Another opinion of Tracey Morgan's 'comedy' - from the grave

Tracey Morgan in 2011 about the possibility of his son being gay:

. . .he "better talk to me like a man and not in a gay voice or I'll pull out a knife and stab that little (expletive) to death."

January 28, 2005:

Three year old Ronnie Antonio Paris died of injuries after being beaten by his father, Ronnie Paris, Jr. Ronnie's father, Ronnie Paris, Jr., was convicted of second degree murder. News reports give us the impression Ronnie Antonio Paris' father was trying to make Ronnie Antonio tough and to teach him to fight, because he did not want Ronnie Antonio to grow up to be gay.

The brain trauma Ronnie Antonio received when he was being taught to fight appears to have been too much for his body. News articles indicate he stopped eating, wet himself and went into a coma. He died six days later.

Some shit just ain't funny.

Tracey Morgan, his defenders, and heterosexual privilege

Just when I think I was out - that I said I would no longer talk about the black vs. lgbt divide - they pull me back in.

The controversy in regards to comedian Tracey Morgan's nasty and ill-timed "comedic" routine - in which he used shockingly ugly homophobic terms to talk about lgbts and even talked about murdering his son if the boy turned out to be gay - has caused a lot of suitable controversy.

And now it has gotten worse. CNN journalist Roland Martin and comedian Chris Rock have chosen to defend Martin - both asserting the idea that Morgan is a comedian who thrives on being shocking so maybe there is too much made out of what he said.

Of course both of these individuals did not give Michael Richards the same courtesy for his infamous nasty tirade against African-Americans during his comedy routine. Martin gave a weak defense that Richards was out of line because he attacked members of the audience, whereas Morgan's vile comments came as a part of his comedy routine.

To me, that says Morgan's comments are worse than Richards because it means that they were planned, thus premeditated.

NOM doesn't want to talk about Minnesota money sources

A publication in Minnesota, the Southwest Minneapolis Patch, is investigating the money resources behind the 2012 vote to ban same-sex marriage in Minnesota.

The publication's article produced some very interesting details, particularly about the National Organization for Marriage's past actions to hide its funding sources:

A campaign finance watchdog group warns that the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which is allied to a state anti-gay marriage group, has worked to hide who funded their campaigns in the past.

The Minnesota Family Council (MFC), the state's leading anti-gay marriage group, estimated the cost of their campaign as between $4 and $6 million. If past campaigns in other states are any indicator, a large proportion of that funding will come from out-of-state funders through the National Organization for Marriage. MFC did not return requests for comment.

"NOM looks forward to supporting the campaign and lending our expertise and resources to those of allies in the state," said a press release from the group's president, Brian Brown, issued following last month's vote to put the issue in front of voters in the Minnesota House of Representatives.

NOM did not respond to repeated requests for comment about the organization's plans to raise money. While NOM has litigated in the past to avoid disclosing its donors, evidence occasionally emerges that large portions of its budget seem to come from church-affiliated organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus.

If Minnesota's 2012 campaign will be anything like Maine's 2009 battle over same-sex marriage, much of the money involved could come from out of state, particularly for groups opposing same-sex marriage.

Reports filed with Maine's campaign finance watchdog show that the Maine group leading efforts against same-sex marriage received the lion's share of its donations from large organizations outside of Maine, chiefly from the National Organization for Marriage and the Catholic Archdiocese of Portland.

To quote the words of Mike Dean of Common Cause Minnesota from the article:

"It's going to be a dirty, dirty campaign."

But if so, it will be par for the course for NOM. The organization's pattern is as follows:

• NOM goes to a state to fight against marriage equality.

• Their efforts are successful because of their mysterious finances and the ability to pass along distorted information thanks to their mysterious finances.

• They leave the community in shambles with neighbors angry at neighbors over their positions.

• Lastly, questions are raised regarding NOM's questionable tactics regarding mostly finances.

Let's hope that Minnesota breaks the link in that chain.

Related posts:

National Organization for Marriage's questionable tactics go across six states

Time for NOM to work it's 'gays recruit children' lies in Minnesota

Is the Catholic Church overstepping its bounds in marriage equality fight?

Know Your LGBT History - Charles Pierce

During eras where there were few positive lgbt portrayals on television and the movies, a female impersonator managed to not only stand out with performances that were not disrespectful to the community, but he also kept his integrity.

That man was one of my idols, Charles Pierce.

From Wikipedia:

Born in Watertown, New York, he began his show business career playing the organ and acting in radio dramas at station WWNY. He branched out into a comedy routine, attired in tuxedo, yet managing to evoke eerily convincing imitations of popular movie actresses. Eschewing the term drag queen, which he hated, he billed himself as a male actress.

Initially playing in small gay clubs, his fame spread. He took up residence in San Francisco, California, where his act became well-known to Hollywood stars. As he toured, his costuming became more elaborate, initially adding small props, later full costume and makeup changes. His imitations were imitated by other female impersonators, and his roles included Bette Davis, Mae West, Tallulah Bankhead, Gloria Swanson, Carol Channing, Katharine Hepburn, and Joan Crawford, which became the drag queen canon. His act was centered on wit rather than accurate mimicry, though it was often said that he looked more like Joan Collins than did Joan Collins herself.

He performed at many clubs in New York, including The Village Gate, Ted Hook's OnStage, The Ballroom, and Freddy's Supper Club.

He was a guest actor on an episode of TV's Wonder Woman and played a cross-dressing villain in an episode of Laverne & Shirley ("Murder on the MooseJaw Express"). Pierce also appeared on an early episode of the hit 80's TV sitcom Designing Women as a steward on a cruise ship. During the episode, he imitates Joan Collins (as the ship's waitress) and Bette Davis (as the ship's lounge entertainment). As Davis he quips: "Was that Joan Collins hustling the tables? One bitch on this boat is enough!"

He died in North Hollywood, California, aged 72, and was cremated. At his funeral, Carol Channing spoke and said, "He did Carol Channing better than I did."[1] His ashes were interred in the Columbarium of Providence, Forest Lawn - Hollywood Hills Cemetery in Los Angeles, California.

Here is Pierce during one of his shows:




And here is Pierce on the television show Wonder Woman:



And Laverne & Shirley (beginning at 1:00):




Past Know Your LGBT History Posts:

Are gays too angry? Ask Tracey Morgan, NOM, and the Catholic Church

You will forgive for dispensing with the usual news briefs today, but this has been on my mind:

You probably heard about the Tracey Morgan controversy. If not, let TMZ elucidate you on the situation:

According to reports, Morgan took the stage at the Ryman Auditorium (pictured above) and went off about gays -- saying, "Gays need to quit being p**sies and not be whining about something as insignificant as bullying."

He added, "Gay is something that kids learn from the media and programming."

When talking about the possibility of his son being gay -- Tracy said he "better talk to me like a man and not in a gay voice or I'll pull out a knife and stab that little n**ger to death."

Afterward, Tracy told the crowd, "I don't "f*cking care if I piss off some gays, because if they can take a f*cking d**k up their ass ... they can take a f*cking joke."

After the performance, the Ryman Auditorium issued a statement on the performance saying, "The Ryman Auditorium regrets that people were offended by statements made by Tracy Morgan during his June 3 appearance."

The statement continues, "The Ryman does not control the content presented by people appearing on its stage, nor does it endorse any of the views of, or statements made by, such persons."

It's not the first time Morgan has ignited controversy over homphobic material -- back in 2009, a bunch of people reportedly walked out of his show at Carnegie Hall after he said being gay was a "choice."

So far, no comment from Morgan's camp.

TMZ later added the following:

TMZ spoke with someone in attendance at the Ryman Auditorium ... who tells us Morgan's entire act was filled with offensive gay jokes ... explaining, "It was the worst thing I've ever heard ... so not funny."

As we previously reported, Morgan's June 3rd performance ignited a firestorm of controversy -- after he "joked" that he would "stab" his son for acting gay.

It's ironic that the Morgan controversy comes in the week where we have heard about an upcoming article in which a group of religious right figures are complaining that the lgbt community are somewhat "mean and intolerant."

NOM encouraging supporters to write 'artificial' letters to the editor

If you want a good indication of the artificial and hypocritical tactics of the National Organization for Marriage against marriage equality, check out the following:

The New York Legislature is expected to vote on a same-sex marriage bill in the near future as this year's legislative session comes to a close. Same-sex marriage advocates are pulling out all the stops in an effort to sway the votes needed to pass the bill through the Senate.

Take a public stand for marriage and urge others to join you by submitting a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. Simply use the form below and your letter will be sent to each of the newspapers in your city, as well as the larger, statewide papers.

Some ideas for topics to address in your letter include:

Gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose, but they don't get to redefine marriage for all of us.

The American people have spoken clearly and repeatedly about the definition of marriage -- and 31 times in a row, they have voted against same-sex marriage.

Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society, and we can't possibly anticipate all the unintended consequences that will follow if we change its definition. Therefore, any change should come slowly and with great caution.

Ours is a government of, by and for the people. Any decision on a question as important as the definition of marriage should be left to the people of New York -- not decided by a handful of elites and highly paid lobbyists twisting arms behind the scenes.

Groups like Catholic Charities and other religious organizations have already been denied tax exemptions and forced to give up their adoption services in states where same-sex marriage has been legalized. Such conflicts are only the tip of the iceberg.

Gay marriage advocates have repeatedly rejected any attempts to protect religious entities and employers from being forced to participate in a same-sex marriage regime. Why are they so adamant that religious believers must be forced to give up their religious liberty?

In other words, those opposing marriage equality don't even have to take the time to write personal letters in terms of how such legislation affects them. All they have to do write a letter (with the phony talking points laid out for them), and submit it to NOM who will relay that letter to newspapers.

Ideally, it's not a bad idea. Morally it strikes me as fake. It seems to me that the entire point of submitting a letter to the editor is to give your own personal opinion about a certain issue. Lgbts - particularly those involved in relationships and those couples with children - have given personal story after personal story about what it feels like when their relationships aren't protected or how they feel victimized by these campaigns to make them into second-class citizens.

But NOM encourages the disregarding of these personal stories. And at the same time, the organization is encouraging its supporters to use the editorial pages to make it seem that people are standing up for so-called traditional marriage by not talking about their personal lives, but using talking points (inaccurate talking points at that) dictated to them.

This underscores just how phony NOM's campaign is. It should also send a message to the proponents of marriage equality to keep fighting the good fight no matter how angry or discouraged they get.

Realness always wins out over artificiality.

Related posts:

NOM - anti-gay marriage amendments keep lgbt teens safe

Is the Catholic Church overstepping its bounds in marriage equality fight?

NOM - anti-gay marriage amendments keep lgbt teens safe

Oh Brian Brown, you make it so easy.

Sometimes I enjoy reading the posts from the National Organization for Marriage's president Brian Brown. My fellow lgbts and our allies tend to get angry at his basic lies (i.e portraying the entire lgbt community and those who support marriage equality as bullies while conveniently ignoring the how his group stoops to demonizing lgbts) and the "ha, ha, ha, we are protecting marriage and the gays are losing" tone his posts tend to take.

I choose not to fall for the subterfuge and mind games because that's all it is. Brown says what he says because he needs an excuse to raise funds (or rather pretend to raise funds. We all have an idea where NOM's money really comes from).

I would rather focus on the cluelessness of his words. They do more than enough to betray the absolute emptiness of Brown's position and those who believe as he does.

Last week he made a complete ass of himself and NOM by pushing a lie that students in schools were forced to learn about gender identity in schools without their parents' permission even though a video NOM put on its blog and a news story the organization linked to showed otherwise.

The question this week is can Brown top his nonsense from last week? Why of course he can:

The CDC released a report showing that teenagers who self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender engage in much, much higher rates of behavior suggesting social, emotional, or psychological distress, including smoking cigarettes, binge drinking, and attempting suicide.

The media and many experts were quick to say social stigma is the main culprit. Surely it plays a role.

But buried in the same report are data from two different states, Wisconsin and Massachusetts. One has had gay marriage since 2003, and the other has had a marriage amendment since 2006.

Which do you suppose is a safer place for LGBT teens?

The answer: Wisconsin by a mile. For example, about 25 percent of Massachusetts teens who self-identify as "gay" said they had missed schools because they felt unsafe, compared to 14 percent of Wisconsin teens. More than half (50.5 percent) of Massachusetts gay teens said they felt "sad or hopeless" compared to 29 percent of Wisconsin teens. Thirty-three percent of Massachusetts gay teens attempted suicide, compared to less than 20 percent of Wisconsin teens. Massachusetts gay teens were about twice as likely as Wisconsin gay teens to commit a suicide attempt serious enough to require medical care (15 percent to 8 percent). (By contrast, heterosexual teens in both states were about equally likely to have committed a suicide attempt that required medical care: around 2 percent.)

It's hard to be a gay teen, but if you are going to be one, it's much better to live in Wisconsin, a state which passed a marriage amendment by 60 percent, than Massachusetts, a state which has gay marriage.

First of all, I want to give Brown a little credit. Usually when religious right figures cite studies regarding homophobia and how it contributes to negative behavior amongst lgbts - particularly lgbt teens - they blame the negative behavior on the lgbt orientation, making sure to omit the part about how the homophobia plays a significant role (I'm talking to you, Family Research Council.)