04/27/2012
Amendment 1 campaign literature calls gay relationships 'fundamentally dysfunctional'
Q. What is the Vote For Marriage NC campaign using to scare voters?
A. A documented assembled by a Southern Poverty Law Center–designated hate group which says gay relations are "fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels" with marriage being something we gay folk cannot "achieve, or even desire":
Don't be fooled, North Carolinians. This campaign intends for this to be a referendum on gays and our essential worth! Campaign head Tami Fitzgerald has come right out and said it. She's admitted that her fight is to take gays out of their "abomination" so that she can help us find our "highest and greatest good." When these folks talk, I think we should believe that they mean it.
------------------
------------------
04/27/2012
NOM EXPOSED: NOM's Ruth Institute recruits, touts Rob 'gay is worse than incest' Gagnon
GO. read. now.
NOM's Ruth Institute recruits, touts Rob 'gay is worse than incest' Gagnon [NOM Exposed]
Maine's 'marriage protectors' fighting publicly; anyone else want popcorn?
In 2009, I kept mentioning something about the state of Maine that I found as compelling as it was telling. During the spring and summer before that fall's marriage vote, I kept noticing the way the "official" campaign was trying to hide Mike Heath, the way-incendiary voice who had been fighting gays in the state for more than a decade prior, and who had been feted by the Family Research Council just weeks before being cast off. I mentioned the forced exclusion countless times, because I thought it (a) showed great cowardice on the part of the NOM/Schubert Flint team that swept in and took over a state to which they had no connections; as well as (b) told us much about our opposition and how they have no problem using hostile voices to build up momentum for a campaign, yet will unabashedly throw those same voices under the bus when the bright lights of a campaign roll around.
At the time, some connected voices confirmed my suspicions, though most on both the "official" side and in Mike Heath's camp played nice and stayed on message. Since they "won" that campaign, it was as if all involved were basically willing to let bygones be bygones, at least publicly.
Well not anymore. Now that we on the equality side are going back to the ballot, this time proactively, there is a great war brewing Mike Heath's all-out anti-gay side and the "official," more purposely pragmatic NOM/Bob Emrich crowd. And because of this power struggle, Heath is now confirming what I always knew to be true:
Lewiston -- Mike Heath and Paul Madore are concerned about a new political action committee called "Protect Marriage Maine." An article published on a blog called "Catholic Maine" indicates the PAC was announced on April 23, 2012 and formed on April 20th. The article reports that the Protect Marriage Maine PAC will "lead the campaign" against sodomy based "marriage."
"They're a little late," said Paul Madore, co-chair of the No Special Rights PAC. "We got started years ago and haven't heard boo from them."
The executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, Carroll Conley, promised to organize a "broad and deep campaign across the state of Maine." Pastor Bob Emrich, the Chairman of the Protect Marriage Maine PAC promised to work with Muslims.
Mike Heath couldn't help but observe the irony in Emrich's promise to organize the "entire community of faith." In 2009 he refused to work with Heath claiming that Heath couldn't be trusted. Heath was then the leader of the Christian Civic League of Maine.
"He'll work with Maine's Muslims but not with us?" said Heath. "While we are eager to work with anyone who will fight sodomy based 'marriage' -- including Muslims -- we wonder why Reverend Emrich willfully excludes us."
Heath and Madore are not surprised by this power grab by the monied interests in the pro family movement. They expected it, and will not allow it to deter them in their effort to win this campaign.
###
Heath and Madore Respond to Exclusive Claim to Leadership by Pro Family Groups [No Special Rights PAC]
Now, the first thing I should say is that even the distinction between Heath and Emrich is minor. Emrich—who works with FRC and who once pushed a piece in favor of the heinous Uganda law—is a *MAJOR* "ex-gay" supporter who has confirmed his desire to "change" us on several occasions. Just this week, he posted an hour-long speech in which a pastor railed on about gays having a "perverse lifestyle" from which they much be "saved." So don't be fooled—the only real difference between Heath and Emrich is that the latter is willing to stay on whatever message NOM and Co. have workshopped; Mike "sodomy marriage" Heath is not willing.
I say: Heath is right on this point. He and his brother in saying-revelatory-things-that-don't-poll-well, Paul Madore, got here first. I saw that not only in terms of this latest pro-equality campaign, which the duo came out against weeks ago, but also in terms of Maine's LGBT fight in general. Mike Heath—working *with* folks like Bob Emrich and Charla Bansley (see left), who have since been folded into the NOM mix—was fighting gays in Maine back when Brian Brown was still in college and Maggie Gallagher was much more concerned about the contents of Murphy Brown's womb than she was with gays and marriage. So how can NOM swoop in now and say, "No, no—he doesn't represent the 'brand'"? That's offensive to 'mo and 'mo foe alike!
Mainers should know what Mike Heath wants them to know, not only what NOM and Co. think will better the "protect marriage" side's chances at the polls in this blue state. I, for one, will gladly spend another spring-summer-fall making sure Heath's message (and Emrich's *true* message) gets out there!
04/26/2012
Video: Vote For Marriage NC campaign head said gays are 'abomination', not living in 'greatest and highest good'
This year, the head of North Carolina's marriage campaign, Tami Fitzgerald, is being more coy about her feelings. But back before she had a campaign to win, Tami let us know what her fight is really about:
"If we truly love our brothers and sisters, we will be seeking their highest and greatest good and what is best for them, and we know that when God's word says homosexuality is an abomination that means it's not the greatest and highest good of our brothers and sisters, so we're seeking their best interest."
This is the person *leading* the other side's campaign!
Do not be deceived, North Carolina. This is *not* just about marriage.
A year in a peculiarly obsessed life—Bryan Fischer edition
I don't have the wherewithal to put these in chronological order. After seeing the kind of things I have to read all year, who can blame me?
Video: Another Amendment 1 ad, another call to vote for 'marriage as God designed it'
Why should anyone believe that this campaign hold the truth cards when they won't even have the pertinent conversation about civil marriage, instead insisting to focus on their personal religious opinions?
Oh look, another state campaign pitting religion against civil rights. That's diff.
From the Family Policy Institute of Washington:
Did you know that 1500 churches in Washington State have already stepped up to be part of the effort to collect signatures for Referendum 74?
Do you realize what an amazing opportunity this represents? Will you help us take advantage of it? [FPIW]
Meanwhile, 0 civil marriage equality activists have stepped up to force religious institutions to perform, solemnize, or even recognize (in their churches and church activities) to recognize anyone's same-sex marriage. Do you realize what an astounding differentiation this represents? Will you help us make our opponents see that they *already* have this freedom if they would just take advantage of it?
Another intended supporter says @Vote4MarriageNC goes too far; 'Duh!', say gays, fair-minded allies, future
Democratic sponsor of North Carolina's anti-gay marriage amendment seeks to unring bell:
Amendment One SPONSOR now says he will vote against it (and lies about his past support of it) [PHB]
That's the thing about opening the Pandora's Box that is civil discrimination: one doesn't get to pick and choose which negatives he or she wants to enact. You order the full enchilada, you deal with the unintended flatulence.
