by Chino Blanco, Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 09:15:00 AM EDT
by Chino Blanco, Mon May 25, 2009 at 10:13:39 AM EDT
CB: When did you decide you were going to be the one to make "8: The Mormon Proposition" and what factor(s) drove your decision? What aspects of your own background or of the Prop 8 campaign brought you to this project?
RC: Truthfully, this film started out as an exposé on the problems of gay teen homelessness in Utah's "Zion" and an examination about WHY otherwise loving parents would kick their kids out on to the streets just because their kids are gay. But as the weeks and months unfolded in our project, I began seeing that history demanded our project be larger in scope. Slowly, but with great force, our focus shifted to what I believe is the "touchstone" of Mormon ideology regarding homosexuality...and that is exclusively Mormon efforts to get PROP 8 on the ballot in California and see its passage. It's the case against Mormons and what I believe has been a decades long work to damage gay people and their causes.
PROP 8 is truly the most obvious, shining example of what is at the root of Mormon belief about gay people. As to what factors drove my decision to make the film what it is today, they were personal really and deeply rooted in something that is fundamental to my character. Human suffering cuts me to the quick. And when I obtained the entire LDS call-to-action broadcast (transcripts and audio) that was heard by thousands in California, as a former Mormon myself, I knew statistically speaking, that at least ten percent of the Mormon youth who heard the call to action, were gay. I hurt over the thought of what they must have felt sitting in those pews, hearing their church leaders launch an assault against gay people. I went in the direction of the fires of their pain, and it's my prayer this film will be a part of putting out the fire of that pain in their lives. What the Mormons did and what they continue to do against gay people needs to be a matter of record, because it is spiritually criminal. When these young people sitting in the pews grow up, I hope they can turn to my film and get the message that it's OK to leave the organization that pulls them to its breast tenderly, while choking the spiritual life right out of them through assaults on their very civil rights.
by Chino Blanco, Mon May 18, 2009 at 06:35:14 AM EDT
In her report on the New York "pro-marriage" rally, Mormon blogger (and Digital Network Army director) Angela Rockwood (aka Beetle Blogger) suggests that if you are a New Yorker, you'll want to know about these sites:
For once, I agree with Angela: If you're a New Yorker, please take her advice and check out both sites.
by Chino Blanco, Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 10:46:32 AM EDT
Worth a look:
Interesting framing from Richard Piatt of LDS-owned KSL: "Given the past power of the ultra-right on this issue ..."
Huntsman: "If it equates to equal rights for all of our citizens, it's a conversation we need to have."
Lisa Riley Roche (Deseret News): "Do you support that [NOM] campaign that seems to be suggesting there's an increasing threat to the American way of life by people seeking equal rights?"
Huntsman: "I haven't given that [campaign] a second's thought."
But then Huntsman pivots with a nod to (what he seems to agree/suggest are) supposedly more pressing concerns (food, shelter, clothing and the like). A false choice? Sure. Am I bothered? Not so much. If/when Huntsman decides to run, Steve Schmidt will be on staff. This Steve.
Moving on ...
Huntsman: "The Republican Party needs to let a thousand flowers bloom ... [allow] preeminence [to] stand taller than partisanship ... and see where that takes us ..."
Amen to that, Guv. Amen.
P.S. Speaking of Steve Schmidt, this recent NOM press release exemplifies, for me, all that's wrong with Maggie's and Brian's and the ultra-right's approach:
PRINCETON, NJ, April 17 Christian Newswire -- Today, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) responded to Steve Schmidt on CNN:So, if you happen to work for a media outlet that might benefit from an in-person display of NOM's increasingly ugly and shrill appeals to fear, I guess you now know the numbers to call and the folks to email. Enjoy. But, your professional predicament aside, on a personal level, just talking among ourselves, before you decide to make that call or send that email to Liz or Mary at CRC, please know that I would enjoy reading your admission (even if merely posted anonymously in comments here) that you, too, also realize just how sad and pathetic NOM's schtick has become. I mean, at this point, who among us still believes that NOM have any useful advice left to give regarding how to win elections? I mean, at this point, even our colleagues in the Utah press have gathered that they don't.
"Steve Schmidt's first national TV address this week is part of a coordinated campaign to manufacture a message point: Americans are ready to give up on the marriage issue. I'm not worried about this press spin, because the people who believe it are going to wake up to find the political landscape is very different than they imagine," said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM. "People are responding very powerfully to our ads and other messaging because they don't want politicians imposing gay marriage on them or their children or their grandchildren."
"Steven Schmidt? Isn't this the guy who ran a failed presidential campaign, who advised a failed governor (Arnold Schwarzenegger) who insiders say was recently fired by Meg Whitman?" Brown continued, "Sure, we can understand why Steve would be looking for a way to make some new friends -- but why would anyone take his advice on how to win elections at this point?"
"Imagine what America -- or the GOP -- will be like when anyone who believes marriage is the union of husband and wife can be excluded from high office, or public influence, in the way we now exclude bigots and racists. What does that do to the electoral map?" Brown asked.
"There is no conservative case for gay marriage. Gay marriage represents the overthrow of the core idea of marriage in our tradition and every faith tradition. And it will put government on the side of excluding traditional faith communities from the public square," said Maggie Gallagher, President of NOM.
To schedule an interview with Maggie Gallagher, President, or Brian Brown, Executive Director of NOM, contact Elizabeth Ray (x 130, email@example.com) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x.105, firstname.lastname@example.org) by calling 703-683-5004.
Why? Because since their Pyrrhic victory in California, NOM have done nothing but lose.
Why? Because, at this point, NOM have become ringleaders of the sort of media circus that any right-minded conservative abhors and any serious Republican recognizes as the central challenge facing the party: how to best usher their clowns offstage to the benefit of both the GOP and the country.
Final thought: Last time I checked, Steve was not a member of the press, Brian. But you insinuate otherwise.
Why? Because you're a clown, Mr. Brown.
by Chino Blanco, Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 06:17:51 AM EDT
I noticed that William Duncan from Utah's Marriage Law Foundation and The Sutherland Institute will be testifying in Maine today at the public hearing for LD 1020. Whenever I read Bill's stuff, the objection that invariably comes to mind is Thomas Jefferson's regarding sclerotic institutions:
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."An objection echoed on this page of Turn Maine Blue.
-- from a letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1810
In any case, here's Bill speaking at a Sutherland Institute event:
Admittedly, other than Bill's suggestion that only God-fearing (presumably monogamous?) straight couples care about the next generation, there's not much to that clip. I'm just dropping it here as a heads up for those who might be interested in recognizing Bill in a crowd (and no, that's not meant to sound ominously threatening - I'm sincerely suggesting it might be interesting for anyone able to attend the hearing today to recognize and politely engage Bill if the opportunity should present itself).
What I'm really wondering is how most folks in Maine would react to Sutherland's - i.e., Bill's employer's - stated position in the "Common Ground"debate with Equality Utah?
"We disagree not only with your views, but with every motivation that goes into the [Common Ground Initiative] bills ... Finding any common ground is impossible ... Sexual orientation is an illusion ... Your [the LGBTQ community] idea of rights is an illusion ... You think a piece of paper will make you a family ... You think that love makes you a family."Rough stuff. And needless to say, it's more than likely not the tack that Bill will be taking in today's hearing.
As my readers know, I grew up Mormon. And I count many kind and decent Mormons among my family and friends. Bill Duncan and the crew at Sutherland are also Mormon, but kind and decent they're not. What kind of person flies around the country interfering with the ability of families to enjoy the legal protections of civil marriage?