5.04.2012

AFA: Soup Is Gay Food

Anti-LGBT hate group AFA has been (rather unsuccessfully) urging boycotts of many fine American institutions recently, most notably Home Depot, Target, and Disney, for their support of LGBT equality. If you recall, the AFA are also the group that releases a Naughty & Nice list each Christmastime to remind folks which companies say "Happy Holidays" vs. "Merry Christmas."

Now they've taken on another great American institution, Campbell's soup. They want you to know that soup is gay food.

Via the American Family Association's 'news' site OneNewsNow:
Traditional family groups are disappointed that the Campbell's Soup Company is sponsoring a homosexual event in Philadelphia this week.

The American Family Association of Pennsylvania's Diane Gramley says the company has "tainted its clean-cut image."

"Equality Forum is a homosexual event that glorifies same-sex 'marriage,' is going to have a panel discussion on how homosexuals can adopt, and it also is going to be talking about how the homosexual activists can go into schools to give the message, 'gay is okay,'" Gramley details. The forum is also "working towards getting transgenders into the military" and on how transgendered people can work to be better understood by the public.

ut the AFA of Pennsylvania president says those aspects are contrary to Campbell's image.

"When I think of Campbell's Soup, I think of the Campbell's Soup kids with their advertisement that portrays a pro-family, a family-friendly company, which is what they want to portray to the public," she suggests.

So Gramley is encouraging people nationwide to go the company's website and send a message to company officials urging them to stay neutral in the culture war and not sponsor homosexuality.

Meanwhile, she notes that other companies provide comparable soup products.

Time to buy some Campbells, folks. And while you're at it, write to Campbell's yourself, and let them know you appreciate their stance.




5.03.2012

NC Kid-Run Newspaper Pens Editorial Against Amendment One

The children of Greensboro, NC's Lindley Park community have been writing, printing, and distributing their own xerographic newspaper, The Lindley Park Gazette for a few years now. The neighborhood paper is funded by $5 ads bought by neighborhood businesses, and is distributed to over 300 homes and businesses.

The paper isn't just kid's stuff. There's serious stuff in this rag. Lucy Newsom and her staff cover real issues affecting the area, including Amendment One.

A few months ago, I posted a pro-equality editorial by Max Gearhart which ran in the Gazette. Now, with the May 8 vote fast approaching, the paper has published an editorial urging their readers (or perhaps their parents) to vote against the amendment.

This editorial is a collective stance taken by the entire staff of kids who publish the paper. The editorial was published in the May 2 edition of the paper.


Lindley Park Gazette Editorial Against Amendment One

We've spent months making signs, marching, researching and reporting. We have made videos. We write about this in our paper.

The one thing we can not do is vote.

Please vote (for us) against Amendment One.

The North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage Amendment will appear on the May 8, 2012 ballot in the state of North Carolina.


It says: Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.

Our parents have the opportunity to vote on this. We hope they will vote AGAINST it. And here is why:

Sometimes, as kids, we feel like we are in the minority. Just because we are young. We literally cannot vote. Sometimes we get bullied because we are small. It is not fair for the big guys to beat up on the little guys. It is scary on the playground but it is terrifying when the people who are supposed to protect you are part of the bullying.

Amendment One would write bullying into the NC state constitution.

What if the dominant religion in North Carolina said that all women have to wear burquas or that children can be sold into slavery or told who they have to marry? What if you thought - and of course you would – Hey, that is not cool! Women have rights! Kids need to be protected! But this religion was so popular that it had power to take away rights from those less powerful. To make their beliefs into the LAW. It would feel terrible if you were bullied by your state. That is what this amendment feels like to us. Bullying.

The sad fact is that bullying happens. It happens on the playground and in governments all over the world. We can’t let it happen here in North Carolina.

We understand that most of the religious leaders in North Carolina are speaking out against this as unfair. We know that religion is not the enemy. Most religious leaders see that it is bullying. But there are some leaders in religion and politics and even in the media who have misused their power to BE bullies. To try to write bullying into the CONSTITUTION. To make discrimination part of a document that is supposed to protect ALL of us.

We believe that gay marriage is fine. It is cool with us. But more than that, no matter how you feel about gay people, bullying is never OK. Never. We pledge to stand up for the people who are getting bullied, no matter who they are. We will not let the bullies win on the playground or in our government.

Please VOTE (for us) AGAINST AMENDMENT ONE.
 







Voices Against Amendment One, Pt. 2

Here is the second video from All Aces Media featuring a collection of voices urging North Carolinians to vote against Amendment One.

The video features a broad spectrum of NC citizens, as well as many influential and well-known artists and musicians with ties to North Carolina, including Jeff Tweedy (Wilco), Bob Mould (Husker Du), Ian MacKaye (Fugazi, Minor Threat), Laura Ballance (Superchunk, Merge Records), and others.

Don't forget to vote on May 8 (or vote early if you can). Make sure your voice is heard.







5.02.2012

Wife Of NC Senator: Amendment One Is Necessary ‘To Protect The Caucasian Race’

Sen. Brunstetter, Caucasian
The Amendment One debate has certainly had its share of crazy, but a story reported by Pam's House Blend really takes the cake.

Chad Nance, a freelance journalist covering the NC election, recorded the wife of NC Sen. Peter Brunstetter saying some ridiculously offensive stuff about Amendment One.
Nance said he recorded a conversation with the woman, whose name is Jodie Brunstetter, on video, and that she confirmed that she used the term “Caucasian” in a discussion about the marriage amendment, but insisted that otherwise her comments had been taken out of context by other poll workers.

…Nance paraphrased the remarks, as told to him by those who were present: “During the conversation, Ms. Brunstetter said her husband was the architect of Amendment 1, and one of the reasons he wrote it was to protect the Caucasian race. She said Caucasians or whites created this country. We wrote the Constitution. This is about protecting the Constitution. There already is a law on the books against same-sex marriage, but this protects the Constitution from activist judges.”

Nance said he recruited a friend, who works for the Coalition to Protect All North Carolina Families, to witness his interview with Jodie Brunstetter. He said Brunstetter reluctantly acknowledged that she had used the term “Caucasian” and then repeated the statement previously attributed to her, but substituted the pronoun “we” for “Caucasian. Nance said Brunstetter insisted there was nothing racial about her remarks, but could not explain why she used the term “Caucasian.”
Holy shitballs, people. This is what we're up against in NC.

When you visit the polls on May 8, I hope you realize that voting for Amendment One is to align yourself with this garbage.



Voices Against Amendment One, Pt. 1

This is a wonderful collection of voices urging North Carolinians to vote against Amendment One.

The video features a broad spectrum of NC citizens, as well as many influential and well-known artists, musicians, and comedians with ties to North Carolina.

Part 2 of this series will be available tomorrow.

Don't forget to vote on May 8 (or vote early if you can). Make sure your voice is heard.








4.30.2012

Looking Beyond Amendment One to Amendment Two

I have asked countless people to provide a secular legislative purpose for Amendment One. I have broadcast this question to thousands of people, via Facebook and Twitter. I have posed this question directly to people I know are planning to vote in favor of Amendment One.

Amendment 2?
Crickets.

I have yet to hear one legitimate secular legislative purpose for the amendment. I have also posed a similar question asking non-believers to come forward with reasons why they are voting for Amendment One.

Again, crickets.

I am aware that there may be some voters out there who claim to have a secular purpose for voting for the amendment. I am also sure there may be some non-believers who are doing the same. I do, however, believe that these instances represent a tiny sliver of the population voting in favor of the amendment.

What does this say?

I believe there are only a few conclusions that can be drawn: 1) Voters are ignorant to the effects the amendment will have on heterosexual couples, children, and seniors, 2) Voters are ignorant to the overwhelming scientific evidence that sexual orientation is no more a choice than right- and left-handedness or skin color, 3) Voters will go to great lengths to legitimize their own bigotry.

The common denominator here is religion-based bigotry.

One thing people need to understand is that we do not add constitutional amendments that a) deny rights to a group of citizens based on natural traits, or b) have no secular basis.

It does seem apparent, however, that a large swath of the NC religious population are determined to ensure that we do just this. As North Carolinians, this should be deeply disturbing.

What will Amendment Two bring?

Should the population become overwhelmingly Muslim (as it is in Dearborn, MI), can we expect an amendment to be based strictly on Sharia Law?

Should we add an amendment stating that anyone who does not worship God be killed? (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

If a city worships a different god (or no god), will an amendment require the destruction of the city and the execution of all of it's inhabitants... even the animals? (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)

Will an amendment require that we kill our own family members who choose a different religion? (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

If a man has sex with an animal, should we kill both the man and the animal? (Leviticus 20:15-16)

If a man has sex with a woman while she is menstruating, should we cast him out from society? (Leviticus 20:18)

If the preacher's daughter sleeps around, should an amendment require that we burn her at the stake? (Leviticus 21:9)

Will an amendment require that psychics and horoscope writers be put to death? (Leviticus 20:27)

If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, will an amendment be in place to ensure that both the man and the woman are executed? (Leviticus 20:10)

Will an amendment outlaw Super-Cuts, and shaving? (Leviticus 19:27)

When men fight with one another, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the man who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, will an amendment require that we cut off her hand? (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

You might tell me that none of these old laws are valid because they were for a different people at a different time. I will see your old crazy law argument and raise you a few equally as old, and much more vague Bible passages which you claim denounce homosexuality.

You might not want these laws to become amendments because you have broken some of them, and when you broke them nobody got hurt.  The same can be said for homosexuality. Gay marriage hurts no one. Amendment One does.

You are entirely free to cherry pick scripture to validate your own prejudices against taxpaying citizens who simply wish to live their lives in a loving relationship with a consenting adult. You are free to dislike someone based on their natural traits. You are free to be freaked out by homosexuality (That's your problem.) You are free to believe that it is a sin, or that your holy book requires you to believe that it is an abomination.

What is wrong, however, is forcing your personal beliefs into a constitution whose purpose is to protect its citizens, even those of us who do not share your particular religious beliefs.

Be careful what you wish for. It's a slippery slope.