Real America: The Awl 2010 Benefit Calendar

Zack P. is not from an out-of-touch family that is famous or rich or of political royalty. He is not a pointy-headed elitist coaster who knows what’s best for everyone. He carries no baggage from the 1960s. He’s young. He’s a hard-working guy from Middle America and he gets down and dirty politically and risks his neck for what he believes in. He should be the left’s future. He should be the left’s poster child, its goddamn sex symbol—not some actor who happens to lend his good looks to whatever “awareness” campaign is hot. Zack is not the future America deserves but he’s the one it needs. Zack should be one of this pitiful nation’s sexiest people.

To this end, The Awl has put together a 2010 benefit calendar of sexy Zack goodness. The calendar features a collection of photos that are preposterous, topical, sexy, poignant, naked, embarrassing and bad—sometimes all at the same time. (If you are a nit-picky art director, you may have some complaints about the execution, in which case, you are welcome to art-direct next year’s calendar—pro bono, of course. Also, the online preview looks terrible, but it looks much better in print!)

All proceeds go to Zack, to be used for making protest posters or buying extra locks for his new house (cross your fingers!) or for taking a trip to somewhere warm. (The details: Manufacturing cost is $12.49, Lulu.com takes $1.50, and the remaining $6 go to Zack.) And in the unlikely event that this is an overly-successful venture, he will be donating a portion of the profits to the Matthew Shepard Foundation.

More at: The Awl!

Pat Robinson Doesn’t Like Feeling a Noose Around His Neck

But, I feel certain he wouldn’t mind putting one around the necks of some. In his last statement on this video (courtesy of CrooksandLiars.com) the anti-gay Bible-thumper states:

“Until the liberties we have enjoyed aren’t there any longer.” What’s he talking about? The passing of the Hate-Crimes bill of course. Somehow, this twisted head, has come to the conclusion that the Hate-Crimes bill affects the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which of course, is freedom of speech. I always have to laugh a bit a the subtle nuances of CBN reporting. Take for instance, the “reporter” refers to President Obama as “Mr. Obama”, not President.

Also, as much as I would appreciate Pat Robertson shutting up, I’ll defend his right to say how much he hates me, and the rest of the LGBT community as much as he wants to. But, he is correct in the stating one can be held liable for inciting violence. So yes Pat, if you tell someone to go out and kill gays because it’s God’s wish and they do, then yes, you do belong in jail!

Playing on the fear and ignorance of others has become a very successful tool for the religious right. I also find it interesting how Patty likes to make claims that this country was founded and based on “Christian moral values”. I guess I wasn’t aware our forefathers were seeking a theocracy. I thought they were building a democracy based upon freedom of religion (which yes Pat, there ARE religions other than Christianity) and also separation of church and state.

Watch the video below…this is a LARGE part of the reason the LGBT community faces so much opposition.

Hate Crimes Act Post Debate

One may think that people, especially those of a “Christian” orientation, would be pleased about the passing of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. I mean, after all, it takes certain acts of violence up to a federal level crime, which in turn, should make some people think before they act and hopefully we’ll see fewer deaths and beatings of innocent people in this country. The goal is to detour, not promote crime.

However, the voice of opposition has mainly been from a distinct Christian population…those of course who have re-written the Bible over the years to demonstrate that God finds homosexuality to be an “abomination”.

But what is it they are really afraid of? Seriously, unless they’re planning to go out and do a little gay-bashing, there really shouldn’t be anything to worry about…right? The law doesn’t prevent anyone from calling someone a fag, it just makes the crime a little worse if they’re cracking someone’s head open while they do it.

But, some people are still afraid they won’t be able to spread “God’s” word that being gay ultimately results in burning in the firey depths of hell.

Fortunately, not all Christian leaders or organizations view the bill as a way to repress, but for what it really is, a way to help a group of Americans.

There’s a great post on the Wyoming Tribune that tackles both sides of this debate from a Biblical standpoint. Of course, I decided to highlight this post from Wyoming, as we all know the very heinous murder of Matthew Shepard 11 years ago in Laramie was the catalyst for enacting such a law.

One one side of the fence, the post states the view of those less kind to the LGBT population in this country. Focus on the Family, an anti-gay Christian organization, has been one of the largest opponents to the measure, basing their opposition on misguided fears it will stifle their First Amendment Rights.

According to the post:

“We really believe that Christians will be silenced with these kinds of laws,” Ashley Horne, the federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said.

The organization “condemns violence against anyone for any reason,” Horne added.

Still, proponents of the bill have exaggerated the need for such action, she said, calling the act “a solution with no problem.”

Hate crimes happen, she said, adding that she didn’t want to minimize them. But it is not the epidemic that it has been made out to be, particularly those toward homosexuals.

And she adds:

It’s important to charge someone for a crime, Horne continued, but not for the person’s thoughts. “It’s not just the act we’re punishing anymore.”

She predicted that if brought to a full vote instead of being tacked onto another bill, the act wouldn’t have passed.

“It’s unpopular to crack down on religious liberty,” she explained.

In addition, she said, the language in the bill that prohibits violation of the First Amendment is redundant.

However, the post does a great job of countering with a very different Christian view quoting:

“I support the legislation,” Roger Rapp, the associate pastor for First Presbyterian Church here and a retired ELCA Lutheran pastor, said. “In Wyoming, I’m a minority voice on that.”

He added that he doesn’t feel the act would limit what he can say or teach about homosexuality.

It’s important to engage in conversation and understand how different people are created differently, he said.

“We fear that which we don’t understand. Fear and ignorance (are) what drives a lot of hysteria in our society,” he said. “I believe that we just need to hear each other and settle down a little bit.”

He added that everyone should be treated equally.

“I think (this legislation) is pursuing the goal of equal treatment for all,” he said.

Charles Haynes, a senior scholar with the First Amendment Center, said the legislation doesn’t threaten freedom of speech.

“I just don’t see anywhere in this bill where these concerns are justified about free speech and freedom of religion,” he said.

A pastor couldn’t be prosecuted unless he or she “uses language that would incite someone to an imminent act of violence,” Haynes said.

That is not protected speech anyway, he explained, and this legislation doesn’t change that.

Free speech is strongly protected in the Constitution and will remain so, he added.

As long as precedence holds, a pastor can speak about homosexuality — even in very strong terms — without being charged with a crime. That’s true even if a parishioner commits a crime, Haynes added.

For example, he added, the First Amendment has protected those who march with signs reading “God hates fags.”

Haynes said he felt like the real issue wasn’t about free speech at all, but about a cultural change that the legislation seems to represent.

“It’s a symbolic change that may signal to some people a recognition, an acknowledgment, of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in a way that is very disturbing to them,” he said. “I think that’s really what’s going on here.”

Hate-crime victims aren’t like other victims, he added.

“A crime is a crime, but some crimes don’t just affect the individual victim,” he said. “Some crimes affect an entire community or group of people, and that’s a much more serious matter.”

These crimes, he said, make people afraid in their communities.

“Nobody should be afraid,” he said. “Whatever people think about homosexuality, that’s not the issue here.”

The issue is really about safety, he said.

“Even if they don’t agree with someone who is gay being gay, most Americans don’t want that person attacked just because he or she happens to be gay.”

I think the key point is in that last sentence, “most Americans don’t want that person attacked just  because he or she happens to be gay.”  I would like to believe that is true, but I think the fears that come from the passing of the act, are in part due to there are some “Christians” out there who feel they are “God’s warriors” and even though they personally may not attack someone for being gay, I can’t help but to believe that their opposition or the legislation signals very strongly that when someone is attacked over their sexual orientation, somewhere inside of their minds, they’re actually happy about that.  What other reason could their be to oppose a law against acts of violence?

Matthew Shepard Act Passes House

What a GREAT week this is shaping up to be in the world of LGBT news! First President Obama’s Nobel Award and yesterday, the House voted 281 to 146 to expand the definition of violent federal hate crimes (Matthew Shepard Act) to include the victim’s sexual orientation, a move that would expand the law to protect those in the LGBT community.

But, as with all good you have to take the bad. The measure didn’t pass through the house without it typical Republican opposition. The House Republican leader, John Boehner, spoke out strongly against such a law, calling it a “radical social policy” and fearing it will award “special protections” for LGBT citizens. Representative Todd Akin (R-MO) stated, “We believe this is a poison pill, poisonous enough that we refuse to be blackmailed into voting for a piece of social agenda.” Fortunately, supporters understand inclusion does not equal “special” and there is no “agenda” behind protection of hate crimes other than prevention. Also, Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) stated his dismay over the bill claiming it would inhibit freedom of speech and deter religious leaders from discussing their views on homosexuality in fear those publicly expressed views against homosexuality could be linked to later assaults. The fact however, if made law, you would still be able to preach against homosexuality, scream FAG as loud as you want, but not while your bashing someone’s skull in. If you’re inciting violence, that is a crime. The bill clearly states prosecution based on an individual’s expression of “racial, religious, political or other beliefs” is expressly barred. It also states that nothing in the measure should be “construed to diminish any rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

Current federal law dictates hate crimes to be defined as those motivated by race, color, religion or national origin. The new measure would broaden the definition to include those crimes committed because of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. Although no one has ever been charged with a “thought crime” (being charged for hate thought without action) against individuals who only possess, but don’t act their hate based on race, color, religion or national origin, many Republicans have criticized the legislation, saying violent attacks were already illegal regardless of motive, and the measure was an effort to create a class of “thought crimes”.  In other words, being criminal for thinking hateful thoughts.

To be fair however, not all Republicans didn’t agree and 44 Republicans voted in support of the legislation.

The bill, which is attached to a military spending bill still have to be approved by the Senate, but their is a great deal of support for the hate crimes provision, and even Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who is the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated the overall bill outweighed his own objections to including the hate crimes measure, but also stated “Elections have consequences.”

If passed, the hate crimes bill will provide the federal government with the authority to prosecute violent crimes of anti-LGBT bias when local authorities fail to do so. The bill will also allocate $5 million a year to the Justice Department to assist local communities in investigating hate crimes, a costly process that often financially strains resources. The bill would also allow the department to assist in the inquiry and local prosecution if requested.

According to statistics, the FBI received more than 77,000 hate crimes report from 1998 through 2007 and crimes based on sexual orientation have remained on an upward trend.

Mother Hopes Current Legislation Will Prevent Hate Crimes

On Oct. 7, 1998, 21-year-old gay college student Matthew Shepard was brutally tortured, tied to a fence post and left for dead, forever changing the GLBT community and bringing hate crimes to the political forefront.

Judy Shepard, Matthew’s mother, took time off from her book tour to speak to The Daily Texan about her activism and the September publishing of her memoir, “The Meaning of Matthew: My Son’s Murder in Laramie, and a World Transformed.”

In the book, she writes about Matthew’s life, his tragic death and how the world has been forever altered by both.

“Going back to those memories was really hard,” Shepard said about the writing process. “But in the end I think it was therapeutic.”

Shepard originally intended to publish a compilation of letters she received after Matthew’s death, but was encouraged by her agent to write her memoir instead. The compilation book is definitely still a possibility, she said.

Since her son’s murder, Shepard has worked as an activist for hate-crime legislation and equality, establishing the Matthew Shepard Foundation to “replace hate with understanding, compassion and acceptance,” according to the Web site. The Matthew Shepard Foundation supports the Matthew Shepard Act, introduced by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, to strengthen the national hate-crime legislation. The act “adds sexual orientation, disability, gender and gender identity to the existing hate-crime laws,” Shepard said.

Read more at: The Daily Texan!

Next Page »