Dogged Blog

Talking Points Memo defends taking "Yes on 8" ads

Google ads started running "Yes on 8" banners on Talking Points Memo today. No matter how many times I hit "refresh," it delivered not just one but two of them. It was an especially ugly and deceptive couple of ads, too, although that's kind of like saying some parts of hell are hotter than others.

So I stopped going there, all day long.

I checked again this evening, thinking maybe they'd have tweaked their Google ads settings, the way other progressive sites I visit have done during this bitter campaign, and when I saw "no on 8" and Netflix ads instead of the hate mongering ones, I figured it was over.

Wrong. Because tonight they've posted a statement that they decided not to block the ads, out of loyalty to some bullshit higher principle about their site guidelines, which apparently are more important than civil rights:

We follow this policy because it is essential to preserving the editorial integrity of our product, which is news and information. Precisely because we are in the news and opinion business, advertising tied to ideas, issues or advocacy presents us with a particular challenge. If we reject ads that we disagree with, every ad we accept becomes, to one degree or another, a de facto endorsement. In other words, if we run ads only from candidates or causes we support, then the ad relationship also becomes an endorsement relationship. Even worse, a paid endorsement. That threatens the integrity of what we do -- which is to report the facts we find and explain the opinions we have.

I've heard that kind of rationale before, and it's crap. This isn't about politics, and this isn't a "cause." This is a civil rights issue, period. There aren't two sides to this any more than there are two sides to racism or anti-Semitism.

I don't mind that the site takes McCain ads, even though I couldn't oppose him more. Most of the political sites I visit take his ads, and frankly, it amuses me to think of them wasting their money on such infertile ground. This, however, is completely different.

This is giving voice and a platform to an organized effort to strip me and all other lesbian and gay Californians of our civil rights.

On a personal level, seeing those ads is brutalizing to me. I feel gutted. If you can even imagine what it's like to know that tomorrow millions of stangers who have never so much as laid eyes on me will be voting on my equality to them, maybe you'd realize this is not the equivalent of taking a McCain ad.

TPM of course can do what they want. As can I, which is not to go back unless and until they reconsider this decision. There's really only so much I can stand.

Oh fine. Make me cry.

Donate. Volunteer. Here.

Write to Marriage Day Oct. 29

All the cool bloggers are doing it:

Please join bloggers around the country and around the world on Wednesday, October 29 to blog in support of marriage equality for same-sex couples and against California’s Proposition 8.

The event will give bloggers a chance to voice their opposition to Prop 8 and highlight what they may have already done, online or off, to stop the measure. The campaign will also educate California voters of the need to “go all the way” down the ballot to vote on the proposition.

Get the details here, and join us!

Matthew Shephard: Ten years later

THE ULTIMATE SILENCE
October 12, 1998



Ten years ago, Matthew Shepard was murdered for being homosexual.

What will you do to end the silence?

Click here to post this on your own page or weblog

The Matthew Shepard Foundation site, with a message from Matthew's mother, is here.

Strange bedfellows?

There are two reasons I will never set foot in Denver.

This is one.... and this is the other.

Although queers are in good company with pit bulls.

Taking away my rights is wrong

I answered the door this morning, and a man smiled at me from my porch. "I'm here from Yes on Proposition 8," he said. That's the evil-spirited California proposition to amend our constitution to strip same sex couples of the right to marry legally in the state, which we currently have.

I smiled back at him, and said, "Oh, well then I hope you go to hell. Now get the fuck off my property." (I really did say that. I have witnesses.) And then I slammed the door.

A minute later I thought I'd tell him that I'd be following him up and down the block as he spoke to my neighbors, making sure they all understood that, if they bought the shit he was selling, it was me whose rights they'd be taking away. And my neighbor, who was outside washing his car, was laughing. "I almost told him not to go up there," he said. "But I'm glad I didn't, because that was great."

I laughed, but then I held out my hand. "I'm shaking, though." And I was.

He shook his head. "He must not know where he is."

Well, he was definitely at the liberal end of the block, because all my immediate neighbors felt the same way, but I'm sure plenty of the folks he called on were somewhat receptive to his message. I know, because while I'm a lesbian living in San Francisco, I'm also a fourth generation native San Franciscan, and I know my City... and my neighborhood... very well. I grew up here.

Although I'd signed up to phone bank against Prop 8 already, I'd passed on going door to door. First off, it kind of scares me, and secondly, I figured, what's the point? San Francisco's certainly not going to go for this thing.

But I'm looking at it differently now. It's not like San Francisco will be winner takes all on Prop 8; every single vote matters, and there are people here who will vote for this thing. Many of them will do it because they believe outright lies, such as the one I keep hearing that if this right isn't taken away from us, churches will be forced to marry same sex couples. I think I, who was raised Irish Catholic here in the City, attending parish schools and growing up in the neighborhood where I now live, can do some good there by looking them in the eye and pointing out that the Catholic Church doesn't recognize marriages performed anywhere other than at their altars, and doesn't recognize divorce, and yet, no one has ever tried to make them marry divorced couples or recognize the marriages of those wed at City Hall or at the local Lutheran church.

I'd already donated to Equality for All, and am phone banking for them tomorrow night. If you're reading this, please donate to them, too. This is a fundamental matter of equality and civil rights. And taking away people's  rights? It's wrong.

Interview: Congressman Barney Frank

In an article running today on AfterElton.com, I disscuss the right's use of anti-gay attacks in the 2008 election. For this piece, I spoke to Congressman Barney Frank, one of the most powerful gay figures in American politics. This is the transcript of that interview.

Christie Keith: We asked Karl Rove about the elections in 2000 and 2004 and how gay issues -- same-sex marriage and gay rights in general -- were being used as helpful to President Bush in winning elections, helpful to the Republicans –

Barney Frank: What did he say?

Christie Keith: He specifically said, “I think it was more in 2004 than it was in 2000.  I think it entered into force simply because it was not introduced by the political actors themselves; neither by the Bush nor Kerry campaigns, but brought forward by a Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts.  It sort of exploded on the scene and got a life of its own.” Then he goes on to say that he doesn’t think that’s happening in California and he’s not sure if it will.  Do you have anything to say about that?

Barney Frank: The general sense was that it was very helpful to them in 2004.  They obviously believe that.  Of course they went into 2005 determined to ride those issues.  Schiavo was an example, by the way, of that same thing.

But they forced several votes on the Constitutional amendment.  I think what he’s telling you now reflects that fact that he and the President and their political people tried very hard to whip up any gay marriage sentiment in 2005 and 2006 by forcing several votes on the Constitutional amendment, and it blew up in their face.

So, as I said, the most relevant election year is 2006 because the 2005/2006 Republicans had forced several votes on the Constitutional amendment.  Do you know how many people who for it? One. And he was a Republican in a Republican primary.  On the other hand, I think about two dozen people who voted for the amendment were defeated by people who were against it. So it was the 2006 election that made it clear.

What Rove is telling you is probably true now, but he forgot to add that he’s very disappointed because he tried very hard to exploit it for the 2006 election and it had no impact

Christie Keith: So you feel that this is probably not something that’s going to get a lot of traction in the current election.

Barney Frank: Right.  I think, by the way, even in 2004 and 2002, the two elections they won, it was really more the national security issue.  I think the air is substantially out of this balloon.

I get that from talking to members of Congress.  Meanwhile we passed an anti-discrimination bill by a large majority.  We passed the Hate Crimes bill.  I think the fear is out of that one. It was the 2006 election results that demonstrated it.  Okay?

Christie Keith: Thank you so much. 

Interview: AMERICAblog.com's John Aravosis

I wrote an article, running today on AfterElton.com, on the right's use of anti-gay attacks as a wedge issue in the 2008 election. I spoke with AMERICABlog.com's John Aravosis, and this is the transcript of that interview. It's long, even though I didn't include the part about Battlestar Galactica, so I've put it behind a jump.

The law of unintended consequences

So, the California State Supreme Court found that it violates the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law to deprive me of my equal right to marry legally. Starting June 17, lesbians and gay men will, for the first time, be equal under the law to straight people, at least in California -- the federal government still has the "Defense of [some] Marriage Act" to deprive us of our federal rights.

Of course, some out-of-state hate group thinks this is a very bad thing, and they've been trying first to stay the decision (boo hoo, you lose) and now have put a measure on the ballot to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Which according to an article in today's Washington Post, might create more problems than you'd expect. My favorite:

"If the November measure were to pass, we would be entering unprecedented territory," said David B. Cruz, an expert on constitutional law at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. "We have never seen a constitutional amendment like this in California that would take away rights that people had already exercised."

Somehow I suspect many Californians (51 pecent of whom said in a recent Gallup Poll that they had no problem with marriage equality) are going to find that a much harder thing to do than just ban same-sex marriage with a proposition. Taking away rights is just kind of un-Californian, not to mention un-American, not to mention, you know, wrong.

If you want to see some of the other chaotic social changes that might result from this mean-spirited little amendment, the article is here.

Mixed bag: Dogs, bugs, and politics

Helloooooo?

I haven't blogged here in EIGHT DAYS? I mean, my girlfriend came to visit me last weekend so, well, you know... not so much online. And then there was that big Tuesday deadline, and my SFGate.com column on drug-resistant staph infections in dogs that turned into a really big story, but it's Friday now and I have no idea how that happened.

*stares at calender willing it to move backwards*

Okay, enough of that. Allow me to catch you up.

One, my SFGate.com column on my dog Kyrie's struggle with MRSI, the canine version of human MRSA:

There's a new and growing threat to your pets' health, and while I wish I could tell you it's just another Internet rumor, it's all too real. I should know, because my dog is its latest poster child. I'm talking about something you might have thought only affected humans: drug-resistant staph infections.

We hear a lot about these types of infections in people these days, severe ones spread in hospitals and less severe ones spread in daycare centers, schools and gyms. Most human infections involve methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA. In dogs and cats, the bacteria is slightly different — methicillin-resistant staphylococcus intermedius, or MRSI — but it's otherwise pretty much the same problem: some strains of a common bacteria found in and on most dogs, people and surfaces have evolved to resist the antibiotics we normally use to treat it.

My introduction to MRSI began three months ago, when I noticed my 9-year-old borzoi, Kyrie, had a small, quarter-sized red patch on her hip that seemed to hurt her terribly. I got her into the vet the next day, and she diagnosed a spider bite, shaved and cleaned the area, and put her on antibiotics, pain medication and a topical lidocaine spray to numb the wound. She predicted Kyrie would feel better in around 48 hours.

But Kyrie spent the night restless and whimpering despite the pain medication. And the next day, her coin-sized sore had become 8-by-8 inches of infected, oozing, red, raw skin. Unable to sleep while she was so uncomfortable, I spent a few hours on the Internet, where I learned two things. One, there are no venomous spiders in San Francisco, where we live, and two, most diagnosed spider bites are really something else entirely: drug resistant staph infections.

Full story here.

And if you're in the San Francisco Bay Area, the local NBC news folks were out here this morning, filming Kyrie and me for the evening news. They weren't sure if the segment would air at 5 pm or 6 PM, but if you're local, watch for us! Or it will probably be on their website, www.kntv.com.

I also blogged at AfterElton.com about politics... but don't tell them, they say they're not a political blog.

It seems only a bare handful of queer blogs and bloggers got credentialed for the Democratic National Convention in August.

One of them is Pam's House Blend, a widely respected political blog run by Pam Spaulding. Two others are also strong political blogs with queer bloggers or site owners, John Aravosis' AMERICABlog.com and ThoughtTheater.com. And the fourth is Andy Towle's Towleroad.com.

[....]

Four blogs? Out of more than 120?

It's not just that four out of 120 isn't close to the percentage of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people in the United States, let alone the Democratic party, let alone the liberal blogosphere. 

It's that four years ago, our struggle for civil rights became the scapegoat for George Bush winning the 2004 election. A flood of anti-same-sex marriage ballot measures was blamed for driving conservative and religious right voter turnout to record highs. "God, guns, and gays" became the rallying cry of the right wing, and not only are we the "gays," we're a hefty hunk of the "God," too.

And this year again, not one of the three viable Democratic candidates dared to endorse marriage equality, betraying progressive ideals while acknowledging the conventional wisdom — no doubt true, however much I hate to say it — that no candidate can be elected President in this country if he or she supports same-sex marriage rights.

Given that big right wing flag that's planted like a stake through our hearts, given that yet again, our civil rights are a political lightning rod, given how we were told to shut up and be quiet four years ago, and four years before that, so as not to scare the "Reagan Democrats" away from us, given that more than a few folks are no doubt cursing California for recognizing marriage equality just in time to make it an election year time bomb yet again... we get four blog credentials?

I really think the Big Tent folks can do a hell of a lot better than that for us, considering how much fire — quite a bit of it "friendly" — we keep taking for them.

There's more, although actually, not too much more, here.

Now, go watch Kyrie and me on TV!