GoogLEFTISTS?

Hot on the heels of Google's rendition of the Obama bow comes this latest twisted tale:

Google Raises Eyebrows With New Gay-Only Employee Benefit
By Diane Macedo

Published July 01, 2010
FoxNews.com

A new Google policy is raising some eyebrows after the company revealed it will be compensating employees for taxes paid on domestic partners' health benefits – but only if they’re gay.

The company said in its blog Thursday, that it will be “grossing-up imputed taxes on health insurance benefits for all same-sex domestic partners in the United States.”

In other words, the company will be paying homosexual employees who include domestic partners on their health insurance plans more money to make up for the federal taxes they pay on that benefit. (Married couples don't have to pay taxes on spousal health benefits.)

But under Google's new policy, the company isn't offering any extra pay to heterosexual domestic partners, because it says heterosexual employees have the option of avoiding the tax by getting married.

Daryl Herrschaft, director of the Workplace Project at Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group, says Google's policy is a step in the right direction.

Now You've Done It!

Advertiser Ditches Perez Hilton After Blogger Posts Up-the-Skirt Photograph of Miley Cyrus

Gossip blogger Perez Hilton issued a warning to readers not to click for a photo of 17-year-old singer Miley Cyrus if they were “easily offended.”

The link was to an uncensored, up-the-skirt photograph of Cyrus stepping out of a car, seemingly without underwear.

While it was one thing for media outlets to publish pics of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears partying without panties a few years ago, the situation involving Cyrus is quite different, given that she is still a minor.
An unapologetic Hilton responded to the controversy with a tongue-in-cheek video post on Tuesday, claiming that while he likes to be “controversial,” he “doesn’t want to go to jail.” He said Miley was “clearly wearing underwear” and the reason he linked to the photo was not because she was without panties, but because he thought she was exiting the car in a very “un-ladylike manner.” Hilton then posted another picture of Cyrus from the same paparazzi set, saying it was proof that she was, in fact, donning appropriate covering.

But if Hilton did nothing wrong, why did he promptly remove the post and delete it from the server?

This is certainly not the first time Hilton has attacked the “Hannah Montana” star. In 2008 he labeled the then 15-year-old a “Disney Whore" and “Disney Slut.”

And although chances are that all the extra attention surrounding the scandal would have given Hilton a temporary boost in traffic, in the long run, such controversy may have serious professional repercussions for the blogger.

Pop Tarts has learned that ABC, which is owned by Cyrus’s former stomping grounds, Disney, was quick to pull ads for “The View” from PerezHilton.com in the wake of the controversy.

However, on Tuesday evening, the TVLand ad was no longer on Hilton's site.

The Bitter American also remembers:

Isn't this the same raging queen who's obesession with gay marriage brought down the righful Miss USA last year??

Ain't karma a bitch?

Did That Ump Just Yell "Gay Ball??"

In the world of the politically correct, just how correct do you have to be to stay in bed with the politicians who enumerate the rules of political correctness?

Why Some People Think They Should Burn in Hell,...

Ian McKellen 'Proudly' Rips Leviticus 18:22 Out of All Bibles

Note to hotel managers: unless you want it to be altered forever, remove that Bible from Sir Ian McKellen's bedside drawer before he shows up.

In a Q&A with Details magazine, the openly gay 'Lord of the Rings' star admits to a habit of tearing out the Bible passage that condemns homosexuality -- Leviticus 18:22 -- every time he finds one in his hotel room. The passage: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

"I'm not proudly defacing the book," he asserts, "but it's a choice between removing that page and throwing away the whole Bible."

McKellen says his actions have inspired others to do the same. "I got delivered a package of 40 of those pages that had been torn out by a married couple I know. They put them on a bit of string so that I could hang it up in the bathroom."

CBS Outed?

Gay TV characters at record high
ABC leads broadcast nets with eight, while CBS has zero

By James Hibberd
Sept 30, 2009, 09:05 PM ET
Updated: Sept 30, 2009, 09:54 PM ET

Gay characters are more common than ever on broadcast TV this season, with representation making gains over last year's all-time high.

According to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation's 14th annual survey, 18 LGBT regular characters will appear on broadcast series this season, representing 3% of the characters on TV.

GLAAD president Jarrett Barrios said the increase is particularly meaningful coming after last year, when representation doubled from 2007.

"Last year's (survey) looked like it might be a blip, but the spike seems to be a sustained trend in increased number of gay characters," Barrios said. "It's a critical way toward changing the hearts and minds of America."

ABC continues to lead in scripting gay characters, with eight. Barrios said NBC (three) and Fox (four) have made significant strides; only two years ago, Fox had no regular gay characters. The CW has two this year.

CBS, however, has no gay characters out of 132 series regulars.

"CBS alone is a network that continues to weed out gay and lesbian programming," Barrios said. "They're really out of step with network television."

While broadcast continues to increase its LGBT representation, the number of gay characters on mainstream cable networks is down to 25 from last year's 32.

The vast majority of this season's gay characters are men. Only one -- Dr. Arizona Robbins on ABC's "Grey's Anatomy" -- is a lesbian, and three other female characters are bisexual. There are no transgender characters.

Barrios singled out Fox's "Glee" for particular praise, citing last week's episode that showed a teenage boy struggling with his sexual orientation and discussing the matter with his father.

"It is a much deeper and fuller portrayal of this issue than what we've seen before," he said.


OK,..is it just me? Who cares how many gay characters are on TV? Haven't we stopped counting the number of black, Latino and Asian characters? Why gays? Just more pushing a socialist agenda in Hollyweird!

DoubleStandarddradnatSelbuoD in Gay Old Hollywood?

Miss California vs. pageant officials: It’s war
Group blasts Miss USA runner-up as she campaigns against same-sex unions

As beauty pageant officials and gay-rights advocates increase the pressure on Miss California USA to back off her controversial comments opposing same-sex marriage, Carrie Prejean is not retracting them. Instead, she’s digging in her spike heels and fighting back.

“I was attacked for giving my own opinion on the stage of the Miss USA contest. And I’m going to do whatever it takes to protect marriage. It’s something that is very dear to my heart,” Prejean told TODAY’s Matt Lauer Thursday in an exclusive interview from Washington, D.C.

(snip)

“In the entire history of Miss USA, no reigning title holder has so readily committed her face and voice to a more divisive or polarizing issue,” the organizers said in a statement issued to the media. “We are deeply saddened Carrie Prejean has forgotten her platform of the Special Olympics, her commitment to all Californians, and solidified her legacy as one that goes beyond the right to voice her beliefs and instead reveals her opportunistic agenda.”

Opportunistic agenda?? Hmmm,..then what do you call Perez Hilton's pr-gay marriage stance that denied Prejean her crown??

Wrong,....HOT, but Wrong.

Face it, Cat Cora is the only reason to watch Iron Chef America,....

OK! Exclusive: Cat & Jennifer Cora Proud New Moms!

Bust out the baby rattles and bassinets! Celebrity chef Cat Cora and wife Jennifer Cora tell OK! exclusively that they're the proud new mommies to son Thatcher Julius Cora.

The couples' rep tells OK! that Jennifer gave birth to the bouncing baby boy on April 4.

"Cat and Jennifer loved the old English name Thatcher, and Julius was Jennifer's grandfather's name," their rep reveals to OK!. "Both mom and baby are doing great!"

The couple have two children already, Caje and Zoran, and Cat is also currently pregnant (she is due in a few months).

"We decided that having them a year apart is harder than having kids as infants together," Cat told OK! previously. "[Jennifer] carried my embryo and I carried hers. It's like surrogating, but obviously all of our kids are equal."

Speaking Truth to (Gay) Power

Ah,...burqa-burqa-burqa!

The Gathering Hypocrisy

Typical Leftywood response to a real issue: mock it!


The REAL video:



And the Leftywood mock-up:

A Gaythering Storm from Jane Lynch

But If Normal People Did It,....

From The Mind of Abouna,...

San Francisco fest features public sex with no arrests
'This is what the gay agenda is all about'
Posted: August 07, 2008
12:35 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Police officer on the streets, but apparently told not to enforce publicly nudity or indecency rules, during the recent "Up Your Alley" homosexual festival

Nude men engaged in multiple instances of public sex on a municipal street while police officers, on foot and bicycle, congregated nearby making no attempt to enforce public indecency regulations, according to a report on the latest homosexual-fest in San Francisco.

The behavior was documented in photographs of an event called "Up Your Alley," which is sponsored by the same group that organizes the city's fall "gay"-fest, the Folsom Street Fair, on which WND has reported.

"Consider how liberal government authorities like Mayor [Gavin] Newsom have corrupted the men in blue by stipulating that police not prosecute public nudity and indecency at homosexual festivals," said a report from Americans for Truth on the graphic activities documented at the event.

"What honor can there be in protecting the public practice of heinous perversions and nudity in the city's streets? The shame of pandering politicians is transferred to the cops who were intended to be guardians of the law and public order," said the organizer's chief, Peter LaBarbera.

At the COPA,..COPAcabana,....

Oh, God,..I just referenced Barry Manilow, didn't I? Read on further and the reasons will be come perfectly queer,..I mean, clear:

From the Philadelphia, Weakly:


Segal’s Flight

The publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News joins a flock of prominent online voices in a fight against censorship.

by John Steele


When Philadelphia Gay News publisher Mark Segal first heard about the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), an Internet censorship law that many believe would run roughshod over the First Amendment, he couldn’t help but remember the 1980s.

(TM-Pro-gay internet content is OK,...anti-gay content destroys the First Amendment? WTF?)

“Back then our community had no other place to look for HIV/AIDS information on a regular basis,” Segal says. “The nongay press didn’t fully understand the research.” Segal founded the PGN specifically because he felt a responsibility to inform the LGBT community of issues often overlooked by mainstream media. Now Segal believes COPA would put his mission in serious jeopardy.

For that reason the Philadelphia Gay News recently joined an ACLU lawsuit against COPA along with a veritable who’s-who of online writers, publishers and activists—from websites like Salon.com and UrbanDictionary to individual writers like beat poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti.

(TM - The ACLU is involved in further diluting the power of the First Amendment? Go figure!)

“Because the name of the bill contains the word ‘child’ and the word ‘online,’ many mistakenly think this is about child pornography,” says Catherine Crump, staff attorney with the ACLU. “The material COPA prohibits is any material that anyone in the most conservative community may think is harmful to minors.”

A large section of the COPA law deals with definitions. Certain relative terms like “commercial purposes” (money is being earned) and “minor” (a person 17 or younger) must be specifically defined. But it’s the section on the vague term “harmful to minors” that has upset some of America’s most respected online voices.

The statute defines material harmful to minors as “any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing or other matter of any kind that is obscene,” but goes on to qualify the statement, referring to material that “the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest.”

The law would also prohibit any material that “lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.”

“‘Harmful to minors,’ ‘of the prurient interest’ —no one knows what any of those terms mean,” says ACLU staff attorney Chris Hansen. “What we do know is that there are large segments of the population who believe that any speech about homosex-uality or even sexual activity, except for abstinence, is inappropriate for minors.”

(TM - Umm,..if you don't understand those terms, ask your university to give you back your tuition, Chris!)

Because the case is still under litigation, the Justice Department declined to comment for this story. But according to its brief, the term “harmful to minors” is well-defined by past Supreme Court rulings.

“Plaintiffs contend that this definition is ‘hopelessly uncertain,’” the brief states. “Although some uncertainty may nevertheless exist regarding the precise application of this definition to specific material, the Supreme Court has never held that the First Amendment requires absolute certainty regarding what a jury may find obscene or harmful to minors.”

Instead the Justice Department says the practical application and the “legislative history” of COPA limits its scope.

Salon.com doesn’t agree. The website joined the lawsuit because of items collected in a congressional study of sexually related material pertaining to COPA. The brief speaks to its claims, saying, “plaintiffs cite excerpts from the website of plaintiff Salon, but the majority of the material collected there—ranging from articles about sexual experiences, to sexual cartoons, to images of nude or partially nude prisoners at Abu Ghraib—is plainly not ‘harmful to minors,’ either because it does not appeal to the prurient interest of minors or it has serious value for older minors.”

The Justice Department defines older minors as over the age of 15. But this distinction appears nowhere in the original COPA statute. These definitions are again explained away through “practical application” and “legislative history”—ideas the ACLU and its plaintiffs don’t place much stock in.

“Our clients do not find it comforting that the government says, ‘We could prosecute you under the law but we won’t; don’t worry about it,’” Hansen says. “This is a criminal statute with criminal penalties, so if you’re the Philadelphia Gay News and you don’t know what’s inappropriate under the law and you don’t want to go to jail, what do you do? You start self-censoring.”

For PGN, it might mean it wouldn’t be able to report on safe sex, the problems of LGBT youth, drug problems in the LGBT community, hate crimes or even the activities of the religious right because someone may take offense. Because of civil penalties and provisions, the PGN could be open to countless frivolous lawsuits simply for producing a newspaper and publishing it on the Internet.

But for Mark Segal, the issue is bigger than potential obstacles in publishing. “We are by our very name an advocacy newspaper fighting for LGBT equality and a community platform,” Segal says. He objects to any roadblocks LGBT teens and young adults face when seeking sexual health information.

“Any individual who is sexually active and has the knowledge to understand where to find information that will keep him or her healthy should not be denied that information,” he says. “The opposite is a health catastrophe.”

The TrekMedic sashays in with:

Once again, more liberal double standards: Gays in Philadelphia got their own "Gayborhood," but if the city passed a law mandating them into a "gay ghetto," the ACLU would've sued the city into bankruptcy. They want to publish pro-gay literature and "educational" material to impressionable, hormone-insane teens, but won't allow the same for pro-heterosexual groups. And to regulate either side is an infringement on the First Amendment? Give me a f***king break! Chuck Norris was right!

Tangentially, read News-weak's cover story: "Young, Gay and Murdered in Junior High"

You Can Get "Married" but You Still Won't Count,....

Census Bureau: Gay Marriages Won't Count in 2010
Thursday, July 17, 2008

WASHINGTON — Same-sex marriage is legal in two states, but not a single one will show up in the 2010 census.

The Census Bureau says the federal Defense of Marriage Act bars the agency from recognizing gay marriages in the nation's 10-year count, even though the marriages are legal in Massachusetts and California.

The agency's director, Steven Murdock, said in an interview Thursday that the 1996 federal law "has that effect, in terms of being a federal agency. We are restricted by it."

The Census Bureau does not ask people about their sexual orientation, but it does ask about their relationships to the head of the household. Many gay couples are listed in census figures as unmarried, same-sex partners, though it is an imperfect tally of all gay couples.

Murdock said the bureau will strive to count same-sex couples in the 2010 census, just as it has in the past. But those people who say they are married will be reclassified as unmarried, same-sex partners.

Same-sex couples with no children will not be classified as families, according the bureau's policy. Those with children who are related to the head of the household will be classified as families.

Gay rights advocates complained that the Census Bureau is depriving them of a hard-fought legal recognition.

"To completely whitewash us out of existence is hurtful, discriminatory and shameful," said Molly McKay of Marriage Equality USA, a California-based group that advocates for same-sex marriage. "It's like the federal government is trying to say that we don't exist." (And your point is,...? - TM)

McKay said an accurate count of same-sex married couples would help policymakers determine the costs of providing benefits.

McKay, 38, said she plans to marry her partner of 12 years on Sept. 1, now that they are legally able to marry in California. She said they consider themselves "an old married couple," even if the government doesn't.

"This is a very sweet moment in our life. It really is an absolutely joyous time," McKay said. "The notion that the federal government is going to come in and erase our existence is un-American." (The notion that you should be married is un-American! - TM)

The Census Bureau is required by the Constitution to conduct a comprehensive count of the nation's residents every 10 years. Every question is either mandated by federal law or used to administer a federal program, Murdock said.

Same-sex marriage was not an issue in the 2000 census because it wasn't legal in any state. The Census Bureau's policy on same-sex marriages was first reported in the San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News.

The bureau relies almost entirely on people's responses to classify them by race, ethnicity, age and income. But not marital status — at least not in 2010.

"It really should be what you say you are, not what I perceive you to be," Murdock said. But, the agency director added, "We have some limitations. This particular act limits us in regards to this issue."

The TrekMedic pundits:

OK, gentle readers, show of hands: how many think the ACLU and/or the Ninth Circus,...er,...I mean, Circuit Appellate Court will stick their two cents into this affair before 2010??

And People Have Issues With the Catholic Church?

Rather amazing that this isn't getting more traction here. More anti-Catholic bias, one assumes:

Protest disrupts bishop's sermon

Openly gay US bishop Gene Robinson was forced to halt a sermon at a west London church after being heckled.

As Bishop Robinson began his sermon a member of the congregation repeatedly called him a "heretic" and said "repent, repent, repent".

He began his sermon by saying how sad it was that the Anglican Communion was tearing itself apart.

But he was stopped when the man in the congregation shouted that the schism was the bishop's fault.

The man's protest was followed by slow hand-clapping by members of the congregation, and Bishop Robinson halted his sermon while a hymn was sung and the protester was escorted from the church in Putney, south west London.

Watch the video here.

The Fags Are Coming! The Fags Are Coming!

Note: if the title offends you,....tough s**t! Read on!

More than a gay old time, Equality Forum begins
By Joseph A. Slobodzian
Inquirer Staff Writer

It began as a block party writ large: a chance for those whom most people called homosexuals to party publicly in a Center City neighborhood they considered theirs and celebrate the beginnings of that openness.

Now, a decade and a half later, the straight world has learned "homosexuals" are too diverse to label with one word. They call themselves gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and, often, just people.

And the weekend event once known as PrideFest has been formalized into Equality Forum, an international weeklong convention focusing on sexual minorities in society, government and business.

It begins today, this year honoring such diverse people as tennis great Martina Navratilova and Mayor Street and featuring panels on topics including black urban gay youths, the legal status of same-sex marriage, and the emerging gay-rights movements in such long-closeted countries as China.

(snip)

"When we started this in 1992, we were breaking totally new ground," Lazin said. "But we had a different vision and wanted to be part of what was a nascent civil-rights movement."

For an example of how far the movement has come, one need only look at this year's Distinguished Service award winner: John Street.

As City Council president a decade ago, Street had an icy relationship with the gay community because he opposed extending benefits to unmarried domestic partners of city workers.

The issue was hot enough that the gay community backed Republican Sam Katz against Street in his first run for mayor. Since then, Street has reached out to gay leaders and named several gay citizens to public office, including City Solicitor Romulo L. Diaz Jr.

(snip)

Though the forum draws tens of thousands to Center City, Sunday's block-party aspect - known as SundayOUT - is arguably among the lesser parts of its agenda.


The TrekMedic ponders:

"...in a Center City neighborhood they consider theirs..."

That would be the recently-declared "Gayborhood." (Video here - provide your own barf bags).

Now, gentle readers, image for a moment a parallel world. One where our government had the Constitutional, legislative and judicial authority to mandate the creation of "gay ghettos" in all American urban centers. Now, imagine as well, that gays would further be mandated to wear pink triangles or rainbows on their clothing and the back bumpers of their cars (all the more easy for the police to pull over gays doing 36 in a 35 mph zone).

Now, imagine on that same said parallel world, they had the same liberal media with its leftist agenda. Can you imagine the hue and cry if a "gayborhood" were forced on homosexuals???

So what, gentle readers, do we take from this lesson? When liberals create minority ghettos, they describe them by couching ghettos in such liberal-speak as "empowerment" and "diversity." When right-minded people attempt it (because we aren't that stupid to try), the MSM will always scream "right-wing fascists!!!"

**That's my Opinion and You're Entitled to It!"**

The First Amendment,...Only if its Our Opinion,...?

Judge Upholds Illinois School's Ban on 'Be Happy, Not Gay' Shirt
Wednesday, April 18, 2007

CHICAGO — Two Neuqua Valley High School students won't be able to wear T-shirts saying "Be Happy, Not Gay," to school on Thursday following a judge's ruling.

U.S. District Judge William T. Hart ruled in favor of the high school Tuesday in a preliminary injunction that would have allowed the students to wear the shirts the day after Wednesday's National Day of Silence.

On the Day of Silence, students can refrain from speaking as an effort to protest discrimination against homosexuals.

The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund is representing Heidi Zamecnik of Naperville and Alexander Nuxoll of Bolingbrook in a lawsuit that claims Zamecnik's rights were violated last year when she wasn't allowed to wear the shirt in school.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian litigation group, will appeal the judge's decision on the preliminary injunction to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, attorney Jonathan Scruggs said. The lawsuit is still pending.

Scruggs said the school is violating the students' rights to free speech by banning the shirt.

"The school cannot silence speech merely because some people find it offensive," Scruggs said. "We believe that's the core of what the First Amendment protects."

Jack Canna, an attorney for Indian Prairie Unit School District 204, said banning the shirt is part of a policy "to preserve the notion that kids shouldn't make negative or derogatory comments about other students."

Messages left by The Associated Press with the Indian Prairie Unit School District 204 and Neuqua Valley High School were not immediately returned Wednesday morning.


The TrekMedic notes:

Many will remember that a similar story in New England was posted here.

And this is what our children are learning in public schools these days??