belt was dismal and the hundreds of counter-protesters who showed up were nothing short of inspiring.

Even though I had been confronted by the counter-protesters throughout the marriage tour, the lesbian and gay people whom I made a profession out of opposing became real people for me almost instantly. For the first time I had empathy for them and remember asking myself what I was doing.

. . .

After the marriage tour wrapped up and everyone went their separate ways, I transformed my marriage tour “Inside Look” blog to a more general blog about protecting marriage and opposing the homosexual agenda.

. . .

One article I wrote, towards the end of October, 2010 caught the attention of a blogger by the name of RJ, who writes on the blog AmIWorking. He responded to my article about the homosexual agenda with an article addressed personally to me regarding marriage equality. In short, his article had the miraculous effect of instantly putting things into perspective for me.

At that point, between what I had witnessed on the marriage tour and RJ’s post about marriage equality, I really came to understand that gays and lesbians were just real people who wanted to live real lives and be treated equally as opposed to, for example, wanting to destroy American culture. No, they didn’t want to destroy American culture, they wanted to openly particulate in it. I was well on my way to becoming a supporter of civil marriage equality.

. . .

In December I came out in support of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I also removed the admins I had delegated my moderating duties to for my Facebook page.

Having done that, I had to pick up where they left off. I was largely taken aback by the fact that the page I created had become such a hateful place. My comments and rhetoric paled in comparison to what that place had turned into. I began to understand why the gay community was out there claiming opposition to same-sex civil marriage was all about hate.

I soon realized that there I was surrounded by hateful people. . . .

. . .

Also, I started regularly conversing with same-sex marriage supporters in another Facebook group. This further solidified my new perception of gays and lesbians as real people, not some faceless political opponent.

. . .

Lastly, I came to understand the difference between civil marriage and holy marriage as in the sacrament of the Catholic Church. Let me rephrase. I understood that but either willingly chose not to accept it or just didn’t see it. Regardless, I see it now and the significance of that is as follows:

Once you understand the great difference between civil marriage and holy marriage, there is not one valid reason to forbid the former from same-sex couples, and all that is left to protect is the latter.


To paraphrase:

"I never questioned my hateful attitudes until the literally hundreds of people showing up in person to oppose their own oppression actually made an impression. Holy shit! They were actually other sentient human beings! Suddenly, I had to have empathy for them. Awkward!

"Marriage still needed to be protected, though, so I went right on opposing those liberty-corrupting fags' homosexual agenda until someone took the time and trouble to take me by the hand like a two-year-old and personally lead me to understanding.

"These people didn't want to destroy our great country, they just wanted the same civil rights guaranteed to straight people! Imagine that! Again, I realized that they were normal people, and wanted to be treated like people!

"It was then that I began to suspect that the people I had chosen to associate with were dicks. Suddenly, the hateful shit they were spewing actually bothered me, even though it had not changed, only I had. The gays had been right: the people seeking to block their civil rights were assholes!

"Suddenly the gay marriage advocates were not faceless America-hating ass-raping pedophiles who want to marry dogs and take away Christmas, they were real people. It was the third time I'd realized this. An idea that sticks around this long has got to be good, huh?

"So, in conclusion, religious bigots can refuse to perform religious ceremonies for fags, but that shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not gays have access to the same legal rights as men who stick their dicks into women or women who love the cock and want to make their heterosexual fucking into something godly by dedicating the activities of their privates to Jesus, who presumably doesn't like gay fucking. Given that, opposing civil marriage is a dick move, but there's still precedent for protecting religious marriage from those grody gay cooties."

If you go here and read through his responses, you will find that Marinelli still believes the following:

* That gays spread disease, making them a public health risk.

* That homosexuality is a wrong lifestyle choice. Also, gays spread disease.

* That this country has a damaging "culture of promiscuity." Also, gays spread disease.

* That homosexuality is wrong.

* That being gay is wrong – again! – but it is not immoral. I don't even know how that one works. Seriously.

* That it's not fair to say that gay people are deceitful and selfish. We're all deceitful and selfish! So, you know, that totally takes the sting out.

* That being homosexual may be a mental disorder, but so what? Crazy people should be able to marry, too. I guess I'm glad I have his approval.

* That the hate group NOM still has a valuable mission: to preserve the religious definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and fight our filthy culture of promiscuity.

So, you know, while he may be an ally in the quest to cement the legality of gay marriage, and may be especially useful in helping to bring other benighted douchebags out of their shells of ignorance, we need to remember that he still thinks that being gay is wrong and will give you the AIDS.

He's very articulate and well-spoken, and he even seems like a nice guy, but he's still full of crap.

He does provide some useful information, though, in another post:

NOM's support is very thin, indeed.

Tax records show that the vast majority of the National Organization for Marriage’s financial support comes from a handful of donors. This information is public and the Human Rights Campaign exposed it quite a while ago.

In my work with the National Organization for Marriage, I, like you have seen on multiple occasions how fundraisers, which are matched dollar for dollar by an undisclosed source pulling the strings from behind the shadows, have met their goals. I shared the suspicion many did when gaps of hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations were suddenly closed in the final hours running up to the deadline.
I can’t explain these fundraising miracles, only NOM’s inner circle could.

. . .

I am sharing this with you because I want you to realize that NOM is a small group of devoutly religious Catholics supported by a couple of undisclosed sources. NOM is essentially made up of Brian Brown, it’s President, Maggie Gallagher, the CEO, a handful of other Board members (who are scattered across the country involved in other matters), a couple of advisors to Mr. Brown and a small and largely incompetent office staff.

Their social media management isn’t operated by NOM – they’re not big enough for that nor do they understand social media! As Jeremy Hooper detailed, Opus Fidelis manages NOM’s social media and websites.

That is all that is standing between you and the freedom to marry. There is no grassroots opposition. While they have proven to be quite successful over the past couple years, I think it’s time to put NOM’s size into perspective. Are you going to let a handful of fringe Catholics (with whom many Catholics disagree on marriage) stand between you and the freedom to marry.


That is a powerful, powerful message.

This is why I believe that I will see full legalization of gay marriage in my lifetime. These people are powerful, rich, and noisy, but there aren't that many of them, and they are not adapting to the times in the same way as their opposition has.

It is going to be a long road, a hard road, and terrible, irreparable harm has already been done to human lives and human relationships, but it is a road that is leading, even as it winds around and takes its sweet fucking time, toward equal marriage rights. It is coming. Not soon enough, never soon enough, and nothing can undo the suffering that has already been cause, but it is coming.

Yes, we need to keep fighting. Yes, we need to resist, keep yelling at the top of our lungs. But I believe that we are fighting for something that is achievable. That we can do this. And I take comfort from that, because sometimes I very badly need that comfort.

I don't think we will ever be able to bring around the people who hate, not completely. I don't know if I believe that hate so deep and virulent can be rehabilitated. I think that Marinelli represents the best possible outcome we can hope for, someone who disapproves but will not stand in the way. So maybe that's what we need to focus on: not befriending these people and getting them to believe that we are moral and good, but leading them to an understanding that we are human, and only want what should be guaranteed to all humans . . . and sadly, it seems obvious to me that they must be led.

Marinelli's own change of heart shows us that this can happen, and even shows us how it happens, though it apparently took hundreds of demonstrators to plant the seed of doubt.

Our voices, once again, are the most powerful tools we have.
naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Gay Agenda)
I've been seeing this link thrown around a lot in the last few days:

National Organization for Marriage tour coordinator Louis J. Martinelli comes out in favor of gay marriage.

I am really happy to see someone change his mind about this issue, especially someone who has – or had – some clout with a hate group like NOM.

I don't think he deserves thanks or congratulations for changing his mind. I don't think someone that once held destructive, hateful views, and has reversed his stance on part of them, should be thanked for that. I think that not believing hateful, damaging things that cause other people suffering is the least we should require of a civilized human being.

I do think that anyone who speaks out in favor of equal marriage rights should be thanked, even though it is the baseline right thing to do, because to do so is still to invite criticism and opposition from those who oppose basic civil rights for all.

I do think that it is a remarkable thing to see someone so closely connected to the anti-marriage movement change their mind, and admit to it publicly.

I don't think his beliefs have done a complete 180. He has only changed his stance on legal marriage.

Reading between the lines of the article linked above, it is possible to see that Martinelli's views were both ill-informed and reprehensible:

Ironically, one of the last tour stops added to the itinerary was Atlanta and I bring this site up because it was in Atlanta that I can remember that I questioned what I was doing for the first time. The NOM showing in the heart of the Bible-belt was dismal and the hundreds of counter-protesters who showed up were nothing short of inspiring.

Even though I had been confronted by the counter-protesters throughout the marriage tour, the lesbian and gay people whom I made a profession out of opposing became real people for me almost instantly. For the first time I had empathy for them and remember asking myself what I was doing.

. . .

After the marriage tour wrapped up and everyone went their separate ways, I transformed my marriage tour “Inside Look” blog to a more general blog about protecting marriage and opposing the homosexual agenda.

. . .

One article I wrote, towards the end of October, 2010 caught the attention of a blogger by the name of RJ, who writes on the blog AmIWorking. He responded to my article about the homosexual agenda with an article addressed personally to me regarding marriage equality. In short, his article had the miraculous effect of instantly putting things into perspective for me.

At that point, between what I had witnessed on the marriage tour and RJ’s post about marriage equality, I really came to understand that gays and lesbians were just real people who wanted to live real lives and be treated equally as opposed to, for example, wanting to destroy American culture. No, they didn’t want to destroy American culture, they wanted to openly particulate in it. I was well on my way to becoming a supporter of civil marriage equality.

. . .

In December I came out in support of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I also removed the admins I had delegated my moderating duties to for my Facebook page.

Having done that, I had to pick up where they left off. I was largely taken aback by the fact that the page I created had become such a hateful place. My comments and rhetoric paled in comparison to what that place had turned into. I began to understand why the gay community was out there claiming opposition to same-sex civil marriage was all about hate.

I soon realized that there I was surrounded by hateful people. . . .

. . .

Also, I started regularly conversing with same-sex marriage supporters in another Facebook group. This further solidified my new perception of gays and lesbians as real people, not some faceless political opponent.

. . .

Lastly, I came to understand the difference between civil marriage and holy marriage as in the sacrament of the Catholic Church. Let me rephrase. I understood that but either willingly chose not to accept it or just didn’t see it. Regardless, I see it now and the significance of that is as follows:

Once you understand the great difference between civil marriage and holy marriage, there is not one valid reason to forbid the former from same-sex couples, and all that is left to protect is the latter.


To paraphrase:

"I never questioned my hateful attitudes until the literally hundreds of people showing up in person to oppose their own oppression actually made an impression. Holy shit! They were actually other sentient human beings! Suddenly, I had to have empathy for them. Awkward!

"Marriage still needed to be protected, though, so I went right on opposing those liberty-corrupting fags' homosexual agenda until someone took the time and trouble to take me by the hand like a two-year-old and personally lead me to understanding.

"These people didn't want to destroy our great country, they just wanted the same civil rights guaranteed to straight people! Imagine that! Again, I realized that they were normal people, and wanted to be treated like people!

"It was then that I began to suspect that the people I had chosen to associate with were dicks. Suddenly, the hateful shit they were spewing actually bothered me, even though it had not changed, only I had. The gays had been right: the people seeking to block their civil rights were assholes!

"Suddenly the gay marriage advocates were not faceless America-hating ass-raping pedophiles who want to marry dogs and take away Christmas, they were real people. It was the third time I'd realized this. An idea that sticks around this long has got to be good, huh?

"So, in conclusion, religious bigots can refuse to perform religious ceremonies for fags, but that shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not gays have access to the same legal rights as men who stick their dicks into women or women who love the cock and want to make their heterosexual fucking into something godly by dedicating the activities of their privates to Jesus, who presumably doesn't like gay fucking. Given that, opposing civil marriage is a dick move, but there's still precedent for protecting religious marriage from those grody gay cooties."

If you go here and read through his responses, you will find that Marinelli still believes the following:

* That gays spread disease, making them a public health risk.

* That homosexuality is a wrong lifestyle choice. Also, gays spread disease.

* That this country has a damaging "culture of promiscuity." Also, gays spread disease.

* That homosexuality is wrong.

* That being gay is wrong – again! – but it is not immoral. I don't even know how that one works. Seriously.

* That it's not fair to say that gay people are deceitful and selfish. We're all deceitful and selfish! So, you know, that totally takes the sting out.

* That being homosexual may be a mental disorder, but so what? Crazy people should be able to marry, too. I guess I'm glad I have his approval.

* That the hate group NOM still has a valuable mission: to preserve the religious definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and fight our filthy culture of promiscuity.

So, you know, while he may be an ally in the quest to cement the legality of gay marriage, and may be especially useful in helping to bring other benighted douchebags out of their shells of ignorance, we need to remember that he still thinks that being gay is wrong and will give you the AIDS.

He's very articulate and well-spoken, and he even seems like a nice guy, but he's still full of crap.

He does provide some useful information, though, in another post:

NOM's support is very thin, indeed.

Tax records show that the vast majority of the National Organization for Marriage’s financial support comes from a handful of donors. This information is public and the Human Rights Campaign exposed it quite a while ago.

In my work with the National Organization for Marriage, I, like you have seen on multiple occasions how fundraisers, which are matched dollar for dollar by an undisclosed source pulling the strings from behind the shadows, have met their goals. I shared the suspicion many did when gaps of hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations were suddenly closed in the final hours running up to the deadline.
I can’t explain these fundraising miracles, only NOM’s inner circle could.

. . .

I am sharing this with you because I want you to realize that NOM is a small group of devoutly religious Catholics supported by a couple of undisclosed sources. NOM is essentially made up of Brian Brown, it’s President, Maggie Gallagher, the CEO, a handful of other Board members (who are scattered across the country involved in other matters), a couple of advisors to Mr. Brown and a small and largely incompetent office staff.

Their social media management isn’t operated by NOM – they’re not big enough for that nor do they understand social media! As Jeremy Hooper detailed, Opus Fidelis manages NOM’s social media and websites.

That is all that is standing between you and the freedom to marry. There is no grassroots opposition. While they have proven to be quite successful over the past couple years, I think it’s time to put NOM’s size into perspective. Are you going to let a handful of fringe Catholics (with whom many Catholics disagree on marriage) stand between you and the freedom to marry.


That is a powerful, powerful message.

This is why I believe that I will see full legalization of gay marriage in my lifetime. These people are powerful, rich, and noisy, but there aren't that many of them, and they are not adapting to the times in the same way as their opposition has.

It is going to be a long road, a hard road, and terrible, irreparable harm has already been done to human lives and human relationships, but it is a road that is leading, even as it winds around and takes its sweet fucking time, toward equal marriage rights. It is coming. Not soon enough, never soon enough, and nothing can undo the suffering that has already been cause, but it is coming.

Yes, we need to keep fighting. Yes, we need to resist, keep yelling at the top of our lungs. But I believe that we are fighting for something that is achievable. That we can do this. And I take comfort from that, because sometimes I very badly need that comfort.

I don't think we will ever be able to bring around the people who hate, not completely. I don't know if I believe that hate so deep and virulent can be rehabilitated. I think that Marinelli represents the best possible outcome we can hope for, someone who disapproves but will not stand in the way. So maybe that's what we need to focus on: not befriending these people and getting them to believe that we are moral and good, but leading them to an understanding that we are human, and only want what should be guaranteed to all humans . . . and sadly, it seems obvious to me that they must be led.

Marinelli's own change of heart shows us that this can happen, and even shows us how it happens, though it apparently took hundreds of demonstrators to plant the seed of doubt.

Our voices, once again, are the most powerful tools we have.
naamah_darling: The Punisher skull with a red ribbon barrette. (Punisher Ribbon)
So, [livejournal.com profile] theferrett has a great, to-the-point entry up about names, pronouns, and having some fucking respect for other people's identities.

Money quote:


The Sneer stems from the understanding that this name I have given is so ludicrous that it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. Their goal, though they don't think about this explicitly, is to undermine my identity. In other words, "What you want is so stupid, I refuse to continue before I make you acknowledge that it's not a 'real' name." And to that, I say: fuck that.

The principle's similar with gender. When people start getting snotty and going, "Well, she's not a real man," then that's effectively a way of saying, "What he wants doesn't matter to me. What matters is that my conceptions of what gender is remain firmly intact; I know what a man is, and by attempting to venture outside that boundary of established stereotypes, he's become a joke. And I must force people to acknowledge that fakeness before I can continue.”

Right the fuck ON, dude. Thank you.

And in the comments, a link to this older gem:

Do you use Boy Words or Girl Words? Or the other words, but I can’t ‘amember them.

Go read that and feel a little less shitty about the world. If a three-year-old can get it, an adult can get it. It doesn't fuck kids up to be raised with more fluid ideas of gender than the ones we had forced on us. These kids will be fine, and the world will be fine. Better than fine.

I have a really complicated relationship with my own gender, in no small part because of the cultural climate in which I was raised (very either/or). I identify as female, and probably always will, but there's a lot more to me than that, and I wish I'd known that there were other options so that I could have taken a look at that at a much younger age.

I'd like to think that in the future, someone like me will be able to form their identity without having to choose from a binary so young, and will have whatever understanding of themselves they reach be respected by others. I'd love for the world to understand that there's a whole spectrum of combinations of gender and body and orientation, and, something I almost never see acknowledged: for some people, their identity is not fixed and actually changes back and forth. Bad enough having to explain that no, really, you ARE a "real" man/woman. Imagine if that identity changed from day to day.
naamah_darling: The Punisher skull with a red ribbon barrette. (Punisher Ribbon)
So, [livejournal.com profile] theferrett has a great, to-the-point entry up about names, pronouns, and having some fucking respect for other people's identities.

Money quote:


The Sneer stems from the understanding that this name I have given is so ludicrous that it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. Their goal, though they don't think about this explicitly, is to undermine my identity. In other words, "What you want is so stupid, I refuse to continue before I make you acknowledge that it's not a 'real' name." And to that, I say: fuck that.

The principle's similar with gender. When people start getting snotty and going, "Well, she's not a real man," then that's effectively a way of saying, "What he wants doesn't matter to me. What matters is that my conceptions of what gender is remain firmly intact; I know what a man is, and by attempting to venture outside that boundary of established stereotypes, he's become a joke. And I must force people to acknowledge that fakeness before I can continue.”

Right the fuck ON, dude. Thank you.

And in the comments, a link to this older gem:

Do you use Boy Words or Girl Words? Or the other words, but I can’t ‘amember them.

Go read that and feel a little less shitty about the world. If a three-year-old can get it, an adult can get it. It doesn't fuck kids up to be raised with more fluid ideas of gender than the ones we had forced on us. These kids will be fine, and the world will be fine. Better than fine.

I have a really complicated relationship with my own gender, in no small part because of the cultural climate in which I was raised (very either/or). I identify as female, and probably always will, but there's a lot more to me than that, and I wish I'd known that there were other options so that I could have taken a look at that at a much younger age.

I'd like to think that in the future, someone like me will be able to form their identity without having to choose from a binary so young, and will have whatever understanding of themselves they reach be respected by others. I'd love for the world to understand that there's a whole spectrum of combinations of gender and body and orientation, and, something I almost never see acknowledged: for some people, their identity is not fixed and actually changes back and forth. Bad enough having to explain that no, really, you ARE a "real" man/woman. Imagine if that identity changed from day to day.
naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Gay Agenda)
Yes, many of you have seen this. But for those of you who have not, I present George Takei, being fucking awesome.



The entirety of this beautiful video is worth quoting, so I won't quote it. I will just say that it makes me happier than anything has in a long, long time.

Thanks, George. We love you.
naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Gay Agenda)
Yes, many of you have seen this. But for those of you who have not, I present George Takei, being fucking awesome.



The entirety of this beautiful video is worth quoting, so I won't quote it. I will just say that it makes me happier than anything has in a long, long time.

Thanks, George. We love you.
naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Alpha Female)
The Sodomite Hal Duncan has a wonderful letter to share with you all this fine Friday afternoon.

My own letter is below.

To Mr. Wright,

Two things, before I begin.

First, if people have attacked you for your religious views, I don't approve of that. I am an atheist, not an anti-theist. As easy as it is to take pot shots, I cannot insult you for your beliefs without also insulting people I love.

Second, I had not heard about the incident with your wife until after discovering your entry. Going into what I think of that issue would not be appropriate here; I merely wished to point out that I'm not part of the mob that descended on her, lest you believe that everyone who took you to task is simply nursing a grudge from that whole affair. That's all I have to say on the matter.

Moving on, I was not the only person to link to that entry, but I concede I was one of the first, and my readership, for reasons I have never quite understood, is wide. I never would have called out your appalling remarks had you not been a published author whose books I have purchased in hardcover, and as gifts for others. You aren't a random dipshit on the internet yodeling into the vacuum of his own ass. You are a published writer in a field I love, and thus you are a person of whom I had stupidly assumed better. As someone who does not apply her money or loyalty to those who believe that I or my loved ones are perverted or defective, I felt betrayed.

If gay and gay-friendly folks choose to support you despite your views, that is their choice, but I believe they deserve to make an informed choice. That's why I pointed them your way. The fact that I pointed 1,500 people your way while saying "fuck" a lot is just how I do things. Because if we don't laugh and make fun of people who use ridiculous arguments to deny the validity of our relationships and the humanity of our brilliant, brief lives, well, that would just be too depressing.

It is unfortunate that the people who came to comment on your journal were angry, and not up to your desired level of discourse. I asked them not to troll, and apparently I misjudged their restraint. That was an error on my part. I didn't rile them, though. You did that on your own. Your words were offensive. Your words were hurtful. When a person says offensive, hurtful things, those who hear will lash out. When compared to pedophiles and necrophiliacs, they will come in mobs and be downright cruel. This is not the most wonderful facet of human nature, but nor is it proof that you were right all along or that everyone who disagrees with you is an illogical maniac with no internal censor. When those people bitchslapped you for being offensive, that was proof that what you said was offensive. Your own words condemned you, and as many of us have taken screenshots of the original entry, they will continue to do so.

The fact that you were mobbed -- "trolled" does not apply to most of the comments, most of which were expressing genuine disgust and displeasure, and were not being made, as they say, for the lulz -- does not free you from the offense you gave. When you say something offensive and are called on it, even if the people you have offended are rude to you, you take responsibility for the harm you caused, you apologize, and then you listen to how you can do better. You turn the other cheek, not so you can show people how smooth and righteous it is, but to show that you are willing to listen, to put the hurt done to you behind you. You swallow your pride and you listen. Which, you know, I would have done, save that there was nothing to learn from your words. It was just more of the same fearmongering fags-as-monsters bullshit.

I'm not under the illusion you were just misunderstood, or your words taken out of context. You clearly hate and fear homosexuality, even if you probably wouldn't say you hate homosexual individuals (we'll leave the stupidity of that alone for now, and the matter of your own hypocrisy re: perversions). Love the sinner, hate the sin, blah blah blah. But you have been complaining about how rude and nasty and profane people have been. You've been using others' entirely justifiable anger to dismiss what they are saying, because you don't like how they say it. The tone argument. They aren't being respectful enough of you while you insult them. Your journal, you don't have to put up with people swearing at you or mobbing you, but it makes you look like an asshole to venomously insult a group of people that includes many of your fans and their loved ones, and then get all butthurt when they let you have both barrels in return. If nothing else, this should serve as a lesson to just how many of us there are, and that we are listening.

After comparing homosexuality to a litany of completely repellent nonconsensual crimes, you have no real grounds on which to complain about what anyone said to you. True, they said it in a great, rage-filled mass, but I will point out that each of those individuals felt personally wounded, personally hurt enough to comment and tell you exactly what they thought of your reprehensible screed. For them, your characterization of homosexuality as akin to bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, was not some abstract thing. You were talking about them, about people they know. Many -- self included -- actually held back or didn't comment at all. You're entitled to your opinion, hate-filled and foolish as it may be. Many might have engaged you in debate except for the fact that it was -- and is -- clear that your mind is tightly made up, the justifications you use for not listening so perfectly constructed as to allow no argument to penetrate.

Would you argue if you saw a published author whose works you own making ridiculous and stupid statements about Catholics? Called you lot baby-eaters, claimed that you engaged in incestuous orgies in secret temples, had congress with animals, and offered up the corpses of virgins for the carnal delights of your depraved priesthood? Would you engage such blatant stupidity in rational debate?

Adults do not answer the petty name-calling of a schoolyard bully with elaborate explanations of why we are not stinky dirty poopy-heads. That would be dignifying it with a response, which it does not deserve. You aren't a child, though. You are in a prominent position, and gay people and their friends pay to read your work, so we can't just ignore what you think of us or let it pass.

Protesting that you didn't mean your offensive words to reach so wide an audience is such foolishness I can't respond beyond pointing out your age. Few people actually mean to make enormous fools of themselves. They figure nobody's paying attention. But you are a published author on the internet, accessible to all of fandom. Your words can never be assumed to reach a small audience, and you aren't talking about abstracts solely to people who agree with you. You are insulting real people who are or who love someone who is gay. To those people, being anti-gay makes you look stupid no matter your reasoning. Defending or advancing that stance with blatant nonsense only means they will be more inclined to tell you to drop dead while throat-fucking a rabid weasel than actually try to educate you (which is not our duty, I might add, but yours) or debate with you.

If you want to argue the point, shore up your logic and start dealing with facts, stop regurgitating the same garbage. It's the internet. It's all computers. The rule of 5150, shit in, shit out, applies here. If you spout ignorant, hateful bullshit, you will get hateful bullshit in return.

I am posting this with comments disabled. This is not cowardice. I have no real desire to invite you to converse here, where such views as yours are not welcome, but I also have no real desire to allow the carnival of wank to continue in comments on my journal. That would simply make more work for me without putting people's scorn in front of you. If people want to register their displeasure with you, they can go to your journal to do it. If they wish to register their displeasure with me, there are many other entries where they can do so. I thought I would let this stand alone, a letter to you, in case you cared to read it.

I'm not holding my breath, but I hope that you will find some people to debate with you and perhaps help educate you. I hope that you will change your views. I personally suspect the damage has been done, and I know I won't ever have anything to do with you or your work again. I regret I ever did.

I am a generous woman, or try to be. I would wish you well, but I find the most I can wish you is wisdom, and a clearer vision. Those are not, as anyone who lives in interesting times will tell you, always pleasant things.

tiny permalink
naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Alpha Female)
The Sodomite Hal Duncan has a wonderful letter to share with you all this fine Friday afternoon.

My own letter is below.

To Mr. Wright,

Two things, before I begin.

First, if people have attacked you for your religious views, I don't approve of that. I am an atheist, not an anti-theist. As easy as it is to take pot shots, I cannot insult you for your beliefs without also insulting people I love.

Second, I had not heard about the incident with your wife until after discovering your entry. Going into what I think of that issue would not be appropriate here; I merely wished to point out that I'm not part of the mob that descended on her, lest you believe that everyone who took you to task is simply nursing a grudge from that whole affair. That's all I have to say on the matter.

Moving on, I was not the only person to link to that entry, but I concede I was one of the first, and my readership, for reasons I have never quite understood, is wide. I never would have called out your appalling remarks had you not been a published author whose books I have purchased in hardcover, and as gifts for others. You aren't a random dipshit on the internet yodeling into the vacuum of his own ass. You are a published writer in a field I love, and thus you are a person of whom I had stupidly assumed better. As someone who does not apply her money or loyalty to those who believe that I or my loved ones are perverted or defective, I felt betrayed.

If gay and gay-friendly folks choose to support you despite your views, that is their choice, but I believe they deserve to make an informed choice. That's why I pointed them your way. The fact that I pointed 1,500 people your way while saying "fuck" a lot is just how I do things. Because if we don't laugh and make fun of people who use ridiculous arguments to deny the validity of our relationships and the humanity of our brilliant, brief lives, well, that would just be too depressing.

It is unfortunate that the people who came to comment on your journal were angry, and not up to your desired level of discourse. I asked them not to troll, and apparently I misjudged their restraint. That was an error on my part. I didn't rile them, though. You did that on your own. Your words were offensive. Your words were hurtful. When a person says offensive, hurtful things, those who hear will lash out. When compared to pedophiles and necrophiliacs, they will come in mobs and be downright cruel. This is not the most wonderful facet of human nature, but nor is it proof that you were right all along or that everyone who disagrees with you is an illogical maniac with no internal censor. When those people bitchslapped you for being offensive, that was proof that what you said was offensive. Your own words condemned you, and as many of us have taken screenshots of the original entry, they will continue to do so.

The fact that you were mobbed -- "trolled" does not apply to most of the comments, most of which were expressing genuine disgust and displeasure, and were not being made, as they say, for the lulz -- does not free you from the offense you gave. When you say something offensive and are called on it, even if the people you have offended are rude to you, you take responsibility for the harm you caused, you apologize, and then you listen to how you can do better. You turn the other cheek, not so you can show people how smooth and righteous it is, but to show that you are willing to listen, to put the hurt done to you behind you. You swallow your pride and you listen. Which, you know, I would have done, save that there was nothing to learn from your words. It was just more of the same fearmongering fags-as-monsters bullshit.

I'm not under the illusion you were just misunderstood, or your words taken out of context. You clearly hate and fear homosexuality, even if you probably wouldn't say you hate homosexual individuals (we'll leave the stupidity of that alone for now, and the matter of your own hypocrisy re: perversions). Love the sinner, hate the sin, blah blah blah. But you have been complaining about how rude and nasty and profane people have been. You've been using others' entirely justifiable anger to dismiss what they are saying, because you don't like how they say it. The tone argument. They aren't being respectful enough of you while you insult them. Your journal, you don't have to put up with people swearing at you or mobbing you, but it makes you look like an asshole to venomously insult a group of people that includes many of your fans and their loved ones, and then get all butthurt when they let you have both barrels in return. If nothing else, this should serve as a lesson to just how many of us there are, and that we are listening.

After comparing homosexuality to a litany of completely repellent nonconsensual crimes, you have no real grounds on which to complain about what anyone said to you. True, they said it in a great, rage-filled mass, but I will point out that each of those individuals felt personally wounded, personally hurt enough to comment and tell you exactly what they thought of your reprehensible screed. For them, your characterization of homosexuality as akin to bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, was not some abstract thing. You were talking about them, about people they know. Many -- self included -- actually held back or didn't comment at all. You're entitled to your opinion, hate-filled and foolish as it may be. Many might have engaged you in debate except for the fact that it was -- and is -- clear that your mind is tightly made up, the justifications you use for not listening so perfectly constructed as to allow no argument to penetrate.

Would you argue if you saw a published author whose works you own making ridiculous and stupid statements about Catholics? Called you lot baby-eaters, claimed that you engaged in incestuous orgies in secret temples, had congress with animals, and offered up the corpses of virgins for the carnal delights of your depraved priesthood? Would you engage such blatant stupidity in rational debate?

Adults do not answer the petty name-calling of a schoolyard bully with elaborate explanations of why we are not stinky dirty poopy-heads. That would be dignifying it with a response, which it does not deserve. You aren't a child, though. You are in a prominent position, and gay people and their friends pay to read your work, so we can't just ignore what you think of us or let it pass.

Protesting that you didn't mean your offensive words to reach so wide an audience is such foolishness I can't respond beyond pointing out your age. Few people actually mean to make enormous fools of themselves. They figure nobody's paying attention. But you are a published author on the internet, accessible to all of fandom. Your words can never be assumed to reach a small audience, and you aren't talking about abstracts solely to people who agree with you. You are insulting real people who are or who love someone who is gay. To those people, being anti-gay makes you look stupid no matter your reasoning. Defending or advancing that stance with blatant nonsense only means they will be more inclined to tell you to drop dead while throat-fucking a rabid weasel than actually try to educate you (which is not our duty, I might add, but yours) or debate with you.

If you want to argue the point, shore up your logic and start dealing with facts, stop regurgitating the same garbage. It's the internet. It's all computers. The rule of 5150, shit in, shit out, applies here. If you spout ignorant, hateful bullshit, you will get hateful bullshit in return.

I am posting this with comments disabled. This is not cowardice. I have no real desire to invite you to converse here, where such views as yours are not welcome, but I also have no real desire to allow the carnival of wank to continue in comments on my journal. That would simply make more work for me without putting people's scorn in front of you. If people want to register their displeasure with you, they can go to your journal to do it. If they wish to register their displeasure with me, there are many other entries where they can do so. I thought I would let this stand alone, a letter to you, in case you cared to read it.

I'm not holding my breath, but I hope that you will find some people to debate with you and perhaps help educate you. I hope that you will change your views. I personally suspect the damage has been done, and I know I won't ever have anything to do with you or your work again. I regret I ever did.

I am a generous woman, or try to be. I would wish you well, but I find the most I can wish you is wisdom, and a clearer vision. Those are not, as anyone who lives in interesting times will tell you, always pleasant things.

tiny permalink
naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Gay Apocalypse!)
He's edited his entry and turned off comments. The edit is probably one of the funnier yet simultaneously sad things I've seen on the internet thus far. You should definitely go read it. I lol-ed. For so many reasons, I lol-ed. ETA: He's deleted the original entry.

He's apparently bent out of shape that we weren't arguing the way he would prefer, or kissing up. We're just a bunch of vulgar morons who would rather swear and make love with our faces than engage in some jolly good intellectual debate, by thunder. For shame, all of you, for upsetting this fine man. For shame.

I was willing to let it go, but he threw out a phrase so delightful that I just cannot resist. You see, apparently we are just a bunch of idolaters, bowing down to, and I quote:

The child-eating Moloch of political correctness!





Please, by all means supply your own child-eating Moloch pics in comments. If you can improve on my two-minute Photoshop mashup, feel free.
naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Gay Apocalypse!)
He's edited his entry and turned off comments. The edit is probably one of the funnier yet simultaneously sad things I've seen on the internet thus far. You should definitely go read it. I lol-ed. For so many reasons, I lol-ed. ETA: He's deleted the original entry.

He's apparently bent out of shape that we weren't arguing the way he would prefer, or kissing up. We're just a bunch of vulgar morons who would rather swear and make love with our faces than engage in some jolly good intellectual debate, by thunder. For shame, all of you, for upsetting this fine man. For shame.

I was willing to let it go, but he threw out a phrase so delightful that I just cannot resist. You see, apparently we are just a bunch of idolaters, bowing down to, and I quote:

The child-eating Moloch of political correctness!





Please, by all means supply your own child-eating Moloch pics in comments. If you can improve on my two-minute Photoshop mashup, feel free.
naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Gay Agenda)
John C. Wright, aka [livejournal.com profile] johncwright.

It is completely up to you if you want to buy books written by this guy after reading what he thinks about homosexuality.

ETA: he deleted the original entry.

On another note not related to the above in any way, I've got several hardcover books I don't want anymore. The books are in good shape, so I'm trying to think of a meaningful application for them. Like cutting them apart and using them to compose stories about gay perverts fucking. Or should I make them into hollow book boxes to hold my rosary of anal beads and my baby Jesus butt-plug? What do you all think?

In the meantime, I really have to make an appointment to assrape a dead goat with a crucifix strap-on in front of some schoolchildren. Like, soon. I have to commit obscene and corrupting acts or my pervert card lapses and I won't be able to get in on all the good cocaine-fueled mule-fucking pedophilia and abortion parties. I hear Hillary Clinton goes to those, and that she's a real cougar. Grrrowl.

Also, whoever has my homosex indoctrination DVDs? Please send them back if you're done with them. I've been asked to speak at the nearby grade school's recruitment assembly on National Convert a Nubile Youth to Homosexuality Day, and you just can't expect kids to learn about the joys of non-procreative pervsex from books or handouts anymore.

Lazy little shits.

(No trolling. Not that I care if you go into someone else's house and crap on their floor, but it would reflect poorly on me if I sent you over there to do it, so I'm not. I'm just letting you know what he thinks of most of you so that you can decide whether or not to reward him for it by paying attention to his writing. That is all.)
naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Gay Agenda)
John C. Wright, aka [livejournal.com profile] johncwright.

It is completely up to you if you want to buy books written by this guy after reading what he thinks about homosexuality.

ETA: he deleted the original entry.

On another note not related to the above in any way, I've got several hardcover books I don't want anymore. The books are in good shape, so I'm trying to think of a meaningful application for them. Like cutting them apart and using them to compose stories about gay perverts fucking. Or should I make them into hollow book boxes to hold my rosary of anal beads and my baby Jesus butt-plug? What do you all think?

In the meantime, I really have to make an appointment to assrape a dead goat with a crucifix strap-on in front of some schoolchildren. Like, soon. I have to commit obscene and corrupting acts or my pervert card lapses and I won't be able to get in on all the good cocaine-fueled mule-fucking pedophilia and abortion parties. I hear Hillary Clinton goes to those, and that she's a real cougar. Grrrowl.

Also, whoever has my homosex indoctrination DVDs? Please send them back if you're done with them. I've been asked to speak at the nearby grade school's recruitment assembly on National Convert a Nubile Youth to Homosexuality Day, and you just can't expect kids to learn about the joys of non-procreative pervsex from books or handouts anymore.

Lazy little shits.

(No trolling. Not that I care if you go into someone else's house and crap on their floor, but it would reflect poorly on me if I sent you over there to do it, so I'm not. I'm just letting you know what he thinks of most of you so that you can decide whether or not to reward him for it by paying attention to his writing. That is all.)
naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Gay Agenda)
Because I feel that after all this Prop 8 fuckery we could use a little levity, I present here a hilarious link, courtesy of [livejournal.com profile] bat_cheva.

The Movement to Protect Singing

Choice excerpt:

Indeed it is surely not too extreme to suggest that the ultimate aim of those who would seek to promote homosexual songs is to do away with the concept of singing altogether. It is a stealth movement that is fundamentally opposed to our musical values. If we accept homosexual songs, what next? Will we have to define the noise a goat makes as ’singing’?

Homosexuals do not even need singing. There are already plenty of perfectly good words that describe the noises that they make, such as ’screeching’, ‘yelling’ and ‘wailing’; they will still be permitted to use those words.


Worth reading in its glorious, satirical entirety. Bravo.

The only thing I could possibly criticise is that it is entirely too literate and articulate to be believable. Sadly, the loevel of logic involved is spot-on.
naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Gay Agenda)
Because I feel that after all this Prop 8 fuckery we could use a little levity, I present here a hilarious link, courtesy of [livejournal.com profile] bat_cheva.

The Movement to Protect Singing

Choice excerpt:

Indeed it is surely not too extreme to suggest that the ultimate aim of those who would seek to promote homosexual songs is to do away with the concept of singing altogether. It is a stealth movement that is fundamentally opposed to our musical values. If we accept homosexual songs, what next? Will we have to define the noise a goat makes as ’singing’?

Homosexuals do not even need singing. There are already plenty of perfectly good words that describe the noises that they make, such as ’screeching’, ‘yelling’ and ‘wailing’; they will still be permitted to use those words.


Worth reading in its glorious, satirical entirety. Bravo.

The only thing I could possibly criticise is that it is entirely too literate and articulate to be believable. Sadly, the loevel of logic involved is spot-on.
naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Warning: Death Ray)
The second letter, because I couldn't let the top 10 results for "homosexuality" thing pass without mention:

To: ecr@amazon.com

Subject: More unacceptability.

To whom it may concern, yet again,

I have already written once expressing my displeasure, but I feel I must do so once more.

Are you aware that A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality by Joseph Nicolosi and Linda Ames Nicolosi is now the first title to appear if one searches for "homosexuality" on Amazon? Are you seriously telling me that a book about preventing homosexuality -- which is not possible -- is somehow an improvement over whatever book would have been in that spot had your new policy not gone into place?

Do you not see how incredibly, deeply offensive that is?

Are you on drugs? Stupid? Uncaring?

What is your problem?

What?

You want to censor "adult" content? FINE. I demand that you censor, equally, such "adult" content as Biblically-justified hate. I demand that you remove works that justify using one's own religious beliefs to stifle or harm another, or that deny humanity to other human beings based on something that is not a choice, and even if it were, would do no harm.

I demand that out of "consideration," you protect your customers from having to look at that bile-filled hate. I demand that I and others like me not have to look at it. You want to cater to your "entire customer base," you need to start catering to people who don't want to see that hateful religious crap, too. I find it every bit as offensive as others find the idea of two consenting adults of the same gender sharing pleasure. Where are my censored search rankings? When will books by atheists top the list of searches for "Jesus Christ?" When are you going to fix this?

I did notice that not all of the books in the top ten results for "homosexuality" are unsupportive, but the majority of them deal with it from a Biblical perspective. Must that be the central frame of reference for something that has nothing to do with the Bible? Must you encourage the incredibly narrow-minded and lackwitted worldview that implies that the only reason we should talk about gays is to wonder what Jesus would have thought of them, or whether God will let those icky homosexuals into heaven along with the rest of us Godfearing folk?

You don't want teens running across Heather Corinna's incredibly well-researched and sympathetic S.E.X., yet you have no problem with teens running across You Don't Have to Be Gay: Hope and Freedom for Males Struggling With Homosexuality or for Those Who Know of Someone Who Is by Jeff Konrad?

What the ever loving hell is wrong with you?!

At this point, you have lost my business. My husband and I have a Prime account with you. Again, I invite you to check our purchase history, which is well over $2,000 in the last six months alone. You've lost that business, and at this point the only possible way for you to regain it would be for you to issue a formal apology for your heinous, shortsighted, bigoted, and offensive behavior.

If this is what you think of us -- of gays, lesbians, transgendered folk, straight allies, those who are questioning, and those people who simply have functioning consciences and the sense of propriety God gave a roadkill possum -- if this is what you think of us, we will take our filthy homosexual lucre elsewhere, and you can go to hell.

I do not know how to make my displeasure any more clear.

Yours without any goodwill whatsoever,

-- Amanda Gannon

***

Amazon customer service email: ecr@amazon.com

Customer service phone: 1-800-201-7575

CEO contacts: Jeffrey Bezos.
1200 12th Avenue South
Seattle, Washington 98144-2734
United States
Phone: 206-266-1000
Fax: 206-622-2405


Drop the Google bomb with Amazon Rank.
naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Warning: Death Ray)
The second letter, because I couldn't let the top 10 results for "homosexuality" thing pass without mention:

To: ecr@amazon.com

Subject: More unacceptability.

To whom it may concern, yet again,

I have already written once expressing my displeasure, but I feel I must do so once more.

Are you aware that A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality by Joseph Nicolosi and Linda Ames Nicolosi is now the first title to appear if one searches for "homosexuality" on Amazon? Are you seriously telling me that a book about preventing homosexuality -- which is not possible -- is somehow an improvement over whatever book would have been in that spot had your new policy not gone into place?

Do you not see how incredibly, deeply offensive that is?

Are you on drugs? Stupid? Uncaring?

What is your problem?

What?

You want to censor "adult" content? FINE. I demand that you censor, equally, such "adult" content as Biblically-justified hate. I demand that you remove works that justify using one's own religious beliefs to stifle or harm another, or that deny humanity to other human beings based on something that is not a choice, and even if it were, would do no harm.

I demand that out of "consideration," you protect your customers from having to look at that bile-filled hate. I demand that I and others like me not have to look at it. You want to cater to your "entire customer base," you need to start catering to people who don't want to see that hateful religious crap, too. I find it every bit as offensive as others find the idea of two consenting adults of the same gender sharing pleasure. Where are my censored search rankings? When will books by atheists top the list of searches for "Jesus Christ?" When are you going to fix this?

I did notice that not all of the books in the top ten results for "homosexuality" are unsupportive, but the majority of them deal with it from a Biblical perspective. Must that be the central frame of reference for something that has nothing to do with the Bible? Must you encourage the incredibly narrow-minded and lackwitted worldview that implies that the only reason we should talk about gays is to wonder what Jesus would have thought of them, or whether God will let those icky homosexuals into heaven along with the rest of us Godfearing folk?

You don't want teens running across Heather Corinna's incredibly well-researched and sympathetic S.E.X., yet you have no problem with teens running across You Don't Have to Be Gay: Hope and Freedom for Males Struggling With Homosexuality or for Those Who Know of Someone Who Is by Jeff Konrad?

What the ever loving hell is wrong with you?!

At this point, you have lost my business. My husband and I have a Prime account with you. Again, I invite you to check our purchase history, which is well over $2,000 in the last six months alone. You've lost that business, and at this point the only possible way for you to regain it would be for you to issue a formal apology for your heinous, shortsighted, bigoted, and offensive behavior.

If this is what you think of us -- of gays, lesbians, transgendered folk, straight allies, those who are questioning, and those people who simply have functioning consciences and the sense of propriety God gave a roadkill possum -- if this is what you think of us, we will take our filthy homosexual lucre elsewhere, and you can go to hell.

I do not know how to make my displeasure any more clear.

Yours without any goodwill whatsoever,

-- Amanda Gannon

***

Amazon customer service email: ecr@amazon.com

Customer service phone: 1-800-201-7575

CEO contacts: Jeffrey Bezos.
1200 12th Avenue South
Seattle, Washington 98144-2734
United States
Phone: 206-266-1000
Fax: 206-622-2405


Drop the Google bomb with Amazon Rank.
naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Gay Sex)
Amazon has decided that books with gay, lesbian, and feminist content are "adult books," and as such, we need to be protected from them.

When an affected writer asked Amazon about this, he received this in reply:

In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude "adult" material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists. Since these lists are generated using sales ranks, adult materials must also be excluded from that feature.

Hence, if you have further questions, kindly write back to us.

Best regards,

Ashlyn D
Member Services
Amazon.com Advantage


Here is a list of affected titles.

Amazon searches for "homosexuality" bring up some interesting titles. The very first book to appear is A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality by Joseph Nicolosi and Linda Ames Nicolosi. Amazon feels this is less harmful?

Dwell on that.

Moving on, Can Homosexuality Be Healed? by Francis MacNutt and You Don't Have to Be Gay: Hope and Freedom for Males Struggling With Homosexuality or for Those Who Know of Someone Who Is by Jeff Konrad also appear within the top ten.

I am with Smart Bitches, Trashy Books: "What, I ask, the fucking fuckhell?"

A link roundup.

Massive thread derail in comments on this Amazon post. Go contribute if you have an account, or simply click "Yes" below the comments to signify that you agree. My comment is at the top of page two, I think.

Amazon customer service email: ecr@amazon.com

Customer service phone: 1-800-201-7575

CEO contact:
Jeffrey Bezos.
1200 12th Avenue South
Seattle, Washington 98144-2734
United States
Phone: 206-266-1000
Fax: 206-622-2405


I wrote them a letter, and will probably write another. Want text? Here, have text:

***

TO: ecr@amazon.com

SUBJECT: Unacceptable, unacceptable, unacceptable.

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to inform you that I will not be ordering from Amazon until such time as you cease excluding GLBT and other "adult" material from appearing in bestseller and search lists, and until their sales rankings have been restored.

I have been very pleased with Amazon until now. This pleasure has been reflected in the amount of money I and my husband spend with Amazon. I'll wait while you go look at the numbers.

Seen them?

You aren't getting any more of it until you start treating us like adults.

Your backwards policies are censoring the appearance GLBT books on bestseller, search, and ranking lists, as well as negative affecting heterosexual adult erotica as well. It is also negatively affecting YA novels that treat with the subject sympathetically -- books that, far from "corrupting," could arguably do a great deal of good to a child suffering a crisis of sexual identity. None of this is acceptable.

You, through someone called "Ashlyn D," claim this is "in consideration for [your] entire customer base."

How utterly revolting, patronizing, and stupid. For shame!

I do not need such consideration. No adult needs such consideration. Are we children? Do squalling infants make up the majority of your customer base? Do you honestly believe that grown men and women need to be protected from the gay and lesbian menace? Are you truly that shortsighted, backwards, and stupid? Disappointing. Disappointing and nauseating.

I am bisexual. I'm happy to say that, because there is no shame in it. Yet I, and people like me, are not being treated like humans, but more like something the cat accidentally did outside the box and which now needs to be covered over or flushed away. Therefore I don't believe I need to be part of your "entire customer base."

I will be announcing on my online journal, which as of this morning has 1,495 subscribers, that they should not be part of your customer base, either.

If the lowest common denominator is all you cater to, the lowest common denominator is all you will be left with. If you truly think your "entire customer base" is composed of morons and bigots and pearl-clutching ninnies, I am just as glad not to be a part of it, and I suspect my good readers, being people of conscience and intelligence, will agree.

And apparently, your message to us would be "good riddance." That's pretty much the only way I can interpret this flagrant display of bigotry and privilege: as a great, flashing sign that says "FAGS NOT WELCOME."

Well, we're gone, along with all our heterosexual allies; gone until such time as you reverse this disgusting and pointless practice. I look forward to hearing that you have done so.

I also hope that you will be thoughtful enough to provide an apology, since gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people are, in fact, moral human beings with functioning emotions, and who really do not care to have our interests marginalized or swept under the rug like some sort of revolting secret.

If you have an explanation for this pathetic foolishness, I should like to hear that, too. Feel free to respond. I would love to know how you plan to defend this nonsense. Please be very specific about what you fear will happen if people run across GLBT titles in searches and lists. Also, since the literature needs to be hidden away, I would like to know just how dangerous and corrupting and horrible you consider me to be.

Emphatically and disgustedly yours,

Amanda A. Gannon

***

Amazon Rank

Have your Google bomb, you dumb fucks.
naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Gay Sex)
Amazon has decided that books with gay, lesbian, and feminist content are "adult books," and as such, we need to be protected from them.

When an affected writer asked Amazon about this, he received this in reply:

In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude "adult" material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists. Since these lists are generated using sales ranks, adult materials must also be excluded from that feature.

Hence, if you have further questions, kindly write back to us.

Best regards,

Ashlyn D
Member Services
Amazon.com Advantage


Here is a list of affected titles.

Amazon searches for "homosexuality" bring up some interesting titles. The very first book to appear is A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality by Joseph Nicolosi and Linda Ames Nicolosi. Amazon feels this is less harmful?

Dwell on that.

Moving on, Can Homosexuality Be Healed? by Francis MacNutt and You Don't Have to Be Gay: Hope and Freedom for Males Struggling With Homosexuality or for Those Who Know of Someone Who Is by Jeff Konrad also appear within the top ten.

I am with Smart Bitches, Trashy Books: "What, I ask, the fucking fuckhell?"

A link roundup.

Massive thread derail in comments on this Amazon post. Go contribute if you have an account, or simply click "Yes" below the comments to signify that you agree. My comment is at the top of page two, I think.

Amazon customer service email: ecr@amazon.com

Customer service phone: 1-800-201-7575

CEO contact:
Jeffrey Bezos.
1200 12th Avenue South
Seattle, Washington 98144-2734
United States
Phone: 206-266-1000
Fax: 206-622-2405


I wrote them a letter, and will probably write another. Want text? Here, have text:

***

TO: ecr@amazon.com

SUBJECT: Unacceptable, unacceptable, unacceptable.

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to inform you that I will not be ordering from Amazon until such time as you cease excluding GLBT and other "adult" material from appearing in bestseller and search lists, and until their sales rankings have been restored.

I have been very pleased with Amazon until now. This pleasure has been reflected in the amount of money I and my husband spend with Amazon. I'll wait while you go look at the numbers.

Seen them?

You aren't getting any more of it until you start treating us like adults.

Your backwards policies are censoring the appearance GLBT books on bestseller, search, and ranking lists, as well as negative affecting heterosexual adult erotica as well. It is also negatively affecting YA novels that treat with the subject sympathetically -- books that, far from "corrupting," could arguably do a great deal of good to a child suffering a crisis of sexual identity. None of this is acceptable.

You, through someone called "Ashlyn D," claim this is "in consideration for [your] entire customer base."

How utterly revolting, patronizing, and stupid. For shame!

I do not need such consideration. No adult needs such consideration. Are we children? Do squalling infants make up the majority of your customer base? Do you honestly believe that grown men and women need to be protected from the gay and lesbian menace? Are you truly that shortsighted, backwards, and stupid? Disappointing. Disappointing and nauseating.

I am bisexual. I'm happy to say that, because there is no shame in it. Yet I, and people like me, are not being treated like humans, but more like something the cat accidentally did outside the box and which now needs to be covered over or flushed away. Therefore I don't believe I need to be part of your "entire customer base."

I will be announcing on my online journal, which as of this morning has 1,495 subscribers, that they should not be part of your customer base, either.

If the lowest common denominator is all you cater to, the lowest common denominator is all you will be left with. If you truly think your "entire customer base" is composed of morons and bigots and pearl-clutching ninnies, I am just as glad not to be a part of it, and I suspect my good readers, being people of conscience and intelligence, will agree.

And apparently, your message to us would be "good riddance." That's pretty much the only way I can interpret this flagrant display of bigotry and privilege: as a great, flashing sign that says "FAGS NOT WELCOME."

Well, we're gone, along with all our heterosexual allies; gone until such time as you reverse this disgusting and pointless practice. I look forward to hearing that you have done so.

I also hope that you will be thoughtful enough to provide an apology, since gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people are, in fact, moral human beings with functioning emotions, and who really do not care to have our interests marginalized or swept under the rug like some sort of revolting secret.

If you have an explanation for this pathetic foolishness, I should like to hear that, too. Feel free to respond. I would love to know how you plan to defend this nonsense. Please be very specific about what you fear will happen if people run across GLBT titles in searches and lists. Also, since the literature needs to be hidden away, I would like to know just how dangerous and corrupting and horrible you consider me to be.

Emphatically and disgustedly yours,

Amanda A. Gannon

***

Amazon Rank

Have your Google bomb, you dumb fucks.

Profile

naamah_darling: The right-side canines of a wolf's skull; the upper canine is made of gold. (Default)
naamah_darling

March 2017

S M T W T F S
   1234
5 678 910 11
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Mar. 23rd, 2017 08:06 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios