Leave a Comment Sagesse
There’s (no) app for bigotry, and NOM’s upset
December 14, 2010
NOM Exposed
By Adam Bink
I see that NOM is throwing a hissy fit about Apple’s decision to pull the Manhattan Declaration app from the iTunes store by producing this video so crappy an Apple intern using a Commodore could do better video lambasting Jobs:
What’s especially funny is this line:
This is the latest attempt by technology billionaires to marginalize and isolate marriage supporters, attempting to drive us form the public square.
Exactly how many technology billionaires have done this, now? Maybe the problem isn’t Apple, it’s that NOM can’t figure out how to use technology properly, evidenced by their crappy videos, lack of talent at using online capacity to drive supporters to bus tour events, failure to understand copyright law and contact Peter, Paul and Mary before using their music on their tour, creating bad mashup videos of their tour, and, as of this post, that their “Click here to send an email to Steve Jobs and other members of the Apple board.” line isn’t even hyperlinked on their blog post, so there’s nothing to click on. Whoopsies. I’m probably missing a few, too.
And Jeremy Hooper points us to the real reasons the app was pulled: absolutely wingut signers to the Manhattan Declaration:
Apple is not the American government with the power to stifle free speech — it is a company with its own right to make its own decisions. The technology behemoth pulled the app not because they or gays are out to shut down speech, but rather because gay activists gave attention and light to the offenses contained within the app and larger Declaration, and Apple saw fit to make a corporate decision that led to the app’s removal. The merits (or lack thereof) are what did the Declaration supporters in.
But of course, yet again, these same supporters take no responsibility for what they have said and done, since the victim strategy makes the seem so much more sympathetic. Or so they think.
Anyway, they’re asking folks to drop an e-mail to steve@apple.com (odd given that sjobs@apple.com is the e-mail address from which he often and famously replies to people) so it wouldn’t hurt if you wanted to thank him for making sure there’s no app for bigotry. Given he’s reported to receive an inordinate amount of e-mail, I would suggest a subject line like “Thanks for keeping Manhattan Dec. OUT OF iTunes Store” to get the message across without opening.
Filed under: NOM Exposed,Right-wing
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
79 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Ann S. | December 14, 2010 at 10:52 am
§
2.
Phil L | December 14, 2010 at 11:06 am
I didn't have the audio on, but I did watch the video. It was horribly made from a visual standpoint and, if I'm not mistaken, is a direct rip-off of something else that's been produced in the past.
NOM is not only technologically inept, they are totally unoriginal.
3.
Richard A. Jernigan | December 14, 2010 at 11:12 am
Thanks for giving me a way to contact Steve about the courage he and Apple showed by standing up for what is right and proper, and for refusing to cave in to the pseudo-religous, pseudo-Christian, radical right wing.
4.
Kathleen | December 14, 2010 at 11:15 am
=
5.
StraightForEquality | December 14, 2010 at 11:17 am
=
6.
Ann S. | December 14, 2010 at 11:20 am
Click the link in the phrase "Jeremy Hooper points us to the real reasons" for more details — some of the founders being in known hate groups, the fake "Survey" that rates the answers as "wrong" or "right", etc.
7.
Rhie | December 14, 2010 at 11:26 am
Ugh these people bug me. I grew up in that world and it is really exhausting. Everyone is afraid of everything all the time, seeing persecution in the clouds. I am so much happier without that stress.
8.
nightshayde | December 14, 2010 at 11:32 am
I just sent this to Mr. Jobs:
Dear Mr. Jobs —
I want to thank you and your company for booting the Manhattan Declaration from the iTunes Store. The last thing this world needs is another forum through which people can easily vent their hatred for entire groups of people, or their ignorance of how discrimination harms people.
Anyone who can tick off the entire radical right gets a BIG thumbs up from me.
Thank you for supporting equality.
nightshayde (with my real name here, of course)
9.
StraightForEquality | December 14, 2010 at 11:32 am
In the ad, NOM says the Manhattan Declaration app is "an approved app rated 4+ and certified by Apple reviewers to contain no offensive material." Does anyone know who rated it 4+? Who are the Apple reviewers and did they really certify that it contains no offensive material?
10.
nightshayde | December 14, 2010 at 11:42 am
My completely unresearched guess is that the people who rated it were the people who had downloaded/used it.
"The material was entirely inoffensive to those who support discrimination."
11.
AndrewPDX | December 14, 2010 at 11:43 am
Yup… I've already emailed Apple thanking them for removing the app.
This Declaration of Bigotry keeps going on about "equal dignity" — except for "immoral" homosexuals who want to destroy families.
Sometimes, I can't wait for the Second Coming, for Jesus to tell these funda-mental where to go.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
12.
Mandi | December 14, 2010 at 11:46 am
Watching
13.
Ronnie | December 14, 2010 at 11:47 am
NOM = FAIL…. XP …..Ronnie
14.
Kathleen | December 14, 2010 at 11:51 am
The rating system they're referring to seems to be about flagging apps that contain graphic violence. I'm not sure who does the rating, but I'm guessing someone did a cursory scan of the app and didn't see any overt violence or sexual content and gave it the "4+" rating.
Here's a report on the rating system, though it still doesn't say who rates. http://gigaom.com/apple/apple-implements-app-rati…
15.
Tasty Salamanders | December 14, 2010 at 12:07 pm
I really don't want to watch their video (so I won't) but the still screen the video displays gives me a good idea that it is a parody (a bad one I'm guessing) of Apple's 1984 ad which of course was inspired by the book 1984 which is about an all-powerful, all-seeing government that controls what its citizens say, think or hear.
16.
James Tuttle | December 14, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Has everyone heard that Lt. Dan Choi has checked himself into a VA mental health facility? There is a post on http://www.joemygod.com and Pam's House Blend about it. I have always been so impressed with Choi and am glad to see that instead of other, less desirable, ways to calm the mind that he decided to go for the mental health route. I wish him speedy recovery. =-)
17.
Kathleen | December 14, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Yes, I just saw the report. I, too, am glad he's sought help. We can all only imagine the kind of stressors he deals with by being the face of DADT repeal. I hope he takes all the time he needs to find his balance again.
18.
James Tuttle | December 14, 2010 at 12:56 pm
And wouldn't it be lovely if we repealed DADT in the meantime? I am crossing my fingers so hard.
19.
Jim | December 14, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Love how they and one of the commenters are trying to claim the word bully.
http://nomblog.com/2627/#comment-25330
<q>
20.
Bob | December 14, 2010 at 1:40 pm
sending healing energy and warm thoughts to nourish Choi, through this time,,,,,,and thanking him for all he has done and continues to do..
he was involuntarily committed, to a veteran's hospital,,,, glad they are taking care of him,, didn't know discharged members get that help…….
21.
Sagesse | December 14, 2010 at 1:45 pm
The survey and the fact that some of the signatories are affilitated with hate groups ought to be reason enough to pull the app. ISP's and social networking sites routinely have terms of use policies that prohibit hate speech.
22.
Lightning Baltimore | December 14, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Hmmm . . . interesting that they're ever so upset when they do essentially the same thing, by refusing to allow blog comments with differing opinions.
23.
Mandi | December 14, 2010 at 3:35 pm
@James T
I'm willing to bet the NOMbies and McCain's of this world will fail to grasp their roll in causimg this, they'll use it as another reason we shouldn't be aloud to serve.
I know that he (Choi) doesn't see himself as anything special, but he is an inspiration and a hero in my eyes. I hope that he gets the treatment that he needs and that we can force our lazy, incompitent government to repeal DADT quickly so that he has one less thing to worry about and can get back to the job he so clearly loves… Risking his life for a country that sees him as a second class citizen.
<3 Mandi )0(
(yes; I know I spell like a third grader.)
24.
Joe | December 14, 2010 at 4:09 pm
I would stand up and defend these people and their declaration if the government were to prevent them from speaking their beliefs. Even if I vehemently disagree with it they have a right to believe and say what they want. What they are confused about is that, while they have a right to free speech, they do not have a right to be listened to.
25.
Bob Barnes | December 14, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Check out the screen shot below, it's our friend Louis Marinelli censoring comments to the NOM video bitching about Apple's alleged censoring.
http://i54.tinypic.com/akzbqr.png
26. MY LIFE » Blog Arch&hellip | December 14, 2010 at 8:42 pm
[...] the app was removed from the iTunes Store. And NOM is pissed! (this link to the Prop 8 Trial Tracker write-up). Awwww, gee whiz. Apple doesn’t want to [...]
27.
Gregory in Salt Lake | December 14, 2010 at 10:53 pm
((HUGS)) and well wishes for a modern day hero. "We all love you Lt. Dan Choi!" Thank you for standing up for what is right with optimism and fearlessness. *sigh*….yes, repeal of DADT TODAY please!!!!
28.
Don in Texas | December 15, 2010 at 12:06 am
I doubt that anyone can be "involuntarily committed" to a VA hospital absent the order of a court, so I view this report at joe.my.god with a great degree of skepticism.
A post in a blog by one of Choi's friends at the Village Voice indicates that Choi voluntarily sought treatment at a VA facility for exhaustion.
29.
Lesbians Love Boies | December 15, 2010 at 12:11 am
Jennifer Morse of the Ruth Institute wants to 'reclaim' the 'rainbow' LOLzzz
Reclaiming the rainbow
More: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id…
30.
Gregory in Salt Lake | December 15, 2010 at 12:12 am
Thank you Bill Gates for leading the "Giving Pledge" ! …..instead of pushing for more tax breaks…
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/20…
31.
Menergy | December 15, 2010 at 12:13 am
great "GOTCHA" moment there — too bad it'll go over their heads completely…….
32.
new | December 15, 2010 at 12:22 am
And thunders are a sign of gods bowling.
What's next for Jen? Will she file Copyrights ownership for the word "marriage" also?
33.
chad dimmack | December 15, 2010 at 12:22 am
What did this app do? What was offensive about it? Which one of Apple's policies did they violate? Anybody know?
I think as a group that has been historically without a voice and or silenced, we should be really careful about encouraging censorship of anyone else.
34.
Kathleen | December 15, 2010 at 12:32 am
I don't want to speculate what the situation is with Lt. Choi, absent a statement directly from him or those speaking on his authority. I just wish him all the best and thank him for all his sacrifice.
But in general, speaking to this question about "involuntary hospitalization," most states provide for a brief 'hold' (in California, I think it's 72 hours) if someone is thought to be a danger to themselves or others. It's possible for someone to voluntarily seek help, have a mental health professional decide the person seems in danger, and place them under a brief hold.
35.
new | December 15, 2010 at 12:33 am
I feel it's only appropriate to return the favor.
36.
Lesbians Love Boies | December 15, 2010 at 12:34 am
Chad, it's not censorship. Apple has every right in deciding what it sells and what it doesn't sell. Apple has always stated it doesn't distribute inappropriate content – and if they feel the Manhattan Declaration inappropriate – so be it.
Apple pulled the 'Hottest Girls' app in 2009 (photos of nude and topless women) which is very legal to distribute to adults – didn't hear any of these christian groups screaming censorship then.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/167455/apple_pulle…
37.
Kathleen | December 15, 2010 at 12:45 am
Maggie Gallagher was sporting a "marriage equality" button at a recent debate. They're trying to co-opt that phrase as well. It's just another way for them to try to rob people of their identity and marginalize glbt people.
38.
Kate | December 15, 2010 at 12:47 am
And don't forget "This Land is Your Land."
39.
Chris From CO | December 15, 2010 at 1:09 am
Lets not give them ideas, they running out of roads to go down. They might try that.
40.
Chris B | December 15, 2010 at 1:17 am
Yup, same here. Grew up among them. Isn't it exhausting to always be the 'victim' somehow?
Back in the day, there was a rumor of the FCC stopping Christian radio.
Today it's this.
This really is very silly, since the Manhattan Dec people have many ways to distribute the MD, other than an App, and even via the iPhone: mobile web site, PDF, eBook, etc. To say that they are somehow being persecuted is hyperbole.
Remove the MD App from the iPhone? Anti-Christian Apple! Cut off in traffic? Anti-Christian driver! Coffee too hot? Anti-Christian barista!
BTW, weren't Christian already supposed to be boycotting Apple for something or other having to do with gays?
41.
anonygrl | December 15, 2010 at 1:21 am
I just sent out a thank you note to both of the emails listed. I do think that sjobs is the right one, but on the off chance that the other actually goes somewhere I CCed it to them.
42.
Chris B | December 15, 2010 at 1:28 am
Yeah, when you download it you can go back to the iTunes store and write a review and give it 1 to 5 stars. Apple doesn't rate it.
And actually, I believe Apple only reviews Apps to make sure they don't contain offensive language or images, and behave correctly (don't take up too much battery, bandwidth, etc.). They really have no way to determine if an App is good or bad, because everything is subjective.
It would actually be against Apple's own interests in the App Store to rate Apps that way–since they sell a lot of similar but competing Apps created by different developers. What would they say? This Cooking app is great, this other Cooking app sucks? They leave that up to users.
As Nightshayde said, it was rated by people who downloaded it–probably mostly people who already agreed with it. It would be like saying: "99% of 14-year-old girls who had just seen Twilight for the third time said it was the best movie of the year."
43.
Kathleen | December 15, 2010 at 1:31 am
The video refers to a "4+" rating, saying it indicats "no offensive material." I'm pretty sure the rating system they're referring to is not the user rating (star system), but the one referenced in the link I posted above.
44.
Chris B | December 15, 2010 at 1:33 am
Christians in the US have the most religious and personal freedom of anyone in the entire history of the world, yet many are sure that any day now their religion and beliefs are on the verge of being made illegal.
45.
Chris B | December 15, 2010 at 1:40 am
unterzeichne
46.
anonygrl | December 15, 2010 at 1:40 am
The app is, as far as I know, mostly just a copy of the Manhattan Declaration, which you can Google and read if you are interested. It was pulled because it is another of those "marriage is a man and a woman, anything else is evil and against God's plan and must be stopped", things, and as such was offensive to a significant number of Apple users, who requested that it be removed. It says "We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct," followed with their assertions that marriage is about procreation, and the "slippery slope" argument. About all they DON'T mention is pedophilia and beastiality, and they do couch it all in pretty, upbeat language, but it is all more of the same, made more offensive (to ME anyway) by the clutzy attempt to make it look nice and loving by dipping it in sugar.
Apple's policy is to remove content if users in number are offended. So they did. This is, by definition, censorship. It is not, however, illegal in any way, since Apple has an absolute right to censor the content that it provides space for in its store. And in many ways it is much less offensive (in that it is written into the policy agreements that all of the content providers sign before being allowed to post in the first place) than the daily censorship performed by NOM on all of its comment pages whenever we try to contribute to the discussion. Which is ALSO not illegal, but is very definitely censorship.
47.
Chris B | December 15, 2010 at 1:48 am
OK, I see it. 4+ (I thought it said 'stars' in the video, until i watched it again). My bad.
Yeah, 4+ is the age rating, since it contains nothing offensive. However, concepts that are not offensive to a 4-year-old, MIGHT be offensive to an adult.
48.
anonygrl | December 15, 2010 at 1:52 am
I just posted this on the nomblog… will repost here so that someone might actually get to read it…
Given the number of comments YOU censor here on a daily basis (and I am certain that mine will be one of them, since you always censor me) I find it intensely amusing that you would criticize ANYONE for choosing to censor material that appears on a platform that THEY OPERATE.
Just as you have no legal or even moral obligation to allow things here that you do not agree with, neither does Apple. And they are much more up front about it than you are, they have user agreements that are legal, signed contracts explaining their policies. If the Manhattan Declaration people did not READ those user agreements before signing on, it is their own fault.
49.
fiona64 | December 15, 2010 at 2:05 am
Here's what I wrote, with the title "Thank you for removing the Manhattan Declaration application from the iTunes Store":
Dear Mr. Jobs:
As a long-time Mac user and straight supporter of LGBT rights, I am writing to thank you and your company for removing the so-called "Manhattan Declaration" application from the iTunes store. Among its signatories are members of known hate groups such as the Family Resource Council (as cited by the Southern Poverty Law Centers), and noted anti-gay group National Organization for Marriage.
I understand that the NOM folks are trying to mobilize their supporters against you and your organization, arguing that you are against "marriage supporters." How patently ridiculous. We all support marriage — it's just that some of us support it for *everyone,* not just a select group.
Anyway, thank you again for making sure that your organization follows its own terms of service in removing applications that promote discrimination against a particular group of people.
Best,
50.
Joe | December 15, 2010 at 2:07 am
I think it's interesting that, five years ago, polyamory would not likely have been in this declaration. It is both wonderful and annoying that so much attention is being given to the poly people (like myself) in this country. Canada is fighting its anti-polygamy laws as we speak, maybe the US can be next.
51.
Bob | December 15, 2010 at 2:18 am
I have personal experience with psychiatric care, have avoided hospitalization for myself, but have adovocate for many friends, it is heartbreaking when one is commited involutarily, usually this means the drs. want to have control in order to assure a) compliance and completion of treatment and fo course b) patient in danger of harming self……..
it's very imprtant like Kathleen says to not speculate around the particulars of Choi's case, (each case has unique circumstances)
The reason I personally feel some imortance to take note of this situation Choi is in, is because mental health issues have such a negative stigma attached, and most people are afraid of the process involved in this type of care….
Depression is at epidemic levels, largely due to societal stresses placed on us, for numerous reasons, as ordienary people, .
My most recent experience was my niece thirty something, single mom, who reached a pont where she persoanlly agreed to admission to psych ward involuntarily, meaning, at the time she new she couldn't leave without dr's approval, she had agreed to electic shock therapy,,,,and in that case, they have no idea how many sessions are necessary before a breakthrough,,,,,after the dr built a relationship with her family, se was allowed to leave only with adult family supervision…….
This was so totally freaky for my extedned family, cause there usual goal was to take her to church on Sunday, maybe if she would get more involved with a church group, maybe if she found a husband, maybe maybe , the point is depression is genetic and has run though all our family history, my father used alcochol,,,, between those Sunday Sermons, my sister actually prayed the depression away, she's one of those born again types, everything is hallaluhia, praise the lord, outwardly she functions…..
The reason I tell this story is because it is my experience in helping a number of friends, that were involuntarily commited, in a funny way, cause they actually first had the choice to the "involuntary admission"
I asked the qustion about VA hospital, because I didn't realize that a person discharged from the militiary still qualifies for Vetersns assistance,,,,, and the other thing interesting is that the standard of psychicatric care would be the same I would think, and the reason I'm asking is not to specualte about Choi specifically, but it's an opportunity to enquire about psychiatric care for veterans period….
Mental health advocates are becoming more and more outspoken, and necassary and especially when they are patients themselves they have huge potential for advancing understanding, in the community, and focus attention on the need for more research into this area…..the same way we did with AIDS.
I'll leave you with a movie idea on the subject, warning it's content is heavy, but for anyone struggling with this in their family, it's very educational,,,, the movie is called HELEN
52.
Bob | December 15, 2010 at 2:45 am
yup the word rainbow is in the bible too
the operative word here is RECLAIM as in take back which maans we already have that symbol in the first place,,,,remember those cupcakes,,,,the baker wouldn't make, because it was a gay symbol….
suck it up Morse, you know you're gay genes are demanding acknowedgement, and that's why you wore a rainbow scarf to the hearing……..it is what it is , get over it… try as you might you cannot and will not redifine us our our symbol…… woot to the Rainbow Tribe and our marriage ceremonies……
53.
Lesbians Love Boies | December 15, 2010 at 2:54 am
I suppose since they claim everything is made by God…except us homosexuals…they will claim the rights to everything and anything if they think homosexuals are utilizing it.
I don't give a Roy G. Biv what she thinks though…keep wearing that rainbow Jen and I will just assume you are making a 'private' statement of being pro gay!
54.
Sagesse | December 15, 2010 at 3:02 am
Kinda waiting for them to try to take back the word 'gay'
.
55.
Ronnie | December 15, 2010 at 3:07 am
The rainbow stands for equality, inclusion, beauty, & nature….Jennifer Morse stands for discrimination, dictatorship, exclusion, & ugliness….She doesn't own shite but her own Fascist life…you can't own a word & you can't own a natural phenomenon…it belongs to everyone….she chooses to not be a part of the inclusiveness & that is her choice….Who the f does this harridan thinks she is?….Ava Braun wannabe…… >( …..Ronnie
56.
Don in Texas | December 15, 2010 at 3:07 am
Veterans Administration facilities are federal entities and federal law/regulations take precedence over state law/regulations.
I am a registered veteran who uses VA healthcare. It is my option whether to accept any treatment or any hospitalization.
Other than the post at joe.my.god, I am unaware of any other report that Lt. Choi was "involuntarily committed" for VA treatment. I am disinclined to believe that statement.
57.
Chris B | December 15, 2010 at 3:10 am
That's kind of silly. Since the rainbow is currently associated with 'the gays', wouldn't it just look like she is supporting gay rights?
What next? Is she going to reclaim the word 'gay' and put big signs in her yard: "I am proud to have gay sons and daughters"?
This is really a trend that has been going on with NOM recently. They are using "equality" and "bigot" and "oppression" and "freedom" and "civil rights", except somehow twisting them around to mean the opposite. I guess the only word that is sacred and can't be changed is 'marriage'?
58.
Lesbians Love Boies | December 15, 2010 at 3:17 am
I think it's great – because all they are doing is confusing the weakest of their base (most probably a high number.)
59.
Bob | December 15, 2010 at 3:32 am
Thanks Don,,,, what I'm wondering is, would the standard of psychiatric care be the same in a Federal facility, as a state operated one…….?///
60.
fiona64 | December 15, 2010 at 3:46 am
The app also allowed people to "sign" it electronically.
Love,
Fiona
61.
Ronnie | December 15, 2010 at 3:58 am
Maggie "Shoe Flinger" Gallagher is another lying Ava Braun wannabe….from Good As You:
Maggie says NOM doesn't censor; So it's just coincidence that all approved comments agree with her? http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2010/12/magg…
Maggie Gallagher says of the National Organization For Marriage: "When you are confident you are right, you have no need or desire to censor alternative views, incidentally."
How many of us had comments never posted…just put through moderation…then poof…never see the light of day?……I know I have……Maggie you are a liar….LIAR!!!!!….. >I …..Ronnie
62.
Lesbians Love Boies | December 15, 2010 at 4:02 am
I've commented (and you all know I am polite) – so Maggie has yet once again LIED…or she doesn't know anything of the going's-on at her website!
63.
Chris B | December 15, 2010 at 4:08 am
Truth is the enemy of these people. They don't have any real arguments against gay marriage, so they have to use fear and illogical views (polygamy, incest, marriage without children is invalid, what-about-the-children…?).
If proponents of gay marriage have such weak arguments, and are so obviously wrong, as Maggie implies, wouldn't she want that to show?
We, however, don't need to censor -their- viewpoints, and are constantly seeing the weak and silly arguments from their side.
64.
Ann S. | December 15, 2010 at 4:23 am
::sings::Don we now our gay apparel, Fa la la, la la la, la la la!
Keep wearing that rainbow scarf, Jennifer! Everyone will assume you're there to support marriage equality.
65.
anonygrl | December 15, 2010 at 4:34 am
Can we ask them why they feel the need to redefine all sorts of things that have traditionally come to be associated with us, but are so incredibly panic stricken when the thought of redefining one word that they feel is traditionally associated with them comes up?
But yes, if I saw Jenny in a rainbow scarf, I would assume she was supporting equality, and I would thank her for doing so. Hopefully I would be able to thank her in a loud, clear in very sincere voice, and in front of as many paparazzi as I could round up for the occasion.
66.
elliom | December 15, 2010 at 4:35 am
This is, yet again, an example of how the NOMbies, et al see that a particular stragegy works for us, and so decide to take it themselves. Likely either because: 1) They think if it works for us, it'll work for them (victims), or 2) To deny us the symbols and terms to shut-down discussion (there are no homosexuals, only the homosexual identified). They are oblivious to both the history and the context of those claims and symbols.
In this case, I'm hypothesizing that it's a combination of both factors. The Rainbow Flag has been an enduring rallying point for all LGBT people for 40 yrs. It has symbolism and meaning for us. By "sanctifying" the rainbow, the NOMbies hope to change and redefine that symbolism, thus turing it to their own ends. ("The definition IS the institution.") In the process, they deny us the symbol, the sense of pride, that the flag conveys. Imagine (for those of you who've been there) standing on Harvy Milk Plaza at the head of Castro Street, or atop Twin Peaks looking down the mountain, and NOT SEEING THE FLAG THERE!
NOM, et al, has done (or attempted to do) this over, and over, and over again. And then yell and scream when it's done to them (P8TT logo). Letting this one slide is NOT an option, any more than letting them claim the pink triangle as a symbol of the trinity. It has to stop.
I think there are a few options. Please feel free to chime in with more.
* The LGBT community needs to rally around our symbols. Use them. Everywhere and all the time. Flood your community with every LGBT symbol you can. If you have a business, use rainbows and triangles in the logo. Wear a pin with the rainbow flag, or a lambda. Be open or be subtle, but bring them out and show them off. (If you can do so safely in your community. PLEASE don't do anything stupid that will put you in danger. We grieve enough.)
* Start co-opting their symbols. "Equalitize" them. Make them ours. Think in the spirit of the P8TT logo. Show their hypocracy in an amusing, novel, and funny way. (The interlocking rings symbol has sooooooo many possibilities.)
* Don't let them get away with it. Getting screen caps where they moderate conflicting opinions out of existance is a good start. Build the case file. Collect the evidence. Make it public. "Sunshine is the best disinfectant." (Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis)
I know not everyone is suited for every type of activity. Do what you can. Small gestures matter. Big gestures matter. Whatever you do, it matters. Do something.
(Wiki on the LGBT version of the flag: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_flag_(LGBT_m… )
67.
Chris | December 15, 2010 at 5:01 am
If NOM wants to stop the censorship of true marriage supporters, they can start by not deleting comments from their blog.
68.
Richard A. Jernigan | December 15, 2010 at 5:58 am
That is why, for Chanukkah, I made a matching set of necklaces for BZ and myself. Each one consists of the Star of David with the Chai (Jewish symbol for life) in the center of the Star, and on each side of it, you see the rainbow in gemstone-studded spacers with a hematite on each side of the Star pendant and in between each of the gemstone spacers. And we both wear our rainbow bracelets, and are looking for more ways to let people know who we are. We have both and Israeli flag and a rainbow flag in our front yard. I spent too many years hiding while I was growing up. I refuse to hide now! And I refuse to let NOM tell me how to practice my religion! I am a gay Jew! I am the rebbitizen for Congregation Beth David! NOM can grow up, put on their big girl panties and get over themselves!
69.
Kathlene | December 15, 2010 at 10:59 am
"Can we ask them why they feel the need to redefine all sorts of things that have traditionally come to be associated with us, but are so incredibly panic stricken when the thought of redefining one word that they feel is traditionally associated with them comes up?"
Excellent question!
70.
Sagian | December 15, 2010 at 1:04 pm
NOM is a recognized hate group. What sort of public image would Apple be projecting if they allowed a hate group to continue pushing an app?
It comes down to the same thing I've been telling people since I was ten years old: Freedom of Speech comes with responsibilities and consequences. If I'm capable of grasping that simple concept at 10, why can't adults seem to get their mental hooks into it?
71.
Kathleen | December 15, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Actually, as much as I think NOM deserves the honor, the SPLC didn't list NOM in its recent inductees into hate group status.
72.
StraightForEquality | December 15, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Thanks for the information. It appears that discrimination and bigotry are not considered offensive. NOM implies that Apple's rating means nobody could be offended by their app. Actually it just means it passed in terms of the few things Apple screens for.
73.
Michael | December 15, 2010 at 5:43 pm
I emailed Steve at Apple and thanked him for not allowing strident anti-gay actiivsts to use Apple to promote the immoral anti-gay agenda.
74.
Elizabeth Oakes | December 16, 2010 at 2:47 am
I think it's even more cynical than that. I think it's a deliberate measure to confuse people, like they did with Prop8 (where many voters claimed they thought a "Yes" vote would allow same-sex couples to marry.)
But maybe it will backfire–their people may now offer support whenever they see something tagged as a "rainbow" issue…..gosh, some might even get search-engined to a pro-equality site.
75.
Elizabeth Oakes | December 16, 2010 at 2:53 am
And I hope someday someone points out to them the irony of claiming the symbol was stolen from THEM when, in fact, they stole it from the Jews (and how dare she try to invoke Jewish solidarity with her nastiness by calling rainbows "great Jewish symbols"!) Jennifer Morse of the Ruthless Institute is the thief here, make no mistake.
76.
Elizabeth Oakes | December 16, 2010 at 2:55 am
Well–and search engines, which may be part of why they are co-opting these phrases, to drive traffic to their sites instead of ours.
77.
fiona64 | December 16, 2010 at 9:10 am
Nope, but it is officially on SPLC's watch list of anti-gay organizations. It's a mere hop, skip and a jump away from official hate group status.
Love,
Fiona
78.
Rhie | December 16, 2010 at 1:49 pm
And the First Amendment applies to government restriction of free speech and targeting of those who speak against their actions. It doesn't apply to a private person or company deciding what does and doesn't happen on their space, under their name.
79.
Marlene | December 18, 2010 at 12:56 am
Chris, it's because the leaders of the American Taliban want desperately to return to the days when the clerics held absolute power over the people.
Remember the Catholic League for Decency? They were allowed to screen and edit movies at their whim, supposedly to "protect" the morals of the diocese.
Remember the Comstock Act? Anthony Comstock was a self-appointed moralist, and head of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. He was also a postal inspector back in the 1870s and instituted a pogrom on those trying to send information on birth control and abortion.
These are the times the American Taliban want to return to, and any incident which curtails this goal is seen as being "oppression" by them.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.