from http://blakehayes.com/:

This is horrifying surveillance video of 49 year-old Jack Price, who was brutally attacked for being openly gay.

This happened in College Point, Queens.  Are you upset?  Have you had enough of these kind of attacked happening in our own neighborhoods?  Will you stand up against anti-gay violence?

Join your community in a show of support for Jack, who is still hospitalized in a medically-induced coma, and make it clear this is NOT ACCEPTABLE!

March and Rally in College Point on Saturday, October 17th, step off at 2pm.
We’ll be marching down College Point Boulevard from 20th Avenue until 14th Avenue
and then holding a rally/speakout at nearby Popenhusen playground.
Directions: Take the 7 train to Main Street and then the Q65 bus from Roosevelt and Main Street to 20th Ave.
Please bring signs without wooden sticks, banners, friends, and your best self.

It would also be great if you can make it to this event on FRIDAY:

Education Outreach at Flushing High School in Flushing, Queens on Friday, Oct. 16th, 3pm
We’ll be distributing information about LGBT issues and speaking to students.
Directions:  Take the 7 train to Main Street and walk up to Northern Blvd.; cross the street; the school is a huge brick building. Meet us at the front gate.
By bus: Take the Q14, Q16, Q17 or Q44 to 35th Avenue. School is on the corner.
Take the Q25/34, Q65, Q67 to Main Street. Walk along Main Street toward Northern Boulevard.

For more information:
Generation Q of the QCH’s Director Marisa Ragonese at (718) 204-5955 or
Brendan Fay of St. Pat’s for All and the Civil Marriage Trail at (718) 721-2780

Health care is not a right.

The topic came up again last night on Hannity. Hannity had a very interesting Great American Panel last night. Bob Beckel, Redstate’s own Erick Erickson, and singer/Playboy model Aubrey O’Day were the guests. After discussing a program that U.S. tax dollars are funding in Africa that provides sex education to 5-year olds, the talked turned to health care. O’Day maintained that health care is a right, even calling it a “basic civil right”. She also declared that people have a civil right to affordable housing, food, and medication (which I think included contraception). It’s not the first time liberals have made that claim. Obama said health care is a right, too. The Nation makes the same argument.

Let me repeat. Health care is not a right. Maybe it will help to look at the definition of a civl right:

Webster’s says: : the nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially : the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress

Got that? Rights are the product of personal liberty. They are not guarantees of a lifestyle. Rights derive from natural rights, which are universal in nature. Universal means they’re not limited by time, place, or culture. Slavery provides a compelling example of the meaning of universal rights. Even though American culture and custom accepted the idea of enslaving certain people, blacks had the right to be free, just as all people everywhere have that right.

Now, let’s apply that standard to health care. Does everyone have a right to an MRI? Clearly, the Greeks did not have that right. In a state of nature, nobody had that right. People have a right to pursue healthiness. But not a right to the services of a doctor. If health care is a right, then doctors are breaking your rights any time they don’t provide service to someone who needs it.

Let’s look at the “right to affordable housing”. Does everyone have a right to a house? Many cultures don’t use permanent housing, and in fact housing would destroy their culture. Further, the very term “affordable housing” is a misnomer. If it’s affordable, then you can purchase it. We should use the term “welfare housing” because it more accurately describes the service of government giving people property.

Any time property is redistributed, someone’s rights are being violated. The Revolutionary War was fought over the right to own property, and the Constitution liimited the ability of government to seize private property. On a fundamental level, any time the government gives property to an individual for private use, another citizen’s rights are being violated. Here’s why. If you take a dollar from me and give it to my neighbor, you prevent me from spending it on myself. You have deprived me of the ability to use property that I created by my own labors. Further, the idea that people have rights to a certain set of goods ignores reality. There are often fewer goods than there are people. How can everyone have a right to something, if there is a limited supply of that thing? This is the difference between the right to bear arms and the right to a Government-supplied Colt .45.

Conservatives lose the argument whenever they concede the point about the right to health care. Health care is no more a right than Xboxes are right, or Corvettes are a right, or microwaves People have the right to amass their OWN property, and use it as they see fit. But people have no right to have property GIVEN to them by the government.

Michael Steele needs to learn this lesson. He’s currently calling for a “Seniors’ Health Care Bill of Rights.” Seniors have no right to health care, any more than anyone else does. It’s easy to see why there is confusion, as seniors have paid into government programs for decades. But welfare programs are not savings accounts, and seniors don’t check the balance before they spend money from Medicare

These pro-gay-rights T-shirts are the latest effort by Marc Jacobs to spur equality. He has previously designed shirts to benefit the Human Rights Campaign, although they were much pricier than these $24 Marc by Marc Jacobs exclusives.

Adam’s message to voters (pre-Finale):

- “This is a singing competition & not a church thing. I would hope that people vote based on what they like to hear, you know. It doesn’t have anything to do with your religious background, your color, your gender. It doesn’t have anything to do with that, it’s about your music. So it’s really important to keep that in mind.” [Adam's pre-finale press conference message to voters].

* * * * * * * * * *

After the Finale:

* * * * * * *

Q - Adam, so now all the blogs are going to be saying, he didn’t win because he was gay, or because he wasn’t gay, what are your thoughts?

A -  [Laughs]. Is that what they’re going to say? We’ll see. Blogs have a lot of opinions, don’t they? I think that Kris won because he’s a great artist, you know? And I was happy to be a runner-up to that.

* * * * *

Q – Do you think media speculation over your sexuality affected the voting?

Adam – Uh, you know, probably.

* * * * *

 When all that social projection started being attached to me I was like, is it that deep? I thought we were just singing, I thought this was just a singing competition. [Idolatry interview with Slezak].

I can see why people would see it as a red state blue state kind of thing. Conservative versus liberal kind of thing but I just want to believe, I may just be being an idealist, but I want to believe that its more about the music which is not always the case. I think that it shouldn’t matter what your religious beliefs are for instance, or your gender or anything else should come into play. But it’s a reality show and that’s what it does. I wish it didn’t but it kind of does. [Rolling Stone article].

“It’s surprising [the media obsession], because I don’t think twice about my sexuality. I’ve been living this way for the whole time that I’ve been living in L.A, for the past eight years. It’s a funny reminder that not everyone is as comfortable with it as I am.”

 * * * * *

Q – Do you think being gay will hurt your career?

A - I don’t know. I’m sure that there are some people that are turned off by it. And to be frank, those aren’t the kind of people I want to sing to anyway. I want to sing to people who are open-minded and accept music. It’s not about my lifestyle; that just happens to be my sexual preference, it doesn’t mean that it’s going to affect the type of music that I’m going to make or the type of performer that I am. I would hope that people are in a more progressive mindset right now, I know that our country as a whole is in a more progressive place than it was when the show started 8 years ago. I think that if you like it you like it, and if you don’t, well, there’s nothing I can do to control it.

* * * * * * *

I was a little worried about [the kissing-a-man pictures affecting my chances in the competition] when they first came out. I don’t think they did. I think I got to the end of the competition for a reason. I think people are ready now in this time and in this age to overlook it. The show is about finding great singers, it’s not about, like, who has the moral high ground, it is about finding the best singer. It’s not a pageant.

* * * * * *

I am an entertainer, and who I am and what I do in my personal life is a separate thing. It shouldn’t matter, except it does. It’s really confusing.

* * * * * *

[During the first few weeks post-Finale] an American Idol chauffeur told Adam that he had no problem with him, “because at least you’re not girly”. Adam Lambert: “Man, it’s so ignorant. Why can’t some men have strong feminine sides? Does that make them less of a man? I don’t know why our society has so much emphasis on masculinity and femininity – it’s really gross. I don’t think you’re truly sexy until you don’t care about that”. [Rolling Stone article].

* * * * *

Imagine a 13-year-old girl gets married in New Hampshire.  That’s the only state where it’s legal to marry that young.  Now imagine she and her husband can’t file their federal taxes together because no other state allows 13 year olds to marry.  Imagine her husband gets injured on their vacation to Indiana, and she can’t visit him in the hospital because in Indiana you have to be 15 to get married.  Imagine the couple decides to move to North Carolina, and they have to pay for separate rental applications and credit checks because you have to be 14 to get married in North Carolina.  But this is just your imagination, this 13 year old and her husband will have the rights of marriage where ever they go.

You might be repulsed by the idea of such a young girl being married, but it’s legal.  And because it’s legal where they got married, the federal government recognizes their marriage and every other state recognizes their marriage.  Because they’re straight.

In 1996 our government passed the Defense of Marriage Act.  It ensured that the federal government and other states didn’t need to recognize same-sex marriages, even if they were legal in the state where they were performed.  Same-sex marriage is now legal in five states and more states are moving in that direction.  Gay and lesbian couples married in those states face the problems I described above.

Fifty-five years ago the Supreme Court decided in Brown v Board of Education that separate is “inherently unequal” and required the integration of schools.  Education is a state’s right, but when it came down to discrimination, the federal government took a stand.  Likewise, marriage is a state’s right, but the LGBT community needs fairness and equality.  DOMA must be repealed.

Please contact your elected officials and demand marriage equality.

It is illegal to use an emergency water supply for civil use.

It is also illegal to deny someone a basic human right.

Access to water is a basic human right.

Do two wrongs make a civil right?

In yesterday’s Times, Frank Rich wrote a reasoned, “over it” commentary on the Right’s lackluster response to the marriage equality victories in Iowa and Vermont. Rich begins with a critique of NOM’s spoof-ready commercial against gay marriage, and then builds his argument to include the lack of media attention from conservative outlet Fox news and the abrupt about-face of religious leaders like Rick Warren and conservative talking head, Dr. Laura Schlesigner. 

It seems to me that the debate is shifting from “Should gay marriage be legalized?” to a larger dialogue about the separation of church and state. Beneath all the strong emotions of both the most liberal folks and the most conservative ideologues has been a resistance to disseminate the real meat of the debate: that marriage is a civil right, separate from the religious institution so narrowly focused upon.

Episcopal bishop Gene V. Robinson invoked this argument today. As did Governor Paterson in the legislation he put forth last week.

Reminds me of the recent words of Sean Penn at the Oscars, chiding the bigots who continue to rail against gay marriage. ”For those who saw the signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight,” said Penn, “I think it’s a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect on their great shame and their shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that support.”

Here’s his speech in case you want to view it again (it’s really moving, as is Milk screenwriter Lance Black’s acceptance speech):

AP Photo/Steve Pope

Shannon Morgan of Minnesota, left, Riane Menardi of Wyoming, and Brittnany Swanson, also of Minnesota, rally in support of the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage, on April 3 in Des Moines, Iowa.

By Jodi Mardesich

www.salon.com, April 15, 2009

How same-sex unions triumphed in Iowa, and what other states can learn from the victory.

April 15, 2009 | Iowa is known for its sweeping cornfields and pigs, fed by those vast amounts of corn. The landlocked state in the heartland isn’t exactly recognized as cutting edge or socially progressive, though its presidential caucuses do tend to predict the outcome of presidential races, as they did most recently with the selection of Barack Obama.

But with its Supreme Court decision in Varnum v. Brien, making it the third state to legalize same-sex marriage, Iowa is shedding its image as cornfed conservative. After the decision was announced April 3, about 1,000 people rallied in Western Gateway Park in Des Moines to celebrate, and Iowans showed their personality by toting signs, like “Corn Fed and Ready to Wed,” and even nodding to the coast: “This One’s for You, California.”

California, which at one time seemed destined to be the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, meanwhile awaits a decision from its Supreme Court on the validity of Proposition 8. The controversial ballot initiative, passed by a narrow margin in November, outlawed same-sex marriage, which had just been legalized via a California Supreme Court decision the previous May.

In fact, in the space of five days this month, the number of states where gays and lesbians can legally wed doubled, when Vermont and Iowa joined trendsetters Massachusetts and Connecticut. Vermont’s approval of same-sex marriage on April 7 was not surprising. After all, Vermont pioneered civil unions in the U.S. in 2000.

Vermonters have had nine years to observe that allowing gays and lesbians to enter into legally binding partnerships did not herald the end of the world. Fire and brimstone didn’t rain down on the land, plagues didn’t smite their iconic maple trees and most important of all, children in these nontraditional families were just as well-adjusted as their peers with straight parents.

The paths to legalizing same-sex marriage are quite different in Iowa, Vermont and California. Iowa, like Massachusetts in 2004 and Connecticut in 2008, relied on Supreme Court decisions to change the law. Vermont’s law, on the other hand, was voted in by the state Senate and House of Representatives, promptly vetoed by Gov. Jim Douglas, and then overridden by the Vermont Legislature. At first glance, the Iowa Supreme Court’s vote may appear surprising, especially to the-world-revolves-around-me Californians, but Iowa has an impressive history of pioneering civil rights legislation.

Iowa abolished slavery in 1839, 26 years before the passage of the 13th amendment in 1865. Iowa disallowed separate but equal racial segregation in schools in 1868, 85 years before the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of education outlawed it nationally. And in 1873, Iowa again protected racial minorities, extending anti-discrimination to public accommodations, 91 years before the U.S. Supreme Court. Iowa was also the first state to allow women to practice law. “I think Iowa’s tradition played a big role in the victory,” said Camilla Taylor, lead counsel for Lambda Legal, which represented the couples seeking to marry in Iowa.

It’s a good thing that laws aren’t always left to the people. In Iowa, if the amendment had been put to a popular vote, as it was in California, it probably would not have passed. According to a University of Iowa Hawkeye telephone poll just before the Iowa Supreme Court vote, 26.2 percent of respondents said they supported gay marriage, and 27.9 percent opposed marriage but supported civil unions, while 36.7 percent opposed both. However, the younger voters were more accepting. Talk about a generational divide — among voters under 30, 60 percent supported gay marriage, and 75 percent supported formal recognition of gay relationships.

California’s position on marriage equality has lobbed back and forth. It has been defined through popular vote (2000’s Proposition 22, which defined marriage as a contract between a man and a woman), a maverick decision (San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom’s short-lived permission in 2004 for gays and lesbians to marry) and a Supreme Court decision annulling those marriages. And that was just the beginning; in 2008, a Supreme Court decision reversed Proposition 22 and allowed same-sex marriages again. Then came another popular vote — Proposition 8, which reversed the Supreme Court ruling and left about 18,000 couples who wed between May and November of last year to wonder if their marriages are valid.

Despite California’s reputation as freethinking and liberal — it was the first state to recognize domestic partnerships in 1999 — it has its own conservative heartland, the Central Valley, and Republican enclaves like Orange County that tarnish that reputation. Public opinion is divided — some polls show the majority opposing same-sex marriage, while others show the opposite. But polls in Iowa, California and Vermont show that among the younger voters, the majority favor marriage equality. All three states have this in common: They have a history of being on the forefront of civil liberties legislation.

California was the first state to dismantle anti-miscegenation laws in 1948 with Perez v. Sharp, 19 years before the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed it in Loving v. Virginia — a very unpopular ruling at the time. The first Gallup poll on the subject, ten years after California’s landmark decision, revealed an astonishing 94 percent of Americans still opposed interracial marriage. Even ten years later, after the federal decision, 72 percent opposed it, according to Marriage Equality USA. Vermont never enacted anti-miscegenation laws, and was the first to abolish slavery.

The decision in Loving v. Virginia relied on the concept of equal protection found in the U.S. Constitution and that of all 50 states. It calls marriage one of the “basic civil rights of man,” and states that “to deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”

Supporters of same-sex marriage believe it is a civil rights issue, and hope that the courts will enforce existing laws. “It’s not that we need a new constitution,” said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry. “We just need a renewed commitment. Properly enforced, the existing equal protection would require equality.” So what worked in Iowa and Vermont? Activists and legislators made the issue personal, taking a cue from Harvey Milk, who advocated that people tell their stories.

One Iowa, an organization formed in 2006, just after Lambda Legal filed Varnum v. Brien, began holding forums across the state, in big cities and small towns, bringing together same-sex couples, legal scholars and people of faith to talk about the importance of marriage equality. Justin Uebelhor, communications director for One Iowa, said the group recognized the need to build support for marriage equality.

“We needed those folks to contact their elected officials,” he said, which they did, both before and after the vote. Lambda attorneys used a new strategy when they filed the case in Iowa: They included children of the couples as plaintiffs. They also called psychologists. “We took a lot of care in making as complete a record as possible of the social science of gay and lesbian parenting,” Taylor said. In light of the New York court’s 2006 decision against same-sex marriage that relied in part on “intuition” that children would be better off with a mother and a father (how many families lack one of those?), Lambda included statements from child development and other experts to make the case that children of gay and lesbian parents are just as well-adjusted as children of heterosexual parents.

This strategy to make things personal appears to be helping. The National Organization for Marriage launched a $1.5 million advertising campaign that included broadcasting the fear-mongering “The Gathering Storm,” which claims that same-sex marriage will infringe the rights of straight people. The video, denounced by gay rights activists, is intended to encourage Iowans to pass a law to dismantle the ruling.

When the embarrassing audition tapes showed up on YouTube, revealing that the people talking about their fear of the darkness were actors, NOM requested the video’s removal. To undo the Supreme Court’s ruling, Iowans would have to amend their constitution. So far, Iowans have not persuaded legislators to introduce a bill to negate same-sex marriage in the state. In order to change the state constitution, the Legislature must vote on the issue in two separate years. It appears unlikely that the current Legislature, which is about to end its 2008-2009 session, will vote on it, meaning that it could be changed by 2012 at the earliest.

Vermont activists, including an organization called Vermont Freedom to Marry, took a similar approach. “We had frank discussions with people: I am gay and I am your neighbor and I am your farmer and I want the same rights that you have,” said Jason Lorber, an openly gay state representative from Burlington. “In California, I don’t think those discussions took place.” California has a population of 38 million. Vermont, at 600,000, is smaller than San Francisco.

Now, attention is turning back to California, where the state Supreme Court is expected to make a ruling by early June on whether Proposition 8 is valid. The California constitution can be changed in two ways: through amendments and revisions. The amendment process is designed for ordinary changes, and can be done through the Legislature or through a signature collection that leads to a vote of the people. “California has an unusually low threshold for changing the constitution,” Wolfson said.

The California Supreme Court is currently deciding whether Proposition 8 was simply an amendment or a revision that should have gone through a more rigorous process. “It’s hard to imagine anyone considering the idea of equal protection a mere amendment,” Wolfson says. “Writing out the rights of a minority is a revision.” And if it was a revision, it’s invalid, Lambda’s Taylor said. “We firmly believe it is a revision — it redraws equal protection to permit the exclusion of some people from the guarantee of equality based on a simple majority vote.” Yet in a hearing March 6, it appeared that some Supreme Court justices were hesitant to go against the will of the people. Their decision is expected by early June.

Adding to the momentum, this Thursday, New York’s Gov. David Paterson plans to introduce legislation to legalize same-sex marriages in the state.  “We’ve got New Hampshire coming up for vote, New York and New Jersey. We’ve got momentum on our side, and we’ve got time on our side,” Lorber said. “When you talk to youth, they just don’t even get what the controversy is all about.”

Iowa’s choices in recent presidential caucuses have made it a bellwether of sorts in presidential races — hence the saying, “As Iowa goes, so goes the nation.” The Iowa decision is important precisely because it’s in the heartland, Taylor said. “It highlights for the nation that marriage equality across the country is inevitable. It’s simply a matter of time and we still have some years to struggle, but we’ve turned the corner as a nation.”

Reporters from INFOWARS.COM were harrassed and threatened with arrest in downtown Kansas City, Missouri after filming the local branch of the private Federal Reserve building. Security guards working for the bank approached the reporters at a city park that houses the National WWI memorial and demanded that they provide their names and disclose why they were filming the building.

After Aaron Dykes refused to provide his full name, he was told to leave public property immediately or face arrest because the bank was concerned about what he was filming– despite the fact that the female security guard repeatedly admitted he had done nothing wrong.

In the face of Free Speech under the First Amendment, as well as common sense, the other reporter, Rob Jacobson was also told to leave despite complying with the request to provide his name. “Officer Booth”, the female private security guard for the Federal Reserve, dared to pronounce that he was “guilty by association.” When this reason was challenged, the stupified “Officer Collins” told reporters that they were not to ask anymore questions and should in fact leave immediately.

What jurisdiction they had– if any– is unclear, as the cameramen were approached on city property.

The Federal Reserve– who have branches at some 38 locations across the country– have repeatedly trampled on the rights of free speech and attempted to challenge anyone daring to film their building. It is clear they regard any press as a threat.

It happened to an unaffiliated cameraman outside the Washington D.C. location who was told no filming of any ‘federal’ buildings was allowed under any circumstances unless special clearance was given by the Fed’s press office.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/federal-r…

We Are Change founder Luke Rudkowski was also challenged by a security officer outside of the Federal Reserve’s New York location who demanded to see what had been filmed under threat of arrest (as documented in his activist film ‘Dedicated’ http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc…

Shockingly, it has also been revealed that military intelligence spied on peaceful demonstrators who met simultaneously at “End the Fed” rallies across the country, including Alex Jones & Wayne Paul, brother of Congressman Ron Paul.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/army-disp…

The stifling of free speech and the attempt to intimidate reporters and legitimate protesters is despicable.

The outrage over the privately owned bank has grown as more & more members of the public have realized that this entity– which has been given the power to print our money– is not a part of the U.S. government but a deception organization hiding behind the name “Federal.”

Rep. Ron Paul, among others, has led the effort to audit this unaccountable bank and end its ability to inflate the money supply, and ultimately to target its value. Its chairman Ben Bernanke has refused to tell Congress who it has lent money to, and in what amount– despite its relevance to dealing with the current financial crisis.

The compounding acts of secrecy– at the ground level and in the halls of the U.S. government– should sound alarm bells for the sleeping American people that this bank must no longer control the economic policies of this nation.

I know I am a little behind with this posting, but yesterday would have been Martin Luther King, Jr.’s 80th birthday.

I am not going to go into all that he did and what he stands for in my life.  However, I do have a question for all readers.  Do you think that African Americans really have progressed since the Civil Rights years?

I personally think that progress has been made in some ways, but not so much in others.  So, what do you think?

Day Without A Gay 10 December 2008, December 10, 2008, International Human Rights Day, On December 10, 2008 the gay community will call in, For more information, information on in Light Up And Many More Information Day Without A Gay.

Source : http://www.24timepass.com/blogs/day-without-a-gay-10-december-2008.htm