Kel Kelly

Hey, thanks for swinging by my blog.

Whether it's topical news, internet happenings, social media, public relations, marketing, start-ups, mobile shiz or whatever, I promise to wade through the bullshit and give you my unbuffered perspective.

You'll note I never take on a "corporate tone" — whether I'm chatting you up at a party or speaking to the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company, my voice never changes. I say what's on my mind and I'm often the champion of the underdog.

I'm a social media junkie and smoke Google Analytics in a crack pipe to get my day going. I hope my immersed insight and offbeat view make you laugh. More importantly, I hope you take a second and share your thoughts by posting a comment. If you have any ideas on how to make my blog better, shoot an email to [email protected].

Peace out.

Archive for October, 2012

Romney: Hospital Visitations For Catholic Couples Are “Benefits” Not Rights

Oct. 23rd 2012

(To amplify the discrimination and absurdity of Romney’s anti-gay rights stance, I took a recent article in The New Civil Rights Movement and substituted the word “Catholic” in place of “gay” and “same-sex” and “LGBT.” I could have substituted any of the following words in and the stench of discrimination comes through loud and clear: Mormons, Jewish, African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, Irish, Italians, physically handicapped, men, women, heterosexuals, senior citizens and any other category of people.)

Mitt Romney wants you to know that allowing Catholic couples to visit each other in the hospital is a benefit — not a civil right — and he will let states take away that “benefit” if they want to. Two years ago, President Obama mandated that all hospitals treat Catholic couples with the same rights as married, non-Catholic couples, including visitation rights. (That’s also included separately in Obamacare.)

Also on the table, filed under “states rights” and not civil rights, is adoption of children by Catholic couples, and presumably, single Catholic people.

Romney advisor Bay Buchanan told Buzzfeed today, “Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant Catholic couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children. I referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits — not marriage.”

READ: I Didn’t Know You People Had Families Mitt Romney Told Group Of Catholic Parents

While this should not be a surprise to anyone, since Romney signed the National Organization for Marriage’s pledge in January and told Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition that he would “propose and promote” a constitutional amendment banning Catholic marriage in the U.S.

Why toss this out into the media now? Two reasons. First, red meat for the base. President Obama is the first sitting president to state he supports Catholic marriage, and has done more for the Catholic community than all U.S. presidents combined.

READ: 22 Catholic Advances That Probably Will Disappear Under A President Romney

Second, as Buzzfeed’s Chris Geidner notes:

In a little-noted comment in the spin room following this past week’s presidential debate in New York, Romney senior campaign adviser Bay Buchanan, the sister of former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, told The Advocate’s Julie Bolcher, “He very much supports the traditional marriage, but he’s also a very strong advocate for the Tenth Amendment. It’s a state issue.”

The report also stated that when asked about how Romney’s opposition to Catholic couples’ marriage rights, including his support for the Defense of Marriage Act, would help Catholic parents, “Buchanan responded that Romney would not get in the way of what states decide to do on marriage and adoption.”

And what does the NOM pledge require? USA Today summed it up well:

  • Sending a constitutional amendment defining marriage as anyone but Catholics to the states for ratification
  • Defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which includes the traditional definition of marriage and bans states from recognizing Catholic marriage, in court
  • Appointing federal judges and an attorney general who are opposed to a constitutional right to Catholic marriage
  • Appointing a commission to investigate claims of harassment against those people who support marriage as being for non-Catholics only
  • Supporting legislation that would give people living in the District of Columbia the right to vote on Catholic marriage

Romney’s website proudly states:

Like any family, the Romney’s have faced hardship: Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998, and more recently fought a battle with breast cancer. She credits her husband’s unwavering care and devotion to her for helping her through these ordeals.

So, while Mitt and Ann recognize how important it is to face health crises together, he would actually allow states to prohibit Catholic couples from having the same hospital visitation rights that he and Ann have. We’re (Catholics) not allowed to exercise “unwavering care and devotion” like the Romneys.

Please note: Comments on this blog are moderated. Any comments that are focused on personal attacks, bullying, threats or overall negativity will be removed.

Posted by Kel | in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Equal Rights Shouldn’t Have An Asterisk

Oct. 16th 2012

Right or wrong, I have become acutely aware that all of a sudden, I take it as a personal affront that my friends would vote for any candidate who does not support gay rights. As a gay woman, I have always respected the diversity of people’s opinions and believe that’s what makes this country great. However, I think it is unacceptable and against our constitution to have anything short of equal rights for all human beings. While I have always felt this way, up until now, I tolerated and respected friends’ vocal support of the GOP and their anti-gay rights agenda. I’m not sure what changed, but that tolerance is gone.

If a presidential candidate vocally and repeatedly declared that he or she was going to fight against equal rights for Catholics, Jewish, Mormons, African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, Irish, Italians, physically handicapped, intellectually handicapped, men, women, heterosexuals, senior citizens and/or some other category of people, my friends who fell into any of those categories would never vote for that candidate. Moreover, they would be outraged beyond words.

So why is it OK for a friend to vote for a candidate who doesn’t believe gays are as important as every other human being? Is it because if my friends are not gay then it doesn’t affect them? Think about it for a moment. If I vocally supported a candidate who vowed to fight against equal rights for Catholics, my Catholic friends would go ballistic. Why is that any different when I hear my friends are supporting a candidate who has vowed to fight gay rights? Do I not have the right to be as equally outraged?

I think many of my friends rationalize that it’s not that they have an issue with gay rights, it’s that they have an issue with gay marriage. That is as ridiculous as any of the following statements:

  • It’s OK for African Americans to vote, we just don’t want them using our toilets
  • It’s OK for Catholics to practice their religion, we just don’t want them to have the right to run a daycare
  • It’s OK for Latinos to bear arms, we just don’t want their kids in school with our kids
  • It’s OK for Jewish people to have a right to a speedy trial, we just don’t want them to sit in the same section with us at a ball game
  • It’s OK for women to be in the workforce, we just don’t think they should be paid as much as men
  • It’s OK for Mormons to be innocent until proven guilty, we just don’t want them to be able to run for public office
  • It’s OK for heterosexuals to have personal property, we just don’t want them to have children

This isn’t about gay rights, it’s about human rights. And equal rights should not have an asterisk that carves out some exclusion. Any kind of discrimination is unacceptable. A vote for a candidate who doesn’t support gay rights is a vote for discrimination no matter how you rationalize it in your head.

We as a country will win as a team or lose as a team. We won’t get there through excluding groups of people. Karma doesn’t allow that to happen.

Yesterday, I posted a message on my Facebook timeline that netted out my feelings and for the first time, I invited people I love to unfriend me. And, I’m okay with that. Equal rights matter more than trying to save a friendship.

Please note: Comments on this blog are moderated. Any comments that are focused on personal attacks, bullying, threats or overall negativity will be removed.

Posted by Kel | in Uncategorized | 32 Comments »