Michael-In-Norfolk - - Coming Out In Mid Life

More Friday Male Beauty

2012-01-27T15:47:00.002-05:00

Indicted Philadelphia Monsignor Now Pointing Finger at Superiors

2012-01-27T15:08:00.003-05:00

It appears that things might get interesting in the pending criminal prosecution of a Philadelphia monsignor and other priests relating to the sexual abuse of children and youth by predator priests. It seems that the good monsignor doesn't want to fall on his sword and protect the more senior members of the Catholic Church hierarchy whom he says were giving him orders. Frankly, it is inconceivable that the bishops and archbishop of the archdioceses were not fully involved in the cover ups and failures to report. One can only hope that Monsignor Lynn spills his guts and implicates his superiors. As it is, the archdioceses has already been named an unindicted co-conspirator. It would be great fun to see that status change to that of an indicted co-conspirator. Here are highlights on developments from the Delaware County Daily Times:

An indicted Catholic church official is showing signs he won't take the fall alone for the priest abuse scandal in Philadelphia, with his lawyer saying Wednesday that a successor threw him "under the bus."

Monsignor William Lynn, 61, is the only official from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia facing trial for allegedly failing to remove accused predators from the priesthood. He served as secretary of clergy from 1992 to 2004. Defense lawyers argue that Lynn took orders from then-Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua and other superiors in the church hierarchy.

Prosecutors hope to include dozens of old abuse allegations to show a pattern of conduct at the trial, which is scheduled to start in late March and last several months. One such case involves a West Chester University chaplain accused in 1994 of taking pictures of students in their underwear. He next became chaplain of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, worked with a parish youth group and later admitted taking boys on overnight trips, one to Jamaica, before retiring to the New Jersey shore, prosecutors said.

Prosecutors call the archdiocese "an unindicted co-conspirator" in the case. A 2005 grand jury report blasted Bevilacqua and his successor, Cardinal Justin Rigali, for their handling of abuse complaints, but they were never charged. Bevilacqua is now 88 and in failing health.

A judge will hear more arguments Monday on whether 27 of the 63 priests described in that grand jury report can be referenced at Lynn's trial. Prosecutors want to show that Lynn kept them on the job despite knowing of complaints stored in "secret archives" at the archdiocese. Continued...

They have detailed the cases over a three-day pretrial hearing this week. The cases include a priest who allegedly pinned loincloths on naked boys playing Jesus in a Passion play, and whipped them, in keeping with the drama; a priest who held what prosecutors called "masturbation camps" at the rectory, having boys strip naked and teaching them to masturbate; and a pastor written up for disobedience for complaining to Bevilacqua about an accused priest being transferred to his parish.

Defense lawyers hope to limit the trial evidence to Lynn's handling of the priest and ex-priest on trial with him. The Rev. James Brennan, 48, and defrocked priest Edward Avery, 69, are charged with rape. All have denied the charges. The archdiocese declined to respond to the comments made Wednesday about Monsignor Senior, citing a gag order in the case.

Let's face it. Most of the Catholic Church hierarchy is cesspool filled with morally bankrupt hypocrites who cared nothing for the lives of children and youths subjected to sexual abuse. Worse yet, legislators in Washington State, Maryland and New Jersey are allowing the affiliates of these foul individuals to claim that allowing normal, loving same sex couples CIVIL marriage rights threatens humanity. It's disgusting.

Study: Low IQ Correlates With Prejudice and Bigotry

2012-01-27T11:12:00.006-05:00

I've often wondered how Christianists and the Tea Party crowd can cling to beliefs that defy logic and scientific fact. Now, we may have the answer: they're simply stupid. I mean literally dumb from an intelligence perspective. A new study done by researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario, Canada, finds that those with low intelligence gravitate towards conservatism and are prone to embrace prejudice of things they don't understand or that are different. I can already hear Tony Perkins and the anti-gay professional Christian set howling and bellowing that Hodson's work is biased or slanted. When you think of about, however, the correlation tracks with a great deal of everyday experience in dealing with people. If you can't think for yourself, you're an easy target for demagogues who like to blame problems and failings on "the other." Here are some highlights from Yahoo News on the study findings:

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice . . .

The findings combine three hot-button topics. "They've pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics," said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. "When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it's bound to upset somebody."

Polling data and social and political science research do show that prejudice is more common in those who hold right-wing ideals that those of other political persuasions . . .

Earlier studies have found links between low levels of education and higher levels of prejudice, Hodson said, so studying intelligence seemed a logical next step. . . . As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias. People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races.

Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.

Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world. "Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice."

They found that what applies to racism may also apply to homophobia. People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays. As in the U.K. citizens, a lack of contact with gays and more acceptance of right-wing authoritarianism explained the link.

Interestingly, this study would seem to affirms some prior reports that found that evangelical Christians had lower IQ's and lower levels of education than denominations such as Episcopalians and Lutherans.

Friday Morning Male Beauty

2012-01-27T08:22:00.002-05:00

The GOP Circular Firing Squad Continues

2012-01-27T07:23:00.003-05:00

The latest debate among the occupants of the GOP presidential nominee clown car went down last night and by most accounts Newt Gingrich bombed and made Romney look good. Personally, I want to see both Gingrich and Santorum driven from the race for the simple reason that we don't want such insanity given any more credibility than these two nut cases have already wrongly received. That's not to say that I like Romney because the man will say anything to further his election chances, but at least he's not certifiably mentally disturbed - even if he has participated in "posthumous Mormon baptisms" if not "recently." A column in the Washington Post seems to compile the consensus on last night's debate. Here are highlights:

Newt Gingrich got slammed in the debate by a remarkably invigorated Mitt Romney, an impressive Rick Santorum and CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, who really wouldn’t let him get away with much.

Romney was clearly on his game, ready to swat down Gingrich. He vigorously defended his success in business and skewered Gingrich on his carping about his capital gains. He tied Gingrich to Freddie Mac and wouldn’t let go, making it clear that Gingrich was a cheerleader for the entity that contributed mightily to the financial crisis. When Gingrich accused him of investing in Freddie, Romney pointed out that they both had investments in mutual funds which held Freddie bonds. On Gingrich’s loony moon colony, he was restrained but emphatic that this was fiscally irresponsible.

He did get slightly tangled up by an ad citing Gignrich for calling Spanish the language of the “ghetto,” saying he didn’t know if it was his ad. When Blitzer later confirmed that it was, however, Romney cornered Gingrich, whose defense boiled down to: I didn’t say the word “Spanish.” The Romney team quickly put out its research form Politifact showing that Romney’s ad was “mostly true.” More impressively, he faced down Gingrich for calling him anti-immigrant in a radio ad, reminding the audience that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) had rebuked Gingrich and forced the former Speaker to take down the ad. For once, Gingrich looked dumbfounded.

Gingrich had a perfectly dreadful night, appearing angry and then sheepish, nasty and then defensive. He didn’t have well-prepared defenses on his time with Freddie or strong attacks on Romney’s earnings. He played to type in defending his fantastical idea for a space colony. And he sniped at conservatives who have come forward to question whether he was all that close to Reagan . . . Conservatives have had enough of him, and have come forward out of fear he might actually get the nomination. After tonight they have less to fear. Not only did Romney have the best debate of the primary season, but Santorum’s strong showing should bleed votes away from Gingrich as well.

Finally, Wolf Blitzer did a commendable job, rebuffing Gingrich’s attempt to duck away from a question on his anti-capital gains language. He kept the proceedings lively and substantive.

A NARTH Versus Exodus Internationl Cat Fight

2012-01-27T06:41:00.004-05:00

Among the many, many fraudulent things that the Christian Right peddles to the unwary and ignorant, one of the worse in my opinion, is the knowingly untrue claim that through so-called reparative therapy gays and lesbians can become straight. Literally none of the legitimate medical and mental health associations - i.e., the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers - support the validity of reparative therapy. The sole purpose for the continued marketing of reparative therapy by the far right, in my view, boils down to two things: (1) duping the public into believing that gays can change and, therefore, deserve no legal rights or protections, and (2) money - desperate individuals and parents brainwashed with false religious belief can be shaken down for lots of money.

Now, a cat fight if you will has broken out between the National Association for the Research and Therapy (NARTH) and Exodus International, heretofore one of the biggest marketers of the "ex-gay" myth. Why one might ask? Because Exodus is distancing itself from the claim that gays can actually change their sexual orientation - a lie that Exodus has been marketing for at least two decades. Warren Throckmorton looks at the cat fight and the almost laughable defense put up by NARTH even as it admits that "change" doesn't eliminate attraction and desire for those of the same sex. Reparative therapy is and always has been a cold, calculating lie. Here are highlights from Warren's post:

Until recently, Exodus sold reparative therapy books in their bookstore but recently removed them. Also, Alan Chambers recently told an audience at the Gay Christian Network conference that

The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say that they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction.

I asked Alan Chambers about the reason for the removal of the reparative therapy books and he told me that Exodus wants to be clear that Christian discipleship is how they want to be known.

Apparently, these developments are troubling to NARTH leaders. One of them, David Pickup, recently penned an article at the Anglican Mainstream in defense of reparative therapy. He wrote the article in direct response to the comments by Alan Chambers, noted above. Pickup writes:

Chambers’ remarks essentially indicate that:

1. Exodus will no longer indicate or specifically claim that change from Gay to 100% straight is possible for anyone except for a few rare cases.

2. Exodus has apologized and will continue to do so for making these unrealistic claims, which they now believe have contributed toward misinformation, hurtfulness and homophobia.

3. Exodus will work to achieve a deeper understanding of the truth of homosexuality, which will allow them to minister more effectively and compassionately to those dealing with homosexuality.

Pickup then offers his slant on why change in orientation should be recognized even if a same-sex attracted person is still same-sex attracted after they say they have changed:

Let’s take other challenges common to many people: depression or anxiety for instance. How many people who have successfully dealt with these issues are 100% changed so that they are not susceptible to later feelings of depression or anxiety? Can a therapist guarantee a client will never have those feelings again? Of course not. The same is true for homosexuality. Real change has occurred; however, no apologies should be made if much successful change has occurred even though homosexual feelings occasionally surface.

Alan [Chambers] seems to want to extract himself from this semantic debate by sticking to experience – the vast majority of people he knows retain attractions to the same sex. Pickup wants to explain that away by making sexual attraction analogous to depression or anxiety. Since he sees same-sex attraction as a disorder which stems from childhood wounds, that may work for him, but it won’t work for those who do not see it that way.

One problem here is political. NARTH wants to be able to say SSA people have changed if they experience a reduction in awareness of SSA and perhaps an experience of opposite sex attraction. This is a kind of change and if left in the therapeutic context, . . . . However, NARTH does not stay in the therapeutic context. They provide support for political groups who want change to mean complete change from gay to straight. Change is such a volatile concept because a modicum of change in the therapeutic setting is then exaggerated in the political and legal settings to argue against same-sex attraction as something intrinsic to the vast majority of people who experience it.

I think Chambers is much more on the right track than Pickup. Although Exodus continues to refer to reparative therapists and there are member ministries that are quite reparative in their approach, I think a move toward ministry and honesty about what people can expect is valuable.

This debate IS important because right now as the marriage equality legislation is working its way through the New Jersey legislature, the New Jersey Family Policy Council is busy marketing the ex-gay myth to members of the legislature. As noted before, no one lies more than the "godly Christian" set. They make a very strong case that one's best course is to walk away from Christianity entirely.

More Thursday Male Beauty

2012-01-26T23:15:00.002-05:00

Wings - The Original Broke Back Mountain?

2012-01-26T22:41:00.004-05:00

Among the nominees for the Best Picture Oscar this year is the silent movie, The Artist. A film critic at Towleroad has described this year's Academy Award nominees overall as a Hollywood nostalgia fest. Which ultimately leads him to brings up the subject of the winner of the first best picture Academy Award, the 1927 movie Wings that involves two World War I fliers. I remember seeing the movie a number of years ago and it definitely has its homoerotic moments such as in the clip below which captures what was most likely the first same sex movie kiss:

Pretty passionate if you ask me and filled with angst and a feeling of lost love. The reviewer had this to say:

If you've never seen it, it's totally worth a look and not just for the gorgeous flyboys. Charles "Buddy" Rogers and Richard Arlen play Jack and David, two fighter pilots who are initially at odds. In one early military training scene they're constantly giving each other the eye. Their drill master calls them "powder puff guys" -- I'm not making this up -- and then they proceed to beat the shit out of each other. Jack regularly has David flat on his back but David won't give up. Finally Jack stops and smiles.

"Boy you're game!" he says in a title card and just like that they're besties, tenderly wiping blood from mouths (with boxing gloves still on). It's all macho ridiculous and incredibly hot if you ask me. Their super tight friendship, threatened by sharing the same love ("It" girl Clara Bow), finally leads to one of the most famous embraces in early cinema:

The Christianist Struggle to Ignore the Non-Existence Adam and Eve

2012-01-26T21:57:00.005-05:00

While the Christianists and their political whores in the Republican Party like to depict gays and gay marriage as the biggest menace facing western civilization and the Christianists' perverted version of Christianity, in actuality, by far the much bigger threat is the fact that science has pretty much proven that the Adam and Eve of Genesis never existed. They are merely a myth promoted by ignorant and uneducated nomadic tribesman. And it follows that, if they never existed, there was no serpent and Fall, no Original sin, no exile from the Garden of Eden, and ultimately no need for a Messiah. Or certainly not a Messiah as depicted in the Bible which the Christianists and Christian fundamentalists like to describe as "the inerrant word of God." Indeed, the Bible proves to be anything but inerrant and the entire story line of most of the Bible collapses. What one is left with is one folk version - and many others exist - of the origin of the earth and mankind. Moreover, the role of Christ as the Messiah who the New Testament claims to have been predicted by the Old Testament likewise falls into serious question.

While the reality of this enormous theological crisis has not trickled down to local parishes and pastors, the danger to Christianity (especially the fundamentalist version) as we know it has not been lost by some in the upper tiers of various denominations or in more intellectually inclined seminaries. And frankly, the problem is not one that can be easily circumvented unless one is willing to simply embrace ignorance and close one's eyes to the truth - something that unfortunately many fundamentalist seem all too ready to do. In a piece on Huffington Post, Pete Enns, former Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary for 14 years and currently a professor of Biblical Studies at Eastern University, tries to paper over the devastating blow the non-existence of Adam and Eve. Ultimately, while he tries to explain away why Adam and Eve should not be taken to be historic personages, he fails to address the fact that without them, the whole Christian messages collapses. Here are highlights from his post:

If evolution is right about how humans came to be, then the biblical story of Adam and Eve isn't. If you believe, as evangelicals do, that God himself is responsible for what's in the Bible, you have a problem on your hands. Once you open the door to the possibility that God's version of human origins isn't what actually happened -- well, the dominoes start unraveling down the slippery slope. The next step is uncertainty, chaos and despair about one's personal faith.

That, more or less, is the evangelical log flume of fear, and I have seen it played out again and again.

In recent years, the matter has gotten far worse. Popular figures like Richard Dawkins have done an in-your-face-break-the-backboard-slam-dunk over the heads of defenders of the biblical story. They've taken great delight in making sure Main Street knows evolution is true, and therefore the Bible is "God's big book of bad ideas" (Bill Maher) and Christians are morons for taking it seriously. Evangelicals have been on high alert damage control mode.

Evolution is a threat, and many evangelicals are fighting to keep Adam in the family photo album. But in their rush to save Christianity, some evangelicals have been guilty of all sorts of strained, idiosyncratic or obscurantist tactics: massaging or distorting the data, manipulating the legal system, scaring their constituencies and strong-arming those of their own camp who raise questions.

These sorts of tactics get a lot of press, but behind them is a deeper problem -- a problem that gets close to the heart of evangelicalism itself and hampers any true dialogue. It has to do with what evangelicals expect from the Bible.

Evangelicals look to the Bible to settle important questions of faith. So, faced with a potentially faith-crushing idea like evolution, evangelicals naturally ask right off the bat, "What does the Bible say about that?" And then informed by "what the Bible says," they are ready to make a "biblical" judgment.

This is fine in principle, but in the evolution debate this mindset is a problem: It assumes that the Adam and Eve story is about "human origins." It isn't. And as long as evangelicals continue to assume that it does, the conflict between the Bible and evolution is guaranteed.

Israel's story was written to say something about their place in the world and the God they worshiped. To think that the Israelites, alone among all other ancient peoples, were interested in (or capable of) giving some definitive, quasi-scientific, account of human origins is an absurd logic. And to read the story of Adam and Eve as if it were set up to do such a thing [explain human origins] is simply wrongheaded.

Reading the biblical story against its ancient backdrop is hardly a news flash, and most evangelical biblical scholars easily concede the point. But for some reason this piece of information has not filtered down to where it is needed most: into the mainstream evangelical consciousness. Once it does, evangelicals will see for themselves that dragging the Adam and Eve story into the evolution discussion is as misguided as using the stories of Israel's monarchy to rank the Republican presidential nominees.

Evangelicals tend to focus on how to protect the Bible against the attacks of evolution. The real challenge before them is to reorient their expectation of what the story of Adam and Eve is actually prepared to deliver. These kinds of conversations are already happening, though too often quietly and behind closed doors. Evangelicals owe it to their children and their children's children to bring the discussion out into the open.

The fact that the Bible is not inerrant - indeed, it's flat out wrong on many things - terrifies evangelicals and fundamentalists. Their entire neat little world falls apart and, perhaps most terrifying of all, they have to think for themselves and find a way to live with uncertainty. As a corollary to this, I continue to believe that gays are a flash point with evangelicals because if the Bible is wrong about us, then it's likely wrong about most if not everything. Which means they have wasted their lives and often been miserable for no legitimate reason. And that realization is the worse of all.

A High School It Get's Better Message to Gaga's "Hair"

2012-01-26T21:00:00.003-05:00

Andy Towle picked this "It Gets Better" video up first at Towleroad and others such as fellow LGBT blogger summit attendee Joe Jervis of Joe.My.God are rightfully spreading the exposure. It's a wonderful message and I love the way Lady Gaga is indeed getting her message out to the younger generation. Would that more in the older generations and the Republican Party would get the message. Joe makes the following comments:

Lady Gaga's song, Hair. Hair is about being yourself, being true to who you are; as the song exemplifies, "you are the spirit of your hair, it's all the glory you bare", YOU are your #hair."As most of us know, growing up isn't easy. Countless young people are faced with daily tormenting and bullying, causing them to feel isolated and alone. This is an especially harsh reality for LGBT kids and teens, who often hide their sexuality for fear of bullying. In many instances, gay and lesbian adolescents are taunted, sometimes even tortured, simply for being themselves.

For a better understanding of Lady Gaga's advocacy for LGBT youth, watch the "Very Gaga Thanksgiving" version of "Hair" set out below. Yes, I will concede that I am a Gaga fan and I am moved to see the way she uses her celebrity to truly try to make things better for others. In my opinion, she gets the Gospel message of love and compassion that is so lost on the Christianists and leadership of the Catholic Church. I am happy that the Boyfriend and I were able to see her close up at the National Equality March in 2009.

Thursday Morning Male Beauty

2012-01-26T08:12:00.001-05:00

Rid Me of God and Toxic Religion

2012-01-26T07:50:00.003-05:00

It often seems that religion - or at least fundamentalist religion in which I also categorize far right Catholics - is the number one enemy of LGBT individuals. A few minor Bible passages set the stage for a relentless war against us. And a mean and horribly vindictive God, at least according to fundamentalists and conservative Catholic dogma, often makes a flight from religion seem the best course. The problem is that often LGBT youth are not yet old enough and mature enough to make the break from toxic religion and when bullying is thrown into the mix, suicide all too often seems the best option. I know that growing up I though of suicide often since it seemed that death was the only solution to "my secret." I know I am not alone in this and it drives me to distraction that too many youths are still being literally killed by religion and the falsely pious and self-satisfied "godly Christian" set, most of whom I personally view as probably psychologically disturbed and motivated by hate and transferred self-loathing. Maggie Gallagher, Tony Perkins, Timothy Dolan and Benedict XVI are but a few examples of these horrid people. A column in Religion Dispatches looks at the toxicity of religion. Here are some highlights:

I tried to kill myself when I was a teenager. It seemed like a natural progression for a young lesbian, growing up in the South. I kept my sexual orientation hidden until college, but that didn’t stop the taunting and the bullying I encountered in high school. I was teased relentlessly for my manner of dress—I wore boys’ shirts, jeans, jean jackets and boots or tennis shoes. I was teased for my short hair, my boyish mannerisms and, oh, yeah, my funny name.

It was torture—but school wasn’t the only place. There was also church; that good old Southern Baptist house of worship where I learned that my secret yearnings made me a sworn enemy of the God I had loved (and who I thought loved me) since childhood.

All that condemnation, from my peers, from my church, from my God, came to a head one night and I decided to put an end to it all by putting an end to me. Thankfully, my plan failed — and as the videos being produced by LGBT people who, like me, survived their childhood say, it does, indeed, get better.

I blame the religious right and their insistence on their “religious freedom” to condemn and bully LGBT people for this continuing trend of spiritual violence . . . . One young man who took his life recently was 19-year-old EricJames Borges whose “extremist Christian” parents tried to exorcise his gay demon and called him “disgusting and perverted” before kicking him out of the house. Borges had the best support around as a volunteer for The Trevor Project (the org that works to prevent LGBT suicide). He even did his own It Gets Better video.

But I fear it was finally the religious condemnation that led this beautiful young man to take his own life. Everyone under the sun can tell you it gets better, but the bottom line is this: If you believe God will send you to hell for who you love, there will be nothing anyone can say to convince you that it gets better—since God never changes, right?

I have seen too many in my community struggle with God—and the image of the bullying God they have been given by their churches and their families. This image of God as a loving destroyer, whose acceptance is conditioned on your strict adherence to “His” rules, has ruined too many lives. What needs to change is not the LGBT child, but this horrible and terribly wrong image of God as a holy bully that is being purveyed by religious institutions and believers.

The trouble is, though, this image of God has worked very well for those in power.

It is exactly this vision of God as “backyard bully” that puts LGBT youth on the path to suicide, and it must stop. But, it won’t as long as the GOP and anti-gay religious right groups can raise cash using this image of God as divine bully. This is why the “religious freedom” debate is so important; and why it highlights the hypocrisy of the religious right. They can certainly crow all they want about how they condemn LGBT people out of “love” for them, but one surefire test of true love is that it leads to life—not death.

It is these religious undertones—and outright blatant anti-LGBT preaching—that makes children choose to end their own lives no matter how many role models and videos they have telling them it gets better. It’s hell for them right now, and that’s all that matters to them.

The problem lies not with the child, but with the messages they are receiving from authorities like parents, preachers, and politicians. When money and power become more important than the lives of children, then God is truly and finally dead. It was the 15th-century mystic Meister Eckhart who prayed: “God, rid me of God.” If we are to have true religious freedom for everyone in this country, that must be our prayer as well.

The column's author is 100% on point. Religion has truly become one of the great evils of this world.

More on the GOP's Alienation of Hispanic Voters

2012-01-26T07:06:00.004-05:00

While the Christianist/Tea Party base of the Republican Party would most likely like to deport all Hispanics from the country - along with all other non-whites and non-Christians - a few in the GOP seem to be waking up to the fact that the constant anti-immigrant mantra is potential political suicide. One such individual is the Chimperator's far smarter brother, Jeb Bush, who has an op-ed in the Washington Post that lectures the GOP on what needs to be done to avoid throwing away the GOP's 2012 election chances. I suspect that the message will fall on deaf ears with most in the GOP base which is best defined by its loathing of anyone who isn't a gun packing far right white evangelical Christian. If they reject the message, so much the better in my view. Here's a sampling of Bush's message to the ignorance and bigotry embracing GOP base:

In the 15 states that are likely to decide who controls the White House and the Senate in 2013, Hispanic voters will represent the margin of victory.For the Republican Party, the stakes could not be greater. Just eight years after the party’s successful effort to woo Hispanic voters in 2004, this community — the fastest-growing group in the United States, according to census data — has drifted away.

Here are four suggestions on how Republican candidates can regain momentum with the most powerful swing voters.

First, we need to recognize this is not a monochromatic community but, rather, a deeply diverse one. Hispanics in this country include Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans and many others. Some came here 50 years ago to make a better life; others came last year. Some have lots of education, some have none.

Second, we should echo the aspirations of these voters. The American immigrant experience is the most aspirational story ever told. Immigrants left all that was familiar to them to come here and make a better life for their families.

Third, we should press for an overhaul of our education system. . . . . But we have to move beyond simplistic plans to “get rid of the Department of Education” and focus on substantive, broad-based reform that includes school choice, robust accountability for underperforming schools and the elimination of social promotion, in which kids are passed along without mastering grade-level skills. . . . Hispanic voters, who often feel their children are trapped in failing schools, notice.

Finally, we need to think of immigration reform as an economic issue, not just a border security issue. . . . Republicans should reengage on this issue and reframe it. Start by recognizing that new Americans strengthen our economy. We need more people to come to this country, ready to work and to contribute their creativity to our economy. . . . We need to connect immigration to other pro-growth policies, so that new Americans can apply their talents here and succeed.

And when they come, as surely they will, we must welcome them, no matter whether they speak Spanish or Creole or Portuguese.

It's actually an intelligent message. However, given the GOP base's zero sum view of things in this country, I suspect gains by Hispanics will be viewed as something lost by the white evangelical Christian crowd.

Florida Mom Confronts Santorum on His Anti-Gay Bigotry

2012-01-26T06:46:00.004-05:00

With his numbers going nowhere in the polls (except perhaps down) Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum seems to believe that increasing his attacks on the rights of LGBT citizens is his ticket back to being a serious contender. The pitch may have worked among the Neanderthal Christianists in Iowa, but fortunately seems to be bombing elsewhere. Also, Santorum seems to be finding more push back from gays and their family members such as the mother of a gay man in Florida that challenged Frothy Mix on his batshitery. With Santorum, unless your family looks like his own, they simply do not matter. An article in The Advocate looks at this latest confrontation. Here are highlights:

During a campaign stop in Florida, Rick Santorum told a mother that her gay son doesn't have the right to adopt children. "I'm a proud mother of a gay son graduating from Georgetown law in May," the woman said during a campaign rally in Stuart, according to a video posted by ThinkProgress. "I want to know why he can't have the same rights as you have?"

Santorum said that while God has granted everyone some rights, the government has control over what's leftover and issues those "privileges" to people who are "healthy for society."

“There are certain things that government does that gives people privileges in order to promote activity that are healthy for society and are best for society," he said, according to the Post. "And those things we promote would give people advantages or benefits, government benefits because we think that is healthy activity."

Santorum has said that he hopes to outlaw same-sex adoption nationwide by amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, which he says would make it a moot issue. He's also said that having an absent father in prison would be a better option for a child than being raised by two mothers, claiming to cite a researcher's conclusions on the question.

"He found that even fathers in jail who had abandoned their kids were still better than no father at all to have in their children's lives," Santorum told voters earlier this month, according to the Los Angeles Times.

If a same-sex couple were to raise a child, he said they would be "robbing children of something they need, they deserve, they have a right to. You may rationalize that that isn't true, but in your own life and in your own heart, you know it's true."

My comment: What a bigoted asshole. He must be a truly self-loathing closet case to be so hysterically focused on denigrating and marginalizing gay Americans. Not surprisingly, Frothy Mix was campaigning at a so-called Christian Academy which no doubt is teaching the embrace of ignorance and bigotry. Here's the Think Progress video clip:

More Wednesday Male Beauty

2012-01-25T22:07:00.002-05:00

Starbucks, Google, Alcoa Endorse Gay-Marriage Legislation

2012-01-25T21:44:00.006-05:00

While Chris Christie is trying to sabotage same sex marriage in New Jersey, corporate heavy weights are jumping on the band wagon to support comparable legislation in Washington State. As noted previously, Microsoft has previously come up in support of the same -sex legislation because it believes it's the right thing to do and just as importantly, because it will make Washington State and businesses based their more competitive in competing for the best and the brightest. Here are highlights from the Bellingham Herald:

Starbucks, Google and Alcoa are the latest large corporations to endorse legalizing gay marriage in Washington, according to the group Washington United for Marriage, which backs the legislation.

Microsoft, Nike and Group Health Plan have already endorsed the legislation, which picked up the 25th and final vote needed in the state Senate for pass the law.

The article also includes a lengthy list of businesses that support the same sex marriage bills. They range from small businesses and restaurants to corporate behemoths. Starkly missing so far from the list of marriage equality supporters is Boeing. Once again, I remind readers that we need to give our bushiness to companies that support our equality. Those that don't can look to Christianists and bigots for their business and patronage.

A Conservative Describes Newt Gingrich As the GOP's "Bill Clinton"

2012-01-25T21:14:00.004-05:00

Bill Clinton certain proved to have his strengths and weakness as a president. From the conservative/GOP perspective, however, he was viewed as only having weaknesses and liabilities. Hence, it is interesting that R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator and an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute, describes Gingrich as the GOP's version of Clinton and not the least bit in a positive way. Rather, he sees Gingrich as a terrible leader and a host of disasters waiting to happen. Here are highlights from his column at creators.com:

How long have I been saying it? At least for 15 years, but in private, I have been aware of it longer. Newt Gingrich is conservatism's Bill Clinton, but without the charm. He has acquired wit, but he has all the charm of barbed wire.

Newt and Bill are, of course, 1960s-generation narcissists, and they share the same problems: waywardness and deviancy. Newt, like Bill, has a proclivity for girl-hopping. It's not as egregious as Bill's, but then Newt is not as drop-dead beautiful. His public record is already besmeared with tawdry divorces, and there are private encounters with the fair sex that doubtless will come out. If I have heard of some, you can be sure the Democrats have heard of more.

Newt up against the Prophet Obama would be a painful thing to watch. He might be deft with one-liners, but it would be futile. There are independent and other uncommitted voters to be cultivated in 2012 — all would be unmoved by Newt's juggling of conservative shibboleths.

He now says Republicans in the House were exhausted with his great projects. Nonsense. I knew many of them, and they were exhausted with his atrocious leadership. He is not a leader. He is a huckster. Today Mitt Romney has 72 congressional endorsements. Newt has 11. Possibly the 11 have yet to meet him.

After Newt's and Bill's disastrous experiences in government, both went on to create empires — Bill in philanthropy and cheap thought, Newt in public policy and cheap thought. As an ex-president, Bill has wrung up an unprecedented $75.6 million since absconding from the White House with White House loot and shameless pardons. I do not know how much Newt has amassed, but he got between $1.6 million to $1.8 million from Freddie Mac, . . . Now, after a lifetime in Washington, he is promoting himself as an outsider.

Back in 1992, I appeared with Chris Matthews on some gasbag's television show. Was it Donohue? At any rate, I said candidate Clinton had more skeletons in his closet than a body snatcher. It was a prescient line then, and I always got a laugh. I can apply the same line today to Newt, though he has skeletons both inside and outside his closet. Conservatives should not be surprised by the scandals that lie ahead if they stick with him.

Ouch!!! However, what Tyrrell says is all true. Obama must relish the tought of Newt Gingrich as his opponent.

GOP Demagoguery in New Jersey

2012-01-25T20:37:00.004-05:00

New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie seems to have stepped into a pile of proverbial shit with his statement that marriage equality in that state should be put to a popular vote. Likely, Christie made the statement to (a) try to derail the passage of legislation moving through the New Jersey legislature and (b) to appease the knuckle dragging religious extremist who make up a significant portion of the GOP base. Now, Christie finds himself being slammed by leaders of the New Jersey legislature, black leaders appalled at the prospect of putting civil rights up for a vote, and many editorials. Personally, I have no sympathy for Christie who apparently wants to be remembered by history as a modern day equivalent of George Wallace standing in the school house door. First, an op-ed in the New York Times by the editorial page editor pretty much ripped Christie a new one. Here are highlights:

To borrow an old Washington joke about another self-promoting politician, the most dangerous place in politics is between Chris Christie and a TV crew. Most weeks, he clamors for national attention with rhetoric about small government (for the poor, that is, not the rich). This week, he’s taken up gay marriage.

Mr. Christie, the governor of New Jersey, is a clever politician who has mastered the role of plainspoken tough guy. A lot of Republicans, upset that their leading candidates are either phony right-wingers or so genuinely far right that they alienate the vast majority of Americans, have high hopes for him.

So Mr. Christie has assiduously polished his national image as a conservative. . . . The glitch is that Mr. Christie is governor of a state where even the hard-right Republicans are not as hard right as they are elsewhere, and you need moderate support to win statewide.

This tension between the demands of his state, and of his desire to be a big player in a party that does not tolerate the slightest deviation from orthodoxy, explains his obvious discomfort to a renewed effort by state lawmakers to pass a marriage equality bill.

Mr. Christie knows perfectly well that ballot initiatives are a terrible way to handle government. They are easily manipulated and generally attract a low turnout. In any case, it is his and the state legislature’s duty to set right this fundamental wrong.

“Marriage equality isn’t like sports betting,” said Senator Raymond Lesniak, a Democrat. “It’s a civil right, which is already guaranteed in our Constitution. It’s up to the Legislature to guarantee these rights.” That’s very well put.

By the way, Mr. Christie’s bad faith is a real contrast with the actions of Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who introduced a bill in that state’s senate to make good on the constitution’s promise of equality. A marriage rights bill also seems to be getting decisive support in the Washington State Senate—despite a hearing in which bigots compared supporters of equal rights for all Americans with Adolf Hitler, and same-sex marriage with polygamy.

Adding to Mr. Christie's well deserved bashing is the reaction of two of New Jersey's most influential black leaders blasted Gov. Christie obviously, can't have things both ways and deserves the trashing that he is now receiving. Here are highlights from CBS News on the black leadership's reaction:

Two of New Jersey's most influential black leaders blasted Gov. Chris Christie on Wednesday for proposing gay marriage be put to a popular vote in November, but the Republican governor insisted he's offering a reasonable compromise amid his personal opposition to same-sex nuptials.

Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver and Newark Mayor Cory Booker said in separate forums that civil rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and don't belong on the ballot.

Booker said baseball great Jackie Robinson would not have had the opportunity to break the sport's color barrier had the matter been put to a vote, and the mayor himself would not have had the opportunity, years later, to be elected to lead New Jersey's largest city. Oliver said in a statement she was offended by Christie's comment Tuesday that bloodshed may have been avoided in the South, and people would have been happier, if the civil rights issues of the 1960s were settled by public referendum.

"Governor, people were fighting and dying in the streets of the South because the majority refused to grant minorities equal rights by any method," Oliver said. "It took legislative action to bring justice to all Americans, just as legislative action is the right way to bring marriage equality to all New Jerseyans."

Booker said during a news conference in Newark: "Dear God, we should not be putting civil rights issues to a popular vote, to be subject to the sentiments, the passions of the day. No minority should have their rights subject to the passions and the sentiments of the majority. This is the fundamental bedrock of what our nation stands for."

Other black Democrats weighed in later in the day. "If the governor was hoping to defend his reprehensible stance on marriage equality by suggesting that those who fought and died for civil rights in this county would have preferred a referendum, that by all historical accounts would have been most likely defeated, he failed miserably," said Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson-Coleman, former Assembly majority leader.

The truth is that today's Republican Party even in more moderate states like New Jersey have contempt for the constitutional protections that are supposed to apply to all citizens. Instead of equality and equal protection, today's GOP is all about special rights (generally white Christianists and white supremacists) and second or third class citizenship for everyone else. I hope Christie continues to get pounded mercilessly. He deserves it. Oh, and if he want s minority rights put to referendum, lets start with the rights of obese Catholics.

Wednesday Morning Male Beauty

2012-01-25T08:48:00.001-05:00

North Carolina Anti-Gay Marriage Foes Launch Lie Filled Website

2012-01-25T07:47:00.004-05:00

Leave it to the "godly Christians" to always be the most dishonest and consistent liars. The seem to always believe that the Ten Commandments come up one short (maybe more) when applied to themselves. That inconvenient Commandment against lying and bearing false witness just seems to always disappear. A case in point is a new website launched by those who want to "protect the sanctity of marriage" and are apparently ready to use any and every lie and untruth to accomplish their anti-gay agenda. Zack Ford has a piece that looks at the lies and fabrications being put out by the godly folks who are more like modern day Pharisees in my book. Here are highlights:

Conservatives supporting North Carolina’s proposed constitutional amendment banning recognition of all same-sex relationships have launched a new website called Vote For Marriage NC. The site describes same-sex marriage as a “threat” and a “new legal orthodoxy” that would “redefine” marriage as “genderless” for all couples, and those who do not agree “will be treated under the law just like racists and bigots, and will be punished for their beliefs.” Unsurprisingly, none of the claims made stand up to scrutiny:

CLAIM: “Religious groups who have refused to make their facilities available for same-sex couples have lost their state tax exemption.”

REALITY: The only example conservatives ever cite is a New Jersey Methodist pavilion, and that pavilion did not actually have a religious exemption.

CLAIM: “Religious groups like Catholic Charities in Boston and Washington DC have had to choose between fulfilling their social mission based on their religious beliefs, or acquiescing to this new definition of marriage.”

REALITY: Catholic Charities have never been obligated to shut down their services, but have done so voluntarily when they are no longer subsidized by the state because they discriminate.

CLAIM: “Nonprofit groups are faced with abandoning their historic mission principles in order to maintain governmental contracts (for things like low-income housing, health clinics, etc.).”

REALITY: Again, no group has been forced to close, though some may lose state funding. In one case, the Maine Catholic Diocese shuttered a homeless support agency as punishment for supporting marriage equality.

CLAIM: “Whenever schools educate children about marriage, which happens throughout the curriculum, they will have no choice but to teach this new genderless institution.”

REALITY: Marriage equality or not, same-sex families are a part of all communities. To refuse to acknowledge their existence stigmatizes the children who are being raised by gay couples and deprives all young people of understanding the world around them.

CLAIM: “Wedding professionals have been fined for refusing to participate in a same-sex ceremony. Christian innkeepers in Vermont and New Hampshire are being sued over their refusal to make their facilities available for same-sex weddings.”

REALITY: This is a red herring. When businesses are fined for not renting to same-sex couples, they are violating state non-discrimination policies, like in the case of the Wildflower Inn in Vermont. Inns and reception halls should be no less publicly accessible than lunch counters and water fountains.

CLAIM: “Doctors, lawyers, accountants and other licensed professionals risk their state licensure if they act on their belief that a same-sex couple cannot really be married. A counselor, for example, could not refuse “marriage therapy” to a same-sex couple because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage.”

REALITY: This is another red herring, as licensing laws and professional certifications have no connection to marriage laws. The 11th Circuit ruled last month in favor of a university that required a counseling student to affirmatively counsel LGBT clients.

CLAIM: “Those people – a strong majority of North Carolinians – who believe marriage is between one man and one woman, would be the legal equivalent of bigots for acting on their heartfelt beliefs… Not only will the law penalize traditional marriage supporters, but the power of government will work in concert to promote this belief throughout the culture.”

REALITY: No law has ever “penalized” opponents of marriage equality, but more importantly, there is no “strong majority” in support of the amendment. In fact, a December poll found that 56 percent of North Carolinians support at least civil unions — which this amendment also bans.

If they are Christians, nowadays, you will know them by their lies.

Santorum to Rape Victims: "Make the Best of the Situation"

2012-01-25T07:31:00.004-05:00

While as noted in the previous post I'm not thrilled and enthusiastic about Obama, the GOP presidential clown car continues to provide an endless supply of reasons why NOT to vote Republican (over and above the party's decidedly anti-gay agenda). Leading the lunacy is Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum who has unbelievably said that rape victims should be denied abortions and "make the best of a bad situation." I am not pro-abortion, but heaven forbid that if one of my daughters or some other female family member I loved was raped that Frothy Mix would seek to force her to give birth to the rapist's child. Think Progress looks at Santorum's latest batshitery:

Standing steadfast as the most socially right-wing candidate in the GOP presidential field, Rick Santorum has repeatedly touted his extreme anti-choice position, which dictates that abortion should be uniformly illegal, even in cases of rape or incest. He even suggested that physicians who provide abortions to such victims should be criminally charged.

Last Friday, CNN’s Piers Morgan asked Santorum to clarify his reasoning behind such a callous position. Insisting that “it’s not a matter of religious values,” Santorum explained that sexual assault victims should “accept this horribly created” pregnancy because it is “nevertheless a gift in a very broken way” and that, when it comes down to it, a victim just has “to make the best out of a bad situation“:

SANTORUM: Well, you can make the argument that if she doesn’t have this baby, if she kills her child, that that, too, could ruin her life. And this is not an easy choice. I understand that. As horrible as the way that that son or daughter and son was created, it still is her child. And whether she has that child or doesn’t, it will always be her child. And she will always know that. And so to embrace her and to love her and to support her and get her through this very difficult time, I’ve always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you. As you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life. We have horrible things happen. I can’t think of anything more horrible. But, nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation.

The problem with Santorum’s sense of humanity is that it doesn’t seem to extend to the victim. . . . What’s more, Santorum’s argument forces a woman in these circumstances to share his religious beliefs and “accept what God has given to [her.]” A woman may very well share his belief and decide to carry the pregnancy to the term, but the fundamental point is that that should be her choice — not the government’s, and certainly not Santorum’s.

SOTU - Pretty Rhethoric But No Bold Vision

2012-01-25T06:59:00.003-05:00

I will concede that I missed the first portion of Obama's speech last night, but of the portion that I did see (more than half) contained some ideas that I favor yet nothing that would make me feel motivated to go to the mat working for Obama's re-election. Instead, the strongest reason to back Obama remains fear of the Republican alternative and what kind of insane agenda that GOP control of the White House might bring forth. That's not the type of motivation that will rekindle the enthusiasm and efforts of 2008. And as a LGBT America, while Obama has done much for LGBT rights, the reality is that I am still a third or fourth class citizen in my home state where open discrimination against me is allowed: I can be fired at will, I can be discriminated against in housing, were I to want to adopt agencies paid by the state can discriminate against me, my relationship with my partner receives zero recognition. Indeed, the only federal law "protection" I receive is the possibility that, if I were beaten to death for being gay, my killer might receive a harsher punishment under the federal hate crimes act. It's not exactly an image of the "land of the free" and equality. And sadly, that largely seems to be fine with Obama. Again, the only motivation to support Obama derives from the fact that the GOP wants to make my life even worse. The Washington Post looks at Obama's speech and is likewise underwhelmed. Here are some highlights:

A STATE OF THE UNION address from a president seeking reelection is always an odd event. Especially in the face of a divided Congress, the president’s proclaimed program stands little chance of enactment. . . . the president’s proposals are made in the context of the race about to be joined, stacked up against the pie-in-the-sky promises of his opponents. The subtext is, inevitably, less a blueprint of the year to come than an explanation of why the president deserves reelection and a sneak preview of a second-term agenda.

In that context, President Obama’s speech Tuesday night combined soaring rhetoric with crowd-pleasing, often small-bore proposals. Mr. Obama spoke movingly about the eroding economic security of much of the middle class. Building on themes he sounded a few months ago in Osawatomie, Kan., the president argued against, as he put it, “settl[ing] for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by.”

The president’s biggest new idea was attaching a number to his previously articulated “Buffett Rule” — billionaire Warren Buffett’s position that he should not pay a smaller share of his income in taxes than his secretary’s . . . . Mr. Obama is right to take on the unlevel and distorting playing field of a code that taxes ordinary earned income at a much higher rate than investment income. . . . . Mr. Obama has said he wants to make the tax code simpler, but his proposals would further complicate it . .

Once again Mr. Obama slighted the threat that the federal deficit poses to the growth he said he wants.

Mr. Obama’s discussion of foreign policy focused on the two achievements likely to be a major focus of his election campaign, the withdrawal of the last troops from Iraq and the killing of Osama bin Laden.

The president did not hint at any significant foreign policy initiatives for the coming year; even on Iraq, he failed to discuss future relations with that strategic oil producer, which has headed toward renewed internal conflict since the last U.S. soldiers pulled out.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, delivering the Republican rebuttal, had the fiscal question right when he said: “If we drift, quarreling and paralyzed, over a Niagara of debt, we will all suffer, regardless of income, race, gender, or other category.” But his eloquence is undercut by his party’s refusal, far more doctrinaire than Mr. Obama’s, to entertain responsible proposals to pay for the nation’s needs.

As I said, fear of the GOP remains the main reason to support Obama in 2012. Yes, fear can be a motivator, but nothing like true enthusiasm when in comes to guaranteeing people actually get out and vote.

More Tuesday Male Beauty

2012-01-24T23:21:00.002-05:00

Mitch Daniels Lied in His SOTU Response

2012-01-24T22:58:00.006-05:00

Try as I might, I find little to like in the GOP. While Mitch Daniel's delivery of his response to Barack Obama's SOTU address, it was flawed from the get go because Daniels started off immediately lying when he accused Obama of proliferate spending. That type of spending did not occur under Obama. but it did under Chimperator Bush as the chart set out above aptly demonstrates. If one wants to witness pathological liars, one need look no farther than the "godly Christian" set and their allies in the Republican Party. As regular readers know all too well, I am not an Obama cheerleader. But nothing pisses me off more than deliberate and shameless lying. Again, it's one of the reasons I fled the GOP a number of years ago.

Chris Christie Proves He's Spineless and Calls for a Public Vote on LGBT Civil Rights

2012-01-24T22:24:00.005-05:00

Earlier today I had hoped that Chris Christie might show some spine - and leadership qualities - in the context of the pending gay marriage legislation in New Jersey. To do that, of course, he would need to stand up for equality under the civil laws and "flip the bird" to Christianists, far right religious extremists and ignorance embracing "traditional Catholics" who want to trample on the religious freedoms of other citizens. That hope apparently was misplaced. Rather than exhibit leadership and desire to be on the right side of history when it comes to equality for all citizens, Mr. Christie has run in cowardice. How so? Rather than support religious freedom and equality for all citizens, Christies is trying to punt on the issue and today stated that the marriage rights of gays should be put to a public vote - something anathema to the Constitution's protections afforded to minorities. If Christie wants a vote on gay rights, then let's put all kinds of rights up to public vote. To start wit, how about a vote on the rights of the morbidly obese such as Mr. Christie himself. Or perhaps those of Jewish descent. Or maybe Mormons or evangelical Christians? The Star-Ledger has coverage on Christie's disgusting spinelessness. Here are some highlights:

Gov. Chris Christie called today for the Legislature to put on the fall ballot a voter referendum on whether to legalize gay marriage, which Democratic lawmakers have made a top priority.

If successful, the referendum would amend the state Constitution and trump the current civil unions law. He urged all Republicans in the Legislature to put the matter to voters, but promised to veto the measure if it came to him in the form of a bill.

In reaction to Christie's bombshell, State Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), a sponsor of the bill, said same-sex marriage is "a right that's guaranteed by the Constitution. It's up to us to implement it as legislators."

I sincerely hope that the New Jersey legislature drums up the vote to override Christie's likely gutless and spineless veto of the marriage legislation. Christie makes me want to vomit.

Mitt Romney Gave Millions to Anti-Gay Organizations

2012-01-24T21:55:00.004-05:00

Mitt Romney has finally released his tax returns for two (2) years and they disclose not only a combined two-year income of $43 million. That's right, $43 million during just two years. And the effective tax rate Romney paid was 13.9% - far less than that paid by many working class citizens. Indeed, Romney gave more to the Mormon Church than he paid to the IRS. But it gets even better. An analysis of the returns indicates that Romney was very generous to anti-gay organizations, including but not limited to the Mormon Church and Mass Resistance, a SPLC registered anti-gay hate group. My blogger friend Pam Spaulding addresses Romney's anti-gay "charitable" gifts. Here are some highlights:

So we have learned that . . . . while he [Romney] was telling voters he was “unemployed,” he was underwriting anti-gay activity — including the Mormon church, which bankrolled the ant-gay Proposition 8 campaign in California.

Mr. Romney, a Mormon, has long said that he had promised to give 10 percent of his income to his church. His tax return shows that over two years he and his wife, Ann, gave $7 million in charitable contributions, including $4.1 million to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[T]he Mormon Church has not been subtle about its gay bashing, politically organizing against gay rights for decades, for years promoting its own “pray away the gay” program. Up until the 1970s the LDS church was even using brutal electroshock therapy to supposedly “cure” gays.

To underscore that, Think Progress LGBT reports on Romney’s Tyler Charitable Foundation that gave to the anti-gay Massachusetts Family Institute. Here’s more on that:

The Mormon Church is notoriously anti-gay, having raised an estimated $22 million in support of California’s Proposition 8 in 2008, in addition to providing close to 90 percent of the early door-to-door volunteers advocating for the discriminatory measure. Because of blowback from this effort, LDS has been less aggressive in anti-gay campaigns, although just last week church leaders endorsed Minnesota’s marriage discrimination amendment. Some have questioned whether its involvement in ballot measures should compromise the church’s tax-exempt status and there is an on-going petition calling on the IRS to revoke it.

Though Romney never specifically endorsed Prop 8 aside from opposing same-sex marriage in general, the Church’s success in passing the measure may have helped advance his credibility among social conservatives.

Not that I have ever been inclined to support Romney, his active support for organizations that seek to keep me a third class citizen -indeed less than fully human - there is no way I can in good conscience support the flip=flopping, duplicitous bastard. When it comes to my religious freedom, the man is little better than Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum.

Why Do State Legislators Listen to Unindicted Criminal Co-Conspirators and Their Associates?

2012-01-24T16:33:00.007-05:00

With same sex marriage legislation now working through the legislatures of Maryland, New Jersey and Washington State, one of the strongest opponents to CIVIL marriage equality will be Roman Catholic bishops. In some instances, perhaps the very same bishops whose dioceses were implicated in the cover up of sexual abuse crimes against children and youth. I've asked before the question of why does anyone listen to these foul clerical bureaucrats. The question takes on new importance now that the Archdiocese of Philadelphia has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the criminal cases now pending in that city against Catholic priests. CBS News looks at the development with these highlights:

PHILADELPHIA — Prosecutors on Monday accused the Archdiocese of Philadelphia of being an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a clergy sex abuse case and said the Roman Catholic Church fed predators a steady supply of children.

The comments came in a key hearing before the March trial of a high-ranking church official, a priest and a former priest. Monsignor William Lynn, 61, is charged with conspiring with priests and church officials to keep priests accused of sex abuse in ministry and parishioners in the dark.

"The archdiocese is supplying him with an endless supply of victims," Cipolletti said Monday. The judge asked if prosecutors consider the archdiocese "an unindicted co-conspirator." "Certainly," Cipolletti said. "It's not like there aren't other people (in the archdiocese) involved. There absolutely are."

The February 2011 grand jury report blasted Bevilacqua and his successor, Cardinal Justin Rigali, for their handling of priest abuse complaints but said there wasn't enough evidence to charge them with any crimes.

True, the case in the CBS News piece involves the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, but the very same pattern of malfeasance occurred time and time again in virtually 2/3's of U. S. dioceses and countless other ones around the world. Yet despite this, we see the spectacle of Catholic bishops being treated with deference and allowed to testify against CIVIL marriage equality when instead, they or their dioceses likely ought to be under criminal investigation. As case in point is described in a Seattle Post story on hearings taking place before the Washington legislature. Here are some highlights:

The Senate hearing displayed divisions and passions: A Catholic archbishop testified against same-sex marriage. An Evangelican Lutheran Church bishop said congregations that want to marry same-sex couples should be permitted to do so. An Assembly of God pastor arguing against the legislation was followed by a Reform rabbi claiming that religious freedom means allowing gays and lesbians to wed.

Roman Catholic Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain, who has urged Catholics to lobby legislators against marriage equality, warned of "the grave challenge this legislation poses to the common good."

"The natural structure of human sexuality orders the transmission of human life through man and woman," said Sartain. "Because only the union of a man and a woman can generate new life, no other human relationship is its equivalent."

What about the harm done to the commion good by the rape and sexual abuse of countless tens of thousands of children and youths around the world - all sought to be covered up by the Vatican and its bishops and cardinals? The Catholic Church bishops deserve no deference and legislators with any decency ought to refuse to listen to their disingenus testimony.

There was one bright spot in the testimony in Olympia, however. It was what was said by the ELCA bishop:

A very different view came from the Rt. Rev. Chris Boerger, Northwest bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. He noted that the church has approved blessing of same-sex couples in lifelong, loving, monogamous relationships. "We can't call it marriage, you can," Boerger added.

It's not hard given this contrast in denominations to see why to the extent I remain nominally Christian, I want to be a member of the ELCA.

The Wingnuts Are REALLY Pissed at Chris Christie

2012-01-24T11:56:00.002-05:00

As anticipated, the talking heads of anti-gay hate groups are seriously upset with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie who had the audacity to nominate a highly qualified gay man - who is also black, which makes matters even worse with the "godly Christin" set - to the New Jersey Supreme Court. With luck, the haters will sufficiently antagonize Christie that he will refrain from vetoing any gay marriage bill that lands on his desk.

'The Enemy' is Using 'Glee' to 'Bring Us Down'

2012-01-24T08:13:00.002-05:00

Right Wing Watch does a wonderful job of showcasing the out right insanity - and often unvarnished hate - that is the face of the so-called Christian Right in America. Many of the alleged leaders of the movement most appropriately belong in mental institutions or at a minimum under constant mental health care. A case in point? James Robison, the founder of Life Outreach International - note how they ALWAYS have a "ministry to line the pockets financially - who believes that the enemies of America are using the television show Glee to destroy the nation. Here are highlights from Right Wing Watch:

The Religious Right is firmly convinced that the television show "Glee" is part of some conspiracy intend on "glamorizing homosexual conduct" in order to idoctrinate children.

And last week, while appearing on Glenn Beck, James Robison explained that the show, like Holywood in general, are being used by "the Enemy" to bring American down and turn the nation "away from God, away from truth":

You made a tremendous comment earlier in the week, you talked about "Glee." You talked about the incredible talent; the talent is so staggeringly great and you said "why can't we take great talent and have a great message?"

You see, the enemy - and you talked about it in "The Overton Window"- the principalities and powers in the realm of darkness and deception know how to take that which is highly effective and use it to their ends to deceive and really to bring us down, away from God, away from truth. They do it highly effectively, they're committed to it.

Tuesday Morning Male Beauty

2012-01-24T08:08:00.002-05:00

Newt Gingrich: Trivial Issues Warrior

2012-01-24T07:24:00.002-05:00

With Newt Gingrish busy pandering to the Christianist and Tea Party base of the Republican Party, it's worthwhile to see what the few remaining rational conservatives are saying. One such individual is David Frum who has been largely exiled from the GOP because he doesn't drink enough Kool-Aid to please the crazies and has a habit of speaking out against idiocy. In a column yesterday in the Daily Beast, Frum looks at Newt Gingrich - someone he obviously dislikes and sees as unfit for the presidency. Here are some highlights:

In my column for CNN, I discuss the problems with Newt Gingrich's leadership style:

A classic display of the Gingrich method was the memo he circulated to elite Republicans in the fall of 2004. (Gingrich is about as much a Washington "outsider" as the maitre d' at Cafe Milano.)

"There is a temporary narrow partisan division among Americans, but there is no narrow values division. On a wide number of issues Americans average about four to one in favor of Center-Right values. In one set of 34 issues the American people averaged 77% on one side and 17% on the other side.

To drive home the supposed values separation between the Kerry ticket and the nation, Gingrich urged the Bush ticket to focus attacks on a series of issues that highlighted that supposed 4:1 values divide, including:

"1. A work requirement for welfare: 87% of Americans say yes, 5% no. John Kerry and the Senate Democrats have blocked the bill for three years.

2. Government should help faith-based initiatives help the poor: 72% of Americans agree, 26% disagree; Kerry is with the 26%.

3. U.S. interests are more important than international organizations: 73-24; Kerry's positions favor the 24%.

4. Violent attackers of pregnant women who kill the baby should be prosecuted for killing the baby: 84% of Americans say yes, 9% no. Kerry voted no.

5. Children should be allowed to pray at school: 78% of Americans agree; Kerry is against it.

Looking back on that Gingrich platform from the perspective of eight years later, it's striking how utterly irrelevant those five highlighted points were to the largest problems of the time. It does not address the inflating housing bubble and the lax financial regulations that would wreak such disaster in the years ahead. It does not address stagnating incomes or rising health costs. It does not address Iraq or Iran or the war in Afghanistan.

[T]o Gingrich, such substantive issues were not the stuff of campaign politics. Campaign politics was about finding ways to define your opponent as alien, hostile and dangerous. The definition need not correspond to any actual real-world problem.

You see the Gingrich method at work again in his famous comment to a reporter about his view of the Obama presidency: "What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together" his actions? That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior. This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president

But here's a problem with Gingrich-style politics. It does not long survive the encounter with real-world voter concerns. The pollsters who generate those 70% numbers are creating a statistical artifact, not a workable political majority. In his pursuit of a governing majority, Gingrich has chased phantoms: In that 1983 speech about liberals and space, for example, Gingrich actually cited the popularity of the "Star Wars" movies as evidence that space exploration could be a winning issue for Republicans. The person most deluded by Gingrich's politics of cultural division has always been Gingrich himself.

For all the momentum supposedly unleashed by his win in the Republican South Carolina primary, Gingrich remains one of the very most disliked figures in national politics. . .

Over a political career of nearly 40 years, Gingrich has convinced almost everybody who has ever worked closely with him that he cannot and should not be trusted with executive power.

The reaction to Gingrich's poll surge in December was panic among senior Republicans, and the panic is only intensifying now. It's striking that almost none of Gingrich's former colleagues in the House has endorsed him for president. Striking that nobody associated with a past Republican presidential association has done so.

He is a candidate of talk-show hosts and local activists -- and of course of Rick Perry and Sarah Palin -- but not of those who know him best and have worked with him most closely. Gingrich may raise more money after his South Carolina win. But prediction: Romney will raise even more, among the great national network of Republicans who recognize that to nominate Gingrich is to commit party suicide.

I believe that Frum is 100% on point. Which, of course, means that his reasoned analysis will be almost utterly ignored within the Christianist/Tea Party ranks.

Maryland's Governor Introduces Same-Sex Marriage bill

2012-01-24T06:43:00.004-05:00

With Washington State poised to enact same sex marriage, Maryland's Governor Martin O'Malley (pictured at left) introduced legislation Monday night to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland. The bill reportedly contains more broad protections for groups that would not want to perform or honor same-sex marriages in an effort to blunt objections against last year's unsuccessful bill. Nonetheless, Christianists and the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy - and, of course, the haters at NOM- must have their panties in a major wad. Despite the rhetoric of the far right, the sole reason these groups oppose marriage equality is because they seek to inflict their often sick religious beliefs on all of society and punish gays for not knuckling under and living their lives per Christianist dictates. Here are highlights from the Baltimore Sun on the legislative effort:

Gov. Martin O'Malley introduced legislation Monday night to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland, presenting a bill to the General Assembly that aides said would offer broad protections for groups that would not want to perform or honor same-sex marriages. The governor, his staff and advocates worked throughout the day to hammer out language detailing religious protections. They distributed the new legislative language moments before the 8 p.m. session began.

The language provided Monday night made a few key changes, according to Raquel Guillory, a spokeswoman for O'Malley. She said the bill extended legal protections to leaders of religious groups, while last year's bill shielded only institutions.

The bill also makes clear that religious leaders, not the state, control theological doctrine, Guillory said. And it further limits any punitive actions — like denying government funds — that the state could take against religious organizations for failing to perform same-sex marriages

The coalition supporting same-sex marriage captured headlines in the fall by releasing a steady stream of web videos featuring boldface names including Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo, Oscar winner Mo'Nique and former NAACP chairman Julian Bond.

Opponents planned a day of prayer that a same-sex marriage bill will fail. They said there would be Sunday sermons focused on traditional marriage and a rally in Annapolis. They united forces under the banner the Maryland Marriage Alliance.

Supporters promised daily phone banks to drum up support for a same-sex marriage bill, and they pledged to bus their troops to Annapolis the day before Valentine's Day. Their coalition is called Marylanders for Marriage Equality.

The contrast between Virginia where bills have been introduced by Republicans to expressly permit anti-gay discrimination and Washington State and Maryland is striking. Virginia under the GOP continues it race back to the 19th century. Meanwhile, young college educated residents continue their exodus from Hampton Roads for more progressive areas. It's very depressing.

More Monday Male Beauty

2012-01-23T22:36:00.002-05:00

Cartoon of the Day - Gingrich and Why History is Important

2012-01-23T22:21:00.003-05:00

I agree with the sentiment of this cartoon. It emphasizes why the knowledge of accurate history - and not just about what happened centuries ago - is critical. If the GOP did not celebrate ignorance and if the GOP base were capable of recalling what really happened, it would be impossible for Newt Gingrich to be where he is in the GOP primary battle to date.

Did the "Republican Establishment" Unwittingly Commit Suicide?

2012-01-23T21:56:00.005-05:00

I often lament the death of the Republican Party in which I was in many ways raised. For most of my life, my entire extended family voted Republican and in doing so believed that they supported a party that placed value of intelligence, reason, and some modicum of civility. Those days are gone for certain and in large part as I have noted before because of the short sightedness of a party leadership that placed short term gain over a long term plan. Truth be told, the Christian Right and later the Tea Party should never have been allowed to hijack the GOP. Yet many of the so-called "establishment" closed their eyes and held their noses and allowed the inmates to escape and take over the asylum. One need look no farther than John McCain and his delusional decision to tap the utterly unqualified Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008. Now, lunatics like Palin sadly are the true face of the GOP. Andrew Sullivan has a good analysis in a post today. Here are some highlights:

Let us now play the tiniest violin for what is called the "Republican Establishment". I'm not sure what this phrase means or represents any more . . . But the concept of a responsible, sane, pragmatic party leadership able to corral or coax or manage a party's base is, it seems to me, a preposterous fiction on its face, as we are seeing.

The Republican Establishment is Rush Limbaugh, Roger Ailes, Karl Rove, and their mainfold products, from Hannity to Levin. They rule on the talk radio airwaves and on the GOP's own "news" channel, Fox.

In this universe, there is only black and white. There is only them and us. Anyone who diverges an iota from this schematic is speaking without a microphone in front of a revving airplane engine.

Listen to Gingrich's victory speech. . . . . there is the imputation to the other side of malign motives, secret agendas and foreignness that has been Gingrich's hallmark since the very beginning, when he assaulted the traditions of the Congress until that institution eventually had to repel him.

Listen to Limbaugh, the GOP's chief spokesman. How does a Romney channel that level of viciousness and rage? Listen to Hannity. How does a smooth manager reach a base that wants the same Manichean approach to foreign policy, in which there is only one ally (Israel) and enemies everywhere else (Europe, China, the Arab world, Russia)?

This is the current GOP. It purges dissidents, it vaunts total loyalty, it polices discourse for any deviation. If you really have a cogent argument, you find yourself fired - like Bruce Bartlett or David Frum - or subject to blacklists, like me and Fox.

This now is the party of Palin and Gingrich, animated primarily by hatred of elites, angry at the new shape and color of America, befuddled by a suddenly more complicated world, and dedicated primarily to emotion rather than reason.

This is Gingrich's party; and Ailes'; and Rove's. They made it; and it is only fitting it now be put on the table, for full inspection. Better sooner than later.

Only through suffering crushing defeats can the Republican Party perhaps save itself - after the lunacy and open embracing of hated, bigotry and ignorance of the Christianists and Tea Party is driven away or leaves on its own after defeat. Until that happens, I can never consider being a Republican again.

Will the GOP's Anti-Immigrant Mantra Re-elect Obama?

2012-01-23T21:25:00.004-05:00

Not to beat a dead horse, but once again those who crunch numbers are theorizing that if the GOP's anti-immigrant positions and Hispanic bashing drive enough of the Hispanic vote to Obama in November, the GOP will help insure that Obama is re-elected. There would certainly be more than a little irony if the vitriol of white supremacists and Christianists push their political whores in the GOP to continue to take positions that seal the deal for Obama's re-election. A piece in the New Republic looks at the argument that Hispanics may be Obama's saviors come November. Here are some highlights:

Hispanics, who were responsible for most of U.S. population growth in the last decade, have been a more important part of the electorate each election. Now the largest minority group in the United States, they are poised to play a potentially decisive role in this year’s contest between President Obama and his GOP opponent. This has been cause for concern by some Democrats, who worry that Obama’s record on immigration may depress his turnout and support within the Hispanic community; the data suggest, however, that they are worrying more than they should.

[E]stimates suggest that Obama needs to get at least 75 percent of the minority vote in 2012 to have a secure basis for re-election, given likely drop-off in his white support. African-Americans are the biggest component of the minority vote and seem likely to give Obama the same overwhelming support they did in 2008.

While Hispanics may not be completely delighted with Obama’s performance, though, they find him strongly preferable to his prospective GOP opponents. Recent data suggest that, despite all these factors, Hispanic support for Obama in 2012 may well replicate—or even exceed—the wide margin he received from these voters in 2008 (67-31). In a major survey by the Pew Hispanic Center—the gold standard for polling on Hispanics—Obama defeats Romney by 45 points (68-23), a margin 9 points greater than in 2008 (his margin is a little larger against other Republicans). The survey also finds the Democrats’ party identification advantage among Hispanics at 47 points (67-20), the greatest margin the Pew Hispanic Center has ever measured.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the current anti-immigrant tilt of the Republican Party, especially as displayed in the primaries, has decisively turned off Hispanic voters and thrown them into the arms of the Democrats. And the likely nominee, Mitt Romney, who is typically viewed as a moderate compared to the others vying for the GOP nomination, will have difficulty reversing this judgment. On immigration issues, Romney has been aggressively conservative in an effort to outflank his more ideological opponents. He’s promised to veto the DREAM Act if it comes to his desk as president, opposes in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants, and rejects any path to citizenship for the undocumented.

If Hispanic support for the President winds up as strong as it now appears and their turnout holds up—giving Obama at least 75 percent of what should be around 28 percent of the entire vote—the benefits to the Obama campaign would be huge. Crucially, it would give him considerable leeway to lose white support but still win the popular vote.

[H]ow important are Hispanics to Democrats’ efforts to carry swing states? There is one area in particular where Obama’s advantage with Hispanics will be especially advantageous: the new swing states of the Southwest—Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. In these three states, Hispanics dominate the minority vote, which averages 36 percent of voters.

In that way, it could turn out that Republicans have sacrificed more than they anticipated by ratcheting up the anti-immigrant rhetoric during the primary season; they may have sacrificed the election.

One can only hope that this analysis proves accurate. The thought of a GOP demagogue or flip-flopping ping pong ball as president hits me as less than thrilling.

Washington State Now Has Enough Votes to Enact Gay Marriage

2012-01-23T20:51:00.003-05:00

Since this morning's post went up, Democratic Senator Mary Margaret Haugen (pictured at left) has released a statement that she will support passage of the Washington Senate version of the gay marriage bill. Should Haugen and others who have announced their support of passage of the bills, same sex marriage is all but assured since Governor Christine Gregoire supports the bills. While the haters NOM has pledge $250,000 to attack legislators that support the measure, such attempts at intimidation appear to be failing. KIRO-TV has details:

Haugen's announcement came has hundreds of people filled the capitol to advocate for and against gay marriage. State senators began considering the bill during a morning committee hearing.

In a statement, Haugen said, "I know this announcement makes me the so-called 25th vote, the vote that ensures passage. That's neither here nor there. If I were the first or the seventh or the 28th vote, my position would not be any different. I happen to be the 25th because I insisted on taking this much time to hear from my constituents and to sort it out for myself, to reconcile my religious beliefs with my beliefs as an American, as a legislator, and as a wife and mother who cannot deny to others the joys and benefits I enjoy."

Washington would become the seventh state to legalize same-sex marriages, following New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. Washington state has had a domestic partnership law since 2007, and a "everything but marriage" law since 2009.

Haugen said she took her time making up her mind to "to reconcile my religious beliefs with my beliefs as an American, as a legislator, and as a wife and mother who cannot deny to others the joys and benefits I enjoy. This is the right vote and it is the vote I will cast when this measure comes to the floor."

Opponents argued that the measure goes against traditional marriage and the Bible.
"You are saying as a committee and a Legislature that you know better than God," said Ken Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Bible Church.

The National Organization for Marriage issued a statement Monday morning pledging a referendum campaign to fight any gay marriage law at the ballot.

My question again is: When is NOM going to be forced to disclose its funding sources? That information needs to come out NOW so that voters and citizens will really know who is behind the anti-gay hate campaign. As noted many times before, I would not be surprised to see the Catholic Church (and/or the Knights of Columbus) and Mormon Church's as big money contributors. Should that prove to be the case, then then next question is: When will they lose their tax exempt status?

Chris Chritie Nominates New Jersey's First Openly Gay Supreme Court Justice

2012-01-23T20:25:00.007-05:00

OMG!! I cannot wait to hear the venting and gnashing of teeth from the Christianists over GOP Governor Chris Christie's appointment of the first openly gay justice to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The flying spittle will make foul weather gear a necessity! And to make matters worse - oh, the absolute horror - Christie's appointee, Bruce A. Harris, is African American. In addition, Christie filled another vacancy on the Court with an appointee of Asian descent. The folks at Family Research Council and the American Family Association - especially Bryan Fischer - must be convulsing on the floor. Needless to say, I love it! Here's a video clip from the Star-Ledger:

The Star-Ledger has these additional highlights:

Gov. Chris Christie today nominated an openly gay African-American Republican mayor and a Korean-American assistant attorney general to the state’s highest court.

Two nominees are Phil Kwon, 44, who worked under Christie when he was U.S. attorney for New Jersey, and Bruce Harris, 61, who was elected mayor of Chatham Borough in November. Kwon, of Bergen County, would be the first Asian-American to sit on the state Supreme Court, and Harris would be the first openly gay justice.

"I am honored to nominate these two gentlemen," Christie said at a Statehouse news conference. "I trust the Senate will take into account their extraordinary backgrounds and experience and will give them swift hearings.”

The nominees would replace former Justice John Wallace Jr., whom Christie declined to reappoint in 2010, and Justice Virginia Long, who faces mandatory retirement on March 1.

Christie has emphasized that he wants to remake the Supreme Court, which he blames for tying his hands on such issues as financing poor school districts and affordable housing.

Harris graduated magna cum laude from Amherst College, and with honors from Boston University Graduate School of Management. He earned a law degree from Yale. In addition to serving as mayor of Chatham, he most recently worked at the law firm of Greenberg Traurig and previously at Riker, Danzi, Scherer, Hyland and Perretti.

Steve Goldstein, the chief executive of Garden State Equality, a gay rights organization, said he was stunned when Christie called to tell him about the imminent nomination of Harris, 60, a graduate of Yale Law School. "As I told the governor right then and there, you could have picked me up off the floor," Goldstein said .

State Sen. Nicholas Scutari (D-Union), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, . . . said he was pleased by the diversity of the governor’s appointments, but had yet to examine their professional careers to determine their qualifications for the bench.

Scutari may be pleased with the nominees' diversity, but it's a safe bet that the Christianist/Tea Party crowd will be anything but pleased. Kudos to Governor Christie.

Monday Morning Male Beauty

2012-01-23T08:09:00.002-05:00

Washington State Lawmakers to Consider Marriage Bills Today

2012-01-23T07:25:00.004-05:00

While Virginia Republicans are seeking to drag their state back to an ugly past, across the country the Washington State legislature is expected to begin considering same sex marriage legislation. In contrast to theocracy loving Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell, Washington Governor Christine Gregoire is backing marriage equality in her state. While the votes for passage appear to be there in the House, it's a tail biter in the Washington Senate. Not surprisingly, the hate merchants at the National Organization for Marriage are threatening retribution on legislators who vote for marriage equality. Once again I want to to know when NOM is going to be forced to reveal who is bankrolling its fear and hate based propaganda. Is it the Catholic Church? The Mormon Church? Or some combination? Citizens have the right to know who is behind the nasty agenda. Here are highlights from The Advocate on the Washington State situation:

Large crowds are expected Monday [i.e., today] in Olympia as lawmakers begin considering whether to make Washington the seventh state in the nation where marriage equality is legal.

Passage of the legislation, which has the support of Gov. Chris Gregoire, is by no means certain. Though the house bill has enough votes, an identical senate measure is currently one vote shy of support, with five lawmakers still undecided (The Stranger profiles the remaining undecideds and lists all relevant office contact information as well).

Per its usual playbook, the National Organization for Marriage is threatening to support the ousting of any Republican senator who votes in favor of the bill. On Wednesday, NOM president Brian Brown said in a statement that the group would spend $250,000 to fund primary challenges against pro-equality GOP legislators.

“If the legislature forces through same-sex marriage, they need to know that marriage will be on the ballot in November and the people of Washington will hold them accountable," Brown said.

A coalition of marriage equality supporters includes heavy-hitting corporations headquartered in the state such as Nike and Microsoft. "To be successful, it’s critical that we have a workforce that is as diverse as our customers," Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith wrote Thursday. "Inclusiveness is therefore a fundamental part of our values."

The Seattle Times reports that anti-gay marriage forces are planning a noontime rally Monday at the state capitol.

A couple of the hold outs in the Washington Senate are Democrats who have no business siding with the side of reactionary hate merchants. I hope they receive merciless pressure to support equality.

Virginia Republicans Introduce Slew of Reactionary Bills

2012-01-23T07:03:00.003-05:00

We all expected that the Republican Party was going to confirm to the world that it is a reactionary force that wants to take the Commonwealth of Virginia backward in time. Indeed, if they could get away with it, one would almost expect Virginia Republicans to introduce bills to bring back segregation or, better yet in their minds, slavery. As the Washington Post is reporting the Virginia Republicans have introduces several score of backward thinking, discrimination loving bills into the current session of the Virginia General Assembly. As is always the case in Virginia, gays among the targets of the GOP backed bills. Here are highlights from the Post story:

Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell warned his Republican brethren to take it slow this month as they took control of the state Senate. “Don’t be arrogant, don’t overreach, don’t fight,” he told them. If the flurry of legislation they’ve introduced is any indication, Virginia’s most conservative Republicans aren’t holding back.

They are pushing legislation to: wipe out corporate income taxes; mandate drug testing of welfare recipients; crack down on illegal immigrants; beef up gun rights, property rights, parental rights and fetal rights; roll back gay rights; and free the commonwealth from federal laws it doesn’t like.

Many of those bills have come and gone before, sailing through the Republican-dominated House but dying in the Senate, where Democrats ruled for the past four years and moderate Republicans held sway before that. With the GOP now in control of the evenly split Senate, there’s hope among conservatives — and dread among liberals — that some of those measures will become law.

Democrats are still in a position to block them in certain areas — the budget, tax bills, constitutional amendments and judicial appointments — because Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (R) lacks the authority to break tie votes on those matters. And on social issues such as guns and abortion, moderate Republicans could very well stand in their way.

McDonnell, who prides himself on working well with Republicans and Democrats alike, had hard-nosed political reasons for discouraging a pedal-to-the-metal, hard-right agenda. If conservatives go too far too quickly for voters in this swing state, there could be a backlash in this year’s U.S. Senate and presidential races in November, political observers say. It also could hurt McDonnell’s chances to wind up as somebody’s No. 2 on the Republican presidential ticket.

One is the “personhood” bill, which seeks to define life as beginning at conception. Abortion-rights supporters warn that it could effectively outlaw the procedure as well as some forms of birth control, such as intrauterine devices. Another bill would require that any woman seeking an abortion be offered an ultrasound image of the fetus beforehand.

The conservative caucus also is pushing legislation that would: allow faith-based adoption agencies to refuse to place children with gay couples; lift a state requirement that schoolgirls get immunized against a sexually transmitted disease; and lift a one-gun-a month limit on handgun purchases.

Democrats aren’t feeling secure, . . . . “We cannot become another Alabama or another Arizona. We represent something better,” said Del. Alfonso Lopez (D-Arlington), a member of the Virginia Progressive Caucus, referring to a bill that would empower state police to enforce immigration law.

Virginia is already an exceedingly backward state by many measures. If the Virginia Republicans have there way Virginia could be challenging Alabama and Mississippi for the designation as the nation's most backward state.

More Sunday Male Beauty

2012-01-22T21:10:00.002-05:00

Would that the world was more accepting of love and tenderness.

Santorum launches C.U.M - WTF Was He Thinking?

2012-01-22T20:06:00.004-05:00

Proving once again that he's not only a bigoted homphobe but also a complete idiot, Rick Santorum has launched a fundraising effort called Conservatives Unite Moneybomb, a/k/a CUM. Given his Google search problems and his associated nickname of "Frothy Mix", you would think that someone on Santorum's staff might have thought through the consequences of this new acronym. But apparently that would be expecting to much who wants to be the leader of the world's leading super power. Needless to say, may in the LGBT blogosphere are laughing their asses off. Here's a sampling from my blogger friend Pam Spaulding:

This comes from the land of “you can’t make this sh*t up.” GOP Clown Car occupant, ace homophobe and bearer of a redefined surname that has become a giant political problem for him on Google, Rick Santorum is not doing himself any more favors by launching the Conservatives United Moneybomb, or C.U.M. for shorthand. Hat tip to Daily Kos front-pager Scott Wooledge on Twitter.

Admittedly, we already knew that Santorum is obsessed with gay sex, but this is over the top.

14 Year Old Tennessee Boy Commits Suicide to Escape Bullying

2012-01-22T15:11:00.004-05:00

The death toll from anti-gay bullying sadly continues to rise. Even as Rick Santorum, the Catholic Church hierarchy, the National Organization for Marriage and the leading anti-hate groups such as Family Research Council and American Family Association continue to ratchet up their anti-gay demagoguery. Anti-gay bullying continues unabated for the simple reason that anti-gay religious and political forces continue to make anti-gay bigotry socially and politically acceptable at least in some circles. As I have noted before, those who market in anti-gay bigotry have blood on their hands and are equally responsible with those who have bullied LGBT youth and driven them to see suicide as their best option. It's one of the principal reasons I have come to have little but contempt for far right Christians and their political whores in the Republican Party. LGBT youth are literally dying as a result of the religious based hate and shameless political opportunism.

The latest victim of this campaign of hate is 14 year old Phillip Parker of Gordonsville, Tennessee. As seems to be the norm with these tragic deaths, Parker's parents reported the bullying problem to their son's school which true to form did nothing. Meanwhile, the "good Christians" continue to sit on their thumbs rather that challenge the hate merchants who wrap themselves in false piety and the banner of Christianity. Here are highlights from WSMV-TV 4 on the latest bullying victim:

A Gordonsville boy's parents say bullying caused their son to take his own life. Phillip Parker, 14, died this week. His parents said he was constantly bullied for being gay. More than 100 people gathered in Gordonsville on Saturday night, grieving the loss of Phillip.

Phillip's family said they reported their concerns over their son's bullying to Gordonsville High School on multiple occasions, but the bullying by a group of students just got worse.

An official with Smith County Schools told Channel 4 they are now planning how to handle a crisis situation with students Monday. Friends added they are planning to set up a memorial fund in Phillip's name but haven't made the arrangements just yet.

As I noted to the boyfriend, until "good Christians" begin to start loudly and actively challenging the haters of the Christian Right, my shadow is not going to darken a church door for any reason or occasion. Christianity has become something truly foul and toxic.

Former Newt Campaign Staff - Callista Gingrich, "It's All About Her"

2012-01-22T14:01:00.003-05:00

As noted before, Newt Gingrich is a thoroughly self-centered and egotistical man. And based on a story in The New Yorker, he may be perfectly matched with his former mistress, now wife Callista Gingrich, who according to a former Gingrich staffer is "the single most self-centered person I’ve run into in politics — it’s all about her." Bizarrely, Callista Gingrich makes quite a show of her Catholicism which is surprising given the fact that per the official Catholic Church teaching, she's an adulterer. Some might think me bitchy for looking at Ms. Gingrich, but given the far right's penchant for maligning Michelle Obama, what's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. Here are some excerpts from The New Yorker story:

As a couple, the Gingriches are a bit like Jack Sprat and his wife in reverse: he is pudgy and soft-featured, with droopy jowls and hooded eyes, while she is slender, with a sharply angled nose and bright-blue eyes that are always wide open. Her hair is platinum blond and very stiff, with one remarkable lock styled into an immobile, upward swoosh.

Though Callista is central to Gingrich’s life, her public role in his campaign has been largely ornamental. She accompanies him on the trail, smiling behind him at events; in December, she appeared with him in a Christmas video to ask, “Is there anything more inspiring than American towns and neighborhoods brightly lit for the holidays?” But she does not have a stump speech, and though she’s happy to exchange pleasantries with reporters, she has not been granting interviews, with the exception of a brief on-camera conversation with the Christian Broadcasting Network.

Callista Gingrich is a reminder of her husband’s wayward past, which may explain why she is the only one of the Republican candidates’ spouses to keep quiet.

According to current and previous staff members and friends, Mrs. Gingrich wields a great deal of decision-making power. Of the notorious Greek cruise, one former Gingrich strategist told me, “She said, ‘Either go on this vacation or we’re done.’ ” There were rules, he said, about “how many nights he could be away and what time he had to be home for dinner—which led to a huge abuse of private planes which we could not afford. There’s a sense that, I’m not gonna have a third failed marriage.”

[A] former strategist had a different assessment. “She’s the single most self-centered person I’ve run into in politics—it’s all about her. . . . The strategist allowed that the marriage has been good for Newt: “This is the most adult relationship the guy’s ever had.” But he suggested that it hasn’t been good for his campaign. “The core problem was that he was not willing to do the things he’d have to do to run for President. And Callista did not want him to run for President. That’s why he had to buy her so much damn jewelry.”

She does not seem like a forty-five-year-old, or at least not like a forty-five-year-old of this era. She has the style and smile of an astronaut’s wife, even in her downtime. Once, in Cedar Rapids, I happened to run into her in the women’s bathroom at the airport. In her suit and pearls, with her stiff coiffure, she looked as if she had just exited a beauty parlor in 1962.

Callista met Newt Gingrich while she was working for Gunderson, and, after she took a job as a clerk with the House Agriculture Committee, they began their affair. Her parents learned about it only when they returned from a camping trip and found dozens of messages from reporters on their answering machine. . . . At that time, Gingrich was leading the charge against Bill Clinton for his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, an intern more than twenty years his junior. As it happened, Callista was a congressional staffer twenty-three years Gingrich’s junior, the same age as his daughter Jackie.

Many conservative voters, particularly evangelicals, do not want to see just evolution or mellowing, though; they want to see repentance for what they view as profound transgressions. “Initially, my reaction to Newt Gingrich and to Callista is that the third wife doesn’t get to be the First Lady,” Penny Nance, the president of Concerned Women for America, told me.

Jason (Molotov) Mitchell, a Christian television producer who has linked Obama to Nazism, released a video in which he accused Gingrich—“the Kim Kardashian of the G.O.P.”—of being “the walking, talking definition of untrustworthy,” sneered at Callista for being “quite the missionary,” and asserted that “Newt and Callista are the last role models we want our sons and daughters looking up to.”

Callista was at his side, wearing a bright-red skirt suit and pearls, nodding in approval as her husband said the same things he’d been saying all week: That he wanted to give Americans “paychecks, not food stamps.” That he would be the second coming of Ronald Reagan. That he would change “the entire pattern of how Washington operates.” Callista watched and smiled and listened, the things she has to do the most these days. On the campaign bus, asked if her mind ever wanders at these events, she had replied, “No,” with a cheeky smile. “I hang on his every word.”

Santorum's Honorary Florida Chairman: Gays "Make God Want to Vomit":

2012-01-22T12:58:00.003-05:00

Having taken a third place drubbing in South Carolina, Rick Santorum apparently believes he needs to step up his gay bashing as he moves on to Florida. Hence his scheduled appearance today at the Worldwide Christian Center in Pompano Beach, home of homophobe extraordinaire and Santorum honorary Florida Campaign chairman, Rev. O'Neal Dozier (pictured at left). Dozier doesn't hold back on his anti-gay hate nor does he hold back carrying water for white Christianists that would be most happy if segregation (or perhaps black slavery) were still the law of the land.

Dozier claims to be an unabashed Christian dominionist and has stated that gays "make God want to vomit." Frankly, Dozier makes me want to vomit not only because of his anti-gay extremism, but also because of his stupidity - i.e., if one looks carefully at the dominionist agenda, the ruling Christians are all going to be white. I'd also question how long it will be - given Dozier's hysteria over gays - before we see Dozier accused of misconduct like disgraced bishop Eddie Long. Mother Jones has a piece that looks at Santorum's truly nasty honorary campaign chairman. Here's a sampling:

While the network news shows spend this Sunday marveling over Newtmentum in South Carolina, Rick Santorum will quietly make his first stop in Florida, site of the next primary on January 31. He'll be dropping in to see the honorary chairman of his state campaign—a Bush-connected Islamophobic pastor who says gays "make God want to vomit."

Dozier opened his church in 1985 and immediately began preaching a different kind of gospel. "We teach and preach on the cultural issues," he says in a recent video. "We also teach and preach on the war on terror. We teach and preach on the dangers of Islam and Islamic fascism here." He says he was heavily influenced by the work of the Rev. D. James Kennedy, a founding father of the Christian right who started the annual Reclaiming America for Christ political conference at his church complex just down the street in Fort Lauderdale.

As Republicans courted him, Dozier continued to express some of his most extreme views. At a Reclaiming America convention in 2003, Dozier declared that "We should take control of every facet of society." He added that God was "100 percent for capital punishment. Oh, yeah, God knew some were going to slip through, a few innocent ones. He knew that. But you cannot have a society without capital punishment."

He reserved his greatest fervor for that "paramount of sins," homosexuality—which he declared was "something so nasty and disgusting that it makes God want to vomit."

In 2006, he declared war on a local Islamic group trying to build a mosque in the neighborhood. "One day," he intoned, "our grandchildren will live under the grips of sharia law. . . . By the summer of 2006, Crist and Jeb Bush had both dumped him.

But the rise of tea party politics gave Dozier a new calling. He campaigned vigorously for Rep. Allen West, an African-American conservative who shares Dozier's views on gays and Muslims. . . . "The tea party is a godly ordained party," he's said. At one recent event, he expanded the thesis: "God would never ordain a government to take from the rich to give to the poor, you see, so therefore God is not a socialist. God is not a Robin Hood."

Those sentiments, and Dozier's revitalized reputation in the black community, seem to have struck the right chord with Santorum's campaign.

Sunday Male Beauty

2012-01-22T12:50:00.000-05:00

MSNBC Continues to Give Hate Group Leader a Platform

2012-01-22T11:22:00.003-05:00

Few things drive me more crazy that the lazy main stream media and its continued use of hate group leaders for interviews as if they were legitimate spokesman who had either relevant credentials or lead legitimate organizations. If that's the standard for an interview invitation, why not invite the Imperial Wizard of the KKK? Especially, if the invitee is Tony Perkins who certainly has his white supremacist ties. Once again MSNBC proved that it has no journalistic standards by having Perkins appear on its Friday morning show where Perkins laughably claimed social conservatives weren't judgmental (not once was Perkins challenged). By that standard, I guess whites who lynched blacks in the old South weren't anti-black. Think Progress looks at the ongoing bullshit being given a platform by vile hate merchants like Perkins. Here are some highlights:

The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins appeared on MSNBC this morning to discuss last night’s GOP presidential debate and the recent revelations that Newt Gingrich allegedly asked his second wife for an open marriage.

The conservative leader — who regularly condemns gay people, “churns out brochures that compare same-sex marriages to those bonds which might exist between a man and a horse,” likens gays to terrorists, calls LGBT rights a battle of “good versus evil,” and claims gay teens kill themselves because they know that they’re “abnormal” — expressed concern about Gingrich’s personal past, but also raised questions about the wisdom of asking about his marriage during the debate. Ultimately, he suggested that Evangelical Christians are “not judgmental” and understanding, and could embrace a candidate who has sinned:

PERKINS: More than anybody, Evangelicals understand the story of Redemption, that people make mistakes and there can be a turning point. The tension becomes — have we reached that turning point on these issues and were they mistakes, were they character flaws that remain….People don’t want to be seen as that judgmental, because they’re not judgmental, but at the same time, they’re having some serious questions about the character of the candidate.

Does anyone have a vomit bag handy? Shame on MSNBC for providing a platform for a man who is best defined by his hatred of others - and not just hatred of gays.

A Christianist Sexual Morality Chart

2012-01-22T11:01:00.005-05:00

Click image to enlarge.

Nothing gets the Christianists more in a sweaty dither than SEX. Their emotional/psychological problems on the issue are immense even though in their hearts most I suspect desperately want wild rambunctious sex desperately - especially the tortured closeted gays (and, of course, Catholic priests and Baptist pastors, preferably with minors). The chart set out above from the Friendly Atheist - I found it via Joe.My.God - lays out the twisted analysis of when sex is OK for the tortured fundamentalist/conservative Catholic crowd. Obviously, the most important criteria is that sex NOT be enjoyable.

Quote of the Day: Andrew Sullivan on Gingrich

2012-01-22T10:40:00.005-05:00

BREAK DOWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA PRIMARY VOTERS:

I believe Newt Gingrich is a despicable man who is willing to say and do whatever advances his agenda and further inflates his already Goodyear blimp sized ego. But he is also symptomatic of a political party that is becoming more sick, racist and divisive by the day. Andrew Sullivan summed Gingrich and his win in South Carolina most succinctly:

In a state where African-Americans make up 28 percent of the electorate and 1 percent of the voters in the primary today. . . . . what an indictment of a party that in a diverse state, 99 percent of the voters were white.

If I were a Republican, I'd be ashamed. But Gingrich won, I think, because shame is alien to him. Especially when it comes to race.

Gingrich Wins South Carolina - Panic Grips the GOP Establishment

2012-01-22T10:01:00.004-05:00

With serial adulterer Newt Gingrich's strong win in South Carolina several things are notable. The first is that obviously a considerable number of moronic evangelical Christians fell for Gingrich's phony contrition and victim-hood spin because Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum came in a distant third place finish. The second is that when one tries to be all things to all people and flip flops like a bouncing ping pong ball as Mitt Romney has done, you can end up losing large portions of those you are seeking to court. The question soon become one of who are you pretending to be today? The other notable thing is the panic - if not out right terror - within the GOP establishment that a loose canon like Gingrich is derailing their planned coronation of Romney and likely going to continue the demolition derby series of primary contests. A piece in The Daily Beast looks at the aftermath of Gingrich's win. Here are some excerpts:

Reactions to Newt Gingrich's stunning and impressive victory in the South Carolina primary form a symphony. First, of course, we hear the cheers of South Carolina Republicans who have chosen their champion. From Ronald Reagan in 1980 through John McCain in 2008, the winner of this primary has always gone on to be the Republican nominee.

Then, of course, we can hear the buttons popping from Newt Gingrich's shirt as his ego swells to Macy's parade size. If you listen carefully, you can hear the soft sobs of Mitt Romney and his consultants, crying in their chocolate milk.

But above it all we can hear the weeping, the wailing, the gnashing of teeth of the Republican establishment as Gingrich's victory sends them into full-blown panic. I'm not talking about mere fear, nor normal nervousness. Not even the feeling you get when the captain says, "We've lost power in one of our four engines." No, this is worse. Worse even than when your doctor says, "I don't like the looks of that shadow on the X-ray."

This is terror. Chest-clutching, breath-sucking, soul-shaking panic. This is your teenage daughter telling you, "I think I'm in trouble." This is a Turkish border guard pulling you into a holding room when you've got a baggie of coke in your pocket. This is what George H.W. Bush famously called "deep doo-doo."

The Republican Party has never seen anything like it. Republicans are hierarchical, orderly, disciplined—everything the Democrats are not. They nearly always nominate the guy who was runner-up last time . .

Gingrich won the South Carolina primary not because of advertising, but rather because of his debate performances. Eighty-eight percent of South Carolina Republicans said the debates were important to making up their minds, and in the two key debates, Gingrich hit every GOP erogenous zone. . . . Gingrich knows his party's base, and the base loves both the coded language and attacking anyone who calls them on it.

Between now and the Jan. 31 Florida primary, we will hear a furious, frenzied response from the Republican establishment. Team Romney has already spent $7 million on TV ads there—Team Gingrich just $800. Not $800,000. Just 800 bucks. Look for popular former governor Jeb Bush to endorse Romney in the Sunshine State, leading a parade of establishmentarians.

Yep, the entertainment will continue as the free for all moves to Florida.

The Real Reason The Catholic Church Wants Gays Oppressed

2012-01-21T15:27:00.003-05:00

Personally, I believe that there are many reasons that the Catholic Church leadership wants gays to continue to be oppressed and treated with scorn. One, of course, is that small minded men of actually very weak faith cannot tolerate the possibility that the few passages in the Bible claimed to condemn homosexuality might just be wrong. That possibility terrifies them and threatens their entire house of cards belief system. Frankly, they ought to be more worried about the fact that Adam and Eve did not really exist since that scientific truth literally wipes out the entire foundation for Christianity's story line. Other reasons involve the warped and damaged psyches of the ranks of the Church hierarchy. First we have the fact that the Church hierarchy is filled with self-loathing closet cases who project their hatred on normal, well adjusted gays who are everything that the closet cases themselves are not. Then there are other closeted members of the hierarchy who are likely bitter that they have in retrospect thrown away their lives living a lie and missing out on any chance at true happiness. And then there's another theory raised in a piece on The New Civil Rights Movement. What is it? That the acceptance of gays is destroying the pipeline for the Church's labor forces: priests and nuns. Here are highlights:

The Catholic Church is the world’s single largest anti-gay hate group. If we are to minimize its pernicious influence, we must educate societies about the Church’s financial motivations for keeping gay human beings oppressed.

The Church’s business model depends on the cheap labor of priests and nuns, without whom the bullying theocrats at the top of the Church hierarchy would not be able to continue living their lavish and decadent lifestyle.

How does the Church intimidate gay people into signing up for lifetimes of poverty, hard work and (ostensibly) celibacy? By socially stigmatizing gay human beings and driving young gay people to despair about their chances for satisfying adult domestic lives, the Church as good as tortures young gay people into signing up to be priests and nuns.

The fall-off in the number of young people signing up for lifetimes slaving for the Church corresponds almost precisely to the gradually increasing social acceptance of gay human beings. The Church knows that and — at the expense of gay people’s basic human rights — is lashing out in attempts to protect its business interests and historical business plan.

The Pope recently announced that marriage equality is a threat to the future of humanity. . . . That bit of preposterous anti-gay hate speech is duplicitous, just another cover for trying to turn back social progress so the Church can torment young gay people into entering the priesthood.

[T]he Church opposes allowing gay parent adoptions, because such adoptions lead to increased acceptance of gay human beings, which works against the Church’s business plan.

For Church leaders to defame gay people by calling homosexuality an “intrinsic moral evil” — and other such defamatory, non-fact-based phrases — is as disgraceful as was the Vatican’s signing of the Reichskonkordat political treaty with Adolph Hitler.

Gay Americans today must refuse to allow the Catholic Church to put us under national house arrest in a system of sexual orientation apartheid, in the name of anti-gay Church dogma and for the purpose of enriching the Church.

Not only is the Church wrong to poison minds against gay people, it is doing so at least in part to distract from its crimes of child rape and child rape cover ups. . . . . As with its gay-bashing, the Catholic Church bashes Church child rape victims out of financial motivations; intimidate as many victims as possible out of coming forward, in order to avoid having to compensate them.

For those interested, Change.org has a petition HERE calling for Barack Obama to reject the political efforts of the Catholic Church to torpedo health care coverage that for contraception and other needed services to individuals.

Adam Ebbin Pushes Gay Adoption Bill In Virginia General Assembly

2012-01-21T14:12:00.008-05:00

UPDATED: Senator McEachin has introduced a counterpart bill to Ebbin's bill in the Virginia Senate.I'd love to seem them pass, but with the GOP majority in the House of Delegates and a tie in the Senate, I sadly am not optimistic.

Adam Ebbin, the lone openly gay member of the Virginia General Assembly, most at times feel like Don Quixote as he tries to bring rationality, not to mention, LGBT equality to the decidedly backwards thinking Neanderthal GOP ranks in the the General Assembly. Sadly, most of the GOP members prefer to mindlessly pandering to Bible beaters, thinly disguised white supremacists and neo-Nazi types. The Founding Fathers from Virginia must be rolling over in their graves over how low the General Assembly has sunk and the level of ignorance that passes for intelligence in GOP circles. Despite all of this, Ebbin has introduced a bill that would bar the Commonwealth from contracting with adoption and foster care agencies that discriminate based on sexual orientation and numerous other attributes. Not surprisingly, Republican have introduced bills to further legalize anti-gay (and other) discrimination in an already extremely anti-gay state. Here are highlights on the legislative jousting:

A battle over whether child-placement agencies should be allowed to discriminate against prospective parents and children based on their sexual orientation has moved to the General Assembly.

Sen. Adam Ebbin, D-Alexandria, has introduced legislation that would bar Virginia from contracting with or funding agencies that discriminate against children or otherwise eligible prospective foster or adoptive parents solely on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, family status, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Virginia Board of Social Services last month finalized regulations that strip out protections against discrimination based on personal factors, including gender, age, religion, disability, sexual orientation and family status. They are to take effect May 1.

[T]he Virginia ACLU and other groups had opposed the change, saying that Virginia should keep the protections in place because state-licensed child-placement groups serve a governmental function — and thus cannot discriminate against prospective parents or children. Catholic groups and other organizations backed the removal, framing it as an issue of religious freedom.

Sen. Jeffrey McWaters and Del. Todd Gilbert have introduced so-called "conscience clause" bills that would reinforce the Department of Social Services regulations and protect private, faith-based child-placement agencies. . . . . Gilbert, R-Woodstock, who said he introduced the legislation on behalf of the Virginia Family Foundation, a conservative Christian group, to protect faith-based agencies.

[A]dvocates also have expressed concern that a large number of young people in the foster care system are gay or lesbian, and unless the state adopts a law that bars discrimination they could be denied services based on their sexual orientation, compounding the difficulties they already face in finding permanent homes. "Every child deserves a loving home, and children who have been denied a loving home based on who they are deserve a chance to grow up as much as any other child," Ebbin said.

Ebbin acknowledges the tough road ahead for his legislation, but he says it's essential to work for "an enlightened policy" that provides for the placement of children in permanent homes, based on what's best for the child. "I don't understand people who would believe it is better for a child to cry him or herself to sleep in an orphanage rather than having a loving home, whatever the orientation of the parents," he said.

Frankly, until the foul stench known as The Family Foundation is eradicated from Virginia, don't expect Virginia to move into the 21st Century. Hate, bigotry, lots of sanctimonious false piety, and the open embrace of ignorance are the hallmarks The Family Foundation. The Southern Poverty Law Center ought to add the organization to its list of registered hate groups.

Saturday Male Beauty

2012-01-21T14:01:00.002-05:00

Microsoft and Major Companies Support Gay Marriage

2012-01-21T11:05:00.003-05:00

In sharp contrast to the Commonwealth of Virginia which continues to stigmatize and reduce LGBT citizens to second or third class status, Microsoft and other leading corporations in Washington State have come out in support of the pending same sex legislation in the Washington legislature. Moreover, they say that legally recognizing same sex couples is good for business - a message lost on Virginia Governor Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell who to date has done a mediocre job at best of attracting new jobs and employers to the Commonwealth. The reality is that progressive and innovative companies are not flocking to states where the Republican Party is racing backwards to the 11th Century. Here are highlights from the Seattle Times on the corporate endorse ments of marriage equality:

A letter signed by six prominent companies including Microsoft, was sent to legislative leaders on Thursday stating their support for gay marriage legislation in the state House and Senate.

As letters of support go, it's very short: "We write you today to show the support of our respective companies for SB 6239 and HB 2516 recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples." In addition to Microsoft, the letter was signed by officials from Vulcan, NIKE, RealNetworks, Group Health Cooperative, and Concur.

Microsoft just issued a short statement explaining it's support:

"Microsoft is joining other Northwest employers Concur, Group Health Cooperative, Nike, RealNetworks and Vulcan Inc. in support of Washington State legislation recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples. This position builds on our history of supporting corporate and public policies that promote inclusion and equality.

"Microsoft's greatest asset is a talented workforce as diverse as our customers. As other states recognize marriage equality, Washington's employers are at a disadvantage if we cannot offer a similar, equitable and inclusive environment to our talented employees, our top recruits and their families. This legislation would put Washington employers on equal footing with employers in the six other states that already recognize the committed relationships of same-sex couples. Passing the bill would be good for our business and for the state's economy."

Here are some highlights from a more detailed explanation of Microsoft's position penned by Brad Smith, General Counsel & Executive Vice President, Legal & Corporate Affairs:

Every day, the national and global economies are becoming more diverse. The lifeblood of a business is its ability to understand and connect with its customers. We’re no exception. Now more than ever, the most effective workforce is a diverse workforce.

Marriage equality in Washington would put employers here on an equal footing with employers in the six other states that already recognize the committed relationships of same-sex couples – Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont. This in turn will help us continue to compete for talent.

We also recognize that marriage has meaning as both a civil and a religious institution. Like the marriage equality bill passed last year in New York State with bipartisan and business support, this bill preserves religious freedom in Washington’s churches while ending discrimination in Washington law. Like the New York bill, we believe Washington’s legislation should be passed into law. It will make our state and our economy stronger.

If Taliban Bob truly cared about economic Virginia's future - as opposed to being obsessed with giving political fellatio to the most hate-filled elements in Virginia, including the hate merchants at The Family Foundation - he'd be pushing for a repeal of the Marshall-Newman Amendment and passage of legislation like that passed last June in New York State.

Kate Kendal "Bitch Slaps" Karen Santorum

2012-01-21T09:44:00.004-05:00

One thing that can always be counted on is the way the Christianists and hate merchants of the far right always want to pretend that they are victims even as the engage in a relentless campaign to denigrate and marginalize others. Former long term mistress to an abortion doctor, Karen Santorum (who like Newt Gingrich has found financial gain in moving to the far right), is a case in point as she sheds crocodile tears that liberals and gays are bullying her lunatic husband, Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum. Unfortunately, too often these totally false cries of victim-hood go unchallenged. Not this time, however, as Kate Kendall does a great op-ed in the Advocate that basically bitch slaps Karen Santorum and rips her a new one. Here are some highlights:

Someone’s been using the extra bit of cash he got from his surge in Iowa to buy some spin doctor advice. Earlier this week, Rick Santorum, his wife, Karen, and their oldest daughter, Elizabeth, were all talking about how . . . gay activists were being “backyard bullies” in our attacks on her husband and his policies.

Karen, we need to talk. And by that, I mean that I need to talk and you need to listen. . . . . when you pretend that hate is love, that lies are truth, and that victims are oppressors, you have become inane.

Your husband believes that LGBT people cannot be trusted to serve in the military, raise children, form stable relationships or be fully respected under the law. According to you, Rick may love us, but honey, his love is killing us, and we want nothing to do with this abusive relationship. Our community has endured expulsion from family, mass firings, daily epithets, assaults, harassment, humiliation, death, and suicides. We know that if your husband becomes president of our country our long suffering will only deepen and magnify.

So yes, we are calling him what he is: a sanctimonious bigot who believes that we are dangerous, sick, and evil. We are telling the truth about his vision and his beliefs about us. That is NOT bullying, it's about saving our own lives. . . . . Given what so many of my brothers and sisters live through daily, you calling us bullies is contemptible.

In some ways, it’s very sad. In another two or three months, the cameras will be gone, and the press will not care about you or Rick. The march of justice will continue, leaving you and your family a forgotten footnote on the wrong side of history. . . . You and Rick are the haters. My community is the victim, and anyone paying attention knows the truth.

Amazingly well said. Frothy Mix and those like him are haters plain and simple. Religiosity is merely the veil they try to use to hide their contemptible views and actions.

Newt Gingrich's Disingenuous Forgiveness Ploy

2012-01-21T09:07:00.003-05:00

Under Christian belief - and certainly Catholic belief which Newt Gingrich now pretends to embrace - forgiveness requires true contrition. And not just contrition that one got caught. Newt Gingrich is using the forgiveness ploy to convince the cretins among the Christianist elements in South Carolina to vote for him even though his past deeds are things these mental midgets ought to abhor. From his sleazy money making deals to his serial adultery and multiple marriages, there's little in my book to show Newt's sorry for anything other than his tawdry history is being dragged out for the world to see. Will the idiots of the Christian Right fall for this ploy? Kathleen Parker has a column in the Washington Post that looks at Gingrich's disingenuous game plan. Here are highlights:

Newt Gingrich’s standing ovation Thursday night, when he attacked CNN moderator John King for asking about allegations that Gingrich wanted an “open marriage” with his second wife, told us little about South Carolina but much about human nature.

The query, for which King has been exhaustively critiqued, was both necessary and inevitable. Forget the elephant in the living room; it was the herd in the powder room.

Just as King had no choice but to ask, Gingrich answered in the only way he could — by attacking the questioner. Shooting the messenger is a time-honored method of spin control among royals and their imitators. Gingrich’s bilious reproach was an oratorical defenestration. King’s audacity was “despicable,” he intoned, and the crowd roared.

Suddenly, Gingrich’s questionable past was forgotten, and whatever ire his record might have inspired was redirected at The Media . . . He correctly counted on the empathy of his fellow man, if not necessarily womankind, and won the moment.

But a moment is just that, and projection of the sort experienced by the Charleston, S.C., audience can be fraught with peril. Over-identification clouds judgment, and, though we are all sinners, we are not all running for president of the United States. Gingrich’s sins of the flesh ultimately are of less importance than the narcissism and grandiosity that compel his actions.

Voters would do well to think less of what they would do in his shoes than what Gingrich will do, should he win the prize. As the reality of his astonishing self-regard sinks in and one imagines where his unflagging certitude might lead, it is less easy to identify with the weeds in his garden. As projection falters, empathy finds no place to land.

If we thought the delusion Chimperator George Bush thought he was inspired to make what proved disastrous decisions not the least of which was to launch the fool's errand in Iraq, just imagine what the uncontrolled ego of Gingrich might bring to pass. Personally, the man is not only amoral, but frightening in his delusions and demagoguery.

Friday Morning Male Beauty

2012-01-20T08:11:00.002-05:00

Newt Gingrich's Hypocrisy and Phony Moralizing

2012-01-20T07:55:00.005-05:00

I've noted before that in my view Newt Gingrich is the king of the hypocrites - as are the mental cretins among the Christianist and Tea Party base of the Republican Party who have embraced a serial adulterer who we now know asked for an "open marriage" six years after he had been having sex with a congressional aide. Fittingly, Gingrich epitomizes so much of what is wrong with today's GOP and the sickness of the "Christian Right" which is generally neither Christian or right on morality and other issues. The New York Times has a great take down of Gingrich as it's main editorial today. Here are a few highlights:

Multiple marriages and even adultery are not automatic disqualifications for the presidency. If they were, the country would have a very different roster of former presidents and candidates. But when a political party decides that moralizing about personal conduct is as important as public policy, it inevitably makes some of its leaders vulnerable to the worst charges of hypocrisy.

In this political cycle, it is Newt Gingrich who has been unable to escape the toxic combination of infidelity and sermonizing. The stories about his three marriages have been known for years, but every time he seems to have escaped the wrath of Republican voters, they rise again.

On Thursday, they were resurrected by his second wife, Marianne, who told ABC News that he had sought an “open marriage” arrangement in 1999 so that he could have her blessing to conduct an affair while remaining married to her. She refused, the couple divorced, and the woman he had been seeing is now his third wife, Callista Gingrich . . . .

Marianne Gingrich’s most devastating memory is that the day after his request, Mr. Gingrich gave a speech entitled, “The Demise of American Culture.” Among other things, he said in the speech that the elimination of prayer in schools had left American teenagers morally adrift.

Thirteen years later, campaigning for president, Mr. Gingrich is still trying to tell Americans how to run their lives. He supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. He accuses Mitt Romney of being insufficiently anti-abortion, even pointing out that Mr. Romney expanded access to abortion pills. He lectures black people about valuing jobs and children in the purgatory of housing projects for lacking a work ethic. He signed a personal pledge to, at long last, “uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse.”

For too many Republicans, it’s not enough that Americans are free to pray in the house of worship of their choice; they want all children to be required to pray in school. They want to impose their own ideas about sexuality and abortion on everyone. And they love to accuse Democrats of being insufficiently pious. (

When Republican officials then get caught violating one of the Ten Commandments, they make an enormous show of contrition and repentance and ask for the public’s forgiveness. But as the hypocrisy level continues to rise, that forgiveness may become much harder to provide.