Daley Blames - Who Else? - The Media For Oprah-geddon
Chicago Gets Googled
Friday Flashback - Old School Oprah
Today's Transgender Day of Remembrance Honors the Dead
Review: Paramount Room
Members of Chicago’s GLBT community gathered outside the Renaissance last night. Photo via Temporary Trouble Spots.
Last night, about 150+ protesters showed up outside the Renaissance Hotel, where the Chicago Museum of Broadcast Communications was inducting into the Radio Hall of Fame Focus on the Family’s James Dobson. Dobson donated $800,000 to California’s Proposition 8, which passed last week, amending California’s constitution, removing the right of gay men and lesbian women to marry.
"If Dobson had helped organize and fund a campaign to take away African American voting rights, he would be properly shunned as a hater,'" said Bob Schwartz of the Gay Liberation Network. "However, because the Museum of Broadcast Communications has chosen instead to honor Dobson, they apparently think it's okay to promote those who publicly organize discrimination against gays."
Dobson’s name has become synonymous with hate speech under the guise of Christianity and morality. The Chairman of the National Radio Hall of Fame, Bruce DuMont, issued a statement (see memo in full: page 1 & page 2) that was linked from the MOBC’s Web site (but is now gone) explaining that it’s not him or the Museum that are responsible, but that people should better understand the nomination, voting, and induction process.
[The gay and lesbian community] have privately vowed to punish me personally and the Museum of Broadcast Communications as an institution. Their goal is to shut off donations to our effort to build a new MBC in Chicago. They know that fiscal times are touch and they want to be the final nail in the Museum’s coffin. Shame on them!
DuMont continues, highlighting that his late wife, Kathy Osterman championed gay rights and has been inducted into Chicago’s Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame. Regardless, DuMont said, “for the integrity of the process, the results for 2008 will stand, with protests noted.”
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Tim,
Looks like you could use an editor.
Start with a capital C in Christianity, and 'THey know that fiscal times are touch' speaks for itself.
Now back to the second rate journalism. "Dobson’s name has become synonymous with hate speech under the guise of christianity and morality." Wow, how do you really feel. If its an editorial, say so, but even then, to suggest that any thoughts or opinions someone may have based upon their chosen religion or ethics; that you dont agree with yours is 'hate-speech'...is just lazy.
Editing issues aside:
Mr Dobson has made his "mark" by being anti-gay.
I grew up in Chicago. It is not Alabama, it is not Dallas, it is not Selma.
I would have expected better from an institution headquartered in a City that likes to call itself progressive. Honestly. Anti-gay is not worthy of praise, not even after Prop 8 passed in CA.
To think otherwise, sadly, is just as bigoted as Mr. Dobson.
Regardless of whatever Dobson has to say, the tide is turning. It may have to wait a few decades, but marriage equality will happen in my lifetime.
And when I say "a few decades", I mean marriage equality being recognized nationally.
Choosing not to endorse certain sexual practices that some have attempted to turn into a persons entire identity is not bigotry. And furthermore, the hijacking the civil rights movement by a fundamentally different struggle is disingenuous.
The civil rights movement was about the fact that while skin color may be different, at a genetic level, we are much the same.
The 'gay movement,' if we can call it that boils down to removing stigma from actions/lifestyles that are defined by being different.
What you choose to do in the bedroom is your own business...it should make you no worse, at the same time it should make you no better.
Al,
By your own reasoning, since being gay should make you no worse and no better, gay marriage makes perfect sense - It would make gays no better or worse than straight couples.
"Choosing not to endorse" is not the same as what Dobson and others have done. If I simply chose remain quiet about the politics surrounding gays, I would "choose not to endorse." He (and the opponents of Prop 8) are speaking out, quite vehemently, in opposition.
Anthony,
The point I was trying to make was that the civil rights movement was about making light of a lack of differences. In the case of gay marriage, we are talking about something that is fundamentally different (i.e. between man/woman, man/man, and women).
Changing the definition of marriage is not a civil rights issue, and not wanting to change the definition of marriage in this country does make one a bigot.
Actually, gay marriage is very much a civil rights issue. And when an individual opposes the rights of others to engage in a right that others enjoy, then yes, they are bigots or at least enablers of bigotry.
There is zero difference in the mind of those that are rational between not allowing blacks to vote and not allowing gays to marry.
If your church does not wish to allow gay marriage within their church, that is fine. No one is saying otherwise. But all marriages - gay or straight - should be recognized by the state. Anything less is inequality by law.
And gay marriage will happen. Maybe not this year. But I expect it to be fully legal within a decade or two. Better put your prejudice aside and get used to it.
Are you serious? I sincerely hope this line of thinking, along with your rather punctilious choice of a nom de Chicagoist is simply a gag.
Beyond the mountain of evidence that sexual orientation and identity is genetically decided, including this very week's finding that transgender is genetically linked, there's the simple matter of your argument being based entirely on religious disapproval of "certain sexual practices".
Dobson and his ilk have devoted considerable time, effort and most importantly, money into spreading intolerance and miseducating the public. Look no further than California where FOF and the Mormon church dontated millions to foster a campaign to ban gay marriage. They inferred that children would be "turned gay" and that school would be "forced to teach homosexuality". Complete distortions and nonsense of course, but Dobson and FOF rely on those to raise money and make their callow points.
The "gay movement" is the movement away from the domination of morality by religious intolerance and shame-based thinking. The GLBT community is just that, a community. We are not to be "tolerated" or "allowed" or to hide ourselves as if we are to be ashamed. We are citizens and taxpayers and participants in this society. While I respect Dobson and FOF's right to speak, I'll speak against their intolerance and those who would reward it just as loud.
This is a man and an organization that would deny me and my family even the most basic of protections and liberties based on scripture written when humans believed the sky would kill them for being bad.
As to the Museum itself, this is the same organization that has not inducted any number of prominent local radio hosts, including Steve Dahl. And yet they give a bigot like Dobson a platform and placard.
The joke, of course, is there is no MBC. As Dahl regularly points out, it's " Fibber Magee's closet, garfield goose and bozo's wig in the trunk of Bruce Dumont's car"
The irony is that Garfield Goose was likely gay.
Just to feed DuMont's statement through the Bullshit-O-Meter, the "process" he wants to preserve is a matter of radio hosts on the ballot imploring their listeners to vote them into the hall of fame. It has nothing to do with talent, it's all about how can beg their listeners enough to vote them in. What an asshat.
I bet Dobson secretly cruises on craigslist and porno booths for hot man-on-man action and tortures his wife with a sexless and affection-less marriage. How else do you justify such a crusade against something that, when all things are said and done, will not even affect him -- not even in the slightest? He seems conflicted like Pastor Ted Haggard and Mark Foley.
Gero,
All marriages should be recognized by the state? I Don't think we have the time to crack that one open.
So in sticking to whether this is a civil rights issue or not, suppose a domestic partner law is put in place to afford all the legal rights you speak of short of changing the definition of marriage. Problem solved? I doubt it.
This isnt about convincing people that like things are not different(like civil rights). This is about a change and an addition to the definition of an institution.
Leave Dobson and his imaginary friends aside for a moment. There are tenable arguments on both sides of the debate, for and against changing the definition of marriage.
If you believe that anyone that does not believe as you do, in this debate, is evil, bad, bigoted, whatevah, you are an idealogue(much like Dobson)...and an objective discussion is pointless.
Which brings us to Cali and prop 8. Again tenable arguments on both sides. Enter the democratic process. If your side loses, you can wait until you have enough votes to win. And as you suggested, it is certainly possible in our lifetimes.
But idealogues are usually not that patient. I suppose some will advocate that the losing side is so justified, so wronged, that it is time for a big project to purify the country...a final solution if you will.
In that case Gero, read up on Mao, Stalin, and the like. the will show you the way.
Changing the definition of marriage is not a civil rights issue, and not wanting to change the definition of marriage in this country does make one a bigot.
Sharpton,
You're wrong on both counts.
Keeping one tax paying citizen from enjoying the same rights and status as another is a civil rights issue especially when the reasons behind it are bigoted, as they clearly are. Either allow all tax paying citizens to marry any other tax paying citizen in the same form or the government needs get completely out of marriage (which it should in my opinion). There's no real honest argument that you can put forth, seriously you're just wrong. The some of us are more equal than others civil union approach is bullshit too. Either we're all tax paying citizens with the same rights or you've got somebody's civil rights being stepped on.
And srsly, you bring up Mao and Stalin because somebody disagrees with you about this marriage issue? Are you a retarded 10 year old?
Navin has done a find job of wrapping A.S. up nicely, but allow me to apply boot to head.
Anyone who does not recognize that GLBTQ relationships are valid and deserving of the same, not additional as you keep fruitlessly trying to claim, rights as heterosexuals is making a bigoted statement. Are they evil? No, one of them is my Godfather in fact. He'd never raise money or lie in advertisements, but he does not believe in gay marriage. He's not evil, he's wrong. Evil is using deceit and fear-mongering to make your argument.
Your ignorance on this is impressive. Did you know that the Mormon Church dumped 2 million dollars on ad buys about Prop 8? Or that the measure itself may have been unconstitutional from the get go? We do not live in a democracy for just this reason. Direct democracy allows the public whim to rule the day, a republic is more measured and slows the process allowing for debate to trump passions of the moment. It's the beauty of the system.
Yes, the gays are going to be around with rainbow armbands and trains headed "east". Don't believe them!
Stalin siezed power by running the party, Mao was little more than a military dictator venerated as a god emperor. Both of them have nothing to do with the topic and only further prove you have nary a clue.
Clearly anyone who disagrees with me is a Stalinist.
Ah, the internet, where everyone is either Cory Doctorow or Eichmann on a bad day.
"The joke, of course, is there is no MBC. As Dahl regularly points out, it's " Fibber Magee's closet, garfield goose and bozo's wig in the trunk of Bruce Dumont's car"
My grandfather who worked at WGN for 50 years would have loved that! Thanks for the chuckle.
There's no real honest argument that you can put forth, seriously you're just wrong.
This, in a microcosm, is why it's pointless to engage 90% of the people on here in any sort of rational debate.
You may not agree with Al, but marriage is an institution that we have chosen to define and adopt in our society. We can choose to redefine this institution, and there are ways to go about doing that. Like Al said, marriage is not a civil right, it's a privilege that we have afforded in this country. Calling people bigots for not wanting to redefine the term probably isn't the best way to go about changing it...
The Supreme Court held in Loving v. Virgina that marriage is, in fact, a civil right.
To wit:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... 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. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
@El Thirdrail -
You're not helping the gay marriage movement by posting a case that's distinguishable, since it's in reference to an anti-miscegenation statute. The court never addressed gay marriage in its ruling. It ruled that marriage restrictions based on race violated the 14th Amendment.
The "institution" of marriage, as preached by the right wing, is inherently religious. Therefore, it clearly violates the establishment clause.
So, since the right demands that gays be treated as second class citizens, then I think it's time to demand that the government cease recognizing marriages.
Under the law, a marriage is a contractual relationship, without any religious meaning beyond the word "marriage."
If you want to form a contractual relationship with another person, merging your assets and liabilities and obtaining certain benefits under the law, then you should be required to obtain a Civil Union License. Whether you're gay or straight.
If you want to be married, that's between you, your partner, and your chosen God and religion. If you are a member of a hateful church like the LSD and if you want to get married to someone of the same sex, you'll be denied, or you'll have to look for a new faith.
And I say this as a straight guy who's about to get married.
Civil Unions for all.
Either that, or give the gays equal rights.
This is the argument that was made to prevent interracial marriage.
Exactly the same argument. That its not a civil right, that we have to protect marriage from being redefined.
It was bull then, and its bull now.
This is the argument that was made to prevent interracial marriage.
I hope that you can see the difference between sexual preference and race. I really don't care one way or another how we govern marriage, but at least be honest about what you're discussing here. If you can't see that the two are distinguishable from one another, then there's no use in even having this discussion.
I hope that you can see the difference between sexual preference and race.
so when you call it "sexual preference" are you saying that you yourself PREFER women but COULD be gay if you wanted to? Just to clarify... I think that's an important point in this.
But interesting debate (argument...whatever) nonetheless.
No, I am saying that gay men prefer men in their sexual preference, and gay women prefer women; nothing more, nothing less.
I agree 100% with this position. It frustrates me to no end that people on both sides of the debate won't seriously consider this position - the "right" because they don't want to "eliminate marriage", and the "left" because "civil unions =/= marriage".
Nevermind the fact that government should never have been involved in the first place.
I'd agree with civil unions if they were the same nationwide... in other words, Texas can't say ours only do this, or Illinois can't say ours only give you these rights.
Because if I wanted to actually get MARRIED... I could find a church willing to do that, easy. Might not be the Catholic church I grew up in, obviously, but...
And Jimbo - calling it a preference has a connotation that you are implying it is choice. By saying it's different from race, you imply it's a choice.
I don't recall ever choosing to be gay. Why would I? Nor, do I believe, most straight people CHOSE that either. In that way, it is something innate to a person, and is similar but not equal to race.