Support Whitman As They Brace for Hate Visit
The Gazette has something to say about how Walt Whitman High School is preparing for the "God Hates Fags" Baptists who say they are coming to that school this month.
Most of us kind of weren't looking for an explanation of why God hates us so much, but thanks for that.
The school is getting ready for them.
Now there is something interesting going on in relation to this. There is a web site called Phelps-a-Thon, which uses the publicity generated by visits by the "God Hates Fags" group, headed by Reverend Fred Phelps, to raise money for local gay groups.
If you follow the link, http://www.phelps-a-thon.com/bethesda.html, you can pledge online and donate money to the Walt Whitman High School Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA). GSA is a school organization that works to make the school a safe and supportive place for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students and their straight allies. Not every school has such an organization, but they are very common -- see the list of Maryland GSAs HERE.
The Phelps-a-Thon website says:
This seems to me like a good way to turn something ugly into something positive and good. Follow the link, donate a couple of bucks to the Whitman GSA.
Officials at Walt Whitman High School are hoping to use a planned anti-gay protest of the school later this month as an opportunity to teach students about civil rights and the life of the poet Walt Whitman.
Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, nationally known for their anti-homosexuality protests, are planning to picket on April 24 outside Walt Whitman High, named after the Civil War-era writer who may have been gay.
"My initial reaction was that I couldn't believe they were really going to do it," said Whitman Principal Alan Goodwin. "But then my second reaction was that I hoped they wouldn't."
The Topeka, Kan., church has drawn attention in recent years for protesting the funerals of military veterans and for their picket signs—including "Thank God for 9/11" and "Thank God for Katrina." Members of the church believe that the military deaths and natural disasters were God's punishment for an immoral nation.
The church's Web site claims that Whitman would support wounded soldiers during the Civil War, then attempt to take advantage of them. The fact that Maryland school officials would name a school after Whitman, the site says, "certainly explains A LOT about Maryland, and specifically explains why God hates them so much." Whitman reacts to planned anti-gay protest
Most of us kind of weren't looking for an explanation of why God hates us so much, but thanks for that.
The school is getting ready for them.
Instead of turning a blind eye to the protest, Goodwin said teachers are brainstorming ways to use it as a teaching moment for students. Government classes may focus on civil rights issues, he said, and English classes may place added emphasis on the works of Whitman.
"A lot of students attend Walt Whitman, but don't know a lot about Walt Whitman," he said. "This could be an opportunity to change that."
Sue Kantor, co-president of the school's PTSA, said while she disagrees personally with the group's viewpoints, she agrees with Goodwin's plan to handle the situation.
"We all just want to make sure the students have a smooth day in school," she said. "I have a lot of confidence in [Goodwin's] approach."
Goodwin said he was notified of the protest by a University of Maryland-Baltimore County student who had stumbled across the church's schedule of planned pickets. On March 24, Goodwin sent a letter home to parents alerting them of the possible protest.
"The protesters will not be allowed on school grounds, and there will be a police presence to ensure that our school remains safe from such an intrusion and that there is no disruption to school operations," he wrote.
Now there is something interesting going on in relation to this. There is a web site called Phelps-a-Thon, which uses the publicity generated by visits by the "God Hates Fags" group, headed by Reverend Fred Phelps, to raise money for local gay groups.
If you follow the link, http://www.phelps-a-thon.com/bethesda.html, you can pledge online and donate money to the Walt Whitman High School Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA). GSA is a school organization that works to make the school a safe and supportive place for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students and their straight allies. Not every school has such an organization, but they are very common -- see the list of Maryland GSAs HERE.
The Phelps-a-Thon website says:
In a time when schools all over the country are cutting funding for after school programs, such as GSAs, Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church are really helping out our queer youth. (In Cambridge we have raised close to $1500 to be split between the GSA and the schools’ Welcoming Center - a resource for LGBT families which has been stuck with NO budget this year.) Not only do the Phelps-A-Thons fund the GSAs but they create a fun, positive way for communities to counter-protest the hate being spewed by the Phelps clan.
This seems to me like a good way to turn something ugly into something positive and good. Follow the link, donate a couple of bucks to the Whitman GSA.
posted by JimK at 2:43 PM
32 Comments:
Now, what is they're "bracing" for and what requires a police presence?
As far as I know, this group has no history of violence and, as you've stated, this is an opportunity for gay advocacy groups to counter with their own views.
Maybe the police will be there because the "counter-protesters" who are planning to come tend to be violent and have a history of inciting it.
That's it, lgbt people are the violent haters, and WBC is just a group of innocent christians expressing their religious views.
At the Millennium March, there was a police presence around Fred Phelps too. The marchers sand "Jesus Loves Me" to him.
rrjr
Maybe that's what's going on in Jamaica and Uganda too, the violent queer haters abusing the innocent christians trying to save their souls.
I wonder if anonymous has a police presence.
I'm just speculating on the reason for this police presence, Robert.
Jim apparently watches this group closely so he might have the facts (and I know he wants the facts taught.) Theses people have said some things that have made people mad and, I agree these things they've said are in bad taste, but is there any example of them getting violent? Or are the police there in case someone directs violence at them?
I'm asking questions, Robert, and you seem defensive.
What does that say?
Silly anonymous, tricks are for kids.
"Silly anonymous, tricks are for kids."
Adults play tricks too.
Like saying we need police to watch anyone we disagree with because they might be "disruptive".
Other than to protect WBC from gays who might attack them, there is no justification for a police presence that I know of.
If someone else is aware of some reason based on the history of WBC, let us know.
“The Topeka, Kan., church has drawn attention ... for their picket signs—including "Thank God for 9/11" and "Thank God for Katrina."”
Sociopathanon: “and, I agree these things they've said are in bad taste”
I agree too, but how do you put good taste like this on a sign:
Needless deaths, injuries, maimings, and overall ruined lives, whether in the thousands or millions, are a blessed thing indeed, in that it gives the rest of us a chance to reflect upon the supremacy of heterosexuality and our God ordained superiority as Christians.
Do you really think only gays object to WBC?
Have you heard of the Pink Pistols? They're stance is that lgbt people can prevent harassment by being armed.
Gays are among the most pacific groups of people on the planet; we throw like girls, too.
It may be that WBC requested the police protection. They cancelled their trip to Finland (to insult that countries lesbian president) because the Finns wouldn't give them public-funded police protection.
They revel in inciting hate, the emotional precursor to violence. Do you not also? Isn't all the anti-gay versification we've seen and discussed here just an elaborate display of abuse of people perceived as weaker? It's like people with 1000000 dollar incomes complaining about welfare moms. Poor little fundies.
rrjr
"Do you not also? Isn't all the anti-gay versification we've seen and discussed here just an elaborate display of abuse of people perceived as weaker?"
Robert, I'm vastly outnumbered on this site. I live in the areas of the country most receptive to the gay agenda and the local government is pro-gay.
How is my counter arguments to the propaganda here in any way "abuse of people perceived as weaker"?
“How is my counter arguments to the propaganda here in any way "abuse of people perceived as weaker"?”
Because they’re not “counter” arguments. Attempting to equate your anti-gay fantasies with arguments based in reality exposes your supremacist worldview.
"A supremacist not only holds that any evidence and reasoning for his or her beliefs is superior to any other, but that those holding such beliefs have rights over those who do not."
Some of those perceived rights may include:
Preventing others from marrying.
Preventing others from enjoying job security.
Preventing others from enjoying housing security.
Preventing others from being understood.
Preventing others from serving our country.
Preventing others from going to the bathroom.
You make it clear on a daily basis that we are quite beneath you, and you do so in the most hateful and spiritually violent ways.
Ergo, "abuse of people perceived as inferior."
---
And no, that wasn't a slip. Inferior is the word.
"Preventing others from marrying.
Preventing others from enjoying job security.
Preventing others from enjoying housing security.
Preventing others from being understood.
Preventing others from serving our country.
Preventing others from going to the bathroom."
No one's preventing any of this, improv.
You can do what anyone else does.
You're the one that wants to do different things than everyone else.
Oh dear, they won't let me make up my own definition of marriage and endorse it!
No one else is doing it, improv.
What you mean is you want social invulnerability to being disliked.
That's it: anonymous et al are "straight-supremecists".
I made a word; yay.
SPRING BREAK!
I think you misspelled your word, Robert.
I also throw like a girl.
And your silly response to Robert about his spelling, "Anonymous" uncovers you and your "girlish" disposition. That's a typical response of a 4th grade girl who isn't at all popular. You throw like a girl because, in all likihood, you are a girl!!
Mystique
My students will tell you that the usually frequency of my typos seems to be 2 to 3 per day. I should proofread what I type here, but I don't. It's a little like a living room, with all of us with our feet up on the table hanging out. Most people don't mind other people's mispellings hanging out there.
But, on behalf of my new word:
"Straight-supremacist"
rrjr
“No one's preventing any of this, improv.
You can do what anyone else does.
You're the one that wants to do different things than everyone else.
Oh dear, they won't let me make up my own definition of marriage and endorse it!
No one else is doing it, improv.
What you mean is you want social invulnerability to being disliked.”
I rest my case.
Quod erat demonstraturum.
"I rest my case"
Confirming what we've all long suspected, improv has no case.
You can do what anyone else does.
No he can't. LGBT people cannot marry the person they love, except in a few states.
You're the one that wants to do different things than everyone else.
Most Americans marry the person they love. Gay people simply want to do that too. That's not a different, that's the same. Americans should all be free to marry the person they love.
Here's another problem caused by gays not being able to wed, they can't sponsor their partners for citizenship.
To Live With 'The Love of My Life'
Saturday, April 4, 2009; Page A14
Thanks for the March 16 editorial "Separation Anxiety."
When many people hear the word immigration, all they think about is illegal immigrants. I am a gay man in a five-year relationship with a foreign-born partner who is in this country legally. His visa expires next year, and we will have to go live in exile to remain together.
All I want as a U.S. citizen is the same right that a heterosexual citizen has -- to sponsor the love of my life so we can live here together. This issue is really about the rights of U.S. citizens, not about immigration.
For me and my partner, the clock is ticking.
DON GEORGE
Atlanta
Marriage equality will go a long way to honoring our Founding Father's principle that all men are created equal and have equal rights to live, be free, and pursue happiness.
“Confirming what we've all long suspected, improv has no case.”
You still love me.
"LGBT people cannot marry the person they love, except in a few states."
Neither can people who love their dog.
Aunt Bea wrote:
“"LGBT people cannot marry the person they love, except in a few states."
To which Anon retorted:
“Neither can people who love their dog.”
That’s why you are and your kind are slowly losing this battle Anon. You can come up with absolutely no compelling argument to keep to caring and consenting adults from marrying each other, and have to resort to degrading a minority by conflating human beings with animals. It’s the kind of argument a fourth grader would promulgate, and completely misses the fact that the GLBT community is not advocating marrying their pets – even if someone somehow managed to train one to sign a marriage license.
Even people who don’t necessarily agree with gay marriage will be motivated to join the cause in our favor due simply to the nature of your inane behavior.
Please, keep up the good work.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
"LGBT people cannot marry the person they love, except in a few states."
Neither could they if they loved a dead person, a fictional character, a relative or a peson who's already married.
And neither are they asking for that Anon.
You missed again.
You might want to read up on the subject if you want to make a coherent arguement.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
it's a actually a hit, svlete(not)
they claim he definition of marriage should be extended to included anyone they "love" but why are they the only ones that would apply to?
they claim he definition of marriage should be extended to included anyone they "love" but why are they the only ones that would apply to?
You mean like heterosexuals do now? Separate and unequal is not the American way, barryo. If straight people have the right to marry the one real, living, unrelated, unmarried person they love, so do gays. This is America where we believe our founding fathers were right when they proclaimed all men are created equal and have the unalienable right to pursue happiness.
Do you believe heterosexuals are successful at marriage? You can get over that fallacy by checking out heterosexual divorce rates compiled by the CDC. Many American heterosexual marriages fail, yet we allow them to keep trying to find their soulmate in their pursuit of happiness. Gays have that same unalienable right to seek happiness.
I just had to respond quickly before my class this morning.
The dog argument is invalid, dogs are not able to sign legal certificates. Arguing that gay marriage will lead to this is a straw man argument.
"If straight people have the right to marry the one real, living, unrelated, unmarried person they love, so do gays."
You could make the same argument about any law if you include enough qualifiers.
same bat-time
same bat-channel
Aunt Harriett is just plain wrong
"If straight people have the right to marry the one real, living, unrelated, unmarried person they love, so do gays."
You could make the same argument about any law if you include enough qualifiers.
They were your qualifiers, barryo. You are the one who was trying to come up with "enough qualifiers" to denigrate LGBT people some more when you wrote: Neither could they if they loved a dead person, a fictional character, a relative or a peson who's already married.
April 06, 2009 9:40 AM
Both gays and straights want to marry the person they love, and that person is usually not fictional or dead or related to them or married to someone else.
Anon said:
Neither could they if they loved a dead person, a fictional character, a relative or a peson who's already married.
I wrote “You missed again.”
And later Anon said:
“it's a actually a hit, svlete(not) (sic)”
O.K. Anon, I’ll play your little fantasy game.
I’ll be using the copy of the Maryland code you can find here: (I f you know of a more accurate or up-to-date reference, let me know. http://michie.lexisnexis.com/maryland/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp
You can find the laws pertaining to marriage under the link for “FAMILY LAW.”
Let’s start with fictional characters.
Paragraph 2-404 details the application for a marriage license:
“(a) When and where made.- An applicant for a license may apply to the clerk only at the office of the clerk during regular office hours.
(b) Information required.- Except as provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, to apply for a license, 1 of the parties to be married shall:
(1) appear before the clerk and give, under oath, the following information, which shall be placed on an application form by the clerk:
(i) the full name of each party;
(ii) the place of residence of each party;
(iii) the age of each party;
(iv) whether the parties are related by blood or marriage and, if so, in which degree of relationship;
(v) the marital status of each party; and
(vi) whether either party was married previously, and the date and place of each death or judicial determination that ended any former marriage;
(2) sign the application form; and
(3) provide the clerk with the Social Security number of each party who has a Social Security number.
(c) Social Security numbers.- The Social Security numbers of the parties:
(1) shall be included in the electronic file for the marriage license application; and
(2) except as provided in § 10-617 of the State Government Article, may not be disclosed as part of the public record of the marriage license application.
(d) Parties not residents of county.- If the parties to be married are not residents of the county where the marriage ceremony is to be performed, the clerk shall accept, instead of the application specified in subsection (b) of this section, an affidavit from 1 of the parties to be married. The affidavit shall:
(1) contain the information required by subsection (b) of this section; and
(2) be sworn to under oath before a clerk or other comparable official in the county, state, province, or country where the party resides.
(e) Cecil County.- In Cecil County both parties to be married shall appear together before the clerk to apply for a license.
(f) Disclosure of application for license prohibited.- Until a license becomes effective, a clerk may not disclose the fact that an application for a license has been made except to the parent or guardian of a party to be married.”
Now I’m an engineer, not a lawyer, but I have a brain and I’m not afraid to use it.
It seems to me that if the existing law is not sufficient to stop people from marrying fictional characters, some lucky young woman would have married Flash Gordon ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNf9rEPoc8Q ) a long time ago. We have laws about fraudulently filling out government forms – whether it’s trying to get a social security number for Flash, or accurately naming his planet of residence. (Has anyone seen him on Earth lately? I didn’t think so.)
(See Para. 2-407. False statements.
(a) Prohibited.- An individual may not knowingly make any material false statement to obtain or to help another individual to obtain a license or marriage ceremony in violation of this title or of any order of court under § 2-405 of this subtitle.
(b) Violation constitutes perjury.- An individual who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of perjury.
Please, you don’t really believe this tripe from the right-wing blogs do you? You just say this kind of stuff to motivate me to practice my typing, right?
To address a related count, although there are fictional characters that are gay, gay people are NOT fictional characters.
Fictional Characters? Swing and a miss. Strike One.
On to a person who is already married.
From Paragraph 10-502: “Bigamy.
(a) Scope of section.- This section does not apply to a person if:
(1) the person's previous lawful spouse has been absent from the person for a continuous period of 7 years; and
(2) the person does not know whether the person's previous lawful spouse is living at the time of the subsequent marriage ceremony.
(b) Prohibited.- While lawfully married to a living person, a person may not enter into a marriage ceremony with another.
(c) Penalty.- A person who violates this section is guilty of the felony of bigamy and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 9 years.
(d) Charging document.- An indictment or warrant for bigamy is sufficient if it substantially states:
"(name of defendant) on (date), in (county), having a living spouse, feloniously entered into a marriage ceremony with (name of subsequent spouse), in violation of § 10-502 of the Criminal Law Article, against the peace, government, and dignity of the State.".
As you can see, this law does not distinguish between men and women – neither can marry another person while they are already legally married. Allowing two parties of gay or lesbian couple to marry in and of itself would not rescind any bigamy law. If worded like the one above (i.e. using “person” instead of “man” or “woman”), it already applies to them as well. You are free to disagree with me, but please provide some evidence where this has happened in the states that now recognize gay marriage.
So, people who are already married? Wifff… Strike Two.
On to dead people.
This one is actually more interesting.
From paragraph 2-201: “Valid marriages.
Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State.”
Notice that it doesn’t say here that the man or woman has to be alive. In fact, going through other sections of the code, including Paragraph 2-403 “Forms of license and certificates” doesn’t explicitly require a live person either, unless it’s a “Society of Friends” marriage that requires the signatures of both parties. (Even that though could potentially be gotten around if the deceased has previously signed over a Power of Attorney.)
Except in Cecil county as noted above, only one person has to show up to get the license. I looked through the code expecting to find somewhere that both parties have to give consent – which would require a live and conscious person. I didn’t find it. For marriages performed by a priest, rabbi, or the like, only the official’s signature needs to be on the form, and the NAMES of the two people getting married. It doesn’t seem to require their SIGNATURES (someone please correct me if I’m wrong!). There seems to be allusions to both folks having to be present, but that seems to be an implicit and not an explicit requirement. This leaves open the possibility for a priest to marry one live person and someone in a coffin.
There doesn’t seem to be anything explicitly stopping this from happening, whether the two folks involved are gay or straight.
The only thing that really stops these things from being valid is the fact that in several places (like the bigamy statute, or in the license: “the date and place of each death or judicial determination that ended any former marriage”) it clearly alludes to the fact that once a person dies, the marriage is ended. Thus, it appears someone could GET married to a dead person, but the legal marriage will have terminated at the same time as the deceased – which could actually be BEFORE the wedding occurred. So they wouldn’t actually BE married. Allowing gay people to marry wouldn’t change that. It would certainly be nice if they clarified that bit of the code though.
Marrying a dead person? The ball strikes the bat! The ball heads up in the air… the crowd gasps… it falls down again left of the 3rd base line. Foul.
I’m running late for work, so unfortunately I have to leave the game for a while. Hopefully I can finish this later.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
Post a Comment
<< Home