On Wednesday, American Apparel's Silver Spring store received the chain's latest threatening phone call in response to its anti-Prop-8 "Legalize Gay" T-shirts.

"Five minutes ago, I just answered the phone and got a death threat from a man with a bad phone connection," the female Silver Spring employee wrote to superiors in an e-mail. The caller asked the employee why the pro-gay shirts were still on display, then threatened to take action. He said, "If I didn’t take it down, bad things can happen to me, resulting in drastic measures," she wrote.

The hazy threats have made the nightly news, but the incidents have also sent some clearer-headed telephone traffic to the Maryland store. "[The employee] told us that she's received plenty of other phone calls thanking the store for sticking with the 'Legalize Gay' display," says Jonny Makeup, an American Apparel rep.

Makeup says the threats are an anomaly in the history of the T-shirt, which American Apparel first produced to support campaigns to repeal California's anti-gay-marriage measure, Proposition 8. Until this week, Makeup says that American Apparel has never received so much as a complaint about the shirts. "Not even in our Midwest mall stores," he says.

Now, the shirt's D.C.-area detractors will have more opportunities to get angry—and maybe finally get caught. A broken window and a couple of anonymous phone calls were enough to send American Apparel into "Legalize Gay" overdrive. Makeup says that the shirts, which the company often donates to pride groups around the country, are in-demand as ever—and that D.C. will see more shipments of the shirts in coming days. "We're putting them on display in all our stores," says Makeup. Also in the works? "We plan on making sure there’s more security," he says.

Last night, WJLA* reported on the recent recent vandalism linked to American Apparel's "Legalize Gay" displays. Yesterday, the Silver Spring location received another threat over the phone in regards to the anti-Prop-8 shirts, which an anonymous employee recounts for WJLA: "Why is that T-shirt still in the window? You should take it down or something will happen to you."

On Monday, a window was broken at the Silver Spring store. On Tuesday, American Apparel's Georgetown location received a threatening phone call. Following the two incidents, the Silver Spring store promised to keep its "Legalize Gay" display up in the storefront window; now, the Georgetown store has replaced its less political window display with the "Legalize Gay" shirts, as well.

I've got a call in to the American Apparel locations in Georgetown and Silver Spring; employees at the two stores are now being asked to notify American Apparel corporate brass before speaking with the press.

* Note to WJLA: Observe how to credit other reporters when you repackage their scoops!

Previously:

Gay T-Shirts In Windows A Problem For American Apparel

American Apparel Windows Will Stay Gay

This week, hooligans targeted a couple of local American Apparel stores over the stores' prominent "Legalize Gay" T-Shirt displays. On Monday, a window at the Silver Spring location was shattered. Yesterday, an anonymous caller informed the Georgetown location that as long as "Legalize Gay" is on display, the storefronts can expect more broken glass.

American Apparel isn't scared.

Following the second threat, Silver Spring American Apparel manager Kassandra Powell told CP that the store had temporarily removed the anti-Prop-8 clothing from its window display. Last night, company spokesperson Ryan Holiday wrote in to say that "Legalize Gay" was there to stay. "The store employee misspoke about taking the display down," wrote Holiday. "[T]hose decisions get made in Los Angeles and we wouldn't want to give into something like this."

In a statement, American Apparel's Jonny Makeup made clear that the two local incidents would only strengthen its marriage equality efforts in D.C. The company will "continue to run Legalize Gay advertisements in papers across DC-Metro area," wrote Makeup. Some Washingtonians may even get some free stuff out of the deal: "We'll also send Legalize Gay t-shirts to any group in Washington DC that is fighting for gay rights,"

A local vandal may have found an antidote for the "Legalize Gay" T-shirts that have popped up in American Apparel window displays around the D.C. area—eliminate the window.

When Kassandra Powell arrived for work at the Silver Spring American Apparel store yesterday morning, she was met with a crowd, a police car, and a broken window. "I was told that the [security alarm] went off at 5:15 a.m.," she says.

Powell, a store manager, had reason to believe that the early-morning glass-shattering was more than your average retail break-in. Nothing was stolen from the store—including the anti-Prop-8 t-shirts prominently displayed on the opposite side of the glass.

This morning, the Georgetown American Apparel location experienced its own attack from an upset window shopper—this time, over the telephone. Around 10:30 a.m., visual merchandiser Walter Reed fielded a call from a male who was "enraged for no reason."

"He was like, is this the Silver Spring location? And I said, 'No, this is the Georgetown location, '" says Reed. "He said, 'You have some Legalize Gay shirts in the window there.' He said that he and his friends found it offensive, and that if we didn't take them down, they were going to break it—the window," said Reed. "I said, 'Is that a threat, Sir?' And then he hung up."

When Reed called the Silver Spring store to inform them of the threat, he was told that the location had already received the more forceful warning about its window display over 24 hours earlier. Then, Reed informed the police of the telephonic follow-up.

Reed was doing more than helping a sister store out—he personally assisted the Silver Spring location in styling its pro-gay display. "I helped do the windows there just last week," says Reed. "I know there was a Gay Beach shirt right there in the window."

For now, Reed's handiwork has been temporarily disassembled. "I took it down because of the threat," says Powell. "It’s not because we’re trying to comply with their demands or anything—we just don't want a broken window."

UPDATES:

American Apparel Windows Will Stay Gay

American Apparel Employees Receive Death Threats

American Apparel "Legalize Gay" Vandalism Inspires Support, Security

UPDATE: :(

Portia de Rossi, wife to Ellen DeGeneres, apologizes for all the pain her gay marriage has caused Prop 8 protesters, including Buddy the dog, "who was forced to wear this ridiculous sign even though he, himself, is gay."

In California, political action courts political violence

Santa Clara County, the California county south of San Francisco, has released its hate-crime data for 2008. In 2007, 15 percent of hate crimes were classified as homophobic; in 2008, 56 percent of hate crimes were motivated by homophobia. What changed? Deputy District Attorney Jay Boyarsky told The Mercury News that it is "headlines and controversies of the day" that lead to "surges in types of hate incidents"—meaningthe ongoing battle over Prop 8 may have turned some Californians violent.

To some, the increase in anti-gay violence reveals the flip-side of bringing GLBT issues to the political forefront. Leslie Bulbuk, president of local GLBT political action group BAYMEC, said: "When there's a lot more information about gays and lesbians on TV or in the news, it brings out the worst in people who have an inherent bias against groups they don't belong to. . . . It seems like visibility makes people come out of the woodwork.''

Prop 8 supporters claim that the fight over the anti-gay-marriage initiative increased violence on both sides of the gay marriage aisle. "I certainly hope Proposition 8 did not result in more crime," said Protect Marriage rep Frank Schubert. "But if it did, it did so on both sides."

If Prop 8 protesters were responsible for increasing hate crimes, however, the data does not reflect a substantial increase in crimes against, say, Christians or Republicans. Though the new figures mark a tripling of anti-gay hate crimes in the county, hate crimes in general in the area remained relatively constant last year. In 2007, 3 out of 20 hate crimes were anti-gay; in 2008, 14 out of 25 were.

Photo by HBC4511

Photo via the U.S. Federal Government.

Personally, I'm interested in calling in gay today, but "Day Without a Gay" organizers are suggesting you wait until tomorrow. The national gay hooky event—scheduled for International Human Rights Day—was founded by West Hollywood couple Sean Hetherington and Aaron Hartzler in response to the victory of California's Proposition 8.

One caveat of calling in gay—you're expected to spend your day off work volunteering.

D.C. Prop 8 protest photo by tvol.

[Via The Slog].

[youtube:v=q28UwAyzUkE]

Next time: try stiffer, less overtly evil.

* Tim Dickinson for Rolling Stone on why Prop 8 failed. (Hint: It wasn't Mormon or black voters, but it might have been you).

* The Gay Recluse reports on the shielded statues in Union Station (photo above), indicates that behind the shield are uncircumcised Roman penises, calls it "the biggest scandal in the history of hot gay statues!"

* WaPo says Barry and Hills need to work on their "rapport," but noted this cute press conference tidbit: "Leaving the news conference in Chicago yesterday where he introduced his national security team, President-elect Barack Obama strolled out of the room arm in arm with his choice for secretary of state and onetime rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton." Oooooooh!

* Mark your calendars: Forum on gay marriage in D.C. slated for Dec. 11.

* Barrack buys Michelle First Bling!

After the jump, I tally the argumentative stylings of this Prop 8 manifesto:

"I'm coming out of the closet: As a Californian, I voted yes on Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage." Plus five. While some might find this comparison unsavory, I think it's pretty snappy. Seduce the reader with the lede, and it's smooth homophobic arguin' thereafter.

"Not because of religious reasons and not because the Bible tells me to—rather, for entirely secular reasons. . . . The 1964 Civil Rights Act gave individual human beings of all colors the fundamental human rights to equality that our Creator endowed to all of us upon birth." Minus six. Bad form to express ambivalence to religious argument then turn around and invoke the capital-C word.

"In contrast, the gay marriage movement is seeking rights for 'couples,' a vague societal concept that is formed much later in life and easily made or broken." Plus one, only because I don't care for marriage of any kind.

"Anti-discrimination laws in the workplace and laws that protect individual homosexuals against discrimination based on their sexual orientation are one thing. Pushing to legalize gay marriage and the rights of couples is quite new and quite another thing." Minus one thing. Be specific, Clark! Win us over with the details!

"[T]heoretically, a gay person and I have the exact same right under California law: We can marry someone of the opposite sex who is older than 16 if we pay 40 bucks and get tested for HIV. That gay person can't marry a man, but I can't do it either. So am I being discriminated against? Is he?" Nice use of rhetorical questioning to prove a point. Next time, though, work on making the question more difficult to immediately and definitively answer (Hint: the answer is "yes"). Plus only two.

"Yes, I realize that this is odd back-door logic, but you see my point." Minus 10. Come on, Clark! Don't take the time to set up a perfectly unreasonable argument and then throw it away in the very next graf. Get your head in the game!

"They don't want just the couples' rights. They want the whole tamale, title of marriage and all." Mmm, tamales. Plus ocho!

"So when gay rights activists want to pursue actual rights, let me know. Until then, I'll be voting yes to ban gay marriage." Plus one, if only because the final abrupt turn here made me giggle out loud. And I'm the last person to begrudge a throwaway joke at the kicker!

Point total: Even! I didn't plan this, I swear!

The District of Columbia may be a few Senators short of statehood, but it's close to securing some other rights for its citizens, D.C. Council member David Catania says. At Saturday's 2008 GLBT Economic Development Summit, Catania "reaffirmed that a same-sex marriage bill will be introduced to the Council in January, and that he is sure it will pass," DCist reports. In an interview, Catania said that "[m]any of us on the Council believe that there is no better time that exists than now."

Bills passed by the D.C. Council are subject to Congressional review. Though some saw the passage of Prop 8 as an indication of how Congress would act on future gay marriage initiatives, Cantania says he's confident that the Council will pass a measure in January, and that the then largely Democratic Congress will
approve the bill sometime next year.

Photo of Chicago Prop 8 protest by Grant Gochnauer.

John over at The New Gay has outlined a plan of attack for responding to the passage of Prop 8 and anti-gay legislation like it. In "Prop 8: WTF Do We Do Now?" John lays out a guide to staying on message, appointing successful leadership, and out-organizing the Mormons.

Photo by brenbot.

Topics discussed: Post-election sex, Prop 8, making nice, hugging it out, Larry Summers, innate mathematical ability, Democrats vs. Republicans, girls vs. boys.

Download the podcast here.

There have been a lot of positive protests in the wake of the passage of Prop 8. Unfortunately, it's the few negative protests—like this one—that help Prop 8 voters feel vindicated in their anti-gay positions. For those who oppose Prop 8, let's stay aware of these types of protest—and keep thinking about the best way to attack the issue without attacking individuals.

Here's Swisher's message for the anti-gay Mormon elite who would stand in her way: "I’m not going away, because I have an Elizabeth-Taylor appetite for gay marriage."

Slate's Kenji Yoshino has a great roundup of Prop 8's effect on gay couples in California and around the country, detailing the legislation's ramifications for California's gay couples who are looking to marry, those who have already been married in the state, and couples across the country mounting their own legislative fights.

For California couples looking to marry, the immediate future is clear, he writes: Don't expect to get married anytime soon.

California will have a moratorium on same-sex marriage for the foreseeable future. Although a state constitutional challenge was filed today, the only plausible legal challenge to Prop 8 is a federal constitutional one. But gay-rights groups will be loath to bring such a challenge, as it could be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is not viewed as a friendly audience. A more likely response would be another proposition to reverse this one, offered through California's relatively flexible referendum process. But that political remedy will likely be some years away, given the political and financial capital expended on this last fight.

The effect on already married gay couples (all 16,000 of them) in California is less clear; they could be recognized, washed out completely, or not recognized within the state of California.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown has opined that he believes those marriages will not get washed out by Prop 8. His position comports with the general intuition that retroactive legislation should not deprive people of vested rights like marriage. . . . [However] the amendment states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." A court could find that the pre-election marriages remain in existence but that California cannot recognize their validity going forward.

The effects of the legislation on further gay marriage activism "are significant but not devastating," writes Yoshino:

Before Tuesday, court opinions legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut suggested that the right was gaining traction. The passage today of constitutional bans on same-sex marriage not just in California but also in Arizona and Florida provides a counterpoint.

Photo by Katie Tegtmeyer.

Attorney Gloria Allred and her clients, a lesbian couple, who won right to marry in the California Supreme Court will hold a news conference to announce a new lawsuit against Prop. 8. . . . Ms. Allred and her law firm represented the couple in their victory before the California Supreme Court. Her clients became the first to marry in Los Angeles County in June.

Ms. Allred will file the new lawsuit today with the California Supreme Court on behalf of the couple. The new lawsuit will contain a new and controversial legal argument as to why Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. Copies of the lawsuit will be provided to the press at the news conference.

Last night, president-elect Barack Obama included gay Americans in his message of unity between all citizens, "rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight." But Obama and VP-elect Joe Biden don't support gay marriage—and success of several anti-gay ballot initiatives around the country mirror that distinction.

* Prop 8, the initiative that would rescind existing marriage rights from gay Californians, is set to pass.

* A similar measure in Arizona, Prop 102, is a preemptive strike against gay marriage in the state. Arizona voters passed it yesterday.

* Florida's Amendment 2 passed with 62% voter support, banning gay marriage and also preventing gay couples from claiming many of the same civil union benefits as straight couples.

* In the most backwards initiative of the night, Arkansas voted against the right of gay couples to adopt.

Photo of San Francisco's Castro Theater by davitydave shows Californians celebrating Obama's victory . . . even as many lamented the poll numbers showing support for Prop 8.