Mediaite » LGBT

CNN’s Roland Martin: The New Martyr For The Conservative War On Elitism

Frances Martel — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:58:39 +0000

Earlier today the news broke that CNN contributor Roland Martin will not be appearing on the network indefinitely for what GLAAD perceived to be a homophobic tweet. Despite his personal ideological bent, the reaction from the conservative media was a swift defense of the longtime CNN pundit. But the conservative reaction to Martin’s suspension is no surprise because the conservative movement has long abandoned the left/right divide for a new war front: that between individuals and the media elite.

The Twitter story, taking place on Super Bowl Sunday, has been recounted many times, but for the unacquainted: Martin tends to tweet teasing jokes about sports very often– whether it be his various sports feuds with Touré or his soccer jokes to Piers Morgan. Last Sunday, his tweets were inclined more toward the latter, and he made clear he objected to David Beckham, a soccer player, interrupting his Super Bowl with his underwear. Many, including GLAAD, took the tweets to be an attempt to incite violence against gay men who would find Beckham in his underwear an attractive image. Martin apologized and explained himself: he was actually mocking soccer fans during a football game, not homosexual males. The context of the tweet– one before it with the tag “#superbowl” about actually buying Beckham’s underwear line, and one after mocking Piers Morgan for liking soccer– seems to corroborate Martin’s point, debatable though it might be. After what it called “careful deliberation,” CNN announced today that they would be suspending Martin.

This sparked its own outraged response from many who remembered several offensive comments made by CNN contributors that resulted in no such punishment– most notably Erick Erickson and Dana Loesch, the former for, among other things, threatening to “pull a shotgun” on a census worker and the latter, among still other things, encouraging Marines to urinate on corpses, for America. Naturally, the fact that a comment using the word “ish” in a description of David Beckham appears to pale in comparison to them, resulting in many expressing confusion as to what CNN’s standards really are. Despite appearances, there is a method to the apparent madness of suspending Martin while letting other commentators, most notably the Tea Party wing of CNN (even if Erickson may dispute this) run amok.

This reaction was mostly on the left though; the right, rather than try to take down Martin’s colleagues, reacted with exasperation at the outrage towards Martin. Gay conservative group GOProud founder Christopher Barron defended Martin by noting that he, too, made fun of the same ad. Glenn Beck admitted his distaste for Martin’s comment in general while defending his right to make a joke. “Free Roland Martin!” writes the Daily Caller‘s Jim Treacher, imploring GLAAD to “relax” over Martin’s “stupid” tweets. Newsbusters’ Brent Bozell called the entire ordeal “hilarious” and found the tweets among Martin’s “least offensive.” John Nolte at Big Journalism makes clear that he disagrees ideologically with much of Martin’s opinions, but “the thought of trying to silence him is anathema to everything I believe in.”

As a conservative, Nolte is right that silencing Martin for his tweets is anathema to conservative philosophy, though he argues this point on First Amendment grounds. But beyond the philosophical ideal of pure freedom of expression, the underlying double standard that regulates “elite” correspondents is a fabrication, in many ways, of what conservatives perceive as the “elite left.” The answer to why Martin is punished when Erickson is not is that they belong to two separate classes of pundits– “elite” and “non-elite.” Non-elites are not expected to speak or behave in any particular way. These are categories that conservative philosophy patently rejects, particularly post-neoconservative philosophy inspired by liberatarianism and Palinist populism in equal measure. Much of that rejection comes from a more hearty understanding of freedom of expression, but also from the perpetual feeling that they belong to a permanent second class of thinkers– thinkers that can get away with saying more outrageous comments at the expense of their reputations in the greater media.

This sort of mindset is a relic of the withering “Old Media” empire, and it is not new: the Dan Rathers of the world must have surely squirmed at the idea of Geraldo Rivera ever being taken seriously, the panic that must have swept Newsweek when some gift shop employee with an email list broke the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Even in the post-internet world, old media has done its best to maintain boundaries that no longer make sense. There are “journalists” and there are “bloggers;” “public intellectuals” and “muckrakers.”

And Martin is only the most recent in a string of apparent media “elites” punished for seeming human, while “non-elites” enjoy much more extensive freedoms. Slate columnist Dave Weigel left his perch at the Washington Post for privately employing the use of, among other epithets, the colorful Nixonian term “ratfucking.” Weigel belonged to a class of people not permitted to speak that way, and was nominally relocated to a class that could. The story is one of the few of its genre that ends well, with Weigel still the best of the hard-nosed reporters at the Washington Post Co. Martin’s story is still incomplete, but falls along similar lines, the difference being that he exposed his own silly language without the help of FishbowlDC.

Conservatives are often quick to argue that the double-standard on what is acceptable in the public discourse is one of ideology. That Martin’s story so acutely defies that– particularly in light of the comments of some of his conservative colleagues– shows that many conservatives can see the game in action but have historically had a hard time identifying the players. In this sense, Martin has the wind at his back– and, perhaps with the support of the conservative media community, CNN may recant and keep a valued and original voice on the airwaves that may just come back with newly-acquired wisdom on where the true divides in media actually lie.

Breaking: Roland Martin Suspended By CNN For Offensive Super Bowl Tweets

Tommy Christopher — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:39:57 +0000

On the heels (but not too closely on the heels) of Monday’s call by GLAAD that CNN analyst Roland Martin be fired for tweets he made during Sunday’s Super Bowl, the network has announced that Martin has been suspended. Martin initially explained the tweets, which GLAAD said encouraged violence against gay people, as tweaking soccer fans, but the network disagrees. In a statement released minutes ago, CNN says “Roland Martin’s tweets were regrettable and offensive. Language that demeans is inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated. We have been giving careful consideration to this matter, and Roland will not be appearing on our air for the time being.”

Martin, who spent Sunday evening live-Tweeting the game and several commercials, made a remark about an H&M commercial for David Beckham‘s line of men’s underwear. The ad, for those who missed it, features close-ups of the soccer player clad only in a pair of briefs.

“If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad,” Martin Tweeted, “smack the ish out of him!”

Martin insisted he was taking a jab at soccer fans, not the gay community. For your reference, here’s his original comment, including the Tweets that came directly before and after:

On Monday, Martin published a statement on the matter on his website:

Fam, let me address the issue that some in the LGBT community have raised regarding some of my Super Bowl tweets yesterday.

I made several cracks about soccer as I do all the time. I was not referring to sexuality directly or indirectly regarding the David Beckham ad, and I’m sorry folks took it otherwise.

It was meant to be a deliberately over the top and sarcastic crack about soccer; I do not advocate violence of any kind against anyone gay, or not. As anyone who follows me on Twitter knows, anytime soccer comes up during football season it’s another chance for me to take a playful shot at soccer, nothing more.

At this time, the duration of Martin’s suspension is unknown.

Additional reporting by Alex Alvarez.

Michael Steele Blasts John Heilemann For Comparing Same-Sex Marriage To Interracial Marriage

Alex Alvarez — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:36:44 +0000

On Tuesday’s edition of Now with Alex Wagner, gay rights activist Lt. Dan Choi spoke about a federal appeals court weighing in on whether California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. (The interview was done, it should be noted, before the court announced that, yes, a ban on same-sex marriage does indeed work against gay Americans’ constitutional rights).

The conversation addressed the incongruity of the Republican party embracing a certain level of liberty and of keeping the government out of people’s private lives, yet at the same time declaring that love between same-sex couples is somehow “not real” and must be declared as such by the government. Former RNC chairman Michael Steele, for one, believes laws concerning gay marriage should be discussed and decided at a local level.

Panelist John Heilemann then asked Steele what he thought about the fact that, at one point, local standards held that it was unacceptable for black men to marry white women. Steele rejected the comparison:

First off, let’s just be very clear about a couple of things. There are a significant number of African Americans — myself included — who do not appreciate that particular equation. Ok? Because, when you walk into a room, I don’t know if you’re gay or not. But when I walk into a room, you know I’m black. And whatever racial feelings you have about African Americans, about black people, that is something that, it viscerally comes out. I don’t know until later on, maybe you tell me or some other way, so don’t sit there and make that comparison. It’s not the same.

Heilemann stuck by his comparison, noting that being gay — just like being black or being white or straight — is an immutable characteristic. “You can’t change who you love, you can’t change what color you are,” he said.

Have a look at their discussion, via MSNBC:

GLAAD Demands CNN Fire Roland Martin Over David Beckham Tweet

Alex Alvarez — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:13:51 +0000

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has called out columnist and CNN contributor Roland Martin for a Tweet he sent during last night’s Super Bowl.

“If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad,” Martin Tweeted, “smack the ish out of him!”

Martin insisted he was taking a jab at soccer fans, not the gay community. For your reference, here’s his original comment, including the Tweets that came directly before and after:

GLAAD called out the Tweet for encouraging violence against gay men:

Today, Martin published a statement on the matter on his website:

Fam, let me address the issue that some in the LGBT community have raised regarding some of my Super Bowl tweets yesterday.

I made several cracks about soccer as I do all the time. I was not referring to sexuality directly or indirectly regarding the David Beckham ad, and I’m sorry folks took it otherwise.

It was meant to be a deliberately over the top and sarcastic crack about soccer; I do not advocate violence of any kind against anyone gay, or not. As anyone who follows me on Twitter knows, anytime soccer comes up during football season it’s another chance for me to take a playful shot at soccer, nothing more.

GLAAD, meanwhile, has published a report titled “Enough is Enough: Tell CNN to Fire Roland Martin,” in which the group says that, not only is Martin’s Tweet certainly homophobic, it is also part of a larger pattern of behavior:

Roland Martin has never compared being a soccer fan to being an alcoholic, the way he has compared being gay to being an alcoholic. Roland Martin has never bragged that his wife has led men and women away from the “soccer lifestyle,” the way he claims she has with gay people. Roland Martin has never defended jokes about parents stabbing soccer-playing children, the way he defended jokes about parents stabbing gay children.

Based on this history, this doesn’t seem like a playful jab at what Martin considers an inferior sport.

It seems like a jab at what Martin considers an inferior community of people.

One piece of evidence GLAAD offers is a Tweet Martin made earlier on Sunday: “Who the hell was that New England Patriot they just showed in a head to toe pink suit?” he’d written. “Oh, he needs a visit from #teamwhipdatass”

h/t GLAAD

Univisión News Magazine Airs Positive Report On Gay Reparative Therapy

Frances Martel — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:27:20 +0000

Univisión newsmagazine show Aqui y Ahora boasts a formidable ratings base and explores controversial political topics for an audience that sometimes uses the show as its only source of news. This weekend, the show tackled the topic of “gay reparative therapy,” interviewing subjects and providing expert opinion. Except the subjects they interviewed were “success” stories who were now heterosexual (or, in one case, a “failure”), and the “experts” were mostly “psychologists” who denied the existence of homosexuality.

The segment, hosted by Maria Antonieta Collins, begins with the story of Hernán, who came out of the closet and was accepted by family, but one day decided he wanted a change. After meeting a woman through an ex-boyfriend, he says, “I felt things I had never experienced with any other men,” and though the dating was short-lived, he decided to seek “help.” The report then speaks to the man responsible for his transformation– psychologist Everardo Martínez who says there is “no proof anyone is born gay,” and explains that anyone can become straight. “If you want, you can repress homosexuality because you are not gay, your body says you are not gay.” Hernán concludes that, while he still has “temptations,” he is no longer gay.

Collins repeatedly describes this process as “sexual reaffirmation” and shows clips of “Club Toby,” Martínez’s meetings where formerly gay men interact and “learn proper masculine behavior.” They do attempt to show to potential downsides with the story of Miguel, who married a woman but was exposed as gay before his church in Tennessee and forced into “sexual restoration.” Miguel explains that he was promised “to be able to live a fuller life with the woman I married.” The report then narrates that Miguel fell into “acute depression, which culminated in a nervous fit. His attempt to become straight failed.”

The report concludes with a short interview with a psychologist that explains that people are born with sexual orientations, and a note that the government of Ecuador has begun to shut down “reorientation clinics,” calling them “torture chambers.” This after a high note in which Hernán happily declares he sees himself married to a woman in a few years.

The full segment, in Spanish, below:

Imagine the same being broadcast on any English-language news magazine: Nightline or 60 Minutes. Imagine Brian Williams hosting a segment on a “successful” gay-to-straight transformation complete with quotes from a “psychologist” that denies the existence of homosexuality, which calls the depression of a man suffering after being submitted to this therapy a “failure.” Not to mention that the report makes no mention of the causal link between “reorientation therapy” and suicides. The idea, likely even in most conservative English-speaking communities, would be an outrage. More than several people would be fired over it.

The sad reality of Spanish-language television in America that few in the English-speaking community think about or understand is that Univisión, based on the size of its syndication and near-monopoly on Spanish-language TV in America (it’s top competitor, Telemundo, trails far behind in the ratings), essentially serves a captive audience. While they do boast some of the youngest demographics of any network in America, they also have a stranglehold on non-English speakers, who, according to the Pew Research Center, 36% of watch 1-3 hours of Spanish-language TV a day– slightly lower than those who speak mostly Spanish but some English at home.

The Latin American community in America is in something of a parallel with the African American community politically— to the extent that it can be considered a monolithic population (it is not, at all, but let’s play along for now) it is widely Democratic, because many Latin American voters live in blue states and use government resources to prop themselves up. But it is also an overwhelmingly socially conservative population—“Latin Americans” (whatever that is) tend to attend church at higher rates, be generally more pro-life and anti-gay marriage. This is particularly true of Mexican Americans—and far less true of Cuban Americans, who are more socially liberal while also voting Republican more often—who is the main Latin American audience the network serves. This gives the network far more leeway in presenting socially conservatives stories to their audience.

In other words, a Spanish-speaking audience is significantly more likely to be receptive to this sort of report, especially if they don’t watch English-language news or follow national politics. The odds that someone watching this report as their main source of news would know who Marcus Bachmann is or why he was controversial are slim. The odds that they would know of the high suicide rate linked to gay reparative therapy or that they would have seen Anderson Cooper‘s harrowing report on the “sissy boy” experiment slimmer, still. It is no exaggeration to say that, for a Latin American LGBT teenager, having their parents watch a report like this could be their death sentence.

Conversely, just as the audience for this program was likely to be more comfortable with the material, so too are those who would be uncomfortable with it less likely to find it. There have been some outspoken voices– GLAAD has called out the network for airing it, noting that among the first to condemn it was singer Ricky Martin and providing some more statistics on the psychological damage of gay reparative therapy and exactly how many viewers were exposed to this report: “The program in 2010 had approximately 3.2 million total viewers. Comparatively, the English-language newsmagazine “Nightline,” averaged 3.7 million viewers in 2010.”

It is commendable that someone at GLAAD is keeping tabs on Spanish-language media, too, but sadly, they are likely preaching to the choir. As the American Latino population grows, Spanish-language media becomes more pivotal to national social attitudes, and precisely because of this they must be held to the same standards as any mainstream media outlet. They are the mainstream media, whether you understand it or not, and the burden of condemning news reports when they so egregiously promote inhumane practices should not fall exclusively on organizations like GLAAD, because they are not the only ones that will have to deal with the repercussions of this irresponsibility on Univisión’s part.

Santorum Supporter Rev. O’Neal Dozier On CNN: ‘God Is Not A Socialist’

Alex Alvarez — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:16:55 +0000

This afternoon, CNN’s Brooke Baldwin sat down with Rev. O’Neal Dozier, an ultra-conservative pastor who has been named an honorary chairman for GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum‘s campaign in Florida.

Dozier holds several controversial views, including that homosexuality is “something so nasty and disgusting that it makes God want to vomit.”

“Let me say this,” said Dozier. “I love the homosexual people. I want everyone to understand this. And God loves the homosexual people, Brooke. But in the Bible, God actually rained down fire and brimstone upon two cities in the Old Testament — Sodom and Gomorrah — basically because of the sin of homosexuality. Now, in that particular passage, God called homosexuality an abomination in His sight. When you translate that particular word, abomination, from its original text, which is a Hebrew text, you will find that that particular word means this: disgusting. That’s the meaning of the word. It means disgusting.”

Baldwin quoted back another comment by Dozier where he had said that “God would never ordain a government to take from the rich to give to the poor… therefore God is not a socialist.” So, she followed up, “do you think God is a Republican?”

“No,” he replied. “No I don’t. I don’t think that God is a Democrat, nor a Republican.” But, he reiterated, God is certainly not in favor of redistributing wealth.

Dozier said, later, that he isn’t sure whether or not Santorum shares many of his views. But he understands that “Rick Santorum is not a politically correct person.” And while Dozier doesn’t see himself as a “political broker,” per se, he sees the fact that politicians and the media are seeking his two cents as evidence that he, at least, has some political influence. Can’t argue with that — there he is, right on CNN, in a 7+ minutes-long segment.

Besides, politics and religion are enmeshed:

You see, there is no, really, separation from church from state. There is a separation, however, from state from church. But not from church from state. You see, I’m a lawyer by trade also, Brooke. So I understand the First Amendment. Yes.

Dozier then cited a Gallup poll that suggested 22 percent of those surveyed would not vote for a Mormon candidate. Dozier believes part of this is due to a Mormon scriptures negative depiction of black skin.

Have a look, via CNN:

Chris Christie Calls NJ Legislator Who Compared Him To George Wallace ‘Numb Nuts’

Frances Martel — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:26:36 +0000

Will there ever be a news cycle without a “Gov. Chris Christie yelling at people” story ever again? Not anytime in the near future, apparently. The Governor, who is currently pushing a ballot referendum on same-sex marriage in the state, took a moment today to discuss allegations that his comparison of the issue to those of race in the middle of the past century, which he found extremely offensive. Explaining that, unlike the LGBT community, a ballot referendum on civil rights “wasn’t an option,” Christie berated one state legislator who compared his stance to that of George Wallace as “numb nuts.”

Christie began by explaining a comment earlier in the week about civil rights in the South, and how a referendum could never be possible the way it could be for same-sex marriage in New Jersey. He admitted that his comparison may have been “inartful,” but he noted that many clamoring for a same-sex marriage law argue that “the public in New Jersey wants it.” “What I said was, that was not an option for [civil rights in the South] because the political climate in the South would not have permitted a referendum to have any chance of passage.” He compared the comments to a joke he made about “taking a bat to [State Senator Loretta Weinberg]” and then turned to those attacking him.

“You have numb nuts like Rep. Reed Gusciora, who put out a statement comparing me to George Wallace and Lester Maddox!” Christie chided. “At some point you’ve got to be able to call BS on these press releases.” He noted that Wallace and Maddox weren’t “advocating for urban education,” and concluded that “those who say things like that should be ashamed of themselves.”

The clip via the Star Ledger below:

Cue Trumpet Flourish: Here Are This Year’s GLAAD Media Award Nominees

Alex Alvarez — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:19:57 +0000

Today, The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) announced its nominees for the 23rd Annual GLAAD Media Awards, which seek to “serve as a benchmark for the media industry and complement GLAAD’s work to bring LGBT images and stories to Americans.” This year’s list of 151 nominees includes 35 Spanish-language stars, shows and films.

Of the broadcast networks included this year, ABC far surpasses its competition with a total of 8 nominations, with CNN and Showtime leading the cable news pack with 3 nominations each. Univision beats out other Spanish-language networks with its 8 nominations. And on the print and digital front, The New York Times garnered a total of 4 nominations, as well as one for its online home, NYTimes.com.

Here are some of this year’s nominees. For a full list, please visit GLAAD’s website:

Outstanding Film – Wide Release
Albert Nobbs, Beginners, J. Edgar

Outstanding Film – Limited Release
Circumstance, Gun Hill Road, Pariah, Tomboy, Weekend

Outstanding Drama Series
Degrassi, Grey’s Anatomy, Pretty Little Liars, Shameless, Torchwood: Miracle Day

Outstanding Comedy Series
Exes and Ohs, Glee, Happy Endings, Modern Family, The Big C

Outstanding TV Journalism – News Magazine
“Day One” The Rachel Maddow Show
Finding Home” In the Life
“GLBT in Texas” Spotlight DFW
“The ‘Sissy Boy’ Experiments” Anderson Cooper 360
“They Call it Corrective Rape” World’s Untold Stories

Outstanding TV Journalism Segment
“Battle Against Bullying” ABC World News With Diane Sawyer
“Children of LGBT Parents” MSNBC News Live
“Gay Dads Adopt 12 Kids” Good Morning America
“Kye Allums” Outside the Lines
“Split by Potential Deportation” CNN Newsroom

Outstanding Newspaper Columnist
Alfred Doblin, The Record [Bergen, N.J.]
Craig Wilson, USA Today
Frank Bruni, The New York Times
Maureen Dowd, The New York Times
Peg McEntee, The Salt Lake Tribune

Outstanding Newspaper Overall Coverage
Pioneer Press, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, The Oregonian, The Salt Lake Tribune

Outstanding Magazine Overall Coverage
Entertainment Weekly, People, The Advocate/Out, Time, Us Weekly

Outstanding Blog
Bilerico Project, Mombian, New Civil Rights Movement, Rod 2.0, Towleroad

And here are the nominees in video form, via GLAAD.org:

Maddow On Romney’s Move Right: ‘How Anti-Gay Do National Republicans Want To Be?’

Frances Martel — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 19:39:14 +0000

There was a time in Massachusetts politics where Mitt Romney promised voters he would be to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay issues. That was many years ago, however– back when Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was a new policy– and today, Rachel Maddow reported yesterday, Romney appears to face a strange dilemma. While the national Republican party advocates social conservatism and a repeal of gay marriage laws in the states that have them, Republican voters appear to be far more comfortable on the socially liberal side of the scale than anywhere else.

With New Hampshire Republicans redirecting their attention to local politics after this week’s primary, Maddow finds that there is a push to scale back on gay rights within the state, despite the fact that the primary proved that most New Hampshire voters, even Republicans, overwhelmingly reject this course of conduct. In fact, the most staunchly anti-gay marriage candidates– Santorum and Rick Perry– did the worst in New Hampshire, with Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Jon Huntsman doing the best of the bunch.

Maddow wondered whether Republican leaders, particularly in places like New Hampshire, “are outstripping their own voters when it comes to being anti-gay.” Specifically, if that was true, it would mean that state leaders with a potential future on the national stage would have to make a compromise as to their beliefs. Maddow used as an example New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who, on the one hand, “doesn’t want to be seen as a dinosaur” by New Jersey voters, but on the other may hurt his potential future in national politics. If that is the case, Maddow asks, “how anti-gay do national Republicans want to be?”

Maddow then discusses Romney’s past with the Boston Globe‘s Frank Phillips, who confirmed that Romney was challenging Kennedy on the gay rights front and opposed DADT from the start.

The segment via MSNBC below:

Jay Carney Won’t Draw Contrast Between President Obama’s Gay Marriage Position And GOP Candidates’

Tommy Christopher — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 23:49:34 +0000

Lately, GOP leading lights Sarah Palin and former Sen. Rick Santorum have taken up the conservative pastime of hiding their anti-gay politics behind the lie that their views mirror those of President Obama. At today’s White House briefing, Metro Weekly‘s Chris Geidner and I tried to get Press Secretary Jay Carney to put some daylight between the President and Santorum on the issue of marriage equality, and while he defended President Obama’s overall record on LGBT issues, Carney was mum on marriage.

Geidner began by asking Carney about Sen. Santorum’s claim that “”President Obama says he has the same position I have on gay marriage.”

“What’s the President’s response to candidates using his position on marriage equality to say that?” Geidner asked.

“I think, Chris, you know very well what the President’s views are on LGBT issues and civil rights, and the President is very proud of this administration’s record on those issues,” Carney responded. Asked to address the marriage issue specifically, Carney said “I have no updates for you on the President’s position on same-sex marriage. I think that you know and others here know and understand that his position broadly on LGBT issues is quite significantly different from that particular candidate’s views.”

I followed up by asking about former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s narrower claim, that the President’s “position on the definition” of marriage. “Over the weekend, Sarah Palin tweeted out something similar, but the language that she used was very specific. She said, ‘The President position on the definition of marriage is the same as Santorum’s, Gingrich’s and Romney’s.’” I said. “Would that be a true statement?”

Carney responded, “I will just point you to what the President has said and his record…”

“But the President,” I interjected, “he said before that he believed that marriage was between one man and one woman, years ago. And now he says his position is evolving. Would it be fair to say that that definition no longer exclusively…”

Carney’s reply was a familiar one. “Again, I don’t have anything — I don’t have anything new to give you on this. I appreciate the question, but the President has spoken to it. I’m sure he’ll be asked again about it. But as of now, I have no –nothing new for you on it.”

Santorum and Palin are dead wrong, of course. First of all, there’s a difference between a personal “belief” and a “position.” President Obama’s political position on marriage equality, as expressed in his consistent calls for a repeal of DOMA and his decision not to defend same in court, is that marriage is not exclusively defined as the union of one man and one woman. As for his personal beliefs, his statements that they are “evolving” indicate that, although he hasn’t stated an affirmative belief (which he ought to do; I hate to admit it, but Santorum is right about that), they no longer exclude the possibility that same sex couples could fit that definition.

For a little over a year now, ever since President Obama told ABC News’ Jake Tapper that his feelings about gay marriage were “constantly evolving, reporters like me and The Washington Blade‘s Christopher Johnson (who amusingly shares the name of the alien protagonist of the film District 9) have pressed the White House on the President’s marriage equality position, and we’ve gotten the same responses: a summary of President Obama’s record on LGBT rights, and Carney’s assurance that he’s “not going to break any news” on the subject.

That refrain, about not “breaking news” on the subject, indicates that the President will break news on it at some point. As I told Carney a few months ago, any reasonable person could easily conclude that the President’s beliefs have already evolved to include same-sex marriage, and he just hasn’t said it out loud. He has taken a lot of guff over that evolution, so it stands to reason that he would want to gain maximum benefit from his emergence from the marriage equality chrysalis. He will likely drop the news at a point in the 2012 campaign that will give him the maximum bump.

If he’s smart, though (and he is), the President will peg his announcement to some major policy initiative, even a symbolic one like a push for a repeal of DOMA. Simply declaring that he’s come around won’t engender much goodwill after so much time on an artificial fence. Better yet, President Obama could reject the awful states’ rights argument he evoked earlier this year, and support a federal marriage amendment that includes same-sex couples.

Here’s the clip of Geidner’s question, followed by mine, from today’s briefing, via The White House:

(Note: I know it sounds like Jay Carney mistakenly called me “Neal,” but in fact, he was just using an insider nickname. On the DC pickup basketball circuit, I’m known as “Neal” because my mad dribbling skills remind people of Curly Neal.)

Shep Smith: How Will Equating ‘Homosexual Sex To Bestiality’ Affect Santorum’s Run?

Frances Martel — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:17:24 +0000

By almost all measures starting sometime last year, Rick Santorum outdid himself in Iowa last night coming in at a very close (eight votes!) second place to Mitt Romney. But as his star rises, so do the concerns of those that remember statements he made when he was a longshot for the position or not even running. On today’s Studio B, Shepard Smith brought up one of Santorum’s most controversial comments, asking Republican commentator Terry Holt whether even social conservatives would not accept Santorum’s claim that “gay love [is] similar to bestiality.”

Holt was discussing Santorum’s campaign in general with Smith, commenting that his retail politics in Iowa “reminded me of the old Rick Santorum” and that he “got his [surge] at exactly the right time, and if he does well in New Hampshire I see this, it’s possible, but it’s the money and it’s the time.” Smith agreed except for his reservation that Santorum’s extreme views would not go over well with many voters. “It’s going to be talked about eventually that Rick Santorum is, among other things, a man that equated homosexual sex to bestiality,” Smith remarked, adding that “his list of things that are not going to appeal to any moderate is long.”

Holt agreed but considered that, compared to other candidates, Santorum didn’t have as big of a problem, to which Smith countered, “I don’t think all social conservatives consider gay love similar to bestiality.” “That’s true,” Holt replied, but added that “these candidates have had their share of gaffes” and that Santorum “he has more of a story to tell than just a few odd statements.”

The segment via Fox News below:

Ed Schultz Tears Into Ron Paul For Anti-Gay Stances After… Praising Rick Santorum?

Frances Martel — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:33:00 +0000

Ed Schultz‘s program yesterday, like many of Ed Schultz’s programs, featured a heavy-handed segment bashing a Republican candidate for having extremist exclusionary views on LGBT Americans and their place under the law. The segment was par for the course, but preceded by an exceptionally good and thorough interview with a presidential candidate– one that, while alone was a great bit of journalism, cluttered the contextual frame of the segment before it: a positive interview with Rick Santorum, who received no such scrutiny on his “family values.”

Schultz first promised a “completely objective” take on Santorum, and rather aptly delivered, questioning Santorum on a variety of his policy views– particularly foreign policy, and how he had challenged Rep. Ron Paul on issues therein. He praised Santorum, stating that there “are few on the stump who do a better job at retail politics,” and in passing mentioning that Santorum “loves” to “cite religion and family values.”

A segment or so later, Schultz was talking about that very same Rep. Paul, and the tenor of his program took a noticeable shift into attack mode over, of all things, allegedly anti-gay stances. He chided Rep. Paul with Raw Story’s Mike Rogers for receiving the endorsement of a reverend who “thinks homosexuals should be executed,” one “who makes extremists look tame. Rogers argued that the endorsement was a result of Rep. Paul wanting “to free up states to be able to do things like this reverend wants,” so that “the state of Texas can basically make being gay illegal if it wanted to.” Rogers then argued that what Rep. Paul would like to see happen to the American legal system is that “the Christian law and the Bible become one with the civil law,” which at face value sounded like an extremely off-base interpretation of a natural law theory.

For anyone even casually following the career of Rick Santorum, an interview where his stances on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and same-sex marriage/adoption is already a significant departure from the norm, though a particularly necessary one should Santorum become the next Republican frontrunner after Iowa. But following that up with a display of how important the issue of gay rights are and how dangerous anti-gay views can be rings, at the very least, disingenuous. At first blush, it is difficult to justify a talk with one of the most vilified– and rightfully so– political figures to the LGBT community without citing this fact. Coupled with an extended claim that said issue is important enough to disqualify a different candidate from the nomination, it feels near impossible.

There are legitimate reasons why Schultz did not see a disconnect between boosting Rick Santorum’s credibility among liberals by giving the candidate a sort of stamp of approval while going after a different candidate (and it really doesn’t matter who the other candidate is) for having a serious problem with the gay community. For one, the pastor involved in the Rep. Paul affair, according to Schultz, believes in the execution of LGBT people and endorsed Rep. Paul because he sees the opportunity for states to regain the ability to trample the human rights of individuals under the guise of a “small federal government” that allows such things. These views are an order of magnitude more malignant than anything that Santorum appears to believe. Sure, Santorum wants to ostracize the gay community from mainstream society and deprive them of basic legal privileges that all people in a relationship should have, but he doesn’t want to kill them. He even talks to them sometimes!

There is also the fact that the single most commonly associated topic to Rick Santorum is his “family values” ideas, which the media treats as such a big part of the Santorum campaign that it ignores almost anything else in his platform– similar to the way, one could argue, that the media obsesses over the racism in Rep. Ron Paul’s newsletters or his hatred of the Federal Reserve without looking at his beliefs in other areas.

It would not have been difficult for Schultz to explain to a viewer watching these two segments what he was thinking when he put them together, given how easy it is to feel like a segment of Schultz praising Santorum’s campaign prowess followed by him bashing Rep. Paul’s anti-gay ties belongs in an alternate universe. The disconnect is stark and merits explanation.

That is not to say that Schultz’s Santorum segment standing alone was unfairly positive, or that the Rep. Paul segment alone was unfairly negative. In fact, the Santorum segment was possibly one of the brightest examples of objective reporting from an opinion anchor of the 2012 campaign, and there is much potential benefit from these sorts of exchanges between candidates and partisan anchors who make no pretense of not having a point of view. But the context they give each other serves to punish a candidate for several decades-old comments while praising another who has said far more damaging things repeatedly during this very election cycle– a candidate who ignored the booing of a crowd against a gay soldier in Iraq, who said that much like a napkin will never be a paper towel, a gay couple can never be married.

Watch the two segments back to back (via MSNBC) below, and judge for yourself whether they feel incongruent or insufficiently explained:

Gay Robot Confronts Michele Bachmann, Accuses Her Of ‘Robophobia’

Alex Alvarez — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:14:56 +0000

Yesterday, a gay robot somehow managed to free himself from the set of Bravo’s The A List and gain access to a Michele Bachmann rally in Iowa.

The robot, who was able to get an amused chuckle out of Bachmann, accused the presidential hopeful of being not only a homophobe, but a robophobe as well. This was met with boos and cries to “stay in the closet.” Good job, Everyone Involved! And a Merry Christmas to us all.

Have a look:

h/t BuzzFeed

Navy Ship Chooses Lesbian Couple To Share Traditional First Kiss

Alex Alvarez — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:07:31 +0000

When Navy ships return home, tradition holds that one lucky raffle winner is selected to be the first to kiss a loved one upon disembarking. But when the USS Oak Hill came home to Virginia Beach today, there was one teeny (history-making) change.

Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta descended from her ship and shared a smooch with her partner of two years, Petty Officer 3rd Class Citlalic Snell. Which is no big deal, of course, except that they now happen to be the first same-sex couple to share the traditional kiss.

Participants can buy $1 raffle tickets for the chance to win a “first kiss.” Gaeta says she bought 50 dollars’ worth for the chance to kiss her girlfriend following an 80-day deployment to Central America.

h/t MSNBC.com

Mom Confronts Troy Mayor About Homophobic Comment: It’s About ‘Choosing Love Over Everything’

Alex Alvarez — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:33:25 +0000

A lesbian mom named Amy took some time during a Troy, Michigan council meeting to introduce Mayor Janice Daniels to her family. Daniels, you may recall, recently found herself at the center of a protest calling for her resignation over a Facebook update stating that “I think I am going to throw away my I Love New York carrying bag now that queers can get married there.”

Amy, joined by her wife and their two daughters, offered her perspective on the controversy surrounding Mayor Daniels:

I always like to think of challenges likes this as opportunities to grow. I know you probably regretted the second that came out: “Oh my God. What did I just do? I’m a public figure; I have a lot of responsibility to the people that I serve.” And… But I also think it’s a wonderful opportunity for you to turn this around, and to look at the faces of…and, remember, this is why we allowed them to stay up so late past their bedtime, to come up and let you see them and say they go to school with kids that have two moms and two dads. They go to school, majority of their friends have a mom and a dad. And we talk every day about different families and different types of people, and teaching respect and kindness. And that is the heart that beats in our home. It’s about being kind, about choosing love over everything.

And when I told them about your comments when they wanted to know why we were coming today, they wanted to do something for you, and that was draw you a picture. And so I have two tiny pictures for you. One just says “Love,” from my daughter Logan, because she wants you to remember that, in the end, love is all that matters. No matter what you’re doing in your life, if you can look at it through the lens of love, you will do the right thing. The second one is two little girls in a house — I’d like to know where your mothers are in this picture! — and it says “love” and it says “only answer.”

And I hope that you take these as gifts from Logan and Aiden as a reminder that mistakes happen, you can always turn them around.

Amy then told Daniels that she would love to see her attend the next pride parade in Michigan.

The story calls to mind the recent interaction between Senator Michele Bachmann and a young boy, Elijah, who is also the child of an LGBT couple. One criticism/observation that sprung forth from that confrontation — perhaps most notably from Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly — was that it might have been more effective had Elijah’s parents elected to speak for themselves. Maybe it would have gone a little something like this.

Have a look at Amy’s speech — and her daughters’ “tiny pictures” — below:

h/t BuzzFeed

Ann Coulter On Marcus Bachmann: ‘Why Can’t You Have Heterosexuals Who Kind Of Seem Gay?’

Alex Alvarez — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 18:34:43 +0000

Fine, guys. I’ll say it: Ann Coulter needs a sitcom. I’m thinking a single camera show, following Ann around as she does whatever she does all day (watch Bill Maher on mute, go to 80s night at Pyramid, floss), all in a sort of “heightened reality” mode. Because, truly, Ann Coulter is the Larry David of thin, blond, conservative women. And Laura Ingraham would be, like… maybe the Jerry Seinfeld? I’m going to have to think about this a bit. Feel free to weigh in.

Anyway. So, Coulter, as we first reported yesterday, recently appeared on Logo’s A List: Dallas, where she spoke with her (gay, Republican, Texan) friend Taylor Garrett about such fun lunchtime conversation topics as GAYBORTIONS.

She also talked about Marcus Bachmann, husband of GOP presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann and a man people speculate may be gay, for a variety of reasons.

“Well, I should probably tell you,” Coulter began, “I don’t believe Michele Bachmann’s husband is gay.”

“I mean, if you can have gays who do not seem gay,” she continued, “why can’t you have heterosexuals who kind of seem gay?”

Why not indeed? Why not. Indeed.

Have a look at the clip, from Logo:

Ann Coulter On A List: Dallas: ‘Liberal Yuppies’ Would Abort Gay Babies

Alex Alvarez — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 22:24:47 +0000

When you think A List: Dallas, Bravo’s show following very well-manicured gay Texan men doing whatever it is that very well-manicured Texan gay men do (have lunch with GOP pundits), you automatically think Ann Coulter, right? Well, the gay icon made a recent appearance on the show, sharing a bit of lunch and conversation with cast member — and gay Republican — Taylor Garrett.

Coulter spoke a bit about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (shockingly!), particularly his track record on abortion. Garrett responded by sharing that he’s “attacked all the time” by the gay community for being a pro-life Republican himself.

“That makes no sense,” said Coulter, “Gays have got to be pro-life. As soon as they find the gay gene, guess who the liberal yuppies are going to start aborting.” Answer: Little gaybies!

“Ann always appears very tough on television,” shared Garrett. “But, in person, she’s very disarming.”

Have a look at their chat, via Bravo:

Bill O’Reilly And Gay Activist Clash On 8-Year-Old’s Confrontation With Bachmann

Alex Alvarez — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 02:10:47 +0000

On Wednesday, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly tackled the controversy and discussion surrounding GOP presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann‘s recent talk with the eight-year-old son of lesbian parents.

O’Reilly echoed the assessment of others (including our own Jon Bershad) who felt the little boy’s mother was essentially using her son to make a political point. He invited gay activist Sally Kohn onto the program to discuss it further.

Kohn, herself the mother of a three-year-old, disagreed with O’Reilly’s take that, given the child’s young age and childen’s assumed lack of familiarity with gay issues, he must’ve been coached by his mother on what to tell Bachmann. “Kids aren’t raised in a vacuum,” she said. “They see the political discourse going on them. This kid probably sees his family, his mother being attacked by politicians like Michele Bachmann. And no doubt he has a very clear opinion that his mom is a great mom and shouldn’t be a political football.”

“Well, I think you’re living in the land of Oz,” said O’Reilly. He pointed out that he’s also the parent of an eight-year-old boy, and he’s pretty confident that they’re not going around thinking about gay rights. He also felt that the little boy’s words — specifically that his mommy doesn’t need “fixing” — sound inauthentic for a boy his age. He felt that the boy’s mother should have spoken for herself, and that having her child “do the talking for her” actually does a disservice to her cause.

“You think this kid, Elijah, knows who Michele Bachmann is? Are you kidding me?”

“I think you’re not giving this eight-year-old a lot of credit,” said Kohn.

“This is cowardly!” replied O’Reilly, noting that everyone would “likely have applauded” the child’s mother had she made the point herself that she was a good and responsible parent to her son who wanted a little more open-mindedness on Bachmann’s part.

Have a look, via Fox News:

Hillary Clinton Tells Diplomats In Geneva That ‘Gay Rights Are Human Rights

Alex Alvarez — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 22:17:09 +0000

Addressing international diplomats in Geneva today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton likened gay rights to women’s rights and the struggle for racial equality. While she recognized that the U.S.’s own track record with gay rights is “far from perfect,” Clinton criticized nations that criminalize gay behavior or that tolerate violence or prejudice against the LGBT community, noting that it should “never be a crime” to be gay.

“Gay rights are human rights,” she told those gathered, “and human rights are gay rights.” Clinton also drove home the existence of gay individuals across various communities, countries, and social classes:

Well, in reality, gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world. They are all ages, all races, all faiths; they are doctors and teachers, farmers and bankers, soldiers and athletes, and whether we know it or whether we acknowledge it, they are our family, our friends and our neighbors.

“Some believe homosexuality is a Western phenomenon,” she added, “but gay people belong to every society in the world. Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality.”

Clinton also announced the creation of a $3 million global equality fund focused on worldwide LGBT issues.

GOP presidential hopeful Rick Perry has voiced his opposition for the Obama Administration’s move, calling it part of the ongoing “war on traditional American values.”

“Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries,” said Perry, “is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money,” adding that “President Obama has again mistaken America’s tolerance for different lifestyles with an endorsement of those lifestyles. I will not make that mistake.”

Watch Hillary Clinton’s full speech below:

h/t ThinkProgress

Rick Perry Attacks President Obama For Fighting LGBT Discrimination And Criminalization Abroad

Tommy Christopher — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:51:02 +0000

Earlier today, President Obama released a memorandum directing “all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons.”

GOP former frontrunner Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) quickly released a statement denouncing the President’s action, complete with trademark Perry lies, and a doubling-down on his own zero foreign aid budget.

In introducing his memo, the President said, “I am deeply concerned by the violence and discrimination targeting LGBT persons around the world whether it is passing laws that criminalize LGBT status, beating citizens simply for joining peaceful LGBT pride celebrations, or killing men, women, and children for their perceived sexual orientation.”

Gov. Perry quickly put out a statement that equates the prevention of jailings, beatings, and murders with “promoting” a “lifestyle.”

First of all, being gay isn’t a “lifestyle” choice, hunting at “N*ggerhead Ranch” is. See the difference? And even as a staunch liberal, I oppose the beating, imprisonment, or murder of Rick Perry simply for being a presidential candidate, but that doesn’t mean I’m “promoting” his candidacy, does it?

Perry also makes the unsupported claims that the Obama administration is “at war with people of faith in this country,” and that “President Obama has again mistaken America’s tolerance for different lifestyles with an endorsement of those lifestyles.”

In fact, polling data shows consistent support for gay rights among a large number of Americans (majorities in many cases), and there are many faiths (even Christian ones) that recognize the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

Gov. Perry also used the occasion to promote his much-derided (even among conservatives) zero foreign aid budget, saying, “I have proposed a foreign aid budget that starts at zero. From that zero baseline, we will consider aid requests based solely on America’s national security interests. Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money.”

Now, a lot of Republican candidates have regressive views on gay rights, even downright offensive ones, but I haven’t heard any of them yet claim that freedom from murder is a “special right.”

In a less-than-LGBT-friendly field, Perry is all the more shocking a hateful anomaly. Decent conservatives are well shot of him.

It will be interesting to see how the other candidates respond to this. While they’re all opponents of gay marriage, some (like Mitt Romney) have expressed an interest in protecting LGBT people from other forms of discrimination. Here’s hoping they have the decency to defy their culture-war impulses, and the courage to do so publicly.

Here’s the full text of Gov. Perry’s statement, via email:

Statement by Gov. Rick Perry on Obama Administration’s Use of Gay Rights to Make Foreign Aid Decisions

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today issued the following statement:

“Just when you thought Barack Obama couldn’t get any more out of touch with America’s values, AP reports his administration wants to make foreign aid decisions based on gay rights.

“This administration’s war on traditional American values must stop.

“I have proposed a foreign aid budget that starts at zero. From that zero baseline, we will consider aid requests based solely on America’s national security interests. Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money.

“But there is a troubling trend here beyond the national security nonsense inherent in this silly idea. This is just the most recent example of an administration at war with people of faith in this country. Investing tax dollars promoting a lifestyle many Americas of faith find so deeply objectionable is wrong.

“President Obama has again mistaken America’s tolerance for different lifestyles with an endorsement of those lifestyles. I will not make that mistake.”

Geekosystem Editor (And Troy Native) Reacts To Call For Mayor Janice Daniels’ Resignation

Alex Alvarez — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 21:57:43 +0000

As it turns out, there’s a Troy, Michigan native among our flock here at Abrams Media. Geekosystem‘s Max Eddy hails from the very city whose mayor, Janice Daniels, currently finds herself inspiring a protest demanding her immediate resignation.

Back in June, Daniels updated her Facebook status with a quip about New York’s decision to make same-sex marriage legal. “I think I am going to throw away my I Love New York carrying bag,” she had written, “now that queers can get married there.”

Max has put together an open letter to Daniels, which we would now like to share with you.

As a blogger, I spend a good deal of time roaming around the internet, looking for things to write about. Today, I was quite surprised to find an article about the town in Michigan where I went to high school, where my brother and sister have been raised, and where my parents still live.

Apparently, Janice Daniels, the mayor of Troy, Michigan, wrote on her Facebook wall on June 25 (before her mayoral run) that:

“I think I am going to throw away my I Love New York carrying bag now that queers can get married there.”

My response follows in the form of an open letter. Even having written it, I am still unsure if it really captures exactly what I feel. I am offended and ashamed by what she has said, but I cannot say I am surprised. What’s more, I believe that I lack the rhetorical flaire to pull off a really good letter.

But I had to do something.

Dear Ms. Daniels,

My name is Max Eddy, a Troy High alum (2004) and proud Michigan native. Though I left the state in 2008, my roots go deep and I often tell my friends and family about where I am from. My parents still live in Troy and have raised my brother and sister within a stone’s throw of the beautiful marshland near Leonard Elementary School.

Imagine my surprise while perusing online newsfeeds today that I should see not only my ancestral state, but also the town where I spent many of my formative years in the headlines. Unfortunately, the reason was that you posted the following message to your Facebook wall on June 25 of this year:

“I think I am going to throw away my I Love New York carrying bag now that queers can get married there.”

I was, quite frankly, appalled and ashamed that such hateful, bigoted speech would come from the woman elected as the mayor of Troy. You were elected to represent the interests of an entire city of people — one which, I assure you, contains an ample number of homosexuals. That you would so easily dismiss them as, apparently, unworthy of basic human dignity reveals you to be not only unfit for your job but raises severe questions about your moral character.

Shame on you.

I strongly suspect that anything I say will not change your mind about homosexuality. That no matter how many happy, loving, same-sex parents or honest, hardworking gay members of the Michigan workforce you meet, you will not be able to see beyond your bigotry. So I will not waste my breath or your time, and instead ask that you resign from your position immediately.

If you cannot see people as equals, I cannot imagine how you believe yourself fit to act as a mayor. What’s more, you have already brought shame to your office and to yourself. Anything you do from this point forward, no matter how worthy, will be stained with the hatred you carry.

Sincerely,

W. Max Eddy

P.S.
I have lived in New York for over a year now and I assure that this city doesn’t need the love of someone like you. Neither does Troy.

h/t The Front of the End

After Homophobic Facebook Post, Locals Call For Troy Mayor Janice Daniels To Resign

Alex Alvarez — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 18:41:20 +0000

Troy, Michigan’s Mayor Janice Daniels is facing calls to resign following a comment she posted to her Facebook page over the summer.

On June 25th — one day after the state allowed same-sex couples to get married — Daniels shared that “I think I am going to throw away my I Love New York carrying bag now that queers can get married there.” Daniels has since removed the status update, but that hasn’t discouraged a group of Troy High School students from organizing a protest Monday afternoon and night calling for her resignation.

You can check the original comment for yourself, as well as Daniels’ little poem about Anthony Weiner:

“I think I am going to throw away my I Love New York carrying bag now that queers can get married there.”

“I may have said something like that,” Daniels said earlier this month. She added that, although she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, she has nothing against gay people themselves. “I love all people. I am human. That was probably a poor choice of words.”

Gay-focused blog Queerty points out that Daniels had also attempted to explain her original comment by noting that she had not been considering a run for office when she wrote it: “I was not even considering running for mayor when I posted that,” she said. “I probably shouldn’t have used that kind of language, but… I was thinking for myself.”

Oh, and in case you were wondering: “BTW, I am still carrying my I Love New York bag.”

h/t MLive.com

Raw Footage Of Afghan Police Harassing Cross-Dressed Man, Forcing Him To Strip Goes Viral

Frances Martel — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:54:07 +0000

Afghanistan has never been known as a paragon of excellence in the human rights realm, but this recent video of Afghan police humiliating a man dressed in make-up and women’s clothing for their own amusement truly brings that reality home. The video– which, the Daily Mail notes appears to have come from an Afghan news source– shows the man pleading to be released and protesting his innocence of any crime while the police make him remove outer clothing and fake breasts.

The police stop him in the video and demand him to remove his clothing, though it is not clear whether the officers question him about any crimes– other than homosexuality or cross-dressing, which are both crimes in Afghanistan. According to the Daily Mail, the man demands not to be ridiculed but is ignored, and later questioned:

According to the Guardian, the officers then deliver a barrage of questions to the transvestite and a second man who is arrested.

They ask the pair: ‘Why are you dressed like this? Where did you put the makeup on? What is all this about? What have you two been up to?’

As the Afghan cross dresser removes his jewellery, he can be heard to whisper: ‘I was shopping for clothes.’

After being near reduced to tears, the second man tells police officers: ‘Please, officer, we haven’t committed a crime.’

It is not known what has happened to the two men since being arrested.

The disturbing footage below:

Makes Sense: UC Davis Pepper Spraying Officer Has A Record Of Using Gay Slurs

Alex Alvarez — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:39:55 +0000

At this point, unless you’ve been actively avoiding all news of OWS, you’re likely at least somewhat familiar with Lt. John Pike — he’s the officer who was filmed and photographed pepper spraying several student protesters at UC Davis (and, thus, found himself at the center of a new internet fad).

As it turns out, this isn’t the first time Lt. Pike’s actions have been called into question.

Pike was involved in a racial and sexual discrimination lawsuit filed by a former police officer against UC Davis’ police chief and the UC Board of Regents. In the lawsuit, which was settled in 2008 for the sum of $240,000, Officer Calvin Chang complained that he had been “systematically marginalized as the result of anti-gay and racist attitudes on the force,” noting that Pike had used a gay slur to describe him.

h/t Towleroad

Conan O’Brien Officiates A Same-Sex Wedding On Live TV

Alex Alvarez — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 13:02:36 +0000

Conan O’Brien is back in New York City for a spell, affording him the opportunity to officiate a wedding between his longtime costume designer, Scott Cronick, and Cronick’s boyfriend David Gorshein at the lovely Beacon Theatre.

Scott was walked down the aisle by Bravo host Andy Cohen, to a song I couldn’t quite hear over his jacket.

The couple, joined by their friends and family, recited their own vows under a very autumnal orange and gold floral chuppah that perfectly complimented Conan’s hair.

Some are suggesting that this is the first same-sex wedding performed on television. But I — keeping track of all things TV, gay, and wedding industrial complex-related — can think of at least one other, performed in Brazil back in 2008.

Either way: Congratulations to the happy couple! And to Conan, for becoming a part of late-night TV history.

Check it out, via TBS:

Dan Savage Demands Sexual Favors From Herman Cain In Poorly Thought Out Publicity Stunt

Frances Martel — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:50:15 +0000

Sex columnist Dan Savage has apparently decided that it has been too long since his political opinions mattered. Having already destroyed Rick Santorum‘s internet reputation, Savage is now taking aim at Herman Cain for repeatedly declaring that he believes sexual orientation to be a choice. If it is a choice, Savage demands, Cain should prove it by performing sex acts on Savage. Yes, it has come to this.

Cain admits to being a social conservative in the way he conducts his life, and in his moral beliefs. He has said that the Bible tells him homosexuality is a sin, and he believes that. He also believes it is a “choice” and has said so repeatedly. But he has, for the most part, refrained from making any comments on how his opinions would translate into law. He has stated he has no problem appointing competent LGBT people to his cabinet. As far as the conservative gay community goes, GOProud head Chris Barron stood up for Cain after his initial homosexuality comments, arguing precisely that his policies would help LGBT people, and his personal views appeared to have no bearing on how he would govern.

Given Cain’s relationship with social libertarians (and gay conservatives), this may have been a bit of an overreaction:

Dear Herman,

If being gay is a choice, show us the proof. Choose it. Choose to be gay yourself. Show America how that’s done, Herman, show us how a man can choose to be gay. Suck my dick, Herman. Name the time and the place and I’ll bring my dick and a camera crew and you can suck me off and win the argument.

Very sincerely yours,

Dan Savage

There is a good bit to parse here, so may as well start with the obvious: it is at best megalomaniacal for Savage to assume that being sexually attracted to men necessarily implies being sexually attracted to Dan Savage. Then there is the larger portrayal of gay men– and straight women, to a certain extent– as being so disconnected from their bodily integrity that it is entirely appropriate to demand sexual favors of them. Savage may claim he is attempting to promote the dignity of people born with sexual orientations other than “straight”– or people born attracted to men, whichever the case may be– but how little must he think of the LGBT community to assume that “being gay” consists of fellating complete strangers on demand? It’s like he is seeing the gay community through the prism of a bad George Michael joke. At the very least, he’s not helping any bigots not see the world through the prism of a bad George Michael joke with this letter.

And here is the saddest part of Savage’s faux pas: he followed up his crass letter with a strong, valid point about sexual orientation that will now unfortunately mostly be ignored by the media, because he prefaced his legitimate and relatable argument with “suck my dick,” like a fourth grader. Independent of their source, his words merit reflection:

And then I’ll say this: when someone argues that being gay is a choice, he’s not just insulting gay people. (And ignoring the science of sexual orientation.) He’s insulting straight people. If homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality. Last night on CNN Herman Cain said that being straight is something that a straight person can take or leave. Herman Cain believes that heterosexuality is something a heterosexual can decide to walk away from, like a underwater house or a lousy meal. Straight people should get angry when they hear a straight person making this argument.

It would have been such a powerful statement.

There is only one headline to cull from this demeaning letter (demeaning to Savage as much as it is to Cain), and it is that Savage is a one-hit wonder and acutely aware of it. The Rick Santorum “Google problem” stunt was funny because it was nearly entirely unprecedented and “Santorum” is an innately funny word, but it would not have worked had the victim of the prank not been so, to use Herman Cain’s word, “stressed.” Rick Santorum’s defining character trait is that he cannot take a joke, and so it follows that a particularly bad joke that hangs over his head like the cloud over the sad ball in Zoloft commercials is comedy gold. Rick Santorum made the Rick Santorum Google saga funny, not Dan Savage. Santorum is also a signficantly less sympathetic character because his campaign’s core consists of policies that discriminate against people based on the sexual preferences with which they are born. With Cain, this is not the case.

Even with the godsend that is Santorum’s inability to laugh at himself, Savage’s second attempt at terrorizing Santorum fell flat, and he rightfully fell out of favor with many after an appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher where he copped to a crush on Santorum in the most vulgar way imaginable (and wishing a bunch of Republicans dead). Here Savage has, likely by virtue of his own rampant political ignorance, targeted a character whose defining trait is his good humor. In fact, deprived of his humor– of the Pokemon references and mysterious Sim City tax proposals, the gospel albums and Pizza ballads– Cain starts to look a little like he’s all toppings and no cheese, if you know what I mean. It is difficult to imagine Cain would deign the letter with a response, but if he does, chances are it won’t look like anything from Rick Santorum.

Rick Santorum On SNL Sketch Placing Him In Gay Bar: Left ‘Bullies’ More Than Right

Alex Alvarez — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:42:26 +0000

In case you missed Saturday Night Live over the weekend because you were out or sleeping or watching paint dry instead, we’ll get you up to speed: Last Saturday’s show included a sketch featuring GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, who is not exactly the biggest advocate for same-sex marriage, or for homosexuality in general, tuning in to “Marriott TV’s GOP debate” from a gay bar.

How does Santorum feel about that? He offered his reaction to New Hampshire radio host Paul Westcott:

I’ve heard what it’s about and I’m, you know, not surprised. Let’s put it that way. We’ve been hammered by the left for my standing up for the traditional family and I will continue to do so.

The left, unfortunately, participates in bullying more than the right does. They say that they’re tolerant, and they’re anything but tolerant of people who disagree with them and support traditional values.

Listen to the interview for yourselves, courtesy of WGIR’s The White House Brief, with Paul Westcott:

h/t WGIR

Ann Coulter On Fox News: Chris Wallace Deserved To Be ‘Punched’ For Rick Santorum DADT Debate Question

Frances Martel — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:11:25 +0000

Chris Wallace‘s heated interview with presidential hopeful Rick Santorum yesterday on his opposition to repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell returned to the fore of the Santorum campaign his social conservatism, but not in a way that would render Wallace immune to scrutiny, even on his own network. On The O’Reilly Factor tonight, Ann Coulter slammed Wallace in response to a question by host Laura Ingraham, arguing that race and sexual orientation were not socially interchangeable, and that guest Juan Williams “should have punched” Wallace for conflating the two.

“I thought it was an outrageous question,” Coulter responded, initially taking objection to “some quote” Wallace used against Santorum that employed terms like “social experimentation” that sounded somewhat like terms used for those opposed to racially integrating the military. “I thought Juan Williams should have punched Chris Wallace in the face for saying that when he came on in the same half of the program,” Coulter commented, adding that she was “sick of people comparing gays to blacks.” “You can see that someone is black; you can’t see whether someone is gay.”

Coulter ended her point noting that being gay was not in opposition to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, but only bringing attention to one’s sexuality was, and even that only in explicit ways. She noted that under DADT, famed leaker Bradley Manning was “listening to Lady Gaga while downloading files that he is about to give to Wikipedia [sic]” without being particularly disturbed, apparently as proof that the policy was not that oppressive.

The segment via Fox News below:

Watch President Obama’s Speech At The Human Rights Campaign Dinner

Frances Martel — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 22:53:08 +0000

For the first time since 2009, President Barack Obama was the keynote speaker at tonight’s Human Rights Campaign national dinner in Washington, DC. He will be addressing the LGBT rights group on the movement and, unlike two years ago, he has one major achievement to show them under his belt: that he kept his promise to get rid of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell he made during his last keynote.

Addressing the civil rights organization, the President put on the table several issues of great importance to the HRC, a longtime advocate of same-sex marriage, equal employment rights for LGBT couples, the ability to serve in various military capacities and other significant points. Lauding the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the President, who has also stated previously that he has no intention of enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act, listed his goals for the improvement in conditions of LGBT Americans within the next stage of his tenure.

Watch the Speech below:

Jon Stewart Celebrates End Of DADT (With Jason Jones In Daisy Dukes)

Frances Martel — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 03:36:37 +0000

Like many who woke up this morning to the news that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was history, Jon Stewart spent some time celebrating the aftermath of the repeal. Calling the policy “ridiculous,” Stewart turned to Jason Jones for his military analysis, who, regaled in short-shorts and drinking a fancy pink cocktail, tried to make the news exciting but couldn’t find a way to make it seem particularly eventful, other than the poignant coming out moments today has produced.

Stewart considered the policy “ridiculous” because of its outcome– allowing people to face a very high probability of dying in a horrible way, in a way half a globe from home. With that in mind, Stewart checked in on the military via Jones, who greeted him in his “military outfit” and had heard widespread reports that repealing DADT “doesn’t all of the sudden make shower rape legal.” In fact, rape in all its forms still appeared illegal! Jones’ very gay military dance party in “Afghanistan” broke down, however, when he claimed the other soldiers were at Trader Joe’s buying clementines. As it turns out, nothing had changed in the “base” he was at. That said, the change in policy was something “we can all share”– a comment that triggered the hit gay anthem “Believe” because, well, Cher.

After a bizarre detour into Emmy land after a particularly bad Bill Clinton joke, Stewart ended his segment with the most moving video of the day– that of a soldier calling his father today to come out as gay, highlighting the one area where the repeal had the most impact.

The segment via Comedy Central below:

Part 1:

Part 2: