More Wednesday Male Beauty

Local Bigot Pat Robertson Hyperventilates Over Obama LGBT Rights Memorandum

Hardly a month goes by when local anti-gay bigot-in-chief (and in my opinion Christianist shakedown artist extraordinaire) Pat Robertson doesn't shoot off his mouth and spread his batshitery across the airwaves on the 700 Club. Thus, I guess it should have been expected that Robertson would be venting on air following Barack Obama's issuance of his memorandum directing all U.S. agencies to support LGBT rights around the world. Right Wing Watch caught Robertson's rant:

Isn’t it appalling that the United States of America would try to force the acceptance of homosexuality on other nations but at the same time we would not force them to take care of their religious minorities and they would permit discrimination and persecution of Christians? What kind of a country have we got? You know, there is a God in heaven and He is just. Thomas Jefferson, ‘I tremble when I remember that God is just.’ He is just, he is not going to allow this kind of thing to go on forever. This country cannot continue to violate God’s principles and to make a mockery of His laws and think we’re going to get away with it. And when the blow comes, it’s going to be horrible.

What's appalling is the manner in which Robertson enriches himself by demonizing other humans and asking those who can't afford to do so to send him money so that he can continue to live the comfortable good life in his mansion near Regent University. In my opinion, if anyone needs to fear God's wrath, it's Robertson and his fellow modern day Pharisees among the professional Christian set.

Why is the So-Called Christian Press Imposing a Blackout on New Sexual Orientation Research?

As noted in the prior post, Lisa Miller, a kidnapper under federal arrest warrant, claims to be an "ex-gay" even though all of the legitimate medical and mental health associations are of the position that sexual orientation cannot be changed. Despite many new research studies that collectively support this premise and demonstrate the falsity of the "ex-gay" myth, the so-called Christian press - not to mention virulently anti-gay hate groups - seems to conveniently act as if this research and the newer studies don't exist. The reasons are pretty obvious: this research underscores that many pastors, Christian publishers and the anti-gay hate groups are lying to their flocks/subscribers. They care more about denigrating LGBT individuals and pocketing money made by misrepresentation than they do about telling the objective truth. As I note frequently, virtually no one is more dishonest that the "godly Christian" crowd. It seems that in their minds, the truth is whatever is convenient to their anti-gay agenda and will put money in their pockets. They make the money lenders described in the Gospels look like highly ethical and upstanding folks. Warren Throckmorton (pictured above) looks at this phenomenon and the amazement from some among the sheeple who are finding out that they've been deliberately misled. Here are some highlights:

Of late, I have given several talks to a variety of evangelical groups on the current research on sexual orientation. Along the way, I have been contacted by evangelicals who ask about the current status of sexual orientation research. After the conversations and speeches, many questions come up. One question I hear after almost all of these conversations is: Why haven’t we seen anything about these studies?

Many of the questioners read evangelical publications and consume evangelical media. However, they don’t know anything about the brain research of Ivanka Savic in Sweden (2005, 2008) or Adam Safron and colleagues at Northwestern University (since 2005).

They know there is no gay gene but they don’t know about the significant brain, perceptual and cognitive differences reported within the past five years by various researchers around the world.

Many evangelicals believe homosexuality is due to abuse. . . . . they are unaware of the 2010 study by Wilson and Widom’s study which found no relationship between abuse and having a gay partner for men or women (men were more likely to have had at least gay experience in their adult lives but not a recent partner). They are unaware of the 2010 work of Wells in New Zealand that found 81.6% of gays reported no sexual abuse in their lives.

Many evangelicals I speak to think that change of orientation is pretty common and the evidence is being suppressed by the gay-friendly media. . . . When I explain to them what change means in the context of the study, they are surprised. Then I point out the study, also by Mark Yarhouse, that found no change in orientation for men and women in mixed orientation marriages, they wonder why that study was not reported in the media. I wonder the same thing.

I could be wrong but I don’t think any of the studies to which I have referred here have been reported in the Christian press. The Jones and Yarhouse study was reported widely, but the Yarhouse study showing no change among sexual minorities in mixed orientation couples – which is more recent – was not reported anywhere.

Many evangelicals get their information from NARTH through groups like Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Exodus International, etc. Others get information from Christian media. However, these studies are not reported in these places.

I suspect the culture war is to blame. It cannot be because sexual orientation is not news. The issue comes up in the Presidential campaigns and other news all the time. However, evangelicals are quite unprepared to discuss this very current topic with the most recent and best scholarship.

In my view, Christian media and organizations have a responsibility to provide this information to their readers and consumers. Given the backlog of unreported studies, there is plenty of material for their reporting.

If I were Warren, I would not hold my breath waiting for this information to be reported. Candidly, the anti-gay organizations have no desire in reporting the truth. They will lie, distort information, and continue a news blackout on anything that gets in the way of their agenda. Truth and accuracy in reporting are mutually exclusive from the Christian press.

New Arrest in the Lisa Miller Kidnapping Case

There are new developments in the federal kidnapping case of Lisa Miller (pictured at far left in the photo) - the self-proclaimed "former" Lesbian, if you believe the truth and veracity challenged folks at Liberty Counsel - who fled the USA with her daughter in defiance of Vermont Court orders awarding custody to Miller's former partner, Janet Jenkins. A Virginia man from Stuarts Draft, a small town not too far from Liberty Counsel's home base in Lynchburg, Virginia, has been arrested for his involvement in helping Miller flee the USA with her young daughter, Isabella. As noted before in prior posts, some administrative support staff at Liberty Counsel outwardly appear to have perhaps been involved in assisting Miller as well. The Rutland Herald has coverage on these new developments. Here are some highlights:

A Virginia man who federal prosecutors say helped a woman leave the country with her daughter so she wouldn’t have to turn custody of the girl over to her former lesbian partner surrendered Tuesday to face charges he aided in international parental kidnapping.

A complaint unsealed Tuesday said Kenneth L. Miller, 46, of Stuarts Draft, Va., arranged passage for Lisa Miller to travel to Canada before flying with her daughter in September 2009 to Nicaragua, where she was sheltered for a time by a group of Mennonite missionaries.

Kenneth Miller appeared in U.S. District Court in Burlington on Tuesday and was released, said U.S. Attorney Tristram Coffin, who would provide no further information about the case.

Earlier this year, prosecutors indicted an American Mennonite missionary living in Nicaragua, Timothy Miller, on charges of helping Lisa Miller reach Central America. In October, prosecutors dropped the charges against Timothy Miller in exchange for his cooperation.

None of the Millers involved in the case is related.

The affidavit made public Tuesday indicated that Timothy Miller had helped provide the information that led to the charges against Kenneth Miller.

The affidavit says Timothy Miller arranged passage for Lisa Miller and her daughter, paying for the tickets with his mother-in-law’s credit card, but Kenneth Miller had told him he would be reimbursed for the price of the tickets.

In the spring of 2010, Lisa Miller was indicted in Vermont on charges of international parental kidnapping.

The latest complaint alleges that Kenneth Miller, a Mennonite pastor, asked another Mennonite pastor from Ontario, whose name was redacted from the affidavit, to meet Lisa Miller and her daughter Isabella, now 11, at a hotel in Niagara, Ontario. In Ontario, that pastor picked Lisa Miller and her daughter up at the hotel and took them to the airport in Toronto, where they flew to Mexico and then Central America.

If convicted of aiding in international parental kidnapping, Kenneth Miller could be sentenced to three years in prison.

Of course what many of us would like to see ultimately surface is involvement by Matt Staver or others on the legal staff of Liberty Counsel. The organization, which files lawsuits on behalf of right wing Christianist groups, in my opinion, needs to be shut down.

Wednesday Morning Male Beauty

The GOP's Disingenuous "Concern" for African Americans

Just when you think the hypocrisy of today's GOP cannot possibly reach more absurd heights, someone in the GOP Congressional delegation proves that assumption wrong. A case in point is Rep. Trent Franks, an Arizona Republican, who is pushing for restrictions on abortion out of supposed concerns for African Americans. This from the same political party that is working incessantly to reduce African American voting rights through voter ID requirements, etc., opposes affirmative action plans, is populated by Christianists/Tea Party members who barely seek to hide their white supremacist leanings, and that wants to cut funding for numerous programs that benefit African Americans. It's like Hitler claiming to have concerns for the welfare of Jews. A column in the Washington Post looks at this ridiculous posturing that's enough to make one want to vomit. Here are some highlights:

Rep. Trent Franks established his credentials as a civil rights leader last year when the Arizona Republican argued that, because of high abortion rates in black communities, African Americans were better off under slavery.

But the congressman doesn’t just talk the talk. On Tuesday, he chaired a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on legislation he is introducing that would protect African American women from themselves — by making it harder for them to have abortions.

Orwellian naming aside, the House Republicans’ civil rights gambit (which follows passage of a similar bill in Franks’s Arizona and marks an attempt to get an abortion bill to the House floor before year’s end) points to an interesting tactic among conservatives: They have taken on a new, and somewhat suspect, interest in the poor and in the non-white.

Newt Gingrich, now threatening Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination, tried a similar argument when he argued for the elimination of “truly stupid” child labor laws and suggested that students could replace the janitors in their schools. He further explained that he was trying to help children in poor neighborhoods who have “no habits of working.”

Developer Donald Trump, who owns a Virginia country club that counts Gingrich as a member, announced this week that he would join with Gingrich to help “kids in very, very poor schools” — by extending his “Apprentice” TV reality show concept to all of 10 lucky kids.

This “fun” might sound less patronizing if these conservatives displayed a similar concern for the well-being of the poor and the non-white during debates over budget cuts. But, whatever the motives, lawmakers and conservative activists were not bashful when they held a pre-hearing news conference Tuesday, standing beside posters directed at Latinos and African Americans (“black children are an endangered species”).

“It is horrific that in America today, babies are being killed based on their race and based on their sex,” protested Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America. Other participants in the news conference suggested that Planned Parenthood is “excited to take money specifically earmarked to kill a black baby” and linked abortion-rights advocates to eugenics, euthanasia and the Holocaust.

“This morning, you can walk into a clinic and get an abortion if you find out your child is African American,” said Patrick Mahoney, a conservative activist. If you find out your child is African American? So a black woman would have an abortion because she discovers — surprise! — that her fetus is also black?

Before the audience had a chance to digest that, Mahoney began shouting about how abortion is “lynching” — frightening a child in the front row, who cried out and hugged his mother.

And people wonder why I fled the Republican Party? Anyone with a shred of honesty and integrity needs to run screaming from this crowd.

Meanwhile, The Christianists Are Livid with Obama and Clinton

As noted in the prior post this morning, the forces of hate and evil who parade around hiding under the cloak of religion are beside themselves with President Obama for issuing his memorandum to U.S. agencies that will conflict with Christianist efforts to export homophobia abroad. Among those leading the way is the registered hate group Family Research Council - which as best I can tell does very little in terms of advancing the Gospel message of feeding the hungry, caring for the sick and aiding the homeless but spends millions on disseminating hate. These "godly Christians" are apoplectic that their anti-gay agenda is being challenged. Joe Jervis at Joe. My. God has details on FRC hysterical denunciation of Obama:

It is noteworthy that FRC henchman, Peter Sprigg, is among those who ardently support the "choice myth" about sexual orientation. His credentials that qualify him for this? None - as is the norm with the Christianist faux experts. Per FRC's own website, his background is as follows: "Mr. Sprigg is an ordained Baptist minister. Before coming to FRC, he served as pastor of Clifton Park Center Baptist Church in Clifton Park, N.Y. Mr. Sprigg previously served for ten years as a professional actor and unit leader in Covenant Players, an international Christian drama ministry." His only academic degree is in political science/economics. Nothing in the area of medicine or mental health credentials. As for one of the many reasons why FRC is a registered hate group, Joe notes as follows:

Remember last year when the Family Research Council paid lobbyists $25,000 to convince Congress NOT to denounce the gay death penalty in Uganda? How fucking DARE the president interfere with their plan to see you dead!

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Declare War on International Homophobia

In a move that already has the hate merchants of the professional Christian set - and their boot licking political whores like Rick Perry - hyperventilating and spraying spittle as they rant and rave, Barack Obama issued a memorandum "directing all [United States] agencies engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons." This was followed by a speech by Secretary of State Clinton that included the following statement: "Wherever you live and whatever the circumstances of your life, whether you are connected to a network of support or feel isolated and vulnerable, please know that you are not alone. People around the globe are working hard to support you and to bring an end to the injustices and dangers you face. That is certainly true for my country. And you have an ally in the United States of America and you have millions of friends among the American people." I have long argued that Christianists want special rights that allow them to ignore and/or trample on the rights of others. They are among the most selfish, hate filled and dangerous element in our society today in terms of threatening constitutional government. They are no different that the threat posed by Islamic extremists except that they base their hatred and intolerance on a different text that was cobbled together and manipulated in eras before modern knowledge existed. The sooner that their version of Christianity is swept from the face of the globe, the better off the world will be.

Here is the full text of Secretary Clinton's remarks via MetroWeekly:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Office of the Spokesperson

For Immediate Release December 6, 2011
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

Remarks in Recognition of International Human Rights Day

December 6, 2011
Palais des Nations
Geneva, Switzerland

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good evening, and let me express my deep honor and pleasure at being here. I want to thank Director General Tokayev and Ms. Wyden along with other ministers, ambassadors, excellencies, and UN partners. This weekend, we will celebrate Human Rights Day, the anniversary of one of the great accomplishments of the last century.

Beginning in 1947, delegates from six continents devoted themselves to drafting a declaration that would enshrine the fundamental rights and freedoms of people everywhere. In the aftermath of World War II, many nations pressed for a statement of this kind to help ensure that we would prevent future atrocities and protect the inherent humanity and dignity of all people. And so the delegates went to work. They discussed, they wrote, they revisited, revised, rewrote, for thousands of hours. And they incorporated suggestions and revisions from governments, organizations, and individuals around the world.

At three o'clock in the morning on December 10th, 1948, after nearly two years of drafting and one last long night of debate, the president of the UN General Assembly called for a vote on the final text. Forty-eight nations voted in favor; eight abstained; none dissented. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. It proclaims a simple, powerful idea: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. And with the declaration, it was made clear that rights are not conferred by government; they are the birthright of all people. It does not matter what country we live in, who our leaders are, or even who we are. Because we are human, we therefore have rights. And because we have rights, governments are bound to protect them.

In the 63 years since the declaration was adopted, many nations have made great progress in making human rights a human reality. Step by step, barriers that once prevented people from enjoying the full measure of liberty, the full experience of dignity, and the full benefits of humanity have fallen away. In many places, racist laws have been repealed, legal and social practices that relegated women to second-class status have been abolished, the ability of religious minorities to practice their faith freely has been secured.

In most cases, this progress was not easily won. People fought and organized and campaigned in public squares and private spaces to change not only laws, but hearts and minds. And thanks to that work of generations, for millions of individuals whose lives were once narrowed by injustice, they are now able to live more freely and to participate more fully in the political, economic, and social lives of their communities.

Now, there is still, as you all know, much more to be done to secure that commitment, that reality, and progress for all people. Today, I want to talk about the work we have left to do to protect one group of people whose human rights are still denied in too many parts of the world today. In many ways, they are an invisible minority. They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or, too often, even join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm.

I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, human beings born free and given bestowed equality and dignity, who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time. I speak about this subject knowing that my own country's record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect. Until 2003, it was still a crime in parts of our country. Many LGBT Americans have endured violence and harassment in their own lives, and for some, including many young people, bullying and exclusion are daily experiences. So we, like all nations, have more work to do to protect human rights at home.

Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs. So I come here before you with respect, understanding, and humility. Even though progress on this front is not easy, we cannot delay acting. So in that spirit, I want to talk about the difficult and important issues we must address together to reach a global consensus that recognizes the human rights of LGBT citizens everywhere.

The first issue goes to the heart of the matter. Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct; but, in fact, they are one and the same. Now, of course, 60 years ago, the governments that drafted and passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were not thinking about how it applied to the LGBT community. They also weren’t thinking about how it applied to indigenous people or children or people with disabilities or other marginalized groups. Yet in the past 60 years, we have come to recognize that members of these groups are entitled to the full measure of dignity and rights, because, like all people, they share a common humanity.

This recognition did not occur all at once. It evolved over time. And as it did, we understood that we were honoring rights that people always had, rather than creating new or special rights for them. Like being a woman, like being a racial, religious, tribal, or ethnic minority, being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.

It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave. It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished. It is a violation of human rights when lesbian or transgendered women are subjected to so-called corrective rape, or forcibly subjected to hormone treatments, or when people are murdered after public calls for violence toward gays, or when they are forced to flee their nations and seek asylum in other lands to save their lives. And it is a violation of human rights when life-saving care is withheld from people because they are gay, or equal access to justice is denied to people because they are gay, or public spaces are out of bounds to people because they are gay. No matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we are, we are all equally entitled to our human rights and dignity.

The second issue is a question of whether homosexuality arises from a particular part of the world. Some seem to believe it is a Western phenomenon, and therefore people outside the West have grounds to reject it. Well, in reality, gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world. They are all ages, all races, all faiths; they are doctors and teachers, farmers and bankers, soldiers and athletes; and whether we know it, or whether we acknowledge it, they are our family, our friends, and our neighbors.

Being gay is not a Western invention; it is a human reality. And protecting the human rights of all people, gay or straight, is not something that only Western governments do. South Africa’s constitution, written in the aftermath of Apartheid, protects the equality of all citizens, including gay people. In Colombia and Argentina, the rights of gays are also legally protected. In Nepal, the supreme court has ruled that equal rights apply to LGBT citizens. The Government of Mongolia has committed to pursue new legislation that will tackle anti-gay discrimination.

Now, some worry that protecting the human rights of the LGBT community is a luxury that only wealthy nations can afford. But in fact, in all countries, there are costs to not protecting these rights, in both gay and straight lives lost to disease and violence, and the silencing of voices and views that would strengthen communities, in ideas never pursued by entrepreneurs who happen to be gay. Costs are incurred whenever any group is treated as lesser or the other, whether they are women, racial, or religious minorities, or the LGBT. Former President Mogae of Botswana pointed out recently that for as long as LGBT people are kept in the shadows, there cannot be an effective public health program to tackle HIV and AIDS. Well, that holds true for other challenges as well.

The third, and perhaps most challenging, issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens. This is not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation. Some people still defend those practices as part of a cultural tradition. But violence toward women isn't cultural; it's criminal. Likewise with slavery, what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights.

In each of these cases, we came to learn that no practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us. And this holds true for inflicting violence on LGBT people, criminalizing their status or behavior, expelling them from their families and communities, or tacitly or explicitly accepting their killing.

Of course, it bears noting that rarely are cultural and religious traditions and teachings actually in conflict with the protection of human rights. Indeed, our religion and our culture are sources of compassion and inspiration toward our fellow human beings. It was not only those who’ve justified slavery who leaned on religion, it was also those who sought to abolish it. And let us keep in mind that our commitments to protect the freedom of religion and to defend the dignity of LGBT people emanate from a common source. For many of us, religious belief and practice is a vital source of meaning and identity, and fundamental to who we are as people. And likewise, for most of us, the bonds of love and family that we forge are also vital sources of meaning and identity. And caring for others is an expression of what it means to be fully human. It is because the human experience is universal that human rights are universal and cut across all religions and cultures.

The fourth issue is what history teaches us about how we make progress towards rights for all. Progress starts with honest discussion. Now, there are some who say and believe that all gay people are pedophiles, that homosexuality is a disease that can be caught or cured, or that gays recruit others to become gay. Well, these notions are simply not true. They are also unlikely to disappear if those who promote or accept them are dismissed out of hand rather than invited to share their fears and concerns. No one has ever abandoned a belief because he was forced to do so.

Universal human rights include freedom of expression and freedom of belief, even if our words or beliefs denigrate the humanity of others. Yet, while we are each free to believe whatever we choose, we cannot do whatever we choose, not in a world where we protect the human rights of all.

Reaching understanding of these issues takes more than speech. It does take a conversation. In fact, it takes a constellation of conversations in places big and small. And it takes a willingness to see stark differences in belief as a reason to begin the conversation, not to avoid it.

But progress comes from changes in laws. In many places, including my own country, legal protections have preceded, not followed, broader recognition of rights. Laws have a teaching effect. Laws that discriminate validate other kinds of discrimination. Laws that require equal protections reinforce the moral imperative of equality. And practically speaking, it is often the case that laws must change before fears about change dissipate.

Many in my country thought that President Truman was making a grave error when he ordered the racial desegregation of our military. They argued that it would undermine unit cohesion. And it wasn't until he went ahead and did it that we saw how it strengthened our social fabric in ways even the supporters of the policy could not foresee. Likewise, some worried in my country that the repeal of “Don't Ask, Don’t Tell” would have a negative effect on our armed forces. Now, the Marine Corps Commandant, who was one of the strongest voices against the repeal, says that his concerns were unfounded and that the Marines have embraced the change.

Finally, progress comes from being willing to walk a mile in someone else's shoes. We need to ask ourselves, "How would it feel if it were a crime to love the person I love? How would it feel to be discriminated against for something about myself that I cannot change?" This challenge applies to all of us as we reflect upon deeply held beliefs, as we work to embrace tolerance and respect for the dignity of all persons, and as we engage humbly with those with whom we disagree in the hope of creating greater understanding.

A fifth and final question is how we do our part to bring the world to embrace human rights for all people including LGBT people. Yes, LGBT people must help lead this effort, as so many of you are. Their knowledge and experiences are invaluable and their courage inspirational. We know the names of brave LGBT activists who have literally given their lives for this cause, and there are many more whose names we will never know. But often those who are denied rights are least empowered to bring about the changes they seek. Acting alone, minorities can never achieve the majorities necessary for political change.

So when any part of humanity is sidelined, the rest of us cannot sit on the sidelines. Every time a barrier to progress has fallen, it has taken a cooperative effort from those on both sides of the barrier. In the fight for women’s rights, the support of men remains crucial. The fight for racial equality has relied on contributions from people of all races. Combating Islamaphobia or anti-Semitism is a task for people of all faiths. And the same is true with this struggle for equality.

Conversely, when we see denials and abuses of human rights and fail to act, that sends the message to those deniers and abusers that they won’t suffer any consequences for their actions, and so they carry on. But when we do act, we send a powerful moral message. Right here in Geneva, the international community acted this year to strengthen a global consensus around the human rights of LGBT people. At the Human Rights Council in March, 85 countries from all regions supported a statement calling for an end to criminalization and violence against people because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

At the following session of the Council in June, South Africa took the lead on a resolution about violence against LGBT people. The delegation from South Africa spoke eloquently about their own experience and struggle for human equality and its indivisibility. When the measure passed, it became the first-ever UN resolution recognizing the human rights of gay people worldwide. In the Organization of American States this year, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights created a unit on the rights of LGBT people, a step toward what we hope will be the creation of a special rapporteur.

Now, we must go further and work here and in every region of the world to galvanize more support for the human rights of the LGBT community. To the leaders of those countries where people are jailed, beaten, or executed for being gay, I ask you to consider this: Leadership, by definition, means being out in front of your people when it is called for. It means standing up for the dignity of all your citizens and persuading your people to do the same. It also means ensuring that all citizens are treated as equals under your laws, because let me be clear – I am not saying that gay people can’t or don’t commit crimes. They can and they do, just like straight people. And when they do, they should be held accountable, but it should never be a crime to be gay.

And to people of all nations, I say supporting human rights is your responsibility too. The lives of gay people are shaped not only by laws, but by the treatment they receive every day from their families, from their neighbors. Eleanor Roosevelt, who did so much to advance human rights worldwide, said that these rights begin in the small places close to home – the streets where people live, the schools they attend, the factories, farms, and offices where they work. These places are your domain. The actions you take, the ideals that you advocate, can determine whether human rights flourish where you are.

And finally, to LGBT men and women worldwide, let me say this: Wherever you live and whatever the circumstances of your life, whether you are connected to a network of support or feel isolated and vulnerable, please know that you are not alone. People around the globe are working hard to support you and to bring an end to the injustices and dangers you face. That is certainly true for my country. And you have an ally in the United States of America and you have millions of friends among the American people.

The Obama Administration defends the human rights of LGBT people as part of our comprehensive human rights policy and as a priority of our foreign policy. In our embassies, our diplomats are raising concerns about specific cases and laws, and working with a range of partners to strengthen human rights protections for all. In Washington, we have created a task force at the State Department to support and coordinate this work. And in the coming months, we will provide every embassy with a toolkit to help improve their efforts. And we have created a program that offers emergency support to defenders of human rights for LGBT people.

This morning, back in Washington, President Obama put into place the first U.S. Government strategy dedicated to combating human rights abuses against LGBT persons abroad. Building on efforts already underway at the State Department and across the government, the President has directed all U.S. Government agencies engaged overseas to combat the criminalization of LGBT status and conduct, to enhance efforts to protect vulnerable LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, to ensure that our foreign assistance promotes the protection of LGBT rights, to enlist international organizations in the fight against discrimination, and to respond swiftly to abuses against LGBT persons.

I am also pleased to announce that we are launching a new Global Equality Fund that will support the work of civil society organizations working on these issues around the world. This fund will help them record facts so they can target their advocacy, learn how to use the law as a tool, manage their budgets, train their staffs, and forge partnerships with women’s organizations and other human rights groups. We have committed more than $3 million to start this fund, and we have hope that others will join us in supporting it.

The women and men who advocate for human rights for the LGBT community in hostile places, some of whom are here today with us, are brave and dedicated, and deserve all the help we can give them. We know the road ahead will not be easy. A great deal of work lies before us. But many of us have seen firsthand how quickly change can come. In our lifetimes, attitudes toward gay people in many places have been transformed. Many people, including myself, have experienced a deepening of our own convictions on this topic over the years, as we have devoted more thought to it, engaged in dialogues and debates, and established personal and professional relationships with people who are gay.

This evolution is evident in many places. To highlight one example, the Delhi High Court decriminalized homosexuality in India two years ago, writing, and I quote, “If there is one tenet that can be said to be an underlying theme of the Indian constitution, it is inclusiveness.” There is little doubt in my mind that support for LGBT human rights will continue to climb. Because for many young people, this is simple: All people deserve to be treated with dignity and have their human rights respected, no matter who they are or whom they love.

There is a phrase that people in the United States invoke when urging others to support human rights: “Be on the right side of history.” The story of the United States is the story of a nation that has repeatedly grappled with intolerance and inequality. We fought a brutal civil war over slavery. People from coast to coast joined in campaigns to recognize the rights of women, indigenous peoples, racial minorities, children, people with disabilities, immigrants, workers, and on and on. And the march toward equality and justice has continued. Those who advocate for expanding the circle of human rights were and are on the right side of history, and history honors them. Those who tried to constrict human rights were wrong, and history reflects that as well.

I know that the thoughts I’ve shared today involve questions on which opinions are still evolving. As it has happened so many times before, opinion will converge once again with the truth, the immutable truth, that all persons are created free and equal in dignity and rights. We are called once more to make real the words of the Universal Declaration. Let us answer that call. Let us be on the right side of history, for our people, our nations, and future generations, whose lives will be shaped by the work we do today. I come before you with great hope and confidence that no matter how long the road ahead, we will travel it successfully together. Thank you very much.

Kudos to both Obama and Clinton. Would that more people - especially those who claim to be followers of the Gospel message - had the courage and decency to back this agenda of treating ALL people with equality and respect.

NOM Is Now Disseminating the "Gays Can Change" Myth

For an organization that purportedly was organized for the sole purpose of "protecting traditional marriage," the National Organization for Marriage ("NOM") is quickly morphing into a full fledged arm of registered hate groups such as Family Research Council. I've always assumed that NOM is receiving financing from such groups - and in all likelihood the Catholic Church and Knights of Columbus.

I hate to sound cruel, but Chris Otto, portrayed in FRC's hate piece being disseminated by NOM (the screen shot above is via Good As You) strikes me as yet another religiously tortured and brain washed "ex-gay" for pay. Literally every LEGITIMATE medical and mental health association denies the "change myth" set out in the video, yet the "good Christians" at NOM and FRC don't hesitate to perpetuate the lie.

Equally scare, of course, are some of the supportive comments on NOM's blog where the video is posted. The willing embrace of ignorance and bigotry is disturbing. But sadly, that's the face of Christianity too much of the time in this day and age.

Tuesday Morning Male Beauty

Gingrich: The Man Who Created Government Gridlock

A column in Politico looks at Newt Gingrich's scary campaign for the GOP nomination and also recalls that Gingrich was a chief architect for Washington gridlock so derided by voters of all stripes. Do Republicans have amnesia or are they simply total morons? I won't give my answer to that questions, but I suspect readers will know where my vote lies since I have said repeatedly that to be a member of today's GOP a lobotomy or mental illness are a prerequisite. One can only hope that this seeming embrace of a thrice married serial adulterer who has enriched himself playing the Washington influence peddling game by the "family values" crowd will ultimately bring the both the GOP and Gingrich crashing to earth. Here are some highlights:

I did not think I lived a good enough life to see Newt Gingrich as the Republican nominee,” Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said last week when he announced his retirement. That more or less sums up the view of most Democrats. Gingrich has more baggage than United Airlines. Are Republicans really crazy enough to nominate this presumably washed-up, ethically compromised, divisive, reckless and undisciplined figure for president? Apparently they are.

The White House must be gleeful. Democratic campaign committees have been running attack ads against former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. “They want to throw the primary process to anybody but me,” Romney told supporters at a Miami rally.

Polls over the past month show President Barack Obama and Romney in a dead heat, while Obama beats Gingrich every time. The prospect of Gingrich becoming president is staggering. What’s behind the Gingrich surge? For one thing, Gingrich is smart.

The Gingrich surge is being driven by two Republican constituencies: seniors and tea party supporters. Gingrich was the first choice of 24 percent of Republicans in the November CNN poll. Among tea party supporters, that figure rose to 31 percent. Among seniors, 45 percent.

For older Republicans, Gingrich is a familiar figure. In fact, he’s a brand. They’ve bought his books, seen his tapes, heard his lectures. They know his foibles — his three marriages, his ethics charges, his history of influence peddling — and they’ve gotten past them. They remember Gingrich as the leader who brought them to the promised land – a majority in the House – after 40 years in the wilderness.

But what’s with tea party supporters? . . . . Tea party activists are supposed to hate Washington and career politicians and political insiders. Gingrich spent 20 years in the House, four as speaker. Since leaving Congress, he has profited handsomely on his Washington connections. You can’t get much more inside Washington than that. What tea party supporters see in Gingrich is self-confidence. He speaks in certainties.

He has no doubt about anything he believes, even if it’s very different from what he believed a few years ago. As for people he disagrees with, they’re not just wrong. They’re “stupid,” and “grotesque” and “disgusting.”

Most people see that as arrogance. But the tea party sees it as heroic defiance. Gingrich believes that, as president, he could subdue Congress and even the federal courts. He claims he would have the right to fire judges he disagrees with and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. “We could begin to break up the gridlock very rapidly if I were president,” Gingrich pronounced at a rally last week.

The truth is, Gingrich is the man who created gridlock. . . . . Gingrich demanded that Republicans stop behaving like a docile minority and instead, denounce the long-ruling Democrats as corrupt and obstruct everything they were trying to do. Even to the point of shutting down the federal government. Twice. Gingrich is the ultimate oxymoron: the anti-Washington insider.

The tea party is buying it. Because they, too, are certain about everything they believe. Notice what’s happened since the tea party gained control of the GOP in 2010. Gridlock has gotten worse. Tea party activists do not believe in compromise, which is the only way Washington works. They regard compromise as selling out. The tea party feasts on gridlock. That’s why Gingrich is their hero.

Gingrich’s problem is that the voters don’t like him. In 35 polls taken over the past 17 years, Americans expressed a negative impression of Gingrich 32 times. . . . . It looks like the Republican race is coming down to a choice between two problematical contenders. Romney is Mr. 1 Percent. Gingrich is Mr. Gridlock.

Quote of the Day - Bob Felton on Religious Fundamentalism

The saying goes that religion and politics are subjects to be avoided if one wants to avoid controversy. But sometimes idiocy and bigotry wrapped in the cloak of "religious belief" need to be called out so as to stop - or at least slow down - the harm that is done in the name of "religion." Fundamentalism of all creeds remains one of the most destructive and dangerous forces for evil in the world today whether it be Islamic or Christian fundamentalism. Bob Felton sums up the need well in a post at Civil Commotion where he looks at a fundamentalist Kentucky church's hasty about face on its recent vote to bar interracial couples from church membership. Here's the money quote:

Like most of us, I was taught as a child that one should always be polite and deferential regarding the religious beliefs of others, and so I was until I moved to Wake Forest, home of the SBC’s Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Here, I learned how destructive and harmful unreasoning belief actually is, and today I endorse this passage from H.L. Mencken’s coverage of the Scopes Trial:

The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.

The Christianists in this country continue to believe that they have a license to lie about others and endeavor to trample on the religious freedom of others. The rest of us need to redouble our efforts to speak the ugly truth about them and end their pernicious influence in modern society.

More Monday Male Beauty

Out of the Mouths of Children Comes Truth

As even a casual readers of this blog have likely noted, I pretty much despise Michele Bachmann. Candidly, I think the woman is seriously mentally disturbed. Worse yet, while she runs around showing her ignorance she never misses an opportunity to slam same sex couples. Even as she herself is engaged in a ludicrous fraud of a marriage where she's married to a flaming, lisping queen who must indulge in all manner of homoerotic fantasies as he struggles to pretend he's straight. As noted in a post earlier today, it's folks like Bachmann who knowingly embrace ignorance rather than confront the fallacies of their so-called religious beliefs. Bachmann could be the poster child for self-chosen idiocy. Thus, it is only too enjoyable to see Bachmann twice a roughly a week get cut off at the knee caps by students who have figured out the truth on marriage - and "Marcia" Bachmann's fraudulent "ex-gay" clinics. The latest debacle for Bachmann was during a book signing. Watch her as she's told by an eight-year-old boy that his "mommy's gay but she doesn't need any fixing." It's truly delicious to see this purveyor of ignorance and hate being taken down a notch by a child:

As science and knowledge advance, you have to wonder what Bachmann is going to do as the Bible is shown to be increasingly in error about homosexuality, the existence of Adam and Eve, the Fall and much, much more. If anyone needs "fixing" it's Bachmann herself and the ever lisping "Marcia."

Taking a Lesson From Down Under

One thing that often drives me crazy about America - especially in conservative circles - is the unwillingness to learn from others in other parts of the world. Instead, Americans seem to always want to re-invent the wheel or have a bias against anything that was developed overseas. Too often, we all end up as losers because of the stubbornness and close mindedness. This criticism can apply to progressives and the LGBT community as well. I've noted the amazing ad entitled "It's Time" that was released by Australian group Get Up! The ad doesn't focus so much on technical legal rights arguments but instead goes for the heart and makes the point that same sex relationships are every bit as committed and love based as are heterosexual ones. I'd even go so far as to say that based on some of the heterosexual marriages I knew in the straight phase of my life (and, yes, I am talking about the Great Neck area of Virginia Beach), same sex relationships are more genuine than many a straight marriage where couples seemed more concerned about what they could get out of the marriage than they did about a true loving relationship with their other half. A piece in The Advocate looks at the effectiveness of the ad "It's Time." Here are highlights:t

It’s time. That’s the tagline for the new marriage ad circulating like wildfire across multiple continents. Created by the progressive Australian group Get Up! as that country debates allowing gay couples to marry, the two-minute video tells the story of a relationship through the eyes of one of the participants. It depicts the initial meeting and romance, the arguments and everyday annoyances, the joyful times and the depths of grief, all culminating in a man getting down on one knee and proposing in front of the couple’s friends and family. The person behind the camera is finally revealed, and the viewer sees that it is another man, just as the two are being enveloped in congratulatory hugs on their engagement.

So why has this ad captured the hearts and Facebook statuses of so many marriage advocates and allies in the U.S., and could it be part of a strategy to move marriage forward in our own country? Third Way’s extensive research on how Middle Americans view the issue of marriage for gay couples — and how to move them to solidly support it — points to three reasons that a similar ad may be effective with the middle stateside.

First, the video could help correct a misperception about the intention of gay couples who wish to marry. In our research, people in the middle overwhelmingly thought that couples like themselves married in order to make a public promise of love and commitment. But when it came to gay couples, the middle believed they were motivated by “rights and benefits, like tax advantages, hospital visitation, or sharing a spouse’s pension.”

[T]hose who believe gay couples want to make a lifetime commitment are far more likely to be in our corner. That’s why Third Way has launched a Commitment Campaign to urge advocates to make a major shift and start talking about marriage in terms of lifetime commitment in order to move the middle. So in contrast to many of the ads run around Proposition 8 and other recent marriage ballot initiatives in the U.S., the Australian ad doesn’t say a word about rights.

Secondly, the ad poignantly depicted the more important side of the vows for the middle: the “for worse.” When asked what marriage means to them, Americans in the middle focus on lifetime commitment through thick and thin — mostly the thin part. The difference between marriage and other relationships in their minds is that you have to stick around through the difficulties, the sorrows, the obligations, and the responsibilities. Marriage is a promise to care for another person even when you don’t feel like it. It [the ad] shows that gay couples are capable of putting convenience and self-interest aside and that they intend to do so. In a way, it shows not only that this couple really gets what marriage is about — they’ve earned it.

Finally, by showing the couple surrounded by their family and friends, and having that group witness and support their engagement, the video imparts another crucial piece of marriage for the middle: community. Americans in the middle don’t believe marriage is simply a contract between two people —rather, it’s about making a promise in front of the people closest to you and asking those people to hold you accountable to those vows. In essence, that’s the difference between a civil union and a marriage.

The Australian ad works because it portrays these three attributes that the middle thinks are crucial to marriage: intention, adversity, and community. It works because it shows — not tells — that gay couples are much more similar to straight couples than they are different. And ultimately, that’s the key to winning the hearts and minds of the middle.

I hope activists in America will learn from this amazingly well done ad. LGBT lives and loves are just as legitimate as those in the straight world - notwithstanding what the hate merchants of the far right may claim to the contrary. We have earned and deserve the same civil law recognition and support that heterosexual couples have enjoyed for centuries.

The False Myth of Voter Fraud

In a number of states - particularly states where Republicans hold a majority - there has been a movement to pass legislation that makes it a requirement to vote that would be voters have government issued photo ID with them when they go to the polls. The ostensible reason put forth by the GOP proponents for the requirement is to stop "voter fraud." In truth, as the chart above from the DNC explains, the real reason for the requirement is to depress the minority vote since most minorities with good reason do not vote Republican. To a lesser extent, the requirement is also aimed at suppressing the youth vote because as with minorities the younger voters do not vote for the Christianist dominated GOP.

Can you imagine what these disingenuous bastards will do when some day the tables are turned and they and the Christianist/Tea Party base of the GOP are in the minority? These fools and bigots are truly setting a bad precedent that hopefully will come home to bight them in the ass big time preferably sooner as opposed to later.

The Correlation Between Religious Belief and Science Illiteracy

I have long contended that the Christian Right - and now by extension, the Republican Party - embraces ignorance in a rear guard effort to protect their house of cards religious beliefs from collapsing in the face of hard, objective evidence that the Bible is anything but inerrant. And this willingness to embrace ignorance is often pretty shocking. It also carries over into areas beyond just a simple denial of the theory of evolution - and more recently a denial that Adam and Eve in fact never existed as described in Genesis. Via Civil Commotion, I came across an article on Why Evolution is True that looks at studies that confirm what many of us have long thought. The figures are frightening and one cannot be help wonder how America is going to remain competitive in the world when large segments of the American population are actively making the decision to remain ignorant. Here are some article highlights:

there’s this, from an analysis by David Masci at the Pew Forum in 2007:

When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll.

It also seems obvious that religion impedes acceptance of not just evolution, but science in general—at least that brand of science, like stem-cell research or work on global warming—that threatens religious views. That conclusion has just been buttressed by a new paper by Darren E. Sherkat in Social Science Quarterly, “Religion and scientific literacy in the United States.” Sherkat’s analysis plainly shows that even excluding issues of evolution, religion in America plays a substantial role in reducing science literacy.

[T]he 2006 General Social Survey (GSS) collected by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) here at the University of Chicago, a survey of 4,510 randomly chosen Americans who were asked questions about their race, income, immigrant status, geographic region of residence, gender, urban or rural home, and so on. . . . The GSS also surveyed people about their religious identification and how they interpreted the Bible.

The results, especially for the effect of religion, were striking:

■ The percentage of correct answers on the science exam was strongly (and statistically significantly) affected by religious beliefs. Those who take the Bible as the literal word of God scored 54% correct, those who see the Bible as “inspired by God” got 68% correct, and those who see the Bible as a “book of fables” got 75% correct. This classification explained 13% of the total variation in science literacy.

■ Dividing up people by religious identification rather than by how they regarded the Bible, we also see strong effects on science scores. Sectarian Protestants scored 55% correct, Catholics 65%, “other Protestants” and non-Christians 68%, and nonbelievers (yay!) 72%.

Fundamentalists are less science literate than those who see the Bible as inspired by God, who in turn are less science literate than those who see the Bible as a book of fables.

Sherkat concludes that: The gap between sectarians and fundamentalists and other Americans is quite substantial. Indeed, only education is a stronger predictor of scientific proficiency than are religious factors. . . .Scientific literacy is low in the United States relative to other developed nations, and this research suggests that religious factors play a substantial role in creating these deficits.

Sherkat also found that Catholicism is a significant factor reducing science literacy . . .

It would seem that rather than worry about immigrants threatening America's future (at least in the minds of the "godly Christians"), the Christianist ought to take a good look in the mirror and grasp that they are one of the biggest threats to America's future prosperity and place in the world.

Monday Morning Male Beauty

The GOP's Continuing Frankenstein Monster

Several columns look at the current circus like state of the GOP presidential contest in the wake of Herman Cain's suspension of his campaign. A campaign that in saner days in the GOP would never have been launched in the first place. The Republican problem with finding an electable nominee boils down to the fact that past party leaders were only too willing to sell out to the Christinaist/Tea Party extremists in the hope of short term gains. No thought was apparently ever given to what would happen once the inmates were in control of the insane asylum that is now the GOP. Personally, I find no sympathy for the few moderates left who were in many cases were only too happy to close their eyes and hold their noses and let unfit individuals gain control of the party apparatus. Paul Krugman has a good piece in the New York Times on this prostitution of principle and its aftermath. Here are some highlights:

There are two crucial things you need to understand about the current state of American politics. First, given the still dire economic situation, 2012 should be a year of Republican triumph. Second, the G.O.P. may nonetheless snatch defeat from the jaws of victory — because Herman Cain was not an accident.

Think about what it takes to be a viable Republican candidate today. You have to denounce Big Government and high taxes without alienating the older voters who were the key to G.O.P. victories last year — and who, even as they declare their hatred of government, will balk at any hint of cuts to Social Security and Medicare (death panels!).

And you also have to denounce President Obama, who enacted a Republican-designed health reform and killed Osama bin Laden, as a radical socialist who is undermining American security.

So what kind of politician can meet these basic G.O.P. requirements? There are only two ways to make the cut: to be totally cynical or to be totally clueless. Mitt Romney embodies the first option. . . . . Mr. Romney’s strategy, in short, is to pretend that he shares the ignorance and misconceptions of the Republican base. He isn’t a stupid man — but he seems to play one on TV.

Unfortunately from his point of view, however, his acting skills leave something to be desired, and his insincerity shines through. So the base still hungers for someone who really, truly believes what every candidate for the party’s nomination must pretend to believe. Yet as I said, the only way to actually believe the modern G.O.P. catechism is to be completely clueless.

And that’s why the Republican primary has taken the form it has, in which a candidate nobody likes and nobody trusts has faced a series of clueless challengers, each of whom has briefly soared before imploding under the pressure of his or her own cluelessness.

Many observers seem surprised that Mr. Gingrich’s, well, colorful personal history isn’t causing him more problems, but they shouldn’t be. If hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, conservatives often seem inclined to accept that tribute, voting for candidates who publicly espouse conservative moral principles whatever their personal behavior. Did I mention that David Vitter is still in the Senate?

The larger point, however, is that whoever finally gets the Republican nomination will be a deeply flawed candidate. And these flaws won’t be an accident, the result of bad luck regarding who chose to make a run this time around; the fact that the party is committed to demonstrably false beliefs means that only fakers or the befuddled can get through the selection process.

[T]he realities of government in the 21st century bear no resemblance to the mythology all ambitious Republican politicians must pretend to believe. And what will happen then?

Sunday Male Beauty

Bishop Eddie Long to Step Away From Pulpit

To my way of thinking, Eddie Long - the young man loving pastor of an Atlanta mega church - is basically a retread of the Ted Haggard story: outwardly preaching conservative anti-gay Christianity and using the pulpit to get rich while lusting after men and playing on the side. It's hypocrisy taken to extreme heights and one of the unfortunate results of men tormented by a toxic religious message that spurns medical, mental health and scientific knowledge in a desperate desire to continue to revere the Bible even as it is increasingly shown to be false on many issue, not the least of which is - as noted in a prior post - that Adam and Eve as depicted in Genesis never in fact existed. Now, after an out of court settlement with young men who claimed that Long had sexual relations with them, Long has announced that he's leaving the pulpit. Part of me might be able to feel sorry for Long except for the act that even while seeking same sex relationships, he continued to publicly preach an anti-gay message. Yes, I was in the closet for years myself. But, unlike Long, I never pushed an anti-gay message or agenda. Here are highlights from the New York Times on Long's announcement:

At the height of his power, Bishop Eddie L. Long would pack tens of thousands of people into his megachurch in the suburbs of Atlanta. With his well-cut suits, passion for Bentleys, and dynamic, accessible style of preaching, he quickly climbed the list of the nation’s most powerful religious leaders.

He built his ministry, which stretches to Kenya and other countries, on a strong message of conservative Christianity that included promises of prosperity and attacks on homosexuality.

But life inside Bishop Long’s home had been crumbling. And on Sunday, members of his dwindling congregation heard news they had been bracing for.

Their charismatic bishop, who in May settled with five young men who accused him of sexual coercion and who has fought a series of other legal battles, said he was temporarily stepping away from the pulpit to try to save his marriage.

The announcement came after his wife, Vanessa Long, 53, filed for divorce Thursday. Friday, she recanted after “prayerful reflection” but later in the day changed her mind and said she did intend to end their marriage of 21 years. They have four children.

[N]ot everyone remains a believer. Valencia Miller, a property manager in Lithonia, said she left the church after the young men who accused the bishop of sexual impropriety came forward. “A lot of us left. I mean, a lot,” she said in an interview Sunday.

Like others, she hopes that Bishop Long turns this temporary break into a permanent one. “The church needs a cleansing,” she said. “I’m real disappointed. He was a man we all looked up to.”

Long settled a lawsuit in which young men claimed that the pastor offered gifts, trips, and emotional and spiritual guidance that eventually led to sexual relations. One of the young men, Maurice Robinson, said in court records that his relationship with Bishop Long began when he was 15 and that on a trip to New Zealand the two engaged in sexual acts.

Support for Bishop Long continues to shrink. Just before the sexual coercion settlement was announced, the Rev. Bernice King, the youngest daughter of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., left the church. On Sunday, a small group of antigay, religious protesters stood outside the church urging Bishop Long to step down permanently. They said they planned to return every month until he left.

It truly is all about the hypocrisy. Long preached an anti-gay message while seeking sex with young men. I feel no more pity for him that I do for former Congressman Ed Schrock who I helped Mike Rogers to "out." Long and Schrock both had a choice and they chose to lying hypocrites who preached against gays while seeking gay sex on the sly. It may sound cruel, but both Long and Schrock have gotten what they deserved.

It's Time Ad Continues to Go Viral

I wrote recently about the beautiful marriage equality ad out of Australia. An ad that underscores that - unlike what the Christianist hate merchants would have people believe - same sex relationships ARE based on love, mutual respect and, yes, commitment. It's an ad that truly needs to be aired over and over across all the United States, The clip below is from an interview with the actor that played the main gay character in this wonderful ad. I believe he gets it right in the interview and that long term, by opposing same sex marriage and basically defining themselves by hate and intolerance of others, the Christianist are hastening the long over due death of their version of Christianity. The larger question down the road will be whether or not they ultimately kill Christianity as a whole through their supposed zealous desire to protect it. My money is that they are ringing the death knell for Christianity. Is this a good thing? Sadly, probably so. Here's the clip:

Those who would like to see the ad aired in America can make donations here. Personally, I am way past tolerating being treated like a second class citizen simply so that psychologically dysfunctional individuals who have been brainwashed in Christianist hate can feel smug and superior about themselves.

Fomer GOP Senator Danforth: The GOP Presidential Field Is ‘Embarrassing’

In many ways former GOP Senator John Danforth (pictured at right) represents what the Republican Party once was - a party where reason, logic and facts mattered and where intelligence was respected. It's the Republican Party that I and most of my extended family once embraced. Fast forward to today and what blogger friend Pam Spaulding refers to as the "GOP clown car" and the difference in what the GOP is is today as opposed to a decade or two ago is mind numbing. Unlike too many formerly in the GOP, Danforth isn't afraid to call things as he sees them. His term for the slate of GOP presidential candidates? Embarrassing. That's right, embarrassing. And Danforth is 100% on the money. The decline in the GOP tracks ultimately two things: the party leadership's embrace of the theocracy loving Christian Right and the Tea Party. Am embrace that put short term expediency over long term prospects. A piece in Think Progress looks at Danforth's lament for what has become of the Republican Party. Here are some highlights:

Republican John Danforth, who served as a senator from Missouri for nearly 20 years and later as George W. Bush’s ambassador the United Nations, is not happy with the slate of Republican presidential candidates. “I’ve been watching some of these Republican debates and they’re just terrible. Terrible,” he told KTRS in St. Louis yesterday. “It’s embarrassing for me as a Republican to watch this stuff,” he added, calling out audiences for applauding the candidates’ morbid boastings. Via Fired Up Missouri:


DANFORTH: What have been the big applause lines in these debates? Well, a statement that the governor of Texas is responsible for killing 234 people on death row. Or that we favor torture. Or that we’re creating a fence on the Mexican border that electrocutes people when they try to cross it. Or when people show up at the emergency room at hospitals and they’re not insured don’t treat them. And that, I mean these are the big applause lines, people just hoop and holler when they hear all that. [...]

It doesn’t have anything to do with the republican party that I was a part of. This is just totally different. And all of these people who are saying this, y’know, and claiming that, y’know, they’re for all this stuff, they also sort of ostentatiously say, “Oh, we’re very religious people. We really, we’re just very pious, Christian people.” They were for torture, and electrocution of the people on along the border and all of that. That doesn’t have anything to do with, is contrary to the Christianity that I understand.

Since leaving public office, Danforth has often publicly criticized the Republican party, of which he remains an active and influential member, for drifting father and farther to the right.

It's nice to see that others recognize the cancerous like metastasizing of the Republican Party that has occurred since the party sold out to the self-righteous and self-congratulatory folks in the Christian Right. As I have said before, to remain a Republican, one needs to either be a total racist, theocratic, or have had a lobotomy.