Connect with us

Gay Rights: 2 Urgently Important Petitions That Will Impact The Elections

Published

on

The 2012 national and local elections in the United States present stark choices on the human rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans. There is no room for complacency about the momentous LGBT human rights progress achieved under the Obama administration. And of equal importance, it would be impossible to underestimate the malice, sociopathy and sadistic ambition of anti-gay political bullies and thugs for 2012. Many of today’s ringleaders of anti-gay politics jeered “Fag!” at gay classmates when in school. Not coincidentally, adult political gay-bashers are against sexual orientation-specific anti-bullying protections in the schools today. We are in a society where some of these psychopaths actually say that anti-gay bullying is a “healthy” form of peer pressure.

Princeton University Professor Robert George, Founder and Chairman Emeritus of the so-called National Organization for Marriage (NOM), believes that homosexual intimacy should be a prosecutable crime. George has drafted a federal constitutional amendment prohibiting marriage equality.  Nationwide, and beyond, George zealously promotes 1) ignorance fueled anti-gay bigotry and 2) sexual orientation apartheid having force of law. His scandalous anti-gay smear op-eds — containing shameless junk scholarship — get published in journals that prominently mention his association with Princeton University.

A group Robert George founded, the so-called National Organization for Marriage, is very aggressively inserting itself into elections nationwide — its sole aim in doing so being to double down on sexual orientation apartheid in the United States. The NOM pledge signed by many Republican presidential candidates would have state level marriage recognition ripped away from all currently married gay American couples, with no regard for how the children those couples are raising would be negatively impacted. NOM also is highly-active in the militant ignorance inherent to opposing sexual orientation-specific anti-bullying policies in the schools.

One of the petitions I’m urging you to sign asks Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg to ban NOM and its affiliates from Facebook for 1) NOM’s violations of Facebook’s terms of use and 2) because NOM is an anti-gay hate group. NOM though in violation of Facebook’s terms of use exploits the platform to beg for donations from anti-gay bigots. As of this writing, the petition has garnered 1,193 signatures.  Many signers have added their reasons for signing. One said, “I’ve been beaten, jailed and abused for being gay. It’s time for this to stop. We need your help.”  Another said, “’Misleading, malicious, and discriminatory’ describes NOM’s rhetoric exactly. Facebook needs to enforce its own Terms of Service and stop giving NOM a bully pulpit.” Yet another, citing a study by Columbia University’s Dr. Mark L. Hatzenbuehler, said they were signing because “” [d]epression and drug use among LGBT people have both been shown to increase significantly after new laws that discriminate against gay people are passed”, and that’s exactly what the NOM is after.”

The second petition I am urging you to sign asks the Princeton University Board of Trustees finally to repudiate Professor George’s anti-gay bigotry. George only gets away with publishing his anti-gay junk scholarship because ignorance-fueled anti-gay bigotry is still prevalent in the society. Were George to attempt to publish papers containing equally faked and fraudulent scholarship in a field not dealing with perceived “moral” judgments – physics, for example – he would be an academic laughing stock, not a celebrated Princeton professor. And, George at Princeton is grooming the next generation of academic gay bashers; his savagely anti-gay article “What is Marriage?” is co-authored by a Princeton Ph.D. candidate. The signers of this petition too have left compelling explanations of why they signed. One said, “It’s time for law professors to stop making outrageous, offensive, pernicious statements, as if this were just another argument about something. Words do hurt people. And no legal argument justifies the severe damage these hateful words inflict.” Another signer said “I am a survivor of an abusive academic environment which purposely inhibited learning and growth among LGBT students.” Yet another remarked, “It is frightening that the anti-gay bigot Professor George has it in his power to evaluate young students.” And another said “People in a position to mold the minds of young people should have a higher ethical standpoint and should not be the bully that we are trying to protect our children from in the first place.”

Circulate, repost and promote as widely as possible 1) the petition asking Mark Zuckerberg to ban NOM and its affiliates from Facebook, as well as 2) the petition asking the Princeton University Board of Trustees to repudiate Professor Robert George’s anti-gay bigotry.  And, tell your Democratic elected officials that the Republicans are very aggressively attacking LGBT Americans’ human rights for the 2012 elections — the Democratic defense of those rights must be at least equally vigorous.

 
New York City-​based novelist and freelance writerScott Rose’s LGBT-​interest by-​line has appeared on Advocate​.com, PoliticusUSA​.com, The New York Blade, Queerty​.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

RIGHT WING EXTREMISM

GOP Congresswoman Saying She Would ‘Do Anything’ to Protect Her Grandchildren, Even ‘Shooting Them’ Sets Internet on Fire

Published

on

U.S. Congresswoman Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) in a speech denouncing a House bill on gun safety, appears to inadvertently have declared that to protect her five grandchildren, she would “do anything,” even shoot them.

“I rise in opposition to H.R. 2377,” Congresswoman Lesko says in the video. “I have five grandchildren. I would do anything, anything to protect my five grandchildren, including as a last resort shooting them if I had to, to protect the lives of my grandchildren.”

NCRM has verified the video is accurate. Congresswoman Lesko made the remarks on June 9, according to C-SPAN, while she was opposing a red flag law.

The Congresswoman presumably meant she would as a last resort shoot someone threatening her grandchildren.

One Twitter user, Ryan Shead, posted the previously ignored video to Twitter, where it has gone viral and is trending.

Lesko, who some social media users note is running for re-election unopposed, went on to say: “Democrat bills that we have heard this week want to take away my right, my right to protect my grandchildren. they want to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect their own children and grandchildren. and wives and brothers and sisters,” which is false.

“This bill takes away due process from law-abiding citizens. Can you imagine if you had a disgruntled ex or somebody who hates you because of your political views and they go to a judge and say, ‘oh, this person is dangerous,’ and that judge would take away your guns?”

Lesko’s hypothetical claims are false. Red flag laws are designed to protect both gun owners and those around them.

Some social media users noted that Congresswoman Lesko reportedly “attended meetings about overturning the election,” while others are having fun with the Arizona Republican’s remarks:

Watch Congresswoman Lesko’s remarks above or at this link.

 

Continue Reading

RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM

Separation of Church and State Is a ‘Fabrication’ Says Far Right Activist Charlie Kirk: They Should Be ‘Mixed Together’

Published

on

Far-right religious activist, conspiracy theorist, and founder of the right-wing organization Turning Point USA Charlie Kirk has falsely declared that separation of church and state, a bedrock principle on which American society is based, is a “fabrication” not in the Constitution.

Kirk is a member of the secretive theocratic Council for National Policy., a close friend of Donald Trump, Jr., and spent years promoting President Trump – even interviewing him at one point. Turning Point USA has had repeated challenges. The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer in 2017 write a piece about TPUSA titled, “A Conservative Nonprofit That Seeks to Transform College Campuses Faces Allegations of Racial Bias and Illegal Campaign Activity.”

Former TPUSA communications director Candace Owens has praised Hitler, saying “the problem” with him was that he wanted to “globalize.”

RELATED: Watch: Charlie Kirk Calls for Texans to Be ‘Deputized’ to Protect ‘White Demographics in America’

On Wednesday Kirk declared, “There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication. It’s a fiction. It’s not in the Constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.”

That’s false.

The claim separation of church and state is not in the Constitution is a religious right belief that has been debunked by countless legal experts.

“Of course we should have church and state mixed together,” Kirk continued. “Our Founding Fathers believed in that. We can go through the detail of that. They established – literally – a church in Congress.”

That too is false.

RELATED: ‘When Do We Get to Use the Guns?’: TP USA Audience Member Asks Charlie Kirk When Can ‘We Kill’ Democrats? (Video)

“It’s a good thing Charlie Kirk doesn’t go to Wheaton because he would fail my Constitutional Law class,” writes Dr. Miranda Yaver, PhD, a Wheaton College professor.

As most public school students know, Kirk’s claims are belied by the First Amendment to the U.S., Constitution, which states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It’s the Establishment Clause, legal experts say, that debunks Kirk’s falsehood.

In reviewing the Supreme Court’s recent rulings, Reuters last month noted: “It was President Thomas Jefferson who famously said in an 1802 letter that the establishment clause should represent a ‘wall of separation’ between church and state. The provision prevents the government from establishing a state religion and prohibits it from favoring one faith over another.”

Jefferson is also considered the principal author of the Declaration of Independence.

Watch Charlie Kirk below or at this link.

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Pat Cipollone Is ‘A Greatest Hits Package of Crazy Statements’ by Donald Trump: Legal Expert

Published

on

Former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone has agreed to speak to the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on Congress on Friday.

Former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Harry Litman told CNN that Cipollone has carefully negotiated the testimony and he will likely “steer around down the middle” of the attorney/client privilege. However, former President Donald Trump is not the client of a White House counsel, the White House is. President Joe Biden has waived executive privilege for anything involving Jan. 6 or the 2020 election.

“He is a greatest hits package of crazy statements by Donald Trump,” Litman said of Cipollone. “He is the one who says to Mark Meadows, ‘You know, if you do this, you’ll have blood on your effing hands.’ He’s the one who says to Mark Meadows about [Mike] Pence, ‘You’ve got to stop it’ and Meadows says, ‘You’ve heard him. He thinks the rioters are right.’ He’s the one who has to go to Cassidy Hutchinson, a 25-year-old, and plead with her because Meadows won’t speak to him. ‘Please try to keep him from going to the Capitol.’ He’s the one who says, ‘if I go to the Capitol, it will be every effing crime imaginable.'”

READ MORE: Longtime friend of GOP’s Eric Greitens calls him a ‘broken man’ and accuses him of lying about his beliefs

“Now, they’ve negotiated it up, and probably what he wants is to say he’s not piercing attorney/client privilege. But all these statements I’ve said to you, Trump’s nowhere around. So, attorney/client has to be with the client for the purpose of getting legal advice, so he’s got tons to say without that.”

As Litman explained, Cipollone is in “everything.”

See the discussion below.

Image: Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks  via Flickr:
President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump talk with Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, her husband Jesse Barrett, Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, his wife Virginia Thomas, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, and Deputy White House Counsel Kate Comerford Todd in the Blue Room of the White House Monday, Oct. 26, 2020, after attending Barrett’s swearing-in ceremony as Supreme Court Associate Justice.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.