Calvin Rees of the Democrats of Oklahoma Forum has obtained and posted the contents of the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee (OCPAC) newsletter written and distributed by one Charlie Meadows.

A section deals with the recent flap at the Oklahoma state capitol over a prayer said by an openly gay pastor, which was preceded by an introduction of his family and partner/fiance. 20 legislators voted not to allow the prayer entered into the record.

Meadows does the Democratic Party of Oklahoma the big favor of dividing the GOP members into two distinct groups, one of which it condemns not “true” conservatives, and thus not worthy of OCPAC member’s votes.

I say, Yay! splinter away!

Members and friends of the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee (OCPAC)

[...]

– HOMOSEXUAL PREACHER BRINGS ABOMINATION TO STATE CAPITOL

This past Tuesday State Representative Al McAffrey (D-inner city OKC) had the opportunity to invite a pastor to be the Chaplin for the day and open the session with prayer. McAffrey is the only openly homosexual member of the legislature. The “pastor” he asked to give the prayer was the “Reverend” Scott Jones, also an openly homosexual who introduced his “fiancee” Michael, who was sitting in the gallery.
McAffrey asked that Jones’ prayer be recorded in the official minutes of the day, (this is normally only done on Thursdays) Representative John Wright (R-Broken Arrow) objected and called for a vote on the issue.

In my opinion, this was just another cleverly planned skirmish by the homosexuals in the culture war. Radical homosexuals are trying to force society to accept their perverted lifestyle as normal, equal or perhaps superior. Then of course, when normal folks disagree with them, or express that their perversion is “sin” in the eye’s of God as well as all Bible believing Christians (the only real Christians), then the homosexuals play the victim role and accuse those in opposition to their agenda as being haters, bigots, intolerant, narrow minded, red necks and on and on and on. Actually, you don’t have to read many of their notes to people who disagree with them to see that they are the ones that have their hearts full of hate for people who refuse to accept their behavior.

I believe that unless the content of Jones’ prayer was that of confession for his sinful behavior regarding homosexuality and an expression of repentance toward God for his rebellion and perversion, then his being there to give the prayer for the day was an abomination. Based on my reading of God’s Word (The Bible) Jones’
belief that he is a man of God and anyone else who try to justify homosexuality as acceptable, they serve a “god of their own making or their imagination.” They are not serving the God of the Bible and they do not have a relationship with the one and only true God.

Some of the Republican House members walked out, perhaps that was their way to protest the charade, 20 of them voted against allowing the prayer to be recorded and 24 Republicans voted to allow the exception to the norm and have the prayer recorded. May I suggest several possible reasons for the 24 who decided to go along with the desires of McAffrey and the homosexual community.

While most, if not all, Republican House members claim a Christian church affiliation, certainly with some it is more of a social relationship rather than Biblical Christianity. Some may think this is not an important issue and wish it would go away so they could deal with “important” business like determining how they will re-distribute other people’s money. Others may have family members or friends who are homosexuals and have decided to compromise God’s Word and the truth on the subject for their emotional attachments. Perhaps they aren’t mature enough in their Christianity to be able to take a stand against sin, yet at the same time be able to express Christian love toward homosexuals, hoping to see them set free from the bondage of homosexuality. Others might not want to be on the receiving end of the intimidation, hatred, and perhaps death threats from the homosexual community by standing up against their agenda. Just 24 hours in the shoes of State Representative Sally Kern would make the cowardly never want to be in that position. I have already seen some of the e-mails sent to the lawmakers who voted no, and believe me the hateful responses are typical.

Following are the names of those who voted to go along with the homosexual agenda. I will break them into two groups, Those I am not surprised about and those that I am. I am not surprised about Don Armes-Lawton, Eddie Fields-Pawhuska, Steve Martin-Bartlesville, Colby Schwartz-Yukon, Earl Sears-Tulsa, Lee Denney-Cushing, Fred Jordan- Tulsa, Charlie Joyner-Midwest City, Ron Peters-Tulsa, Doug Cox-Grove, David Derby-Owasso, Dale DeWitt-Braman, or Phil Richardson-Minco. With the exception of Eddie Fields, a freshman, every one of these lawmakers have been on the RINO nominee list at one time or another, or in the case of Lee Denney and Doug Cox, they have been the winners of the RINO award.

Following are the names of the lawmakers who did surprise me, Gary Banz-Midwest City, Lisa Billy-Purcell, Cory Holland-Marlow, T.W.
Shannon-Lawton, Ken Miller-Edmond (this guy is a professor at Oklahoma Christian. This is certainly not the perspective of the members of the Churches of Christ that I know), Marian Cooksey-Edmond, Pam Peterson- Tulsa (the biggest surprise of all to me), Chris Steele-Shawnee, David Derby-Owasso, Mike Thompson-OKC, Scott Martin-Norman and Speaker Chris Benge-Tulsa, a person who is supposed to be a social conservative. Of these 24, OCPAC has supported only 4 of them in the past.

Following are the names of the 20 brave lawmakers who voted against the homosexual agenda: Gus Blackwell-Goodwell, George Faught-Muskogee, Lewis Moore-Arcadia, Mike Ritze-Broken Arrow, Mike Christian-OKC, Dennis Johnson-Duncan, Jason Murphey-Guthrie, Mike Sanders-Kinfisher, Ann Coody-Lawton, Sally Kern-OKC, Leslie Osborne-Blanchard, Randy Terrill-Moore, Rex Duncan-Sand Springs, Charles Key-OKC, Pat Ownbey- Ardmore, Todd Thomsen-Ada, John Enns-Enid, Guy Liebmann-OKC, Mike Reynolds-OKC and John Wright-Broken Arrow. Of these 20, OCPAC has supported 13 of them in the past. Only 1 of the 7 who voted the right way on this issue, but did not receive our support, appeared before OCPAC. Had the other 6 appeared for their interview process, I believe we would have supported 5 of them. I believe there is 1 of the 6 who would not have received our support.

Following are the names of the ones who walked out or were absent.
Paul Wesselhoft-Moore, David Dank-OKC, Mark McCullough-Sapulpa, Dan Sullivan-Tulsa, Harold Wright-Weatherford, Jeff Hickman-Woodward, Randy McDaniel-OKC, Sue Tibbs-Tulsa, Mike Jackson-Enid, John Trebilcock-Tulsa, Shane Jett-Tecumseh, and Charles Ortega-Altus. Of those in this list, OCPAC has only supported one.

If one of these lawmakers happens to be your state representative and voted the right way, contact them and thank them for opposing the homosexual agenda. If they took a hike or voted the wrong way, remember that on the next election day, along with their scores on the conservative index..

One final thought. It is very easy to see that the OCPAC interview process, while not perfect, has done a very good job of determining candidates who are CONSISTENTLY conservative vs. those who claim to be conservative when they want our votes and our money, then turn out to govern more like a liberal Democrat, rather than a conservative Republican. Therefore, I invite folks to become a dues paying member of OCPAC so we can continue to elect true conservatives to the legislature. To join, please follow the instructions following my sine off.

Charlie Meadows

[In other news, Meadows announced he has stopped using PeoplePC as his email provider. 1996 is heartbroken at the loss of its last resident.]

My friend (and long-time Okie blogger) James of JMBzine shot this with his new mini video camera. Don’t know the woman’s name who is speaking.

Darla managed to catch James Nimmo’s great speech. (She was going to post here about it on Saturday, but things got too crazy.)

At the Peace Fest, James, Darla and John Walters all had these little cameras and I was so envious, I came home and ordered one for myself, getting a great deal on a Flip Ultra at Amazon, which included a free tripod. With free shipping, it won’t arrive until the 24th. I can’t wait!

He’s not called “The Most Feared Man on the Hill” for nothing.

So here’s how, by aggressively pushing back over a $2,500 donation from one franchisee of an international fast food chain, one pissed off gay man got sexual orientation and gender identity added to the entire company’s employment policy. Said company sent a letter to over 30,000 owners in 85 countries explaining the new policy. What’s more, the offending franchisee was chastised for violating policy regarding use of the brand name, and subsequently has requested that the donation be refunded by the Yes on 8 campaign.

Tell us how it’s done, Mike. (So easy you won’t believe it — although it helps to have scary WaPo-generated nickname to throw around.)

I was reading through the Human Rights Campaign’s list of companies that gave to Yes on 8, the California referendum that removed marriage equality from the state’s constitution. When I saw a franchisee of an international company gave $2,500 to opponents of equality, I immediately knew I would require someone at the company’s world HQ to address this. Or, I would.

So, after a few discussions, I informed the company’s spokesperson that they had until today to take the following three actions:

1) Repudiate the franchisee’s gift
2) Make a gift in the same amount to an organization fighting for true equality
3) Immediately add sexual orientation and gender identity to the corporation’s non-discrimination policy.

Some thought this was a misplaced target in the overall campaign. I was one of them. It was one stupid franchisee among 30,000. But Mike is smarter than me, and more motivated to take no prisoners:

Some have asked if I have been too harsh. It’s an easy one to answer. “Harsh?” Are you kidding me? Let me tell you about harsh. This is a civil war waged upon free and just people by those who seek to control them. In 1776 the punishment for such treatment was not a boycott. Those objections came at the end of a bayonet. Thank goodness times have changed.

[...] Luckily, we have a weapon far more powerful than the end of a gun. We have a handle, a handle on a spigot of money. Mess with the gays and watch the “pink wrath” slowly twist the spigot until they’re at the table begging for forgiveness. (see: Coors, Ford, Microsoft, et al.)

(emphasis added)

Read the story at Page Q — and patronize your local Subway!

Update on the Cinemark theater situation. A representative of the company has responded — inadequately. And a website has been created to organize and track the boycott.

Remember: No Milk for Cinemark!

Boycott Cinemark Facebook group

Look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I never wanted to be married — okay, maybe when I was five I played house or something, but once I was out of early childhood, I always knew I would never get married.

No, my parents weren’t divorced, married for over 60 years.

In a way, I was a feminist before I even knew there was such a thing. I rejected marriage before I knew I was gay, before I got overtly political, before I finally called myself an atheist. As a feminist, I think marriage is an archaic institution, and contemporary divorce statistics prove my point while those entering both conditions, serially, nonetheless disagree with my analysis.

I look at marriage as a social contract that was designed to control women and insure paternity of children. It’s the 21st Century, let’s just throw the whole thing out. However, mine is clearly a minority view. Despite the cognitive dissonance, marriage doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. Folks just seem to like it (again and again!). I’ve come to tolerate this strange need to get state sanction of relationships. )And unlike some, I don’t feel the need to force my opinion and practice on everyone else.)

In the gay community, the marriage equality movement has been around for quite a while. Lots of gay people would like to get officially married to their beloved, and not just for those rather important legal perks like hospital visitation. It means something to them, just as it does to the serially married heterosexuals. Most gay and lesbian citizens are really more like the Nelsons, the Cleavers or the Huxtables than they are like me. That is the great irony of this whole brouhaha.

So what to do? I think some language adjustments would be helpful. Gays (the lucky ones in progressive states) have been thrown the “civil union” bone as a separate but unequal alternative. In most cases, as I understand it, this takes care of most of the legal ramifications of partnerships in our society. But, in order that some paranoid so-called religious nutcases don’t get their panties in a twist, there have to be two forms available from the state, one for straight couples, one for gays and lesbians. One labeled “marriage certificate” and one labeled “civil union.”

Of course the distinction is ridiculous. Where are those fiscally responsible, small-government conservatives when you need them?

Just have the state — and here I mean government, in every fucking state of the U.S. — provide civil unions for consenting adults, which are easy to get and easy to abolish. It’s a legal and social contract and has nothing to do with anyone’s god or any church dogma.

Frankly, I think it should be available to partnerships of two or more. What’s it to ya? Throughout human history, societies have formed different kinds of affinity groups, and yes, the sacred task of raising children might have been performed by entities other than just the biological mother and father. In fact, I got news for Focus on the Family: the latter system, the “nuclear family,” is NOT the norm, not even close. Somehow, despite this crazy behavior of social elasticity and community building, culture has progressed even to the zenith of producing James Dobson.

With this arrangement, religious groups can then choose to provide an additional imprimatur to the partnerships that fit whatever little corner of humanity they approve of. No one forces them to do anything they don’t want to do. Give these neanderthals the legal exclusions for their cultdoms so they won’t have to employ or give communion to someone that makes them feel icky (or involuntarily and inexplicably horny). Let’s see how that works out for them in the long run. Not well, I suspect. With affirming alternatives, sane people will gravitate away from hate and toward love naturally.

I’ve made this badge for the Join the Impact campaign (well, just edited and added the state name). You can get the code here.

If you are a supporter and have a site or blog, please add it, or to your forum sig. Whatever, if you’re in a position to do it, you know what to do!

In an earlier post about the Prop 8 backlash, I mentioned the fact that the CEO of Cinemark, which runs a chain of theaters, contributed thousands of dollars to the anti-gay Proposition 8 in California and a boycott was in order.

Is this kind of response over-reacting? Is it religious bigotry to fight back against those whose “faith” led them to contribute to the Prop 8 campaign? Should we lovingly nurture them until they see the error of their ways? Tbogg put it well:

The kind of person who contributes money to deny their fellow citizens their civil rights are not someday magically going to be part of the solution: they’re the problem. These are not people to be reasoned with; they’re ignorant, they’re haters and they’re bigots and the only thing people like that understand is power.

So when they stick their noses in other people’s affairs, they forfeit the right to be considered just another “ordinary person”. They’re involved and they would be foolish to expect that those other people in whose private affairs they have meddled wouldn’t return the favor. As they say: you pays your money and you takes your chances.

You don’t get to heaven above by trampling someone else’s heaven on earth.

I don’t and won’t deny these bigots their right to practice their faith, and to be active politically within all legal perimeters. But I am done coddling them, or being silent while they deny me and others our rights. The next time someone from LDS comes to my door, they are going to get a serious earful. (I’ve already started practicing, because I want to make sure my whole list of grievances gets covered before their sorry asses are out of the range of my very loud voice.)

Anyway, among the many events and actions coming out of the passage of Prop 8 is a blacklist of the individuals, organizations and their businesses that contributed to its passage.

Cinemark Theaters is a major target of this blacklist/boycott effort, not just because of the amount of the contribution or the high visibility of the chain, but because of the upcoming release of the Sean Penn film Milk, which is about gay rights hero Harvey Milk. The No Milk for Cinemark campaign makes the very significant connection between the film and the boycott: “Don’t let Harvey Milk’s legacy finance your oppression.” (Facebook group)

As I posted before, the Cinemark theaters in Oklahoma are:

Ada
- Cinemark North Hills Cinema 6 (1106 North Hills Shopping Centre)

Broken Arrow
- Cinemark Cinema 8 (3812 S Elm Pl)

Oklahoma City
- Cinemark Tinseltown (6001 Martin Luther King Blvd.)

Tulsa
- Cinemark Movies 8 (6808 S. Memorial)
- Cinemark Tulsa (10802 E 71st St South)
- Cinemark IMAX® Theatre (10802 E 71st St South)

If you are outside of Oklahoma, note that their theaters also go by the names Tinseltown, CineArts and Century.

I have previously posted about how much I am looking forward to this film, and how much it means to me, but I will be going to another theater to see it, or waiting for the DVD if no other chain near me screens it. If you want to join me in avoiding Cinemark (until further notice, not just this film, as far as I’m concerned) and/or tell other folks about the boycott, this flyer can help (pdf).

The film is set for wider distribution in the US on Nov. 2 and then nationwide on Dec. 5, which is the earliest we’d see it around here. But no schedules are available that far ahead. I’ll be checking for when and where Milk will be screened in Oklahoma, and post the news here.

Update [2008-11-16 23:45]: Nancy in NYC has a brilliant post about this up at Pam’s House Blend, Oh no you didn’t! (Why it’s not ok to support Prop 8, then hide behind the Constitution), and at Open Left, Paul Rosenberg takes the need to challenge the right-wingnuts on their hypocricy a step further, noting that

Now, however, it’s very clear that letting this stuff slide because it’s so idiotic is simply not an option.

and

There is word for this sort of total disconnect from reality: psychotic. And that, quite literally, is what we are up against: organized psychosis.

We’re going to have a special report later today about the Join the Impact! rally on the steps of city hall in Oklahoma City. but here are links to photos

DarlaJane’s Flickr set
Trey (one of the organizers) has some photos of OKC event at Towle Road (use the menu to check out the albums from Tulsa also, as well as cities around the country.
Gossip Boy (OKC Gay news site)

Other reports and photos from across the nation:
Towleroad
Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish
Pam’s House Blend Join the Impact! Flickr Group
Join the Impact! National Flickr Group

Last but not least, the sites where the action was organized (and probably future actions will be too)
National: Join the Impact! Blog | Join the Impact! organizing wiki | Facebook | Twitter
Oklahoma: OK section on wiki | Facebook

And, Tulsa also had a event. See videos from justinfeed and shelton26ash (brief, but better audio).

Other media coverage.