In a post earlier this week, I commented that I was going to post a copy of MarriageEqualityUSA slideshow at the Equality Summit, entitled the Collective Wisdom of Our Grassroots Community (the link is to a PDF file of the PowerPoint slide show).
The PowerPoint slideshow was based on two written reports:
• We Will Never Go Back; Grassroots Input on California?s No on 8 Proposition 8 Campaign
Some of the thoughts from some of the slides:
Slide 4:
Clergy leaders were underutilized by the No on 8 campaign.• Clergy leaders, particularly those who had performed marriage ceremonies, were the best spokespeople to counter faith leaders used by the Yes on 8 campaign.
• Over reliance on focus group findings directed clergy to phone banks, instead of visibility actions and outreach to congregations.
• CA marriage case and now Prop 8 amicus briefs identified supportive clergy across California.
Slide 5:
Leaders of color were underutilized by the No on 8 campaign.• There is a deep bench of Leaders from the Black, Asian, Latino and Native American communities. We must have a campaign where all communities are well-represented as leaders, spokespeople, and in campaign literature.
• "We need to engage with all people and not just people "like us"...to ensure we are not acting in unintentionally marginalizing or discriminatory ways."• "I feel that some of the language used in the ads, particularly ?unfair and wrong? was very Caucasian centric. Most people of color live in a world that is unfair and wrong, so this washed right over us."
• Funding to distribute Spanish and Asian language materials and ads were needed at the outset of the campaign.
• We must make institutional changes so that the LGBTI leadership and organizations reflect the natural diversity of our communities.
Slide 6:
No on 8 ads lacked heart and inexcusably excluded LGBTI people.• Survey respondents and town hall participants agreed:
• "The decision to ?hide? gay people was unacceptable."• No on 8 messaging was "swift boated"by the Yes on 8 campaign.
• No on 8 ads were too abstract and "lacked heart."
• We can't take the personhood out of a human rights campaign.
• In moving ahead, community input emphasized the need to present personal stories.
It goes without saying that I believe the slideshow is worth watching, and the reports are worth reading. Lots of good info in the collected information.
This head-scratcher from Christian Newswire. The "logic" is as follows -- I think: The Nazis were gay. There are two kinds of gays; effeminate and masculine. Masculine gays are pedarists. Masculine gays serve in the armed forces. Thus, allowing them to serve openly will lead to a takeover because the Nazis were gay and they took over Germany?
Huh? What?
Oh, I left something out. Because the gays already in the military will no longer have to hide their sexual orientation, this will lead to a mass exodus of "normal" servicemen which will force us to return to the draft.
"Repealing the ban on open homosexuals serving in the U.S. military would be a mistake of historic proportions." warns [Scott Lively] a Massachusetts attorney and pastor who authored a book on homosexuality in Nazi Germany. ...
"Certainly there would be a mass exodus of normal men from a homosexualized military," said Lively, ... And yes there would be severe morale problems for normal men forced to live as the objects of sexual interest of other men with whom they share close quarters. However, the much bigger, longer-term problem is the threat of a homosexual takeover of the military branches.
... "Many of the [S.A.'s] top leaders, beginning with its chief, [Ernst] Roehm, were notorious homosexual perverts." ... Brownshirt leaders in Germany recruited boys from the local high schools for sex. Roehm himself once briefly fled Germany for South America over a scandal involving a young male prostitute. This bodes ill for the young men who will be our future draftees.
"Every effort should be taken to prevent this policy change," he said.
A Dallas, N.C., man who police say tried to grab an officer's gun was fatally shot Saturday in the small town about 20 miles west of Charlotte.The family has contacted the president of the Gaston County NAACP, Clyde Walker, who said his office will file a complaint with the Dallas Police Dept. and the NAACP national office.But witnesses, including one of the dead man's family members, told the Observer's news partner, WCNC, that they believe the police officers acted inappropriately.
Investigators said Kennedy got into a fight with the police officers and tried to grab one of their guns before he was shot. Police haven't said which officer's gun they believe Kennedy went for or which officer fired the fatal shot.
...Kennedy's family members - and others who said they were outside the home at the time - said Kennedy first tried to run from the officers.
Some of the bystanders, who were still outside the home Saturday afternoon, said officers first used pepper spray on Kennedy, then used an electronic stun gun. Some told WCNC they saw an officer hit Kennedy with a police baton before he was shot.
...Police in the town of about 3,700 would not confirm the family's account Saturday, saying that only Chief G.W. Buckner could speak about the matter. The chief didn't return calls to his office phone Saturday.
"We're not going to make any accusations against the police department," said Clyde Walker. "We're not going to be rioting. We want to do this thing in a civil matter."Hat tip, Tasered While Black.
No comments:
Post a Comment