According to a Virginia radical right organization, the anti-gay bigots who ran the ad insert in the Washington Post a few weeks ago are planning on running more installments of the "magazine."
As you'll recall, the Washington Post REFUSED to respond AT ALL to the thousands of complaints they received from people around the country who were none too happy that they published an "ad" that espoused junk science theories about gays dying in the 40s while straights like to their 70s, and using that junk science to argue that we don't deserve civil rights. Did the Post Ombudsman write about this? No. Did the paper respond at all to those who wrote in? No.
Well, now they're going to get their chance when these jerks run another ad.
So help me God, if the Post runs this next ad I WILL raise money for the same ad and it will talk about how blacks and Jews don't deserve civil rights because of junk science (I'm sure we can find some about those groups), and the fact that they can "change" who they are (blacks can use whitening cream and Jews can simply convert). Then if the Post doesn't run the ad, we slap them with a civil rights lawsuit based on public accomodations (basing their controversial advertising on which minority is the target).
And if those mo-fos at the Post don't believe me, try me. I have had it with big media being front organizations for red-state ideology. Enough already. This is 2004, not 1964. You don't publish Nazi science about a minority group and simply claim "it's an advertisement."
From the Virginia Family Policy Network:
Grier says homosexuality is not a civil right issue, and reports that his church felt it was so important to communicate that message the church took out a loan to found and publish the magazine.You can see the ad in the link I provided above, and feel free to contact the Post ombudsman again and ask why they're refusing to comment on this issue.
As to the controversy surrounding the content of BothSides, Grier says many of those who protested do not understand the difference between race and sexuality. "As an African-American, my color -- or the melanin in my DNA that causes me to be brown -- is a result of simple chemistry," he says. "However, sexuality is not a physical trait; it's a behavior.
"To interchange the color of my skin, which is not considered immoral in the Bible or anywhere else for that matter, [and] to equate sexual behavior with the color of my children's skin, is quite offensive," Grier adds.
The pastor says the controversy has brought the church a good bit of publicity, but he urges readers to pay attention to the message of the magazine. There will be additional opportunities to do that, he says, as the church plans to publish more editions of BothSides.
ACTION:
Contact the Post's ombudsman, Mike Getler. Try to explain to him why you consider this flyer (below) hateful, and be sure to ask him how the Post would feel about a similar ad about Jews or blacks and their physical inferiority to other races and peoples, and how that relates to those minorities not deserving civil rights:
- ombudsman@washpost.com
- (202) 334-7582
