Comments on: Will the Future of California’s Gay Marriage Be Televised? http://www.queerty.com/will-the-future-of-californias-gay-marriage-be-televised-20090106/ Free of an agenda. Except that gay one. Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:16:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: METALGOD http://www.queerty.com/will-the-future-of-californias-gay-marriage-be-televised-20090106/#comment-139477 METALGOD Tue, 31 Mar 2009 01:00:50 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/?p=36765#comment-139477 @<a href="#comment-110457" rel="nofollow">Jamie</a>: DEATH TO GAYS.THIS IS ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE.GOD GAVE NO RIGHTS TO GAYS STATED IN BIBLE. GOD KILLS GAYS AND THOSE WHO SUPPORTS GAYS IN ANY WAY THAT GOES AGAINST GOD.THE LORD GOD WILL SOON DESTROYED THIS NATION IN ALLOWING GAYS RIGHTS AND MARRIAGE BEING SICK IN THEIR MINDS AND SOUL THAT GOES AGAINST GOD'S LAWS.THE LORD GOD IS COMING IN JUST TWO YEARS IN DECEMBER STATED IN THE PROPHECY. THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST GAYS ARE SAVED AND GOES TO HEAVEN WITH THE LORD GOD.THOSE OPPOSED GOD LAWS IN SUPPORTING GAYS AND ABORTION SHALL GO TO HELL.NO MERCY FOR THE IMMORAL MORTAL SINNERS. @Jamie: DEATH TO GAYS.THIS IS ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE.GOD GAVE NO RIGHTS TO GAYS STATED IN BIBLE. GOD KILLS GAYS AND THOSE WHO SUPPORTS GAYS IN ANY WAY THAT GOES AGAINST GOD.THE LORD GOD WILL SOON DESTROYED THIS NATION IN ALLOWING GAYS RIGHTS AND MARRIAGE BEING SICK IN THEIR MINDS AND SOUL THAT GOES AGAINST GOD’S LAWS.THE LORD GOD IS COMING IN JUST TWO YEARS IN DECEMBER STATED IN THE PROPHECY.
THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST GAYS ARE SAVED AND GOES TO HEAVEN WITH THE LORD GOD.THOSE OPPOSED GOD LAWS IN SUPPORTING GAYS AND ABORTION SHALL GO TO HELL.NO MERCY FOR THE IMMORAL MORTAL SINNERS.

]]> By: Dave http://www.queerty.com/will-the-future-of-californias-gay-marriage-be-televised-20090106/#comment-110936 Dave Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:19:26 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/?p=36765#comment-110936 @<a href="#comment-110901" rel="nofollow">seitan-on-a-stick</a>: That's a very good point and reminds me that they seemed to be making a distinction between the media and the gay media in their notes concerning media access thus when they said they wanted to limit media access did they mean only to limit non-LGBT media or all media - shrug kind of a toss up. My bet is that ultimately they have some sort of media credentials process in place yet at the same time have some events closed door like discussions on fund raising or advertising campaigns where it'd be undesirable to give the other side time to craft counter slogans or harass our corporate allies. @seitan-on-a-stick: That’s a very good point and reminds me that they seemed to be making a distinction between the media and the gay media in their notes concerning media access thus when they said they wanted to limit media access did they mean only to limit non-LGBT media or all media – shrug kind of a toss up. My bet is that ultimately they have some sort of media credentials process in place yet at the same time have some events closed door like discussions on fund raising or advertising campaigns where it’d be undesirable to give the other side time to craft counter slogans or harass our corporate allies.

]]> By: seitan-on-a-stick http://www.queerty.com/will-the-future-of-californias-gay-marriage-be-televised-20090106/#comment-110901 seitan-on-a-stick Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:16:29 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/?p=36765#comment-110901 I think that's why you issue Media access to those with Media Credentials using "Sound Judgment" to not issue one to say, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. Nakhone, your link doesn't work for your 310 member group on Facebook. I think that’s why you issue Media access to those with Media Credentials using “Sound Judgment” to not issue one to say, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. Nakhone, your link doesn’t work for your 310 member group on Facebook.

]]> By: Nakhone http://www.queerty.com/will-the-future-of-californias-gay-marriage-be-televised-20090106/#comment-110707 Nakhone Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:08:33 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/?p=36765#comment-110707 One more thing, as far as transparency is concerned, I'm of the belief that the Press should only have limited access. It would be crazy for us to allow the Press (Gay or Straight) to record and telecast our strategy sessions. It's one thing to have them tape the general session but another to bring the religious rights or Bill O'Reilly into our planning session. That's my vote. Nakhone Keodara Gays United Network Founder/Community Organizer http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=48959723335&ref=ts One more thing, as far as transparency is concerned, I’m of the belief that the Press should only have limited access. It would be crazy for us to allow the Press (Gay or Straight) to record and telecast our strategy sessions. It’s one thing to have them tape the general session but another to bring the religious rights or Bill O’Reilly into our planning session. That’s my vote.

Nakhone Keodara
Gays United Network
Founder/Community Organizer
http://www.facebook.com/group......038;ref=ts

]]> By: Nakhone http://www.queerty.com/will-the-future-of-californias-gay-marriage-be-televised-20090106/#comment-110706 Nakhone Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:04:27 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/?p=36765#comment-110706 I just checked the EQCA website and it appears that they listed the Equality as taking place on January 24th but your post indicated the 27th. Can you clarify? Has there been a change of plans that we don't know about? Thanks! I just checked the EQCA website and it appears that they listed the Equality as taking place on January 24th but your post indicated the 27th. Can you clarify? Has there been a change of plans that we don’t know about? Thanks!

]]> By: Brian Miller http://www.queerty.com/will-the-future-of-californias-gay-marriage-be-televised-20090106/#comment-110671 Brian Miller Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:28:56 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/?p=36765#comment-110671 Has Rex published a retraction yet? Has Rex published a retraction yet?

]]> By: Dave http://www.queerty.com/will-the-future-of-californias-gay-marriage-be-televised-20090106/#comment-110651 Dave Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:41:04 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/?p=36765#comment-110651 Despite the much vaunted importance of transparency just making everything more transparent by which of course people actually mean 'we want a say too' would most likely result in something that moves slower then both houses of congress combined. Certainly the TV, newspaper, and radio campaigns should be run nationally but everything else just about should be local cause that's what it's going to come down to. An organization that needs to contact more then 10 people to get the go ahead to do something is at a massive disadvantage - basically its a time issue, particularly when your working against a fixed deadline. I wrote more but decided rather then get lost in the well when I only wanted a bucket of water to adjust accordingly - either you will own the issue of marriage equality, making sure to talk to all those you meet about, or you won't, but if your not trying to own the issue in your community then how valuable do you think your opinions are going to be to those who are - people pay a lot more attention to someone who can demonstrate something that works. Peace out y'all Despite the much vaunted importance of transparency just making everything more transparent by which of course people actually mean ‘we want a say too’ would most likely result in something that moves slower then both houses of congress combined. Certainly the TV, newspaper, and radio campaigns should be run nationally but everything else just about should be local cause that’s what it’s going to come down to. An organization that needs to contact more then 10 people to get the go ahead to do something is at a massive disadvantage – basically its a time issue, particularly when your working against a fixed deadline. I wrote more but decided rather then get lost in the well when I only wanted a bucket of water to adjust accordingly – either you will own the issue of marriage equality, making sure to talk to all those you meet about, or you won’t, but if your not trying to own the issue in your community then how valuable do you think your opinions are going to be to those who are – people pay a lot more attention to someone who can demonstrate something that works.

Peace out y’all

]]> By: seitan-on-a-stick http://www.queerty.com/will-the-future-of-californias-gay-marriage-be-televised-20090106/#comment-110631 seitan-on-a-stick Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:12:50 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/?p=36765#comment-110631 Hey Michael, I like this approach "By the time we get to Colorado, some heads are gonna roll!" by some great Lesbian Grunge band of the 90s (help me here with names coz I can only come up with 'Bitch') which could apply to California, Utah and even Washington DC! It's not like we actually have Gay Leaders who matter. O'Bummer, shoulda voted for Hillary! Hey Michael, I like this approach “By the time we get to Colorado, some heads are gonna roll!” by some great Lesbian Grunge band of the 90s (help me here with names coz I can only come up with ‘Bitch’) which could apply to California, Utah and even Washington DC! It’s not like we actually have Gay Leaders who matter.

O’Bummer, shoulda voted for Hillary!

]]> By: aaglaas http://www.queerty.com/will-the-future-of-californias-gay-marriage-be-televised-20090106/#comment-110621 aaglaas Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:34:22 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/?p=36765#comment-110621 Here are all the arguments, both for and against, gay marriage. You decide... http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Aaron%27s+Story Here are all the arguments, both for and against, gay marriage. You decide…

http://jointheimpact.wetpaint......%27s+Story

]]> By: Vanhattan http://www.queerty.com/will-the-future-of-californias-gay-marriage-be-televised-20090106/#comment-110619 Vanhattan Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:31:10 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/?p=36765#comment-110619 Notes on an Equality California sponsored Summit Meeting with restricted media access. Pam Spaulding of Pam’s House Blend posted 05Jan2008 that parts of the Equality Summit scheduled for 24 Jan 2008 would have a press black out for portions of the event. Upon hearing this news I was flummoxed and decided to find out more. In order to clarify this press restriction issue, I contacted Anne Marks, who is the Equality Summit Coordinator. Anne was very cordial; I must say more than I was upon hearing of another round of restricted and 'elitist' No on 8 type closed door strategy sessions. I will post my email exchange with Ms. Marks as well as my own personal opinions in order to shed some light on this event. Original letter from Vanhattan to Anne Marks: Hello Anne, I am one of 18,000 gay couples whose California marriage is on the line in California. I was just reading on Pam's House Blend that your group has decided to block press access to your meeting on 24 January. I am appalled. You elitist gays really take the cake. Your group is acting like a bunch of adolescents hiding a forbidden meeting from their parents. Hell, I don't even know who was invited to attend. Why all the secrecy? Let me make myself clear, if you intend to reach out to us non elite gays for support...time, money, etc. I suggest you try the transparency route. I will not support a bunch of "people" who hide behind curtains. I and others have a vested interest in who is supporting us and what their agenda is. Get with the program. This is not an elitist cause that I and others are going to allow you to lose once again! Vanhattan notes: I admit I was a bit over the top and rather accusatory. I appreciate that Anne took the time to answer my questions and address my accusations. Vanhattan: "how will anyone know what you are up to? How can I support you and a group of individuals who remain anonymous if I do not even know what your agenda is?" Anne Marks: The summit is open. People that are there will know because they are there, and then they can go home to their communities and share what they've learned and agreed to. For those who cannot attend, the general sessions will be streamed on the web. In terms of knowing what the agenda is, everyone is encouraged to developed (sic) their own strategies, and the summit is the opportunity to develop natural partnerships for allies and fine-tune tactics. Once tactics are developed, they will be publicized widely by the organizations that are taking the lead on them. I can't tell you what the agenda is when I don't know what it is myself. Vanhattan Notes: When I visited the Equality California website today regarding the Equality Summit, at: http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/cd/content.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4028667&event_id={38847B39-A3A5-4621-90B1-1858733E7DAF}&content_id={7D0EEB18-1637-413F-9D7A-48A431CE0969}&seid= The website does state that the summit is open, but requests that organizations only send two representatives. Fair enough. I counted 126 or so organizations that are listed as “Sponsoring Organizations”. Vanhattan: "you are purposely excluding all but 50 people to lead the GLBTQ community." Anne Marks: “This is false. I sent emails to hundreds of people, travelled around the state and met with dozens of others, and have done everything I could to spread the word about the summit. Of that group, all of whom were invited to be on the planning committee, only about 50 volunteered to be on the planning committee. I didn't select them. They selected themselves by their interest and willingness to volunteer their time. Vanhattan Notes: Fair enough, except that I would like to know who the 50 volunteers are that want to restrict press access. Vanhattan "Please reconsider your decision and open this important discussion up to all." Anne Marks: It is not my decision - it is the planning committee's. The discussion IS open to all. Come to the summit. But when you are there, keep in mind that not every single discussion we have as LGBT rights activists planning to win back our rights is necessarily a discussion that we want the anti-gay forces plotting against us to be aware of. That's not secrecy - that's strategy. Vanhattan notes: Again, fair enough. I am impressed that there are so many sponsoring organizations to this summit. However, not all same sex marriage proponents and activists are connected to formal organizations or to the 50 unnamed persons on the planning committee. For this reason alone I think it would best serve the GLBTQ community in their united quest for equality under the law and specifically in this case for same sex marriage that reporters be allowed to cover this event. As far as Anne’s support of a strategy that continues to restrict access to community input by way of restricting the press coverage of this event, I still disagree. Secrecy is not a viable strategy to gain civil equality for same sex marriage. Actually I think it would serve our interests best if everyone knows of our same sex marriage and civil rights equality “agenda”. Let the other side counter with their attacks. We are on the right side of history here and the more boneheaded comments from the wingnut side that we can get on the historical record, the better. I would still suggest that the best approach is to open the Equality Summit to ALL interested press and journalists for all meetings. Open policy is the best policy. Notes on an Equality California sponsored Summit Meeting with restricted media access.

Pam Spaulding of Pam’s House Blend posted 05Jan2008 that parts of the Equality Summit scheduled for 24 Jan 2008 would have a press black out for portions of the event. Upon hearing this news I was flummoxed and decided to find out more.
In order to clarify this press restriction issue, I contacted Anne Marks, who is the Equality Summit Coordinator. Anne was very cordial; I must say more than I was upon hearing of another round of restricted and ‘elitist’ No on 8 type closed door strategy sessions.
I will post my email exchange with Ms. Marks as well as my own personal opinions in order to shed some light on this event.

Original letter from Vanhattan to Anne Marks:
Hello Anne,
I am one of 18,000 gay couples whose California marriage is on the line in California.
I was just reading on Pam’s House Blend that your group has decided to block press access to your meeting on 24 January. I am appalled. You elitist gays really take the cake. Your group is acting like a bunch of adolescents hiding a forbidden meeting from their parents. Hell, I don’t even know who was invited to attend. Why all the secrecy?

Let me make myself clear, if you intend to reach out to us non elite gays for support…time, money, etc. I suggest you try the transparency route. I will not support a bunch of “people” who hide behind curtains. I and others have a vested interest in who is supporting us and what their agenda is.

Get with the program. This is not an elitist cause that I and others are going to allow you to lose once again!
Vanhattan notes: I admit I was a bit over the top and rather accusatory. I appreciate that Anne took the time to answer my questions and address my accusations.

Vanhattan: “how will anyone know what you are up to? How can I support you and a group of individuals who remain anonymous if I do not even know what your agenda is?”

Anne Marks: The summit is open. People that are there will know because they are there, and then they can go home to their communities and share what they’ve learned and agreed to. For those who cannot attend, the general sessions will be streamed on the web. In terms of knowing what the agenda is, everyone is encouraged to developed (sic) their own strategies, and the summit is the opportunity to develop natural partnerships for allies and fine-tune tactics. Once tactics are developed, they will be publicized widely by the organizations that are taking the lead on them. I can’t tell you what the agenda is when I don’t know what it is myself.

Vanhattan Notes: When I visited the Equality California website today regarding the Equality Summit, at: http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/.....;event_id={38847B39-A3A5-4621-90B1-1858733E7DAF}&content_id={7D0EEB18-1637-413F-9D7A-48A431CE0969}&seid=
The website does state that the summit is open, but requests that organizations only send two representatives. Fair enough. I counted 126 or so organizations that are listed as “Sponsoring Organizations”.

Vanhattan: “you are purposely excluding all but 50 people to lead the GLBTQ community.”

Anne Marks: “This is false. I sent emails to hundreds of people, travelled around the state and met with dozens of others, and have done everything I could to spread the word about the summit. Of that group, all of whom were invited to be on the planning committee, only about 50 volunteered to be on the planning committee. I didn’t select them. They selected themselves by their interest and willingness to volunteer their time.
Vanhattan Notes: Fair enough, except that I would like to know who the 50 volunteers are that want to restrict press access.

Vanhattan “Please reconsider your decision and open this important discussion up to all.”
Anne Marks: It is not my decision – it is the planning committee’s. The discussion IS open to all. Come to the summit. But when you are there, keep in mind that not every single discussion we have as LGBT rights activists planning to win back our rights is necessarily a discussion that we want the anti-gay forces plotting against us to be aware of. That’s not secrecy – that’s strategy.
Vanhattan notes: Again, fair enough. I am impressed that there are so many sponsoring organizations to this summit. However, not all same sex marriage proponents and activists are connected to formal organizations or to the 50 unnamed persons on the planning committee. For this reason alone I think it would best serve the GLBTQ community in their united quest for equality under the law and specifically in this case for same sex marriage that reporters be allowed to cover this event. As far as Anne’s support of a strategy that continues to restrict access to community input by way of restricting the press coverage of this event, I still disagree. Secrecy is not a viable strategy to gain civil equality for same sex marriage. Actually I think it would serve our interests best if everyone knows of our same sex marriage and civil rights equality “agenda”. Let the other side counter with their attacks. We are on the right side of history here and the more boneheaded comments from the wingnut side that we can get on the historical record, the better.

I would still suggest that the best approach is to open the Equality Summit to ALL interested press and journalists for all meetings. Open policy is the best policy.

]]> By: michael http://www.queerty.com/will-the-future-of-californias-gay-marriage-be-televised-20090106/#comment-110586 michael Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:24:42 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/?p=36765#comment-110586 "The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission." J.F.K. "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." Dr. M.L. King Jr. “The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.”

J.F.K.

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

Dr. M.L. King Jr.

]]> By: michael http://www.queerty.com/will-the-future-of-californias-gay-marriage-be-televised-20090106/#comment-110578 michael Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:05:40 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/?p=36765#comment-110578 Let me say people that as gay people we do not have to give over all the power of moving forward to just one group. If you think these wannabe homo elitist's (What the fuck is a homo elitist? So your on top of what is considered to be the bottom of the human food chain? LMFAO!) There are many different ways to do achieve something. Personally, I could get behind somebody(s) with passion and integrity. Someone who speaks the truth with conviction and no apology. Someone who has the leadership abilities of great men of the past, like Dr. King, Gandhi, Jesus Christ. When the real people, the grass roots of our community feel included, feel empowered, then we will move forward. All this game playing is just that, game playing. Are we going to allow our futures to be placed in the hands of losers? Let me say people that as gay people we do not have to give over all the power of moving forward to just one group. If you think these wannabe homo elitist’s (What the fuck is a homo elitist? So your on top of what is considered to be the bottom of the human food chain? LMFAO!) There are many different ways to do achieve
something. Personally, I could get behind somebody(s) with passion and integrity. Someone who speaks the truth with conviction and no apology. Someone who has the leadership abilities of great men of the past, like Dr. King, Gandhi, Jesus Christ. When the real people, the grass roots of our community feel included, feel empowered, then we will move forward. All this game playing is just that, game playing. Are we going to allow our futures to be placed in the hands of losers?

]]> By: 24play http://www.queerty.com/will-the-future-of-californias-gay-marriage-be-televised-20090106/#comment-110533 24play Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:34:34 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/?p=36765#comment-110533 Ohmygod, Japhy! You are so much better at being a shill for Andrea Shorter than Joe.My.God, Pam, and PageOneQ are at being shills for Robin Tyler! Your one-sided (and single-sourced) account of what happened is so much better than theirs! Total fucking journalistic coup! Ohmygod, Japhy! You are so much better at being a shill for Andrea Shorter than Joe.My.God, Pam, and PageOneQ are at being shills for Robin Tyler! Your one-sided (and single-sourced) account of what happened is so much better than theirs!

Total fucking journalistic coup!

]]> By: seitan-on-a-stick http://www.queerty.com/will-the-future-of-californias-gay-marriage-be-televised-20090106/#comment-110502 seitan-on-a-stick Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:55:39 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/?p=36765#comment-110502 It seems that the Queer Media just got handled. I just don't get the comments that People of Color were not included as if being Gay stops at the Caucasian gate. Perhaps, if celebrating communities had taken off their party hats earlier then we may have had a unified and representative approach void of racial tensions. This "Do Over" just seems too little, too late. What about the March on Washington? 2009 is already here! We should be present at the Inauguration to turn our backs on Pastor Rick Warren. Do something before Gay Marriage loses the wind in it's sails and we get Obama-whacked! It seems that the Queer Media just got handled. I just don’t get the comments that People of Color were not included as if being Gay stops at the Caucasian gate. Perhaps, if celebrating communities had taken off their party hats earlier then we may have had a unified and representative approach void of racial tensions. This “Do Over” just seems too little, too late. What about the March on Washington? 2009 is already here! We should be present at the Inauguration to turn our backs on Pastor Rick Warren. Do something before Gay Marriage loses the wind in it’s sails and we get Obama-whacked!

]]> By: Bob http://www.queerty.com/will-the-future-of-californias-gay-marriage-be-televised-20090106/#comment-110501 Bob Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:52:56 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/?p=36765#comment-110501 So who's telling the truth here? We've got one source saying one thing yesterday, and another saying something else today. I don't trust any of the "leaders" involved in this, and that includes Ms. Short here. I know many of them personally, and I know how narcissistic and self-serving most of them are. I'd bet my bottom dollar that the press and the community will be barred from this event, must as they were from the planning from the no on 8 campaign and as they've already been told they will be from the analysis of what went wrong with the no on 8 campaign. Here's a telling quote from Ms. Shorter: " .. what's funny is that there's also the argument that reporter's journalistic integrity and objectiveness mean that they can't really be considered part of the community." Ahh, yes. Any press who might give an unbiased look at how fucked up these people are isn't part of the community or welcome -- only kiss-asses who worship at their feet. We're going to be fucked all over again if we allow these self-serving liars to hide behind a veil of secrecy while they continue with their half-assed shenanigans. So who’s telling the truth here? We’ve got one source saying one thing yesterday, and another saying something else today. I don’t trust any of the “leaders” involved in this, and that includes Ms. Short here. I know many of them personally, and I know how narcissistic and self-serving most of them are. I’d bet my bottom dollar that the press and the community will be barred from this event, must as they were from the planning from the no on 8 campaign and as they’ve already been told they will be from the analysis of what went wrong with the no on 8 campaign. Here’s a telling quote from Ms. Shorter: ” .. what’s funny is that there’s also the argument that reporter’s journalistic integrity and objectiveness mean that they can’t really be considered part of the community.” Ahh, yes. Any press who might give an unbiased look at how fucked up these people are isn’t part of the community or welcome — only kiss-asses who worship at their feet. We’re going to be fucked all over again if we allow these self-serving liars to hide behind a veil of secrecy while they continue with their half-assed shenanigans.

]]> By: timmyweb http://www.queerty.com/will-the-future-of-californias-gay-marriage-be-televised-20090106/#comment-110491 timmyweb Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:56:25 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/?p=36765#comment-110491 Good journalism from the self-professed non-journalist. Oh the irony. Nice work Queerty. Good journalism from the self-professed non-journalist. Oh the irony. Nice work Queerty.

]]> By: MadProfessah http://www.queerty.com/will-the-future-of-californias-gay-marriage-be-televised-20090106/#comment-110486 MadProfessah Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:25:36 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/?p=36765#comment-110486 Bingo. Kudos indeed. Queerty is the only blog that got it right. TowleRoad, Joe.My.God and Pam's House Blend all just ran with Rex's piece developed from Robin Tyler's spurious notes. Congrats. Bingo.

Kudos indeed. Queerty is the only blog that got it right.

TowleRoad, Joe.My.God and Pam’s House Blend all just ran with Rex’s piece developed from Robin Tyler’s spurious notes.

Congrats.

]]> By: Jamie http://www.queerty.com/will-the-future-of-californias-gay-marriage-be-televised-20090106/#comment-110457 Jamie Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:45:16 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/?p=36765#comment-110457 Epic Win! Japhy, kudos on another piece raising the bar for Queerty. I'm really liking your Exclusives lately--especially when you hold the "gay kangaroo court's" feet to the fire like this. One thing: who's in the picture? The mouseover (is that a word?) caption says "sounder." Should that be "Shorter," as in Andrea Shorter? Epic Win! Japhy, kudos on another piece raising the bar for Queerty. I’m really liking your Exclusives lately–especially when you hold the “gay kangaroo court’s” feet to the fire like this.

One thing: who’s in the picture? The mouseover (is that a word?) caption says “sounder.” Should that be “Shorter,” as in Andrea Shorter?

]]>