The student newspaper at Notre Dame, The Observer, ran this stomach turning cartoon today.  How anyone could find this funny is beyond me.  What I find even more shocking is the fact that someone would not even understand how frightening this is.  I’d like to see every person who approved of this sit down and have a nice long talk with Judy Shepard.

The statement from GLAAD is below.

On Wednesday, 13 January, The Observer, the student newspaper at Notre Dame University ran an incredibly troubling cartoon that promotes violence against the LGBT community.

“The cartoon depicted a conversation between two figures.The conversation read,

‘What’s the easiest way to turn a fruit into a vegetable?’

‘No idea.’

‘A baseball bat.’

As many people know, ‘fruit’ is often used as a derogatory term for members of the LGBT community.

This type of advocacy of anti-LGBT violence must stop. It isn’t funny. What’s more, it promotes hate crimes, which are all too prevalent in society today.

The cartoonist had posted on his blog – though it’s since been removed – his original version of the cartoon. In the original version, it shows that the punchline read, ‘AIDS’ instead of ‘A baseball bat.’ The paper, he reported, preferred ‘not to make light of fatal diseases.’

The Observer made a dangerously misguided decision that promoting violence was somehow superior to making fun of HIV/AIDS. Both versions of the cartoon were abhorrent.

GLAAD contacted The Observer immediately upon seeing this cartoon. The Editor in Chief Jenn Metz relayed a tearful and what appeared to be heartfelt apology by phone. She explained that she was not present when the decision to run this cartoon was made, and that she was incredibly upset that others on staff had made that decision.”

Metz plans to run what she describes as a “full retraction and apology,” in Friday’s edition of The Observer. GLAAD will watch for that retraction and apology. Additionally, GLAAD asked Metz to ensure that the staff responsible for running this cartoon – both the cartoonist and editor who decided it was fit for print – be reprimanded.

GLAAD has also reached out to the office of the President of Notre Dame University, and called upon that office to issue a statement condemning violence and this cartoon that promotes violence. We await response from the University on how they plan to address this type of violent dialogue from continuing to be advanced on campus.

An apology from The Observer is here.

From Rachel Maddow’s most recent reporting on the pending anti-gay legislation in Uganda and the role of prominent American conservatives in this effort to literally kill people for being gay.  One of the most remarkable things about the way this story is unfolding is the way that Maddow has been able to bring so many of these figures to task.  Without her, this story would have blown over and the legislation would have likely passed with no consequence for the American leaders connected to it.  With Maddow, we have responses from Senators Inhofe and Grassley and people like Warren. A must watch:

It would be impossible to really recap the book or the range of thoughts that it inspired.  Frankly, it landed in the middle of a Venn diagram of my personal and professional interests–gay rights, politics/public policy, and public health.  I think one line in the prologue really captures the essence of the book:

In those early years, the federal government viewed AIDS as a budget problem, local public health officials saw it as a political problem, gay leaders considered AIDS a public relations problem, and the news media regarded it as a homosexual problem that wouldn’t interest anybody else.

There were exceptions to all of these generalizations and that is the element of the book that gives a reader hope in such a tragic situation; that despite these obstacles, many stood up.  Others eventually rose to the occasion.  However, what speaks most to Shilts’ intelligence and fairness as a reporter and author is that almost none of the characters are portrayed in a flat or villanous way.  Shilts doesn’t pulls punches, but he gives everyone he describes a very human depth.  Almost every person is made real through both their bravery and shortcomings.

I think that every gay man and woman who didn’t live through this time should read Shilts’ account.  It gives a history and context to the struggles that our community faces that is easy to overlook when you enter the community after it has come so far.

All of that said, a really interesting point came up in my discussion of the book with a colleague.  I had been telling him about my adventures in blogging and he asked a fascinating question: “What if there had been the internet and social networking in 1980?”

It’s fascinating for so many reasons and highlights exactly what online communities can do. Without the internet, the general public is limited in both the community within which it can communicate, and more importantly, it is subject to the filters of the mainstream media; represented solely by the few prominent lobbying and advocacy organizations; and rarely heard by policymakers.

Now blogs and online organizing can drive a news story into the mainstream media.  Look at Philip Spooner from Maine’s No on 1 campaign (or any number of countless examples).  Where the media was squeamish talking about gay men or sex, people with the internet wouldn’t have had to live in ignorance of the epidemic that was exploding in the country’s major cities (and eventually beyond).

When public health departments wouldn’t adequately educate or stopping behaviors that were dangerous to the public health, the internet would have offered Google, WebMD, and online forums to find out more about what puts people at risk.

When an administration claimed that AIDS was its “number one public health priority,” the internet would have allowed facts and reports ignored by the media to be made public.  Policymakers could have had their feet held to the fire and heard from real people more easily.

When lobbying and interest groups failed to represent the broader gay community, people could have organized online on their own. The voice of the community would not have been one consensus determined by those who saw the disease as “bad PR.”

Instead of holding valuable research and science from the public and other researchers in order to be published in prestigious medical journals,  research could have been more quickly peer reviewed and published.  Instead of worrying about careers, researchers could have communicated vital science to the broader scientific community in a timely fashion.

I’m not so naive as to think that the internet would have fixed all of these situations without any drawbacks.  The internet creates a cacophony of voices with a certain number of complete wackjobs.  But more important–and in true democratic nature–the views that resonate with more people rise to the top.

Bottom line: it’s impossible to tell exactly what would have come from this bizarre–and probably idealized–alternate history I’ve imagined.  I can say two things with absolute certainty, though:

1. The internet and blogosphere would have it would enabled a broader conversation.  People would have been able to organize themselves and demand better of the media, advocacy groups, and local and federal governments.
2. The struggles we face today for equal rights do not face the limitations that were witnessed in the 1980s.  We can–and more importantly DO–organize and communicate online to increase the impact of our voices.  The DNC will hear from angry donors, the No on 1 campaign received over $1 million dollars from ActBlue, and campaigns can organize volunteers to call and visit from around the nation.  That’s why I write here and hope it resonates beyond the people I could have simply told over the phone.

Update: A few edits were made from the original post for clarity.

Ninety years early, Maine sent mixed messages about extending voting rights to women, before finally doing so. After the Legislature strongly endorsed women’s suffrage in 1917, a people’s veto took back those voting rights. Two years later, however, Maine voters changed course and voted to ratify the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which extended the right to vote to women.

Watch:

The full video of the debate is available at UniteTheFight.org.

A slide show is at the Portland Press Herald website.

Leaders of the people’s veto campaign argue that extending the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage to families headed by same-sex couples would have broad effects throughout society. We have listened to their arguments, but we just don’t buy them.

One of the most interesting angles made in this editorial, like the Bangor Daily News’, is the fact that this focuses again on children that are already living with same sex couples.  SFMM has tried to frame this whole issue as teaching our kids about gay marriage (implying, unstated of course, that it is more likely to make your kid gay), and No on 1 has had to spend a lot of time refuting this.  This effort has in many ways put a face on this for editorial writers and columnists–the children of gay couples now.  I think this has actually backfired on SFMM in a big way.  Exciting stuff!

The full text of the editorial is below.

Support Maine families: Vote ‘no’ on Question 1

Sometimes the law has to move quickly to keep up with a reality that has developed over time.

Maine voters will be faced with that kind of change on Nov. 3, when they are asked in Question 1 to reject a law that would extend civil marriage status to same-sex couples.

While this change in the law could seem abrupt to some Maine voters, it reflects the way people are really living now in cities and towns all over our state. That’s why we urge people to vote “no,” to allow this reasonable law to go into effect.

Leaders of the people’s veto campaign argue that extending the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage to families headed by same-sex couples would have broad effects throughout society. We have listened to their arguments, but we just don’t buy them.

While it’s technically true that the law would change the wording of the definition of marriage in state statute, it would not change the institution as it exists in Maine for thousands of traditional couples. Those vows would not be any weaker if same-sex couples were allowed to take them. Marriage would remain the key foundation for creating families, with the rights and responsibilities that come with it spelled out in the law, whether those families are headed by same- or opposite-sex couples.

Limiting marriage to a man and a woman would not make families led by same-sex couples go away. It would just keep them in a legally inferior position that is inconsistent with Maine’s tradition of equal protection under the law.

Gay men and women already live together, own property and have children, both biological and adopted. They hold responsible jobs, they volunteer in churches and schools – they are full members of our communities. The only thing they cannot do is form the legal partnership that gives them the advantages and duties that other couples have when they start families. The same-sex couples are not the only losers. This also puts their children at a disadvantage.

ARGUMENTS DON’T STAND UP

Treating same-sex couples fairly would have an important impact on their families, such as when one partner gets sick or dies. But it would not affect traditional couples at all.

The “Stand for Marriage: Yes on 1″ campaign has struggled to come up with ways in which allowing this law to take effect would hurt traditional families. To often they have resorted to inventing scenarios to scare voters.

The most prominent has been the charge that children would be forced to learn about same-sex marriage in school. All it takes is a quick reading of the law to see, however, that there is no mention of education in it. Curriculum in Maine is approved by local school boards, and those elected officials would be under no obligation to add lessons on marriage law to their areas of study.

But that’s not to say that children would be kept in the dark. They are smart, and they should be expected to notice that some of their classmates have two moms or two dads instead of one of each. This is not a function of the law, however, it is a reflection of reality. A “yes” vote won’t make those couples go away. It would only make their lives more difficult.

At some point, all children recognize that everyone’s home is not like their own, that different people have different values and that all families are not the same. Parents should not be afraid that what children see in school will eclipse the values that are taught at home.

Arguments that same-sex marriage would inhibit religious freedom or cause a flood of lawsuits also fall flat. The same claims were made in campaigns against Maine’s anti-discrimination laws and neither of them came true. Maine has strong exemptions for religious organizations in its employment and housing laws, and the marriage law would not require anyone to preside over a ceremony in violation of his or her religious beliefs.

NO FLOOD OF SUITS

Last year, only 32 out of 1,394 civil rights complaints to the Maine Human Rights commission were based on sexual orientation, and few, if any of them, are ever likely to end up in court. The marriage statute would not provide any new grounds for lawsuits.

Although the “Yes on One” campaign says that its opposition is not based on religious objections to homosexual behavior, that’s all that’s left when the other arguments are disposed of. People are entitled to their beliefs, but religious teaching alone shouldn’t be the basis of our law.

The vote “no” campaign makes solid arguments that hold up to scrutiny.

While the courts have become increasingly ready to extend family-law protections to same-sex partners in adoption and child custody cases, parents at the head of these families remain legal strangers to each other, causing problems that range from inconvenient to inhumane.

Maine statutes use the word “spouse” 400 times. They use the word “marital” 600 times. There is virtually no way to surgically carve out and tie together all the rights and responsibilities of marriage in a legal relationship that does what marriage does without calling it marriage.

There is also no way to provide the universally understood family status that comes with a marriage contract. Husbands and wives don’t need to produce durable powers of attorney or advance directives when they pick up their children from school, visit a hospital room or make decisions at a funeral home.

Only same-sex couples are required to produce documents and jump through these legal hoops, and that is not what the equal protection clause in the state constitution promises.

Families led by same-sex partners are here now. They are part of our communities and they need and deserve the legal protections – as well as the dignity – that comes with civil marriage status.

Maine voters should recognize that even if their personal beliefs about marriage haven’t changed, reality has. They should accept reality and vote “no” on Question 1.