Thursday, April 30, 2015

Liberties: An exhibition of contemporary art reflecting on 40 years since the Sex Discrimination Act (1975)

From  Day+Gluckman
'Lucy Day and Eliza Gluckman, a curatorial partnership who have been working together since 2006. Initially trained as artists and latterly working as curators they have worked for many years across independent, public, artist-led and commercial galleries.

We're very excited to announce our final show at Collyer Bristow Gallery that will open in July and run until October. 

An exhibition of contemporary art reflecting on 40 years since the Sex Discrimination Act (1975)
Guler Ates, Helen Barff, Sutapa Biswas, Sonia Boyce, Jemima Burrill, Helen Chadwick, Sarah Duffy, Rose English, Rose Finn-Kelcey, Alison Gill, Helena Goldwater, Joy Gregory, Margaret Harrison, Alexis Hunter, Frances Kearney, EJ Major, Eleanor Moreton, Hayley Newman, Freddie Robins, Monica Ross, Jo Spence, Jessica Voorsanger, Alice May Williams and Carey Young 
Collyer Bristow Gallery, Holborn, London, 2nd July – 21st October, 2015
Private view 1st July, 2015
Works by over 20 women artists will reflect the changes in art practice within the context of sexual and gender equality since the introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act (1975) in the UK. Some artists confront issues that galvanised the change in law whilst others carved their own place in a complex and male dominated art world. From the radical movements of the 1960s and 70s, the politics of the 80s, the boom of lad culture in the 1990s to the current fourth wave of feminism, encouraged largely through and because of social media, all of the artists’ question equality and identity in very different ways. 
The exhibition presents a snapshot of the evolving conversations that continue to contribute to the mapping of a woman’s place in British society. Body, femininity, sex, motherhood, economic and political status are explored through contemporary film, sculpture, performance and painting.
This exhibition is part of A Woman's Place project.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015


"So cry new tears. Write new words. Craft new prayers. Attend new marches. Channel new anger. Feel it all again. Every bit of it. All the empathy, all the sorrow, all the rage. Don’t fight it. Let it permeate you. Embrace its engulf. Because Freddie Gray deserves it. Baltimore deserves it. You deserve it. Do not allow them to desensitize you to the uniqueness and preciousness of our lives, to the beauty of being alive, and do not permit them to rob you of the agony of them being snatched away. 
And when it happens again — and it will happen again — when another police-involved killing of an unarmed person of color turns a city upside down, do it all again."



It is not difficult to witness what’s happening in Baltimore, Maryland right now and immediately think of Ferguson, Missouri. Or New York City. Or Cleveland, Ohio. Or Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Or perhaps even Los Angeles in 1992. The parallels are obvious; heartbreakingly, evisceratingly, surreally obvious. So obvious are these similarities that it does not take much effort to congeal each of these circumstances. Because much of what is happening in Baltimore right now just happened in Milwaukee. And much of what happened in Milwaukee just happened in Ferguson.
So instead of devising new solutions, crafting new prayers, feeling new sorrows, tempering new rage, and cultivating new ways to process this all and do something other than stare at your TV screen in shock, just repeating what you’ve already done — word for word; feeling for feeling — feels natural. Practical, even. It would be prudent to just write the exact same piece you did eight months ago, with “Baltimore” in place of “Staten Island.” Wise to give the same speech you did two years ago, but with “Maryland” substituted for “Florida.” Reasonable to cry the exact same tears you did for Rekia Boyd’s family, but Freddie Gray’s instead.
And it would be the worst thing you can do.
Because Freddie Gray wasn’t Eric Garner. And Eric Garner wasn’t Rekia Boyd. And Rekia Boyd wasn’t John Crawford III. And John Crawford III wasn’t Michael Brown. And Michael Brown wasn’t Eric Harris. And Eric Harris wasn’t Walter Scott. And Walter Scott wasn’t Laquan McDonald. And Laquan McDonald wasn’t Lavall Hall. And Lavall Hall wasn’t Jason Harrison. And Jason Harrison wasn’t Brandon Jones. And Brandon Jones wasn’t Ernest Satterwhite. And Ernest Satterwhite wasn’t Anthony Hall. And Anthony Hill wasn’t Tony Robinson. And Tony Robinson wasn’t Tamir Rice. And Tamir Rice wasn’t Tanisha Anderson. And Tanisha Anderson wasn’t James Howard Allen. And James Howard Allen wasn’t Akai Gurley. And Akai Gurley wasn’t Ezell Ford. And Ezell Ford wasn’t Rumain Brisbon. And Rumain Brisbon wasn’t Darrien Hunt. And Darrien Hunt wasn’t VonDerritt Myers Jr. And VonDerritt Myers Jr wasn’t Aiyana Stanley-Jones. And Aiyana Stanley-Jones wasn’t Luis Rodriguez. And Luis Rodriguez wasn’t Ramarley Graham. And Ramarley Graham wasn’t Jonathan Ferrell. And Jonathan Ferrell wasn’t Jack Lamar Roberson. And Jack Lamar Roberson wasn’t Kimani Gray. And Kimani Gray wasn’t Anna Brown. And Anna Brown wasn’t Oscar Grant. And Oscar Grant wasn’t Trayvon Martin.
Each of these people were people. Loving, reckless, optimistic, sincere, manipulative, sensitive, funny, lazy, talented, weak, introverted, ambitious and every other uniquely human quality existing in each of us. They did not exist to become a narrative. Or perhaps a lede to a story. Or maybe even a policy change. They existed to exist. Not to not exist. Not to be written with a dry erase marker and erased with a closed fist when a new name, a new cause, appears. Perhaps we made them into means, but they existed as ends.
Because Darrien Hunt — who was shot four times in the back — had just turned 22. He was into anime cosplay. His mother’s name is Susan. Rekia Boyd, also 22 when shot in the back of the head by Chicago detective Dante Servin, had eight brothers and seven sisters and was known for being “light-hearted.” Ernest Satterwhite, the 68-year-old great-grandfather shot to death after a slow-speed chase as he parked in his own driveway, was a former mechanic. 37-year-old Tanisha Anderson, who battled schizophrenia before dying facedown while an officer’s knee was in her back, graduated from East High School in Cleveland.
These are minor details of these people’s lives. But minor doesn’t mean insignificant. They are part of the collection of characteristics and traits distinguishing us from each other. Our humanity exists in this minutiae. And this is what we — the people currently feeling anything about what’s happening in Baltimore — need to remember. And if remembering doesn’t work, make notes to remind ourselves to remind ourselves. Freddie Gray and Michael Brown may have died under similar circumstances. And the images and videos and stories coming out of Baltimore this week might be similar to those that came out of Ferguson last summer. But Freddie Gray is not Michael Brown. He was a human being who lived and loved and died uniquely, and this uniqueness must extend to how we mourn and remember and write about and pray for and march for him.
So cry new tears. Write new words. Craft new prayers. Attend new marches. Channel new anger. Feel it all again. Every bit of it. All the empathy, all the sorrow, all the rage. Don’t fight it. Let it permeate you. Embrace its engulf. Because Freddie Gray deserves it. Baltimore deserves it. You deserve it. Do not allow them to desensitize you to the uniqueness and preciousness of our lives, to the beauty of being alive, and do not permit them to rob you of the agony of them being snatched away. 
And when it happens again — and it will happen again — when another police-involved killing of an unarmed person of color turns a city upside down, do it all again. 

Black Lives Matter Protesters Stock Forever 21 With 'Never 21' T-Shirts


(Never 21)
Posing as employees at Forever 21 Union Square, a group of Black Lives Matter protestorsmanaged to clothe the front-window mannequins in "Black Lives Matter/Never 21" T-shirts on Saturday afternoon. Protesters also dropped a banner with the same message across the store's second floor windows, and stocked several clothing racks with "Black Lives Matter" T-shirts.
The action was carried out by a group of anonymous protesters who go by the name The Never 21 Project. According to a statement issued by the group, their goal was to draw attention to the number of "young black lives that have been lost to police violence before ever reaching 21-years-old, who were never afforded a true childhood... by the police." 
The Never 21 Project's website, which mimics Forever 21's white font and black and yellow color scheme, features mini-biographies of kids and teenagers who have lost their lives at the hands of the police, with emphasis on their ages: Aiyana Jones (7), Michael Brown (18), Tamir Rice (12), and Trayvon Martin (17). A statement on the homepage reads: 
Countless underaged lives have been lost at the hands of 'vigilantes' and disgruntled police officers. These youth were never given the chance to see age 21, or any age there after, so we respond by reminding the public of the battle that we are still actively fighting. We care about the lives of Black men. We care about the lives of Black women. We care about the lives of Black CHILDREN.
This morning, an anonymous Never 21 organizer recounted how the action unfolded inside the store. "It was kind of the opposite of shoplifting," he explained. "We called it shop gifting, because we were putting shirts into the store rather than taking them out." First a banner team, including a videographer and a legal observer, walked up to the second floor to hang the banner. The mannequin team entered as the banner team was on its way out, followed by three more protesters tasked with adding T-shirts to the clothing racks. 
Another protestor added, "We planned for a long time, and practiced beforehand on mannequins. We had the shirts sized large so that they would be easy to slip on." She explained that the group didn't run into any problems, because the store was so crowded. "No one paid attention to us," she said. "The door alarm kept going off for people who were trying to make returns." The biggest snag of the afternoon involved the front window mannequins, which stood on elevated platforms that were tricky to climb. 
After 20 minutes, store management recognized what had happened and removed the t-shirts. But not before passersby noticed what was going on. 
(Never 21)
Never 21 stresses that their action was not an attack on Forever 21. Rather, they see this as an opportunity for a huge company to stand behind Black Lives Matter. However, one participant acknowledged a bit of negative feedback. "Someone online wondered where the proceeds were going," she explained. "They thought Forever 21 had made the shirts themselves, and were selling them for profit." However, "Once people realized that it was a culture jam, they were more positive than I expected." 
Here's a video of the action, shot and edited by Never 21. 
No arrests were reported in connection with the protest. Forever 21 said in a statement this afternoon, "Forever 21 is not associated with the Never 21 Project and had no prior knowledge of their public demonstration."

Monday, April 27, 2015

FIST Youth Group

In the many images coming from Baltimore-in regards to the protests over the death of Freddie Gray- I noticed the FIST Youth Group Banner

According to their website-- pamphlets were handing out at the protest.  

Tiananmen Square Massacre

   June 5, 1989  Tiananmen Square  Beijing, China                                                 Credit:  Widener, Jeff/AP 

One day after the Tiananmen Square Massacre

As the lead tank maneuvered to pass by the man, he repeatedly shifted his position in order to obstruct the tank's attempted path around him. 

Sunday, April 26, 2015

The Death of Freddie Gray

Twitter Images from April 26th 2015

Thousands protest over US custody death of Freddie Gray


Several thousand protesters converged in the US city of Baltimore on Saturday to protest over the death of 25-year-old black man Freddie Gray while in police custody.
Gray died on Sunday after sustaining multiple injuries which included three fractures in his neck vertebrae, a smashed voicebox and the severing of 80 percent of his spine from his neck.
Gray had been in police custody for a week, having been arrested in a high-crime neighbourhood after he made eye contact with police and fled. After he was caught he was found to be carrying a knife.
Melissa Ealey, Gray's cousin, told Al Jazeera that no crime perpetrated could warrant such abuse.
"There is no reason the police had to conduct themselves in a manner to where … it cost him his life," Ealey said. "I can understand breaking the law is wrong but the way they apprehended him and the things they did were completely against protocol and just inhumane as a whole."
'National epidemic' of violence
Signs in hand, with slogans such as "Jail Killer Police" and "Unite Here," demonstrators from different racial backgrounds flooded two city blocks and marched to city hall, where the crowd overtook a plaza.
March organiser and lawyer Malik Shabazz described violence against blacks by American police officers as "a national epidemic against black men".
Al Jazeera's Shihab Rattansi, reporting from Baltimore, said the marchers had then headed towards Baltimore's Oriole Park Major League Baseball stadium at Camden Yards where Baltimore's Orioles were later set to take on the Boston Red Sox.
Rattansi said the protest outside the stadium ended relatively peacefully, although a few cars appeared to have been vandalised, as police warned protesters that they would face arrest if they didn't disperse.
"There was not very much in the way of heated scenes, about 20 minutes for the whole day but what we did see today was a few thousand people gather in city hall demanding answers over questions including why he was even arrested in the first place," Rattansi said. 
The police had earlier kept a safe distance, as the protesters called for sweeping national policy changes on how cases of police brutality should be dealt with.
Their demands included the establishment of an independent civilian review board in every city to review the cases, immediate suspension without pay for police officers accused of violence and protection for whistleblowers so they could freely speak about police brutality without retaliation.
"Speaker after speaker keep saying here, when a genocide is happening against you, why would you ask the people committing it what is going on," our reporter said.
Stafford Sutton, an activist who attended the march, said changes to federal policies were required to defuse anger after a spate of recent cases of police brutality. 
"I've seen a lot of individuals who have been done wrong. A federal mandate needs to be brought down. We have to go through the process, we have to follow it through and go to Washington," Sutton said. 
Demonstrators have flooded the streets of Baltimore almost every day since Gray's death, although Saturday's rally was the largest.
Police Commissioner Anthony Batts said roughly 1,200 officers were deployed downtown and across the city to try and keep the peace. At least five police officers were injured and 12 people were arrested. Batts said he believes the "very violent agitators" are not from Baltimore.
Gray's death has been compared to those of other unarmed black men who died at the hands of police in New York City and Ferguson, Missouri, and has intensified a national debate over police treatment of African Americans.
The US Department of Justice is conducting a separate probe into Gray's death. The result of an official police investigation into his fate will also be released on Friday. A wake for Gray is scheduled for Sunday, with his funeral to be held on Monday. 

Saturday, April 18, 2015

Symposium "What Now? 2015: The Politics of Listening"

What Now? 2015: The Politics of Listening

Friday, April 24, 2015, 12.30–7pm. 
Saturday, April 25, 2015, 2–6pm.
The New School, Anna-Maria & Stephen Kellen Auditorium
66 Fifth Avenue, New York City — Free admission.
Please RSVP to
“What Now? 2015″ is a two-day annual symposium, organized by Art in General in collaboration with the Vera List Center for Art and Politics, which investigates critical and timely issues in contemporary art. Dedicated to the topic of “The Politics of Listening,” the 2015 symposium comprises four panel discussions spanning Friday and Saturday, a keynote delivered by Lawrence Abu Hamdan, and a program of sound installations, audio works, film screenings, and performances.
“What Now? 2015″ examines the idea of listening as a political act, a pedagogical process, and an activity that can lead to the development of an organized protocol for engagement. Opening with an analysis of listening, the symposium considers the scientific definition of the term alongside perspectives on listening that are shaped and informed by diverse social, cultural, technological, and spatial considerations. As keynote speaker Lawrence Abu Hamdan has noted, “Listening is not a natural process inherent to our perception of the world but rather constructed by the conditions of the spaces and times that engulf us”.(1)

In a world in which the production and reception of information encompasses print and digital media, spoken narratives, and the ever-expanding space of social media, the symposium considers how one can listen with agency and intent in an environment characterized by such an onslaught of data. It also explores the often complex relationship between truth and fiction in relation to interpretative listening, media communication, and acts of testimony, translation, and redaction. To what degree are we able to listen to different kinds of intelligences, and how can we incite receptivity? How do we address the fact that the right to listen is relative, and that the right not to listen, or to remain silent, is also a genuine stance? Can we press on and position listening as a political act? And how do we further develop our ability to “listen for what is left out, and why”? (2) 
Highlighting the work of artists and other practitioners interested in expanding dialogue beyond the confines of the art world, “What Now? 2015″ ultimately considers the notion of listening with intent, and imagines new possibilities that might arise when listening involves a more expansive state of activity. How can we take the procedures of listening—which involve disciplined attentiveness and an active questioning—as a means to assist a constituency to find its own power and solutions to diverse sets of problems? How can working across disciplines, or rethinking the processes of how we learn, expand on and deepen our understanding of an issue—ultimately enabling us to listen, and act, with a more informed mind? 
The symposium comprises four sessions: An Analysis of Listening; Taking Listening Seriously; Fact, Fiction and the In-between; and Listening Across Disciplines: A Call to Action. Confirmed presenters and panelists include Anne Barlow, Director, Art in General, New York; Rich Blint, Columbia University School of the Arts; Rashida Bumbray, curator; Gregory Castéra, Co-Director, Council, Paris; Christoph Cox, Hampshire College, Amherst; Joshua Craze, University of Chicago, Illinois; Lauren van Haaften-Schick, curator, writer and artist, New York; Seeta Peña Gangadharan, New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute, New York; James Hudspeth, The Rockefeller University, New York; Carin Kuoni, Director and Curator, Vera List Center for Art and Politics, The New School, New York; Brian Larkin, Barnard College, New York; Shannon Mattern, School of Media Studies, The New School; Naeem Mohaiemen, artist and writer; Beatriz Santiago Muñoz, artist; Julie Napolin, Eugene Lang College, The New School; Mendi + Keith Obadike, artists; Laurie Jo Reynolds, University of Illinois at Chicago’s School of Art and Art History; Mohammad Salemy, The New Centre for Research & Practice, Michigan; and Kade L. Twist, artist, writer and member of Post-Commodity. Participatory sessions and art projects presented by Bigert & BergströmIman IssaMendi + Keith ObadikeThe Order of the Third Bird, and Wato Tsereteli, Founder, Center of Contemporary Art, Tbilisi, Georgia.

This is the second annual symposium “What Now?,” organized by Art in General in collaboration with the Vera List Center for Art and Politics, as part of Alignment, the Vera List Center’s 2013–15 curatorial focus theme.
A new book series relating to the “What Now?” symposia from 2015 through 2017 will be produced with Black Dog Publishing Ltd., a project that was made possible in part by the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
Art in General would like to extend special thanks to the key funders of “What Now? 2015″: the Institute of Museum and Library Services; the Lambent Foundation; and the Trust for Mutual Understanding for their generous support of this initiative. The Vera List Center would like to also thank the Center’s Advisory Committee. 
(1) Lawrence Abu Hamdan (Tape Echo)
(2) UltraRed, in Notes on the Protocols for a Listening Session (Glasgow Variation), in On Listening, edited by Angus Carlyle and Cathy Lane, Uniformbooks 2013, p.33.

*Photo: Emilio Moreno. “Lawrence Abu Hamdan, Conflicted Phonemes, 2012. Installation view from Aural Contract: The Whole Truth, Casco Utrecht, 2012.” Image courtesy of Lawrence Abu Hamdan and Galeri Non.

The 'pieing' of Willie Brown, then the mayor of San Francisco, in 1998

Outrage As 3 Cherry Pie San Francisco Activists Jailed 

24 February 1999

from the Biotic Baking Brigade

San Francisco - When San Francisco's Mayor, Willie Brown, testified against the three homelessness activists who had thrown pies at him last November, he repeatedly urged the court to make an example of the defendants. The trial ended in a split verdict. The jurors deliberated for over nine hours, finally acquitting the defendants of the heavier charge of assaulting a public official, while convicting them of simple battery. Today, Judge Ernest H. Goldsmith complied with the Mayor's demand, sentencing all three pie-throwers to the maximum penalty of six months in the county jail. Spectators who managed to get a seat in the crowded courtroom voiced their disapproval as the draconian sentences were pronounced. Even Rahula Janowski was sentenced to six months, despite the testimony the Mayor's friend Garland Rosario, that he tackled Rahula in the wake of the pie-ing, snapping her collar-bone and creating in a permanent disability. Janowski's attorney, Katya Komisaruk, told the judge that this sentence was a "shanda fur die goyim," an embarrassment for the community.
All three defendants and their attorneys made statements in court, before Goldsmith issued the sentences. Gross said simply, "Poverty is violence." Livernois also focused on the continuing disastrous impact of the Mayor's policies toward the homeless community. And Janowski quoted: "The psychological importance of a planned campaign against the nuisance of begging should not be underestimated. Beggars often force their poverty upon people in the most repulsive way...if this sight disappears from view... people will feel that things are becoming more stable again, and that the economy is improving once more." Janowski pointed to the similarity between this rhetoric--from Nazi Germany's Ministry of Propaganda--and that of some of San Francisco's civic leaders, and reminded listeners that those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.
The Biotic Baking Brigade (BBB) remains undeterred by the outcome of the case. Agent Apple, speaking for the BBB General Command, Ecotopia Division, issued the following communique in response to the harsh sentences: "The pie is cast. We shall not rest until justice, as well as dessert, is served."

Friends of the BBB: 3288 21st #92, San Francisco, CA, 94110, Amerika. 415.267.5976

To civil society, social and ecological activists, militant bakers, friends, supporters, and alternative media:

This is a follow up on the case of the Cherry Pie 3, who were sentenced to six months in San Francisco County Jail for pieing Mayor Brown. The Ecotopia Cell of the Biotic Baking Brigade is focusing all of its energy right now into jail support and media detournement instead of our specialty, action. However, the General Command has been in emergency session since the afternoon of the sentencing, and they are coordinating a plan for solidarity pie actions with the l'Internationale des Anarchos-Patissiers (the notorious anarchist International Patisserie Brigade) and other pastry radicals. A call will go out soon, we ask that you please stay tuned...and start pre-heating your ovens! Remember folks, these are dangerous days, and we may look back on them fondly as when you could still carry a pie without a license.On a personal note, I already miss the presence of three good friends, but I realize that they have no regrets and refused to compromise in the fight against neoliberalism, injustice, and fascist economics. The Bay Area will also miss these seasoned activists. Rahula has been a mainstay with Food Not Bombs and social justice issues, Justin's passion is ecological defense and Earth First!, while Jerry works on animal liberation and volunteers at Act Up. Instead of each paying $700 to the state and serving three years of probation with a search clause (that the cops could use to search their homes, offices, or persons any time of day or night), which would have effectively shut them down as frontlines activists, they stood strong and upheld their beliefs. You can jail the people, but not the movement. Ya basta! La lucha sigue/La lutte continue/The struggle continues....

Aside from solidarity pie actions, people can support the Cherry Pie 3 by:

  1. Writing to them in the nick.Rahula Janowski #1818075
    c/o SF County Jail 8, E Pod
    425 7th St.
    SF, CA 94103
    Justin Gross #1818071
    c/o SF County Jail 8, B Pod
    425 7th St.
    SF, CA 94103
    Jerry has not been incarcerated yet due to medical reasons, but if he is we will put out his address immediately. Rahula asks that people write and talk about real life stories, what they believe in, what their passions are, and what kinds of pies they enjoy (actually, I added that last part).
  2. We could really use some financial support, both to help out with the personal expenses of the Cherry Pie 3 (rent and finding subletters for their rooms, collect calls from jail to friends and family, postage, and ordering vegan snacks from the jail commisary), as well as the cost of legal expenses and jail support. Not to mention, of course, organic and vegan baking ingredients for more actions. If people care to spare some dosh, or raise some through a bake sale, music gig, party, bank robbery or corporate scam, that would be so ace. And it will allow us to continue our delicious resistance to globalization and capital hegemony.
    Checks and money orders can be made out to Jeff Larson (who himself is facing a trial for pieing the CEO of Monsanto), and sent to: Friends of the BBB: 3288 21st #92, San Francisco, CA, 94110
  3. If you live in Northern California, or are coming through, you can visit the Cherry Pie 3 in gaol. Just send us a line at and we'll let you know the visiting schedule.
  4. Continue to fight the power however you're already doing it. 

And now for something completely different...

Below you'll find two articles on the case, Rahula's eloquent statement at sentencing, excerpts from Judge Goldsmith's philosophical rant (which really should be distributed widely; it's perhaps the classic statement on Law & Order in Amerika today), and a recent Jim Hightower radio spot on the BBB. A global roundup of recent pie events will be issued shortly.From the mountains of the Ecotopia, this is Agent Apple saying . . . We can lick the upper crust!

The pie penalty 

By A. Clay Thompson 

San Francisco Bay Guardian, February 25, 1999

While sentencing San Francisco's most notorious bakers, Judge Ernest H. Goldsmith invoked the specter of Dan White, quoted Mahatma Gandhi, and paid homage to the American political system and in the end, a couple minutes after 10 a.m., Feb. 25, he slammed the "Cherry Pie Three" with a six-month jail sentence. The trio, Gerry Livernois, Rahula Janowski, and Justin Gross, will likely spend four to five months in the clink for mushing three pies into Mayor Willie Brown's mug back in November. The act rocketed the trio, and their clandestine guerrilla organization, the Biotic Baking Brigade, to international infamy and hero status among rabble-rousers around the globe.The San Francisco Probation Department recommended Goldsmith hit each of the three with more than $700 is in fines, 60 days in a work program, and three years probation. Prosecutors argued for the fines in addition to the six-month max jail sentence. The brigade decided they'd rather take jail time than be yoked by probation rules for the next 36 months. Goldsmith chucked the proverbial book at 'em.
Now, with prominent brigadistas behind bars, the guerrillas continue to issue pithy electronic communiqués as they plot their next move. The Bay Guardian has acquired the presentencing statement read by Janowski (a.k.a. Agent Lemon Meringue) and a bunch of other brigade manifestos. Look for an interview with the jailed agents on March 3.

Excerpts from:
Use a pie, go to jail

By Rob Morse, San Francisco EXAMINER COLUMNIST 

Thursday, February 25, 1999

Superior Court Judge Ernest Goldsmith has a strange formula for justice: Pie = 6.He sentenced the three pie-throwers who attacked Mayor Brown to six months in the county jail.
That's extreme for an assault with tofu cream. I say that as a columnist who condemned the attack as ugly and potentially dangerous, and condemned the attackers for using the excuse that they were doing it for the homeless.
Still, six months?
"That's very harsh for that kind of a crime," said Peter Keane, dean of the law school at Golden Gate University, and a friend of Judge Goldsmith.
"If you or I got hit with a pie it would be considered egregious if someone did a weekend in jail. . . . People have had their noses broken and significant injuries, and people didn't do anywhere near that."
In The Examiner's survey "Judging the Judges," published in December, trial lawyers appearing most frequently in court rated Goldsmith among the worst judges in weighing evidence and readily grasping issues.
How about math? Pie = 6? This judge is either very crusty or very flaky. I looked through the newspaper's electronic library for newsworthy sentencings in the last year.
A young man involved in the racially motivated gang beating of two black couples and an infant in the Haight got a year in jail, of which he'd probably serve only six months because of time served. And he used a chain, not a pie.
Latrelle Sprewell got three months of home detention for reckless driving on Interstate 680 when he swerved off an exit and injured a couple in another car.
A woman in Salinas got six months in jail for running up $8,000 worth of bills on other people's credit cards to buy Beanie Babies. Of course, weird crimes make the paper. Now we have the weirdest crime and punishment of all time, six months of hard time for soft cream.

Statement of Rahula Janowski At Sentencing

Today in San Francisco, a large number of people are participating in a 21 day fast as a part Of Religious Witness's "Save The Dream Campaign." The dream referred to is the dream of Presidio housing for homeless people, as recommended by the voters of San Francisco when they passed proposition L in 1998. While Willie Brown doesn't have ultimate authority over the use of the Presidio, he does, as mayor of San Francisco and as one of California's most powerful politicians, have considerable influence which he could use to try to make that dream come true. So far, he hasn't and so for the next fourteen days, hundreds of people will be fasting for a day or for many days to show their commitment to humane and respectful treatment of Homeless people in San Francisco.In all honesty, I doubt that Willie Brown will be swayed to advocate for homeless people in any way. Yet I plan to participate in this fast because we must have hope and we must engage in a variety of activities to secure justice for the poor and homeless among us.
In the past five years I have engaged in a variety of activities focused on justice for poor and homeless people. I have written letters and signed petitions. I have marched in the streets; I have fed hundreds of hungry people, I have engaged in civil disobedience, and, yes, I have thrown a pie. In the years I have lived in San Francisco, I have watched the numbers of homeless people in our city increase at a heart sickening rate. I've seen vacancy rates plummet as rents rise drastically and affordable housing goes the way of the dinosaurs. Hand in hand with this housing crisis, I have also seen many of our public officials respond in a heartless and cruel way by victimizing and criminalizing homeless people. Matrix did not end when Willie Brown was elected, it simply became a nameless policy of harassment, as quality of life infractions, which specifically target homeless people, increased. Where is the compassion, the humanity, in our collective response to this situation?
Willie Brown began his political career as a tireless campaigner for civil rights. When civil rights activists staged sit ins in the sixties to fight racial discrimination, Willie Brown was there, lining up legal support for the hundreds of arrested activists, among them our current District Attorney, Terence Hallinan. Throughout his political career, Willie Brown has maintained his commitment to civil rights for African American people, which has won him a large amount of support and a loyal constituency. This makes it all the harder to bear when we see him ignoring and denying the civil rights of homeless people.
There is a famous quotation from Pastor Niemoeller , a holocaust survivor. I'm sure you're familiar with it. It begins, "First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew." It concludes, "Then they came for me, and there was nobody left to speak out for me." What that famous and moving quotation does not mention is that before they came for the Jews, they came for the homeless, the mentally disabled, the unemployed, and all those categorized as "asocial."
The rationale behind the purge of poor and "asocial" people in Germany was as follows. "The psychological importance of a planned campaign against the nuisance of begging should not be underestimated. Beggars often force their poverty upon people in the most repulsive way for their own selfish purposes. If this sight disappears from view, the result will be a definite feeling of relief and liberation. People will feel that things are becoming more stable again, and that the economy is improving once more." The similarities between this rhetoric from Nazi Germany's Ministry of Propaganda and the rhetoric of our own local officials in their fight to rid San Francisco of visible homelessness is obvious. Let me be clear; I am not accusing Willie Brown or anyone else of being a Nazi. I am simply pointing out that by forgetting or ignoring that aspect of the Nazi Holocaust, we are in grave danger. As they say, those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. The few people objecting to, and protesting, the scapegoating of our homeless community, are ignored. In one of his earliest acts as Mayor, Willie Brown canceled a much needed summit on homelessness, claiming it was a problem that couldn't be solved. Yes, homelessness can be solved, but it will take honesty, integrity, bravery, and a commitment to putting human needs ahead of economic profiteering. When our elected officials are so firmly in the pocket of wealthy interests, it is hard to be optimistic about change.
>From the very beginning, this case has been politically charged. Throwing pie at Willie Brown was a political act, an act of political theater intended to hold him accountable for the harm he does as mayor to homeless people, and to draw attention to the plight faced by poor and homeless people in San Francisco. The aggressive prosecution of this case by Willie Brown's longtime friend and political ally, Terence Hallinan, has been politically motivated. Throughout the whole process, my codefendants and I have been willing and eager to find compromises and solutions to this situation. We offered a public apology to Willie Brown; we stated that we are sorry he was frightened and we are sorry he was hurt. It was never our intention for anyone to be hurt; I have never in my life intentionally caused physical harm to another person. We also offered an apology to those members of the African American community who viewed our act in a racial context and felt that for three white activists to pie a black mayor was racist. We met with a delegation from the African American community, including the Reverend Cecil Williams and Supervisor Amos Brown, to try to engage in dialogue, because our act was not done in a racial context, it was done as a cry of protest from the disempowered to the over empowered. Our attorneys met with DA Hallinan to express our willingness to plead guilty to a lesser charge and perform significant hours of community service. All of our efforts were met with disdain and rejection because this is a political case, and as stated by Willie Brown here in this courtroom, we were to be made examples of.
And examples we are. We are examples of how the justice system can be discretionary and discriminatory; of how politics and power brokering affect an individuals opportunity for fair treatment under the law. Our case is also an illuminating example of the lack of perspective and proportion in our society today. To treat pie throwing as a violent act and to prosecute it so aggressively is ridiculous beyond all measure. It is apparent to me that the real crime we are here to be sentenced for is the crime of rocking the boat, challenging the status quo, and irritating one of the state's most powerful and influential politicians. The crimes committed against homeless people on a daily basis in this city consistently go unpunished. Homeless people are regularly assaulted, their belongings are regularly stolen, and their civil liberties and human rights are consistently denied and violated. I can only hope that a day will come when crimes against the dispossessed and the powerless are prosecuted as thoroughly as crimes against the ruling class and the powerful are prosecuted. For that day to come, the values held by our society must be dramatically altered. The most basic of human needs must become more important than greed and the relentless drive for acquisition of goods and power.
I know that the act of throwing a pie alone will not bring about this change. However, it is my hope as the people of San Francisco look at our action and the aftermath of our action, they will become more aware of the disparities of our governmental, criminal, and judicial institutions. And it is my hope that, as they become aware, they will be moved to act; to say, No More!; and to dismantle this unjust, compassionless, and humorless system.

CREAM AND PUNISHMENT--Industrial Society and Its Future,
Why We Choose Anarchism Over All Forms of Statism

By Judge Ernest Goldsmith

"The court witnessed the evidence presented and has given it a great deal of thought. There is no question that the defendants committed the crime of battery, that crime of which they've been convicted. The video presented at the trial showed an intentional striking of Mayor Brown. Battery is typically a crime, which arises without planning, is spur of the moment, often in the heat of mutual combat. The testimony of the defendants indicated that this was a well planned, co-ordinated, intentional attack. They planned it individually, and in concert to take place in a crowded public meeting where disorder and physical danger were foreseeable consequences. The court finds these facts to be an aggravation of the crime. The city of San Francisco is all too well acquainted with the vulnerability of its elected officials. We have a tragic history of political assassination. The defendants claim their acts were political theater. But to San Franciscans the video in evidence evokes memories of the assassinations of both Mayor Moscone and supervisor Milk. While defendants characterize their acts as an attack on Mayor Brown's policies, it is an attack on his person. The Mayor testified that he did not see the attackers coming, he did not know who or what hit him, nor did he know what was coming next. This attack had the potential for grave harm, not only to the mayor who suffered a painful ankle injury, but to the defendants at the hands of a terrified crowd. The mayor grabbed the microphone and spoke calm to the crowd and even yelled "Don't hurt them, don't hurt them", to prevent harm to the defendants [editor's note-this is a complete misrepresentation of what happened; the video showed that the Mayor jumped on Justin and put him in a headlock and screamed obscenities at him]. When all is said and done, the defendants placed themselves as well as the victim and the bystanders in great danger. I find these facts to be an aggravation of the offense.
The sentencing of a convicted defendant seeks to accomplish three things. First, to punish the defendant. Second, to dissuade or deter the defendant form engaging in similar criminal behavior in the future. Third, to dissuade or deter others from engaging in the illegal behavior. Ms. Janowski, Mr. Gross and Mr. Livernois, it is the court's responsibility to deter you and others form committing similar illegal acts, and the imposition of punishment is the only means at the courts disposal to accomplish this. In all your communications and statements you have voiced sentiments suggesting that you will continue this behavior. The only thing the court can do is to make the punishment such that you and others will be deterred. Consider Ms. J, Mr. G, and Mr. L, that it is the court's responsibility to deter you and others from committing similar illegal acts, and the imposition of punishment is the only means at the court's disposal to accomplish this. In all your communications and statements you have voiced sentiments suggesting that you will continue this behavior. The only thing the court can do is to make the punishment such that you and others will be deterred. Consider Ms. J., Mr. G., Mr. L., that there are some 500, 000 elected officials in the U.S. They are senators, councilpersons, mayors, a president, school board members, and so on. Disagreement with public policy no matter how heartfelt, sincere, and perhaps even correct does not give license to commit battery or any other crime upon a person or such officials.
There is a mortar, which holds this democracy together, and that is our system of elections. Americans need not take to the streets, grab weapons, or hit someone if they disagree with policy or their side loses an election. Americans know that there will be another round at the ballot box in a year, or two, or four. Your side has a chance of winning next time. The result is stability almost unknown elsewhere in the world, and most or us would like to keep it that way.
Political, social, and economic issues coalesce within the electoral system within this country. As citizens you can walk precincts, call voters, and work to elect those with whom you agree. Indeed, you can aspire to run for office yourselves, and have the forum you seek and try to affect political change. Arching over all of this are our rights of expression and free speech. You have alluded to these rights in connection with your actions, which you should learn from the jury verdict, do not include battery. You do however have the right to assemble, to peacefully seek media coverage, to demonstrate publicly with certain bounds, to form and speak before citizens groups in order to develop and articulate your view, to support or deny support to elect officials, and to disseminate information to convince others. You could have exercised those rights on Nov. 7th, 1998. In order to exercise your rights of protected speech and assembly, to enjoy the freedom of expression supported by the constitution you must do so without violence. You are free to attack an elected official's policies; you are not free to attack his or her person. As a footnote, let me mention to the defendants that I observed a book in front of the defendants during jury deliberations, when the jury entered and exited the courtroom.
The title of that book in very large block letters read Gandhi. I assume the message to the jury was an allusion that the defendant's acts were somehow related to Gandhi's acts of civil disobedience. I would like to suggest that this book might contain important lessons for the defendants. Mohandas Gandhi explained his dynamic social and political movement. He said it was called satyhagraha, which means in Sanskrit, truth without violence. He described the movement as a technique intended to replace violence. Gandhi's writings as I understand it insisted that individual will and reason can affect social change. His objective was to reach resolution of conflict positions and enlarge areas of agreement by means of persuasion. He asserted nonviolence was the method of achieving the truth. Gandhi urged applying a dialectical approach to social and economic process that is the examining of opposing opinions logically with logical argumentation to determine their validity. According to Gandhi, one's message is to be delivered through the convincing force of one's analysis and argument, and the logic of one's ideas. I hope you Ms.J., Mr.G., Mr. L., will engage in such a nonviolent (tape skip). The court does not want to see these defendants or anyone else commit batteries or any crime against any public official with whom they disagree, or wish to hold up to ridicule. They must learn to use other methods to get their message across to government (tape skip). The court does not want to see these defendants injured at the scene of a speech or rally, as they will be if they repeat acts such as this. Nor does this court want to see bystanders placed at risk or trampled to death if disorder breaks out in the midst of a pie throwing, or any other crime. The court does not want a public official injured, as was Mayor Brown, or a public official to experience the stark terror of not knowing whether he or she is being assassinated at that moment.
The defendants in this case rejected probation. Probation which means a promise not to commit crimes. Punishment by sentences to county jail are the only means available to the courts to impress upon the defendants and others that the acts for which the defendants were convicted are not sanctioned but are against the law, and will not be tolerated."

At this point the judge asks if arraignment for sentencing is waived and sentences each defendant to six months in jail.

Transcript of recent Jim Hightower radio spot:

Quicker than a flash, like Robin Hood on fast-forward, they've struck again: [reverb] The Biotic Baking BrigadeThe BBB is a movement that actually moves-a network of political pranksters who literally practice in-your-face politics. They target assorted greedheads, hitting them right in the smacker . . . with pies! As "Agent Apple" of the BBB recently put it, "We speak pie to power."
Among those who've gotten a taste of the Biotic Baking Brigade's sweet and swift justice is Robert Shapiro, CEO of Monsanto. His thuggish corporation is profiteering by arrogantly and dangerously messing with the genetics of our food supply, running roughshod over public health, family farmers, consumers, civil liberties, and Mother Nature. So-splat!-Shapiro got a tofu cream, right in his corporate kisser.
Charles Hurwitz, CEO of Maxxam, also has been pied. This posterboy of the infamous S&L bailout presently owns thousands of acres in the Headwaters area of Northern California. The land is forested with ancient-growth trees . . . which Hurwitz is clear-cutting. So the underground agents of the BBB delivered one to Charlie-for the trees.
The head of the World Trade Organization has tasted the Brigade's cream-filled vengeance, too, as has the Mayor of San Francisco. The BBB said that the Mayor's creamy comeuppance was for his consistent collusion with developer interests over the people's interests. The startled mayor got three pies at a recent press conference-cherry, tofu cream, and pumpkin. His three piers were arrested by the mayor's police guard, and one of them suffered a broken collar bone in the fracas. Hey, it's not all sweetness being a pastry provocateur.
This is Jim Hightower saying . . . But it is worthy work. The BBB's pies are the Boston Tea Party of our modern day, sending a serious message softly to the corporate oligarchy.

Friends of the BBB: 3288 21st #92, San Francisco, CA, 94110, Amerika.

Back to Media Page

"Irreverent: A Celebration of Censorship" at the Leslie‐Lohman Museum of Gay and Lesbian Art

Irreverent: A Celebration of Censorship
Curated by Jennifer Tyburczy
February 13 – May 3, 2015
Public Opening: February 13, 2015, 6 – 8 pm

[New York, NY - January 2015] Inspired by the creative and activist responses to the censorship of Robert Mapplethorpe’s art in the 1980s and 1990s and the more recent withdrawal of David Wojnarowicz’s A Fire in My Belly from the National Portrait Gallery in 2010, Irreverent explores how sexuality has been, and continues to be, used as a tool to prohibit LGBT cultural artwork.
Museum Director Hunter O'Hanian says, “The focus of this exhibition will be the work which has been excluded from other mainstream institutions due to its gay content. Going back to the ‘Culture Wars’ of the 1980s, the exhibition landscape has changed as certain works of art have been excluded because they were considered ‘offensive’ or ‘too risky.’ While in some ways we live in a time which appears more tolerant, exclusion of artwork, and certain facts about some artists, are still excluded because of the person’s sexual orientation.”

Work in the exhibition will span more than three decades and will tell numerous stories of intentional exclusion of works, as well as acts of violence and vandalism.
Guest curator Jennifer Tyburczy says, “The exhibition draws inspiration from the innovative responses to watershed moments in the history of censoring LGBTQ art in Canada, England, Ireland, the Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States. In concept, the show is principally drawn from two events: the censorship of Robert Mapplethorpe’s art in the 1980s and 1990s and the more recent withdrawal of David Wojnarowicz’s A Fire in My Belly from the National Portrait Gallery in 2010. In practice, it seizes on the international fame of these controversies to delve deeper into the many ways that censorship functions in queer artistic life.”
Curating from the perspective that censorship occurs differently and in multiple ways, locations, and moments, the show includes spaces for the restaging of the social, cultural, and political components that led to, followed, or influenced diverse episodes of controversy. In all, the exhibition will feature the work of seventeen artists. It will depict approximately a dozen episodes of exclusion and censorship including:
  • In the Being series (2007), Zanele Muholi interrogates black lesbian relationships and safer sex. On the surface, the visuals capture couples in intimate positions and moments showing their love for each other. However, Muholi’s photographs also critique HIV/AIDS prevention programming in South Africa, and how, in her view, it has failed women who have sex with other women. For years, Muholi has documented gay, lesbian, and transgender people in South Africa and beyond. In April 2012, Muholi’s apartment was broken into while she and her partner were away. The thieves took nothing but her archives, and little has been done to retrieve her works.
  • In 2010 in an art gallery in Lund, Sweden, a group of individuals who local authorities believed to be neo-Nazis used axes and crowbars against Andres Serrano’s photographic series The History of Sex in a spectacular display of terror and vandalism. Death-metal music played in the background as they destroyed $200,000 worth of photographs while shouting expletives and, “We don’t support this” in Swedish. The vandals left behind leaflets reading, “Against decadence and for a healthier culture.” No arrests were made.
  • Alma López’s digital print Our Lady was shown in the exhibition CyberArte: Tradition Meets Technology curated by Dr. Tey Marianna Nunn for the Museum of International Folk Art (MOIFA) in Santa Fe, New Mexico in 2001. The exhibit consisted of four Latina artists whose visual work incorporated imagery containing traditional cultural iconography (such as the virgin of Guadalupe) that the artists reconfigured using digital technology. Soon after the opening, Jose Villegas and Deacon Anthony Trujillo were joined by Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan in organizing protests demanding the removal of the small digital print.
The protests were violent. The museum, curator, and Alma López endured constant verbal abuse and physical threats. Our Lady went on to be censored again in Oakland, California and Cork, Ireland.
  • The censorship of Michelle Handelman’s video installation Dorian: a cinematic perfume is a classic example of the moral panic that can ensue when queer art is shown in mainstream museums. After the video was originally shown as one part of a larger exhibition at Austin, Texas’s Art House in 2011, Dorian was shut down for certain periods of time without explanation. Following this, the looped video was then presented with only limited screening times, before being removed altogether. These decisions were precipitated by one particularly powerful board member who was personally offended by the film’s content.
  • At the 2012 exhibition Aykırı (Contrary) municipal officials of the İzmir Art Center in Kültürpark, Turkey pulled from view three photographs each by three different artists: Baris Barlas’s photograph Invisibles of two men kissing in a crowded Mexico City subway station, Damla Mersin’s powerful shot (Confuse) of a woman in a headscarf striking a haughty pose and fully in control of her sexuality, and Seray Ak’s untitled photograph of two women kissing while wearing headscarves. These artists boldly started a conversation on the politics of display in İzmir, Turkey during a time of vigorous debates about women’s legal right to wear headscarves and the future of the LGBT rights movement in Turkey.
  • In 2010, curators and volunteers at the GFest, London’s Queer Arts Festival, were ordered to cover up some of the works with masking tape and tarps. Of these artworks, Irreverent will display Corrine Bot’s Jack & Jill 01-03, Kimi Tayler’s The Stags In Drag (THE NATURE OF BEAUTY), and Jason Woodson’s tribute to David Wojnarowicz’s, One Day This Kid (20 Years On)
    “Sex—queer, dissident and explicit—is central to the exhibition,” says Tyburczy, “The acts depicted in these works of art by established artists is what caused the censors and vandals to take the steps they did. The exhibition shows how the defamers of queer life have consistently used sex as a political tool to silence all kinds of minority voices on issues that range from immigration to religion, to race, gender, and disability, to globalization and capitalism.”
    Artists slated to participate in the show include Seray Ak, Baris Barlas, Corrine Bot, Alex Donis, Harmony Hammond, Michelle Handelman, Alma López, Robert Mapplethorpe, Damla Mersin, Kent Monkman, Zanele Muholi, Barbara Nitke, Andres Serrano, Kimi Tayler, Tobaron Waxman, David Wojnarowicz, Jason Woodson and others.
    This exhibition will be the featured exhibition of the Queer Art Caucus of the College Art Association ‘s 2015 national convention scheduled in New York in February. A panel will be presented on the exhibition at the conference.

Jennifer Tyburczy‐Curator: Jennifer Tyburczy is Assistant Professor of Speech Communication and Rhetoric and English Language and Literature at the University of South Carolina. She received her Ph.D. in Performance Studies from Northwestern University in 2009 and has since held teaching and research positions at Columbia College Chicago, Rice University, and el Colegio de México in Mexico City. Her work has been published in Criticism, Museum & Society, Radical History Review, Text & Performance Quarterly, Women & Performance, and The Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies. Her book, Sex Museum: The Politics and Performance of Display, is forthcoming with the University of Chicago Press in 2015.
About the Leslie‐Lohman Museum of Gay and Lesbian Art
“...invaluable museum.” Holland Cotter, New York Times, June 2013 Best place for gay culture, Time Out New York: New York's Best 2012
The Leslie-Lohman Museum of Gay and Lesbian Art is the first and only dedicated gay and lesbian art museum in the world with a mission to exhibit and preserve gay and lesbian art, and foster the artists who create it. The Museum has a permanent collection of over 24,000 objects, 6-8 major exhibitions annually, artist talks, film screenings, readings, THE ARCHIVE - a quarterly art newsletter, a membership program, and a research library. The Leslie-Lohman Museum is operated by the Leslie/Lohman Gay Art Foundation, Inc., a non-profit founded in 1987 by Charles W. Leslie and Fritz Lohman, who have supported gay and lesbian artists for over 30 years. The Leslie-Lohman Museum embraces the rich creative history of the gay and lesbian art community by educating, informing, inspiring, entertaining, and challenging all who enter its doors.
The Museum is located at 26 Wooster Street in the SoHo neighborhood of New York City. Admission is free, and hours are Tuesday through Sunday, 12-6 pm, and Thursday, 12-8 pm. The Museum is closed Monday and all major holidays. The Leslie/Lohman Gay Art Foundation, Inc. is a non-profit organization and is exempt from taxation under section 501(c)3 of the IRS Code. The Museum can be reached at 212-431-2609. For more information, go to

Friday, April 17, 2015

"Texas officials concerned about glitter bombs"

March 13, 2015 | by Staff reports
Texas officials concerned about glitter bombs
 124  13  0  0 Google +0  1
glitter bomb, gay news, Washington Blade
Vermin Supreme glitter bombed Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry during the New Hampshire Institute of Politics’ “lesser known candidates forum” at St. Anselm’s College, Manchester, N.H. in 2012. (Photo by Marc Nozell; courtesy Wikimedia Commons)
Public officials in Texas, where several anti-gay laws have hit the state legislature, say “glitter bombs,” in which tubes or handfuls of glitter are either thrown or sent via mail to anti-gay legislators could pose safety issues, the Texas Tribune reports.
In an e-mail sent to legislative staffers last week, the state’s Department of Public Safety warned that glitter bombs can be dangerous if glitter enters the eyes, nose or lungs.
“Glitter bombing is a relatively recent phenomenon and has been adopted as a form of protest particularly (but not exclusively) by gay rights activists and supporters,” the e-mail and an attached document on the phenomenon, reads. Citing several politicians who have been glitter bombed, it said, “The common denominator among these political figures is a conservative orientation and opposition to gay rights, especially marriage equality.”