Here’s a site you should bookmark: JebBushForPresident.com.
No, we’re not suddenly endorsing antigay politicians for 2016. And neither are CJ Phillips and Charlie Rainwater, the self-identified “tech bear” couple who are manning the site.
Instead the pair — who grabbed the domain way back in 2008 — plan to use the URL to educate people on the way politics impact LGBT families.
In an interview with The Huffington Post, Phillips and Rainwater explained their motivation:
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
At the time our plan was very focused around giving real-life insight about the legislation that was being passed in Texas and how it affected an average LGBT couple. Many of our coworkers and family would say things to us like, “Oh, you aren’t going to be affected by that law…” when in reality we were definitely going to be impacted!
The couple says their intention is not to use the domain simply to protest. Rather, they want to educate people. “We want to facilitate positive discussions. Neither one of us is a fan of just bashing on other groups, so we hope we can engender some understanding from a diversity point of view.”
Sneaky domain snatching can be sticky business, especially when done in bad faith. In 2000, Madonna filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) over Madonna.com, which a New York businessman had purchased for $20,000 and used as an adult entertainment portal. The three-member WIPO panel ruled in favor of the singer, stating that she had a more legitimate claim on the URL since “Madonna” was both her legal and professional name. In a similar arbitration, however, they ruled against Police frontman Sting because “sting” was considered a common word and the singer had not trademarked it as a name.
Here’s to hoping Jeb Bush won’t file a similar suit against these adorable tech bears. Especially since IWantToTakeAwayYourRights.com is currently available. Just sayin’.
JebBushForPresident.com is currently under construction.
jwtraveler
Very clever. They’re smarter than the average bears. (Not an insult, just a reference to Yogi)
However, I’m really getting sick and tired of the bourgeois, assimilationist reference to “LGBT families”. Not all LGBT people are, or want to be, married with children. Many of us are single and/or child-free, whether by choice or circumstance. We are equally deserving of rights and respect and all the legal protections our society is supposed to afford.
onthemark
Is santorum.com taken – I’m afraid to click on it!
Scribe38
@jwtraveler: Brother why do you have such a bug up your butt concerning marriage(pun intended)? No one is trying to force anyone to get married if they don’t want to. The subject happens to be one of the largest stories of the year (gay marriage), so a course queerty is going to write on it. This couple is fighting for recognition of their family and gay rights in general. A family does not have to include kids, your coming off bitter.
passingthru
@jwtraveler: What? Where in this article are you getting anything that is related to your ridiculous complaint? What a toad.
NoCagada
@jwtraveler: Try some Benefiber. It works wonders.
jwtraveler
@Scribe38: @passingthru: @NoCagada: What is this: Let’s be nasty and intolerant of anyone who disagrees with us Day? You sound like Christian Fundamentalists.
@passingthru: Try reading. “…the pair…plan to use the URL to educate people on the way politics impact LGBT families.” Instead of just spewing.
Vidontag
@jwtraveler: Totally agree with your very valid point. Shame it elicited such a touchy reaction, but Queerty’s comments section can skew a little square at the best of times. In an era when North American politicians across the political spectrum routinely refer to “families” instead of just “people” or “citizens”, it’s disheartening to see queers jumping on that particular heteronormative bandwagon.
onthemark
@jwtraveler: @Vidontag: I also get annoyed a lot about the heteronormative stuff, but that really didn’t jump out at me in this case. Since they’re a couple, I assumed they’re looking at the laws from a couple’s perspective. There ARE differences so I didn’t see anything sinister in that. They refer to “average LGBT couple,” while Queerty used “families” maybe out of sheer p.c. habit.
This leaves aside the question of what an “average [?] LGBT couple” is (especially in Texas).
jwtraveler
@onthemark: “Since they’re a couple, I assumed they’re looking at the laws from a couple’s perspective.”
I’m a single, middle-aged, gay, Jewish man. I can not look at the world from any other perspective. That doesn’t mean I focus my concerns and efforts on social justice solely on the issues that affect people exactly like me. I take a much wider view of social justice issues because they affect most people in some way and they should be a uniting force rather than a dividing force.
My dissatisfaction with the mainstream gay movement’s nearly exclusive focus on marriage is that it is far too narrow, and therefore ignores issues of social justice, not only outside the “LGBT community”, but also within it. The result is that the gay marriage movement often seems like more of an effort by a narrow group of people to gain privilege in an increasingly inequitable society than a movement to reduce or eliminate that inequity.
In effect it says: Gay people should be treated as equals if we conform to heteronormative standards of marriage and family, rather than, as I would prefer: LGBT people should have all the civil rights protections of our society to live our lives as we see fit.
If you disagree, you are free to express your ideas in a thoughtful and rational, or even emotional manner. Personal insults and attacks do nothing to advance anyone’s efforts at achieving equality and justice.
Clark35
They’ll probably sell Jeb the domain and profit from doing this, or get sued and have to give up the URL/domain name.
onthemark
@jwtraveler: I totally agree with you! And am quite mystified at how you assume I’m going to engage in “personal insults and attacks,” but you may may be used to it from the marriage fanatics (as am I!) who tend to be quite nasty.
The marriage fanatics tend to take a dismissive tone along the lines of “marriage rights will solidify all the other rights,” a dubious, gay version of “trickle-down economics.”
I tried this line of debate in a recent comment thread on the contrived controversy about the damn wedding CAKES which it seems are now the next hot marriage issue that will make ENDA wait indefinitely.
onthemark
@jwtraveler: What they REALLY mean is, “If you live in a state that doesn’t have an ENDA law, MOVE” – which people here were actually saying in recent comment threads without noticing the least bit of irony.
The equivalent would have been if the vast majority of gay people told them, ten years ago, “If you want to get married so bad, just move to Massachusetts and quit whining.”
The marriage fanatics just don’t give a sh*t about ENDA and have made their position very clear. They’re rich or upper-middle-class and it’s a class issue.
Is this a “personal attack”? I’m really starting to hate the marriage fanatics!
At any rate, as you can see, I tend to be VERY touchy about this type of thing – and still, it really didn’t jump out at me in the case of this bear couple.
jwtraveler
@onthemark: After I posted this I thought you might misunderstand. When I wrote “you”, I didn’t mean YOU; I meant the nasty previous commenters and anyone else who disagrees with me. I hope this clears that up. We seem to be in agreement on this issue.
Maude
Not my cup of tea, but my cup of tea is probably not…….
onthemark
@jwtraveler: Glad to hear it. Your comments usually make sense!