Cooch Watch photo contest for the week

 

The Washington Blade:

MANASSAS, Va.—A local church on Friday denied a Washington Blade staff writer access to an anti-gay marriage gathering at which Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli spoke.

A woman who was standing near the entrance of Reconciliation Community Church in Manassas in front of two men wearing dark suits who appeared to be security personnel asked this reporter for identification and proof of media affiliation after he identified himself as a Blade staff writer. He proceeded to show her his drivers’ license and business card.

The women concluded this reporter was a member of Cooch Watch, a group named for the nickname Cuccinelli received while he was an undergrad at the University of Virginia that had planned to protest. She then pointedly told him to turn his car around in an adjacent driveway and leave the church’s property.

Cuccinelli’s spokesperson, Brian Gottstein, told the Blade the attorney general “fully expected the media as well as the protesters to be” at the church.

“We had not heard otherwise,” he said.

Gottstein apologized to the Blade over the incident.

The Reconciliation Community Church must be so eager to extend some of that good old Christian love that it mistakenly thought that a gay newspaper had morphed into a  predominantly   woman-run organization called Cooch Watch.  Cooch Watch keeps its eyes on the attorney general because of his misogynistic war on women.  It looks like the Blade will be joining them now. 

Interesting.  Cuccinelli attnds a political rally at a church to protest same-sex marriage.  The church members assume that a women’s group who opposes the restrictions on reproductive rights is sending in spies or protestors (1?) so they bar a reporter for a gay magazine.  [slapping own forehead]  Silly me.

Since I can’t figure out all the objects of hate, let’s approach this situation from another angle.  If a state official is speaking anywhere, can an individual arbitrarily be barred from attending?  How can one person be singled out, even erroneously?  For the record, I am not buying that the woman and accompanying thugs at the door thought the reporter was part of Cooch Watch.  I think they knew darn well what The Blade was since the reporter showed press credentials.  It sounded like that reporter was barred because he represented a gay newspaper.  Cooch Watch was just an excuse.   Cooch Watch  is  a grassroots organization that sprang up in the Richmond area last spring.  

It looks like the Cooch Watchers did make it to Manassas and kept their protest limited to public property near the church.   See Pictures.  You can read all about the workings of Cooch Watch at www.coochwatch.com.

Should host organizations be allowed to keep certain members of the press out of speeches given by public officials?   Which hate group will Cooch speak in front of next week?  Can churches be considered hate groups?  Just some points to ponder….

How about protesters?  Is it fair game to keep them off the property?  I would join in and say yes to that one.  Public figures and churches.  State/church issues are so troublesome.  Reconciliation Community Church is also known as “A going church for a coming Lord.”  Why is our attorney general a guest speaker at this church?  Is he promoting his own brand of politics in a church?  That invisible wall of seperation that I don’t see is really troubling.

Shelly Abrams, co-founder of Cooch Watch had the following to say:

“To be denied entry into what’s considered God’s house is appalling,” she said. “Not only that, this is a public official. We are Virginians and we want to hear what he has to say about same-sex marriage. And we were not given that opportunity. There is fear among the ultra-right wing of being exposed and they know that Cooch Watch is here to expose them.”

Equality Virginia spokesperson Kevin Clay also criticized the church’s decision to deny access to the gathering.

 

 

35 Thoughts to “Blade reporter barred from anti-gay marriage rally with the Cooch”

  1. Steve Randolph

    FYI- Reconciliation Community Church is located
    at 14654 Joplin Road in the middle of Prince William County,
    not “in Manassas”, not even close.
    Boo Blade!

  2. Censored bybvbl

    How would the IRS view this supposed mix of religion and politics? Guess it depends on what was said and whether the meeting is considered a regular part of the church service…

  3. Steve, they have a Manassas address. I think the answer is to call yourselves Manassas City legally.

  4. @Censored bybvbl

    Hard to tell with this one. how do you filter one out of the other? Beats me.

    this entire situation has some interesting dynamics.

  5. Steve Randolph

    M-H,
    The highway sign reads:
    “Leaving Manassas
    Entering Prince William County”

    Not Manassas sorta, not Manassas lite ,
    but PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY.

    It is galling to have Manassas tagged as “the location”
    of every nutcase and/or criminal event from Potomac Mills
    to Bull Run Mountain while everything positive in PWC
    is correctly labeled as in PWC – even if it takes place ten
    yards outside the city limits. Manassas has gotten the short
    end of this stick for too long.

    1. I don’t know. My reference would be Charlottesville/Albemarle County. It is used interchangeably unless you are speaking of govt.

      Its because of othe post office addresses. Where is Prince william county, va as far as post office goes?

      As more places spring up like Bristow, Independent Hill, maybe it will change.

      I think I will always be considered Manassas.

      Do you want the Mall to change its name from Manassas Mall?

      How about the battlefield?

  6. marinm

    “Should host organizations be allowed to keep certain members of the press out of speeches given by public officials?”

    I don’t understand something. What’s the story here? That a Church barred a person from their private property or that somehow it must be Cooch that ordered it?

    Lets be honest. Cooch afraid of the Blade? Or Cooch Watch? Hardly.

    1. marin, you can read. I linked the full stories. If you see nothing wrong…nothing I can do about that either.

  7. Starryflights

    Coach is easily and obviously intimidated by gays and women.

    1. I am not so sure he is intimidated by much of anything.

      I would say viseral dislike of gays, yes. Viseral dislike of independent, self sufficient women who don’t do what they are told to do? yes.

  8. Emma

    Who goes around intimidating a handbag designer?

    @Starryflights

  9. SlowpokeRodriguez

    I have to point out the obvious logic problem here. “Blade reporter”???? Oxymoron. Jumbo Shrimp, etc.

  10. SlowpokeRodriguez

    I do, however, like the whole “cooch watch”, the design on the t-shirt, etc. Women wonder why we don’t take them seriously when they ask us to respect them and not treat them like sexual objects. Too funny.

  11. I suppose you have misread a symbol. Surely you recognize the human eye. 👿

    Women don’t wonder why some men don’t take them seriously. You refuse to take them seriously at your own risk.

    There is always that issue of supply and demand….

    I will grant you that more women need an economics course about sealing off the supply…

  12. SlowpokeRodriguez

    Moon-howler :
    I suppose you have misread a symbol. Surely you recognize the human eye.

    Human Eye…..right. Like I’ve said before….we’re not all stupid.

    1. Does it offend you? I will let them know. Perhaps you just have a naughty mind.

  13. SlowpokeRodriguez

    I find it distasteful……but, ultimately, typical.

    1. I have followed the group for months…since the General Assembly was in session, and I never noticed anything amiss about their logo. I thought it was a watchful eye and as far as i am concerned, that is what it is.

      It took me 10 minutes to figure out what you were talking about. Perhaps the distasteful thoughts are within you. On the other hand, I detected a little tone of superiority in tone over those young women. “Typical” of what? Perhaps there are totally unexplored topics here as to what is “typical.”

    1. What the hell was that, a sunspot?

      Pokie is indignant because HE has a dirty mind.

  14. SlowpokeRodriguez

    Typical of….well……look at the dude wearing the shirt.

    1. In the pic with Cooch? That isn’t a dude. That is a woman.

  15. SlowpokeRodriguez

    Uh, I doubt that. Now, the girl in the background checking her cell phone? Woman!

  16. marinm

    @SlowpokeRodriguez

    I thought the “person” wearing the shirt with the odd symbol was a guy. Maybe its a she. I just assumed a prior serviceman.

    The lady in the background. Nice!

    I have no issue with the Blade but if they think that Cooch is scared of them they are smoking the good stuff.

    1. She is a woman. Sometimes women have short hair. They have a Cooch contest once a week. She was making the face intentionally.

      I know this might come as a shock. Males don’t have vaginas.

  17. @Moon-howler
    That’s the “Eye of Sauron” from Lord of the Rings. He was the evil warlord.

  18. @Cargosquid
    Thanks Cargo. Unlike my kids and brothers, I am not a Lord of the Rings fan.

  19. Lots of fools trying to come on this blog to make stupid remarks about Cooch Watch. Are men really that threatened by women who failed to give a crap what they think?

    Ah, I had forgotten about male insecurities.

  20. marinm

    @Moon-howler

    Yes, its male insecurities. Its not my distaste for a person, group, or corporation being told what to do on their own private property.

    Maybe that’s a female in the foreground. I can’t really tell. But, like you said. I doubt she {assumption} gives a crap what I think nor do I give one about her “politics”.

  21. Elena

    Oh good lord, grow up for G-d’s sake. If Cooch thinks is perfectly fine to force a woman to birth a baby out of her vagina then certainly, a “symbol” representing the “said” vagina is perfectly fine.

    Personally, I think all you men who want to force birth on women should be forced to watch birth videos with close ups of vaginas, something like the dude in Clockwork Orange who had his eyelids propped open and was forced to watch adult movies!

  22. You might care if part of her politics was gun control.

  23. Elena

    Slow, your level of immaturity never ceases to amaze me. This woman does not look male, maybe not feminine by YOUR standards, but a woman all the same. How dismissive of you and totally unnecessary.

  24. marinm

    @Moon-howler

    Maybe. But that example just proves that I’m for LESS government not more. I agree with you that Cooch should not be able to regulate vaginas. Maybe the next few steps are a mandatory waiting period before you can have sex or an abortion. Or, a ‘cooling’ off period between when you talk to the doctor to when you can get a procedure. Maybe a “government permit” to own, operate and conceal a vagina. Chicago taxing bullets makes me think of a ‘tax’ on tampons to support the govt cost of government OB/GYN services..

    On these issues I’m both for LESS government. YOU want MORE government and YOU just got it. Enjoy it.

  25. @marin, show me where I have suggested we have more government. I don’t recall asking for it.

  26. SlowpokeRodriguez

    Elena :
    Oh good lord, grow up for G-d’s sake. If Cooch thinks is perfectly fine to force a woman to birth a baby out of her vagina

    I’m anxious to hear your thoughts on where, besides the vagina, a woman should have the choice to birth her baby out of. Now, I’ll admit, I’m no Obstetrician, but I’m pretty sure birthin’ babies out vaginas is not all that uncommon a practice. Heck, I’ve heard tell some women do it that way on purpose!! gOd, that Cooch is a stinker, isn’t he?

    God, God, Goooooooody-God-God!!

Comments are closed.