Login to Change.org
Create an Account
David Hart
New York, NY
I am a semi-retired post-secondary education CEO and Quality-Management consultant. I run the Tips-Q.com website and currently developing GayNewsService.com
Recent Activity
-
David commented on the article |I had a brief email colloquy with Cleve Jones on this subject. We both agree that anger is a very good thing. I think that Harvey would be disappointed by the level of anger.
Take Maine for example. In debates and media, our opponents were essentially calling us child molesters yet we were so well behaved. Jesse is a fine man and he worked very hard. I am wondering if there is a peril associated with having a straight guy run a campaign like this. Yet, even when queers were debating on public stages, they were too reserved - too damned polite. Nobody really put the wood to our opponents face to face. Harvey would have cut an idiot like Mutty down to size - quickly. So many of the people involved in our endeavor were lawyers and that's not a good thing.
On a related note, were Harvey still with us, I doubt that the folks at Criswell advertising could get to their office every day without being confronted by a mob of pissed off queers. Criswell is within walking distance of the Castro and they were the top recipient of Yes on One revenues.
We have only a month to pass marriage equality in NJ. I am not seeing the passion.
-
David commented on the article |Telling the truth, though, doesn't mean that we win. That is important to understand. Furthermore, our opponents have a much lower burden.
All that they are required to do is to give out permission slips for people to be "excusably" intolerant. That is precisely what they do when the introduce children into the argument.
One of NOM's disingenuous talking points is that "every child deserves a mom and dad." That bit of cognitive dissonance overlooks the fact that the same heterosexual couples will have the same marriages, sue for the same divorces and bear the same children. Moreover, children adopted by gay couples have neither a mom nor a dad before they are adopted.
These folks are neither "idiots" nor "stupid." They know exactly what they are doing. Their constructions are focus-group tested. I get too angry to run an effective campaign in opposition. On the other hand, I often feel that marriage equality advocates are too gentle. When an honest debate is averted, a little "Rahm" seems appropriate.
David
-
David commented on the article |
Just to add a couple of details. Some of the claims made in Stand for Marriage Maine's first TV advertisement opposing "homosexual marriage" don't hold up to scrutiny.
1. Special interest groups got the legislature to approve homosexual marriage.
The suggestion is that how else could such a thing pass or that this is not the independent will of Maine's legislature. It seems kind of odd to bring up special interest groups considering that the following are a few of the groups involved in banning gay marriage in Maine: National Organization for Marriage, Opus Dei, The Mormon Church, The Catholic Church, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, Knights of Columbus, etc.
2. A "consequence" of same-sex marriage will be that churches could lose their tax exempt status. The tag reads "… its challenge was filed … at an Internal Revenue Service office"
As "proof" they show an AP headline "Homosexual Advocacy Group Accuses Maine Diocese of Violating Tax Law." The complaint has nothing directly to do with same-sex marriage. Empowering Spirits Foundation filed a challenge saying that the diocese engaged in political activity by collecting signatures for the referendum to ban same-sex marriage. Doing so is a violation of IRS rules applying to nonprofits. Same-sex marriage is incidental to the issue. This is not a consequence of same-sex marriage. It is a consequence of the church being involved in the political activity to ban same-sex marriage.
3. In claiming "Homosexual Marriage Taught in Schools they cite Parker v. Hurley.
This is better known by the other plaintiffs, the Wirthens who are professional anti-gay activists. This is a manufactured fear. Aside from the fact that Maine does not require family-life education and allows parents to opt out of such classes. But that misses the point. What if children did learn that gay people marry in some locales? Is this supposed to turn them into queers? Exactly what is the argument?
Ultimately, this advertisement continues to highlight a simple fact. Those who wish to ban same sex marriage do not have a coherent argument supporting the notion that gay marriage affects anyone else.
http://www.tips-q.com/1363360-anti-gay-marriage-ad-part-ii
-
David commented on the article |May I suggest . . . ?
The most effective thing that we can do at this point is simply to show up, debunk and make our presence known. That does NOT mean to behave like a tea-bagger.If you are in the area, go to the event with your partners and children.
NOM make it easy. Their talking points are on their website. Some counterpoint is here:http://www.tips-q.com/906523-noms-distributed-talking-points
Keep in mind that NOM is a BUSINESS. It is a tex-exempt politcal consultancy designed to provide income and benefits to Maggie and friends. They are now demonizing Tim Gill. Some additional counterpoint is here: http://www.tips-q.com/1231859-nom-takes-tips-q
-
David commented on the article |
Is that sponsor Northmark Bank? I cannot make out the image from the brochure.
-
David commented on the article |
Yeesh. I was only pointing our that this is a Canadian company and that Canadian management might not appreciate that NOM is not a US charity. Americans are confused about our tax code.
A charity is incorporated as a 501(c)3. Tax exempt and donations are tax deductible.
NOM is incorporated as a 501(c)4 which is generally reserved for political organizations. NOM is tax exempt but donations are NOT tax deductibe.
The point that I inartfully made at 1:00 AM is that supporting NOM is very close to supporting a political candidate. While franchisees determine sponsorships, there seem to be clear corporate guidelines that are not met with NOM.
-
David commented on the article |Child was an extraordinarily complex person. During WWII, for example, she worked directly for Bill Donovan at OSS.
Did she make some hateful comments?
Absolutely.
Did she have close gay friends?
Absolutely.
Did she obstruct Daniel Coulter in becoming ED of the Institute of Food and Wine?
Absolutely not according to a reliable source at the time (Peter Kump).
Was she homophobic?
It's not a "yes" or "no" question.
-
David commented on the article |As I pointed out (regarding the Little Peter) "This pathetic putz's entire existence is defined by anti-gay bigotry. That's quite an enviable legacy." http://www.tips-q.com/942558-whats-perturbing-ms-labarbera-today
The cynical sisters of Sodom (LaBarbera and Barber) would have people believe that gay is contagious.
Jill Biden provides the perfect antidote to this craziness. -
David commented on the article |In NM it was actually 24-18 until one coward changed his vote - AFTER the tally.- in order to be on the "right" side of the issue.
--------------------
Today's highlighted issue:
http://www.tips-q.com/content/tony-perkins-hate-crimes-legislation-persecutes-christians -
David commented on the article |Why choose when you can do both? For all his bluster and craziness, Al Sharpton is effective. Most recenlty (and I cannot be certain if it is correlation or causation) Mudroch personally apologized for the offensive cartoon.
Al's method is to boycott, picket and protest which enables him to have a dialog from strength.
----------
Today's highlighted issue:
http://www.tips-q.com/content/tony-perkins-hate-crimes-legislation-persecutes-christians
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits