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

Is NARTH Back Peddling on Its "Change" Claims?

2012-01-29T21:50:00.003-05:00

One of the leading proponents of what I refer to as the "change myth" for many years has been National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a/k/a NARTH. Not coincidentally, NARTH is largely funded by anti-gay Christianist organizations. And also not coincidentally, NARTH's claims run counter to the positions of every legitimate, non-Christianist funded medical and mental health association. In my opinion, NARTH's claims that "change is possible" are principally motivated by the far right's anti-gay agenda. As additional icing on the cake, ex-gay "ministries" continue to rake in large amounts of money as religiously brainwashed individuals and their families futilely throw money at trying to change their own or their loved one's sexual orientation.

Of late, however, acceptance of the "change myth" seems to be waning with the general public. Worse yet, as I have noted recently, Exodus International - a principal marketer of the change myth - has been seriously distancing itself from the categorical claim that gays can change their sexual orientation to become totally heterosexual. Alan Chambers, president of Exodus has even stated that 99.9% of those who seek to change their sexual orientation faile in the process. In contrast, NARTH has continued to trot out and display "ex-gays" who say they have "changed" and are now married to someone of the opposite gender with children. Having been married myself for 24 years, marriage to a straight spouse and parenting children proves absolutely nothing in terms of one's true sexual orientation. It is a testament soley to how much one wants to delude them self and deny reality.

Now, in a stunning development, NARTH has issued a statement contending that "change" cannot be measured on a categorical change. Rather, NARTH says "change" must be measured on a "continuum. The apparent shift is to position NARTH so that it can claim that change is possible even if the percentage of "change" is in the range of 1%. It's a disingenuous tactic, but then, everything NARTH has done over the years in my view has been disingenuous. Warren Throckmorton looks at this sea change at NARTH. Here are excerpts:

Apparently in response to Alan Chambers’ candor about sexual orientation change, the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality issued a clarification of what that organization means by change.

Issued January 27, the statement reads . . . :

Rather than pigeonholing homosexual sexual orientation change into categorical terms, NARTH believes that it is far more helpful and accurate to conceptualize such change as occurring on a continuum. This is in fact how sexual orientation is defined in most modern research, starting with the well known Kinsey scales, even as subsequent findings pertinent to change are often described in categorical terms. NARTH affirms that some individuals who seek care for unwanted same-sex attractions do report categorical change of sexual orientation. Moreover, NARTH acknowledges that others have reported no change.

[T]hose who are highly pessimistic regarding change in sexual orientation appear to have assumed a categorical view of change, which is neither in keeping with how sexual orientation has been defined in the literature nor with how change is conceptualized for nearly all other psychological challenges. NARTH believes that viewing change as occurring on a continuum is a preferable therapeutic approach and more likely to create realistic expectancies among consumers of change-oriented intervention. With this in mind, NARTH remains committed to protecting the rights of clients with unwanted same-sex attractions to pursue change as well as the rights of clinicians to provide such psychological care.

In sum, NARTH seems to be conceding - as Exodus International has already conceded - although in a dishonest manner, that total change in sexual orientation simply doesn't happen. Hence the malarkey about change on a continuum. No coincidentally, NARTH also ignores the fact that nearly 100% of those who publicly claim to be "ex-gay" are either on the payrolls of "ex-gay ministries" or otherwise make their livelihoods based on their alleged ex-gay status - e.g. Greg Quinlan, president of PFOX and the New Jersey Family Policy Council. In short, the ex-gay claims and "ministries" continue to be scams that seek to take advantage of the ignorant and gullible while providing a smoke screen for anti-gay propaganda and politicians. The other motivation, of course, may be to try to limit the potential for lawsuits by those who enroll in and throw away their money on "ex-gay" cure programs. In my opinion, most whores have more integrity than the folks at NARTH.

Libertarian Republicans May Block Marriage Repeal in New Hampshire

2012-01-29T16:00:00.003-05:00

One of the announced goals of far right Republicans in New Hampshire has been to repeal that state's same sex marriage law. But despite majorities in both houses of the legislature, they may not be able to gather the 2/3 vote required to repeal the 2009 law. The stumbling block? Libertarian inclined Republicans who see the repeal as a trampling on individual freedom. I would add religious freedom as another victim of the Christianist element in the GOP's jihad against gay marriage. Not surprisingly, some of the cretins in the pro-repeal faction mouth the myth that gay marriage threatens their religious liberty. To these folks, only anti-gay Christians have religious freedom rights. Everyone else can go f*ck themselves per this mindset. The Concord Monitor looks at the uncertain fate of the repeal effort in New Hampshire. Here are excerpts:

While the fate of a bill repealing same-sex marriage in New Hampshire remains uncertain, two facts are not in dispute: Republicans hold veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate. The state Republican Party platform defines marriage as "the legal union between one man and one woman" and opposes "all other forms of civil unions, regardless of where such unions were formed." So what's so hard about getting it done?

Sen. Fenton Groen, a Rochester Republican who has been vocal in his support of the repeal, said last week. "I think that, in the House particularly, we have a significant libertarian caucus within the Republican Party. . . . And there are some Republicans who differ on that within that caucus."

"I'm for liberty and freedom, leaving people alone so long as they don't harm or defraud other people," said Rep. Steve Winter, a Newbury Republican who opposes the repeal. . . . He considers himself a "fiscal conservative and a social libertarian."

Rep. Seth Cohn, a Canterbury Republican who moved here as part of the Free State project, a libertarian movement to relocate to New Hampshire, is also against repeal. Cohn and others believe the bill may pass the House but does not have the two-thirds majority to override a potential veto by Democratic Gov. John Lynch, who signed the bill three years ago legalizing same-sex marriage. "I know for a fact, based on people I've talked to, that if Gov. Lynch vetoes it, that veto is not override-able," Cohn said.

Cohn said he plans to introduce an amendment on the House floor that would take government entirely out of marriage, instead giving all couples a civil union and leaving marriage up to churches and other religious institutions. That same approach is supported by the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire, a libertarian-leaning group that endorsed 107 House members elected in 2010.

[U]nwillingness to take up the mantle in opposition to same-sex marriage has extended to top lawmakers in both chambers. . . . . Gay marriage supporters in New Hampshire say the current of public opinion favors their side. A University of New Hampshire survey in October found 62 percent of residents oppose the repeal and 27 percent support it. The rest were neutral.

Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley also voted against the gay marriage law. But before he could support the repeal bill, he said, language establishing civil unions for same-sex and heterosexual couples must be strengthened so all employers and other entities would be required to recognize them.

Rep. Jennifer Coffey's view has also been colored by life experience. The Andover Republican, a nurse's assistant for 16 years, remembers a terminally ill woman who had been estranged from her family for 20 years because of her relationship with another woman. When the family she hadn't talked to for decades came to visit her in the hospital, they did not allow the woman's partner in the room.

"It really stuck in my mind," she said. "There are certain things you see in health care that break your heart." Still, Coffey - who considers herself a "Goldwater Republican," a "little-'l' libertarian" - voted against the gay marriage law in 2009. Now, she plans to vote against repealing it, but says her position has been consistent all along.

"I voted against government defining marriage," she said. "It doesn't have the right to define marriage in any sense. It is a religious ceremony."

While not addressed in the article, just maybe some in the GOP are waking up to the fact that the GOP's anti-gay positions are driving away both libertarians and the younger generation of voters. Time will tell. Obviously, I hope the repeal effort fails.

More Sunday Male Beauty

2012-01-29T15:10:00.001-05:00

HUD Introduces Sweeping LGBT Protections

2012-01-29T14:26:00.004-05:00

In a move that will have Christianists and professional Christians shrieking and wailing, the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (pictured at left) has introduced sweeping new regulations that will afford LGBT citizens and families protections in housing related programs and insurance programs that receive federal funding. Among the areas impacted will be including Section 8 housing, emergency shelters, and other social services, as well as lending for FHA-insured mortgage financing. Such protections even if of limited application are welcomed inasmuch as currently in Virginia - and many other states - LGBT citizens have absolutely no non-discrimination protections. The move is long overdue. Now if only similar regulations would be implemented in the realm of employment non-discrimination. Here are highlights from Think Progress' coverage:

Speaking today [Saturday] at the National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change in Baltimore, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan introduced a broad and sweeping set of new nondiscrimination protections the department will be implementing. Under the new guidelines, any program that receives funding or insurance through HUD will be prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. . .

In addition, all such programs will now be required to recognize same-sex and otherwise LGBT families — regardless of their marital status or the adoption status of their children — to ensure they can stay together as a family unit when accessing HUD resources.

In his remarks, Donovan explained the significance of these changes:

DONOVAN: And so, first and foremost, this rule includes a new equal access provision that prohibits owners and operators of HUD-funded housing, or housing whose financing we insure, from inquiring about an applicant’s sexual orientation or gender identity or denying housing on that basis. If you are denying HUD housing to people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity—actual or perceived—you’re discriminating, you’re breaking the law – and you will be held accountable. That’s what equal access means – and that’s what this rule is going to do. . . . the rule also makes clear that sexual orientation and gender identity should not and cannot be part of any lending decision when it comes to getting a mortgage insured by the FHA – part of HUD.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has additional coverage. Here are highlights:

U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan announced a new HUD policy to fight discrimination against LGBT people in federally supported housing programs.

The new rules, to be published next week, will help LGBT people and their families across the country stay in their homes, get the loans they need to buy homes, and access life-saving federal assistance programs to help get low-income people and families back on their feet.

Donovan is the first sitting Cabinet secretary in history to speak at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change, the country’s largest annual gathering of LGBT rights advocates. They have been meeting this week in Baltimore to strategize and mobilize in this critical election year.

“I’m here this afternoon because our president and his administration believe the LGBT community deserves a place at the table — and also a place to call home. Each of us here knows that rights most folks take for granted are routinely violated against LGBT people,” Donovan said.

While I'd prefer to see these non-discrimination protections afforded by statute, the regulations are hopefully a beginning. While likely motivated by Obama's re-election effort, the regulations are yet another blow against the special rights given to anti-Christians for far too long.

The GOP Empire Strikes Back at Gingrich

2012-01-29T12:00:00.005-05:00

It's sort of perverse fun to watch the gyrations within the Republican Party as the so-called establishment tries to sabotage Newt Gingrich's campaign. Granted, those who remember his tenure as Speaker of the House and his scandal wrought exit from Congress have plenty of reasons to want to push Gingrich back into the political wilderness. But it's still fun to watch the those who are generally the enemies of LGBT equality train their weaponry on one of their own rather than the LGBT community. As an added bonus, the intra-party strife and nastiness makes the Democrats look as if they have their act together in relative terms. A piece in the Washington Post looks at the efforts of those who view themselves as main stream Republicans to end Gingrich's insurrection. Here are excerpts:

The revenge of the Republican establishment is a sight to behold. From one corner to another, those who have tangled with Newt Gingrich, who feel aggrieved toward Newt Gingrich or who fear Newt Gingrich have amassed to stop him. They know how much harder it will be to do so if the former House speaker wins Florida on Tuesday.

The quintessential example of establishment angst came Thursday from Bob Dole, the former Senate majority leader and 1996 Republican presidential nominee. Hours before Thursday’s GOP debate, he released a letter — circulated by Mitt Romney’s campaign — attacking Gingrich and pleading with Republican voters not to make him the party’s nominee.

Dole is just one voice in a chorus of critics who have spoken out. Gingrich’s victory in South Carolina just a week ago sent a shudder through the ranks of elected officials and others who make up the establishment and the conservative elite. Fear of Newt has displaced lack of love for Romney as the dominant emotion among these Republicans.

The establishment message that Gingrich is a threat to the party is not new, but the intensity with which it is being delivered is. That he might become the nominee has touched off near panic in the ranks ahead of Tuesday’s vote. Party establishments, to the degree they exist, have only limited power to direct the course of events. But to the extent that they have power, they are exercising it with a vengeance.

“If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices,” Dole wrote. “Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway.”

What is fascinating about the Republican race is that, in a matter of days and weeks, it has turned from the question of whether a stop-Romney movement would materialize to the reality that a stop-Gingrich movement now has taken shape.

Those who underestimate Gingrich today were many of the same people who underestimated him as he crashed his way into the upper ranks of the party more than two decades ago. He may resent what the establishment is doing to him now, but he also may welcome the attacks as ratification that he remains a threat to established order.

Gingrich may lose this battle, and he could damage himself in the process. But he will not go quietly, and his old friends and enemies in the party know it.

And so the spectacle will play out. I plan on enjoying it.

The Inquisition - The Precursor to the Police State

2012-01-29T10:58:00.004-05:00

I often note that throughout history, religion has been one of the causes of more deaths and misery than just about any other cause. Yes, there were plagues and pestilence, but deaths arising from conflicts over religion, including the rigid enforcement of religious dogma, have always been elective as opposed to naturally occurring. And but for religion - and the oft related goals of power control and, most of all, money - these deaths need not have occurred.

While wars of religion date back probably to the near dawn of history, one institution took religious reigns of terror to their peak and set the template in many ways for modern police states and totalitarian regimes. The institution likewise justified torture as a supposed furtherance of what was good and "holy." The institution? The Catholic Church's infamous Inquisition. An institution which continues to exist this very day under the name " The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith." Even more frightening, until his election as Pope, Benedict XVI presided over this institution. A piece in the New Humanist based in the United Kingdom looks at the Inquisition and the dangers that arise from religious certitude - a characteristic all too prevalent amongst today's Christianists. The piece also looks at how the Inquisition created the mindset of today's police states. Here are some highlights:

Just inside the gate, at Piazza del Sant’Uffizio 11, stands a Renaissance palazzo with a ruddy ochre-and-cream complexion. This is the headquarters of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, whose job, in the words of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor bonus, promulgated in 1988 by Pope John Paul II, is “to promote and safeguard the doctrine on faith and morals throughout the Catholic world”. Pastor bonus goes on: “For this reason, everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its competence.” It is an expansive charge.

But before the Congregation became the Holy Office, it went by yet another name: as late as 1908, it was known as the Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition. Lenny Bruce once joked that there was only one “the Church”. The Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition was the headquarters of the Inquisition – the centuries-long effort by the Church to deal with its perceived enemies, within and without, by whatever means necessary, including the most brutal ones available.

The palazzo that today houses the Congregation was originally built to lodge the Inquisition when the papacy, in 1542, amid the onslaught of Protestantism and other noxious ideas, decided that the Church’s intermittent and far-flung inquisitorial investigations needed to be brought under some sort of centralised control – a spiritual Department of Homeland Security, as it were. The Inquisition had begun in the Middle Ages, to deal with Christian heresies, and been revived in Iberia, under state control, to deal with Jews and Moors.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith inherited more than the Inquisition’s DNA and its place on the organisational charts. It also inherited much of the paper trail. The Inquisition records are kept mainly in the palazzo itself . . . .

[C]onsider what an inquisition – any inquisition – really is: a set of disciplinary procedures targeting specific groups, codified in law, organised systematically, enforced by surveillance, exemplified by severity, sustained over time, backed by institutional power and justified by a vision of the one true path. Considered that way, the Inquisition is more accurately seen not as a relic but as a harbinger.

Whatever the number killed, the Inquisition levied penalties on hundreds of thousands of people, and the fear and shame instilled by any individual case rippled outward to affect a wide social circle. Little wonder that the Inquisition has left such a lasting imprint.

Here’s the central question: why did the Inquisition come into being when it did? Intolerance, hatred and suspicion of one group by another had always existed. Throughout history, these realities had led to persecution and violence. But the ability to sustain a persecution – to give it staying power by giving it an institutional life – did not appear until the Middle Ages. Until then, the tools to stoke and manage those embers of hatred did not exist. Once the tools do exist, inquisitions become a fact of life. They are not confined to religion; they are political as well.

The tools are these: there needs to be a system of law, and the means to administer it with a certain amount of uniformity. Techniques must be developed for conducting interrogations and extracting information. Procedures must exist for record-keeping, and for retrieving information after records have been compiled and stored. An administrative mechanism – a bureaucracy – is required, along with a cadre of trained people to staff it. There must be an ability to send messages across significant distances, and also an ability to restrict the communications of others – in a word, censorship.

Interrogation manuals, like the famous Practica written by Bernard Gui, were drawn up to instruct inquisitors on how to question the accused – the tricks to use, the psychology to employ. The resemblance to the modern manuals for military personnel and intelligence operatives is hard to miss. As a supplement to interrogation, torture became systematic – subject to rules, perhaps, but rules that proved elastic, as they always do.

So the tools were new. The precipitating mindset was age-old: the conviction that one is absolutely right. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, the prefect of the Holy Office through most of the 1960s, adopted as his motto the Latin phrase Semper idem – “Always the same”. The inquisitors shared an outlook of moral certainty. In a world of moral certainty, the unthinkable becomes permissible. The sanctity of private conscience is no longer deemed inviolate. Techniques for ensnaring the innocent in scenarios of scripted guilt become increasingly sophisticated.

[T]he desire to control the thoughts and behaviour of others – joined to a belief that God or history will render an approving judgement – underlies much of the sad narrative of the past hundred years: the police states, the dirty wars, the ethnic cleansing, the internments, the renditions, the Red Scares, the fatwas, the special prosecutors, the electronic surveillance, the encroachments accomplished in name of national security.

Persecution acquired a modern platform – the advantages afforded by a growing web of standardised law, communications, administrative supervision and controlled mechanisms of force. It was run not merely by warriors but by an educated elite; not merely by thugs but by skilled professionals. Every subsequent outbreak of persecution, political or religious, has been abetted by these same forces. . . . Through the lens of the Inquisition we can glimpse the world we inhabit now.

When the Inquisition’s palazzo was built, in the mid-16th century, the Pope ordered words to be carved in a marble scroll over the front door – a kind of mission statement – establishing the building as a “bulwark against heretical depravity”. The words are gone now, removed by French troops during Napoleon’s occupation. It’s easy enough to remove some words – harder to erase a legacy.

As noted in previous posts, what is disconcerting is that in the USA, the laws have been amended to reduce civil liberty protections and place more arbitrary power in the hands of the government with little means to hold the government accountable. Were religion to ever become fully entwined with government as is the goal of the Christianists, the outcome could be frightening indeed.

Sunday Morning Male Beauty

2012-01-29T10:42:00.002-05:00

Could Gingrich Beat Obama in Debates?

2012-01-29T09:29:00.003-05:00

If nothing else, Newt Gingrich has one of the most visibly overinflated egos of any of the occupants of the GOP presidential candidate clown car. And because his ego often out leads rational thought, some speculate that in Obama-Gingrich debates, Gingrich would prove to be the loser. Especially if the audience wasn't limited to delusional Christianists and Tea party followers whose cheering seems to encourage Gingrich's demagoguery. A op-ed in the Washington Post looks at a face off between Obama and Gingrich and predicts that contrary to Gingrich's dreams, he'd end up the loser. Here are highlights:

Newt Gingrich is basing his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, in large part, on one premise: He is the candidate best equipped to debate President Obama. . . .

Supporters of the former House speaker love to imagine these debates. . . . . Gingrich’s legions picture their guy landing blow after blow against Obama, leaving the president dazed and hopeless.

An honest look at Gingrich’s record suggests that the results could differ markedly from the fantasies of Team Newt. Obama would not collapse in a heap, Gingrich would not emerge triumphant — and the whole thing would go down as the biggest campaign blunder since Richard Nixon figured he could out-debate John F. Kennedy on television.

But as a student of military history, Gingrich should know better than to underestimate an opponent in this way. The president taught law at the University of Chicago and has as much experience lecturing as Gingrich. He has shown in White House events and town hall meetings that he is perfectly capable of talking in depth and in detail about complex policy issues.

In debates with Gingrich, Obama might botch a name here or a fact there. . . . Gingrich is prone to a more serious kind of mistake. His problem is not that he errs on the fine points but that he makes radioactive comments that alienate voters outside the Republican core. In a debate in October, CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked whether voters should pay attention to a candidate’s religion. “How can you have judgment if you have no faith?” Gingrich answered. “And how can I trust you with power if you don’t pray?”

The more time he [Gingrich] gets to talk, the more likely he is to say something outrageous. Throughout his career, his speeches and extended interviews have been spawning grounds for odd or even grotesque Gingrichisms.

When he’s under criticism, Gingrich’s standard operating procedure is to interject that people are taking his words out of context. In a Lincoln-Douglas format, he would just have to sit and seethe until his turn came. As we’ve witnessed several times during the current debates, Gingrich is very good when he’s pretending to be angry; he’s very bad when he is angry for real. . . . Knowing this history, Obama would try to play with his head.

[A]s conservative commentator John Ziegler has pointed out, the audiences for those debates would include independents and Democrats as well as Republicans. Any incendiary remarks by Gingrich would get more catcalls than cheers.

In the end, what most people would see of such debates would be brief clips on news programs. And those clips would naturally consist of the most dramatic and attention-getting material — including the moments when Gingrich drew jeers from the audience for making over-the-top attacks. And so he would be back to where he’s been many times, complaining of selective quotation by liberals and the media.

So just picture Obama giving Gingrich everything he wants: seven three-hour debates with demonstrative audiences. Gingrich would then be able to make knockout punches — against himself.

The Unanswered Question: How Does Gay Marriage Harm Heterosexual Marriage

2012-01-29T08:54:00.004-05:00

The great mantra of the Christianists and professional Christians like Maggie Gallagher who make foul prostitutes look virtuous, is that marriage must be "protected" and/or that same sex marriage somehow diminishes straight marriages. Of course, no further explanation is ever provided beyond these convenient sound bites. The answer is, naturally, that there is no rational explanation as to how the boyfriend and I having civil law marriage rights threaten every straight couple's marriage in Virginia. Ultimately, the argument against same sex marriage comes down to one thing and one thing only: religion. Religion and the desire of Christianists to impose their religious beliefs on all of society - in direct contravention of the First Amendment, I might add - and to punish those who refuse to conform for whatever reason. Added to that, I believe, is the unspoken Christianist fear that if the Bible is wrong about homosexuality, the entire artificial house of cards of their religious dogma begins to unravel and collapse. A Middletown, New Jersey columnist ran a column asking the question from opponents of gay marriage to explain how heterosexual marriage would be harmed. Here are highlights from her description of the responses she received:

The question (put to those who say that marriage equality will "make less" of their heterosexual marriage) is, "Okay, what does marriage equality for all citizens of this country/state say about your marriage?"

Two weeks after writing the column I still don’t have an answer. Oh, I heard from many, many people. Interestingly, the majority of people that I heard from were supportive of marriage equality. Yet I heard from dozens who are adamantly against it. Some, who sent their emails directly to my email address choosing not to post on the PATCH site, were not always so nice and occasionally vile.

I was told ...

"The act of homosexuality is an abomination and sin many times over."

"Why do you feel entitled to enjoy the benefits of marriage when you have proclaimed the basis for this marriage is based on being a homosexual? Why should everyone be forced to confer legitimacy on that which is historically against human nature? You are completely free to live your life as you see fit; but don't try and proclaim that everyone must accept your definition of what normal is. Have a really great day, unless you have made other plans!"

"May you know no peace in this life."

"At the end of every speech that an American president makes he says, ‘God Bless the United States of America’. The law of this land is that God rules here and not the deviants who support homosexuality."

"A pox on you and your house!"

"You and all like you will burn in hell for eternity."

Aside from nasty comments and quotes from the Bible, no one ever answered the question. Several supporters of separation of church and state and/or marriage equality did contradict the statement that marriage equality will compromise anyone else’s marriage -

"As far as I can determine, no one has ever come up with a valid reason to oppose same sex marriage. First, all religious arguments are invalid. We have separation of church & state, so what the bible or any other religious document says must not be considered. Religious institutions can make any rules they want for their members, but they cannot affect others, so no one should even bring them up.

"Second, whatever anyone else, gay or straight, does in their marriage has no affect whatever on my marriage. Third, the institution of marriage is under attack by many factors, such as divorce, cohabitation etc. Gay marriage is not one of them.

As I mulled all this over in my mind I thought about some of the things I have heard or seen of late that involve members of the Christian faith.

• I heard a Catholic bishop say, “Heaven help us if gay marriage is approved.”

• I watched the evening news in horror as Christians lined the streets in protest bearing signs and posters that said horrible un-Christian-like things at the funeral of an American soldier who gave his life for his country. The chants include rants that state that this death is God’s punishment for homosexuality. This act has been repeated on several occasions.

• Christian people show up in Trenton to protest the passing of a marriage equality law and many of the accusations shouted at those in favor are cruel and repulsive. Not really ‘Christian behavior’.

Hypocrisy runs rampant.

I echo the columnist's experience. Before I severely restricted the posting comments to this blog, virtually ALL of the nasty, foul and hate-filled comments were ALWAYS from self-professed Christians. Yes, the comments even involved death threats. And on one occasion the electric breaker box for my law office was vandalized (posting my business card on this blog makes me easy to find and the breaker boxes for the office suites are conveniently labeled). Need I ask why I suspect it was a "godly Christian" who decided to vandalize only my breaker box? As noted before, the best argument for walking away from Christianity is the self-professed godly Christians.

Genetic or Not, Gays Won’t Go Away

2012-01-29T08:20:00.006-05:00

Cynthia Nixon caused a recent firestorm when she said she chose to be lesbian. Not being inside her mind and having lived her life, it's impossible to know for certain how she interprets "choosing" to be gay. Perhaps she's bisexual or perhaps she finally gave in to feelings and attractions that she had long experienced. I don't want to judge her even though some of the usual hate merchants of the professional Christian set have leaped on her statements as proof of their anti-gay "choice myth." Having been married with children and in the closet for decades, on could argue that I "chose to be gay" when I came out. I'd argue that instead of choosing, I finally admitted the truth about myself and began the process of rejecting the religious and societal brainwashing I'd been subjected to. I can state with absolute certainty that my emotional/physical connection with a guy I love is far different and more spiritual fulfilling than what I can experience with a woman. And I mean no slight to women by this comment. It's simply how/who I am. And Lord knows I tried desperately to deny it for 37 years.

Frank Bruni has an op-column in the New York Times that looks ate the Cynthia Nixon brouhaha and the reality that gays are not going away no matter how much the Christofascists malign us and denigrate us. and try to convince the ignorant and gullible that we all could be straight if we but wanted to. Here are some column highlights:

Born this way. That has long been one of the rallying cries of a movement, and sometimes the gist of its argument. Across decades of widespread ostracism, followed by years of patchwork acceptance and, most recently, moments of heady triumph, gay people invoked that phrase to explain why homophobia was unwarranted and discrimination senseless. Lady Gaga even spun an anthem from it. But is it the right mantra to cling to? The best tack to take?

Not for the actress Cynthia Nixon, 45, whose comments in The New York Times Magazine last Sunday raised those very questions. For 15 years, until 2003, she was in a relationship with a man. They had two children together. She then formed a new family with a woman, to whom she’s engaged. And she told The Times’s Alex Witchel that homosexuality for her “is a choice.” “For many people it’s not,” she conceded, but added that they “don’t get to define my gayness for me.”

They do get to fume, though. Last week some did. They complained that she represented a minority of those in same-sex relationships and that she had furthermore handed a cudgel to our opponents, who might now cite her professed malleability as they make their case that incentives to change, not equal rights, are what we need.

By hinging a whole movement on a conclusion that hasn’t been — and perhaps won’t be — scientifically pinpointed and proved beyond all doubt, they hitch it to a moving target. The exact dynamics through which someone winds up gay are “still an open question,” said Clinton Anderson, the director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns Office of the American Psychological Association. “There is substantial evidence of various connections between genes, brain, hormones and sexual identity,” he said. “But those do not amount to a simple picture that A leads to B.”

[B]igotry isn’t rational. Finding a determinative biological quirk, deviation or marker could prompt religious extremists who now want gays in reparative psychotherapy to focus on medical interventions instead. And a person’s absence of agency over his or her concentration of melanin has hardly ended all discrimination against blacks.

What’s more, the born-this-way approach carries an unintended implication that the behavior of gays and lesbians needs biological grounding to evade condemnation. Why should it?

Our laws safeguard religious freedom, and that’s not because there’s a Presbyterian, Buddhist or Mormon gene. There’s only a tradition and theology that you elect or decline to follow. But this country has deemed worshiping in a way that feels consonant with who you are to be essential to a person’s humanity. So it’s protected.

Our laws also safeguard the right to bear arms: not exactly a biological imperative. Among adults, the right to love whom you’re moved to love — and to express it through sex and maybe, yes, marriage — is surely as vital to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as a Glock. And it’s a lot less likely to cause injury, if that’s a deciding factor: how a person’s actions affect the community around him or her.

We don’t need to be born this way to refute the ludicrous assertion that homosexuality poses some special threat to the stability of the American family. We need only note that heterosexuality — as practiced by the likes of Newt Gingrich and John Edwards, for example — isn’t any lucky charm, and yet no one’s trying to heal the straights.

We don’t need to be born this way to call out Chris Christie, currently trying to avoid responsibility for a decision about same-sex marriage in New Jersey, for being a political wimp. Andrew Cuomo showed courage and foresight in fighting successfully for such legislation in New York. Christie, who fancies himself a dauntless brawler, should do the same in the state next door.

I honestly have no idea if I was born this way. My memory doesn’t stretch to the crib.

But I know that from the moment I felt romantic stirrings, it was Timmy, not Tammy, who could have me walking on air or wallowing in torch songs and tubs of ice cream. These feelings gelled early, and my considerable fear of society’s censure was no match for them.

I know that being in a same-sex relationship feels as central and natural to me as my loyalty to my father, my pride in my siblings’ accomplishments and my protectiveness of their children — all emotions that I didn’t exit the womb with but will not soon shake. And I know that I’m a saner, kinder person this way than trapped in a contrivance or a lie. Surely that’s not just to my advantage but to society’s, too.

If the laws are only going to protect characteristics that are not a "choice," then one of the first things that needs to change are laws that bar discrimination based on religion. If there is anything in life, it's religious affiliation. Yes, one may be raised in a particular tradition, but each and every one of has the choice to walk away from it. Religious affiliation is ultimately 100% choice. And that being the case, the Christianist need to be truly careful how they poise their anti-gay arguments. Because by pushing the "choice myth" and linking legal rights to only things that are not a choice, they are sowing the seeds for their own destruction.

More Saturday Male Beauty

2012-01-28T14:26:00.002-05:00

eBay Pressures Utah to Enact LGBT Non-discrimination Protections

2012-01-28T14:06:00.004-05:00

In an example of how corporate America can pressure states that are in fact or are perceived as backwards and hostile to LGBT equality, eBay is advising the State of Utah that it may have to reconsider adding 3,000 jobs in that state if non-discrimination protections for LGBT citizens are not passed by the state legislature. In making the pitch, the message being delivered is that Utah has a serious PR problem which makes it dificult to recruit the best and the brightest employees. I wish some of the Fortune 500 companies that support non-discrimination would deliver that message here in Virginia to Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell and Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli not to mention the vitriolic anti-gay Republicans in the Virginia General Assembly. As I've noted before, I cannot in good conscience recommend that anyone who is LGBT move to Virginia because of the total lack of any legal protections for LGBT Virginians. Indeed, but for the Boyfriend's successful business and the fact that I currently employ one of my daughters at my law firm, I'd be pushing to leave Virginia as soon as possible. QSaltLake looks at the businesses that are pushing the elected officials to do the right thing. Here are highlights:

Sen. Ben McAdams hosted a panel discussion Thursday at the Utah State Capitol to discuss his proposed law, which seeks to add gender identity and sexual orientation to Utah’s existing list of prohibited discrimination characteristics. The bill has received a wellspring of support from Utah’s business community, including the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce.

The panel was composed of McAdams, Tim Sullivan (CEO of Ancestry), Brandon Pace (general counsel for eBay), Jay Magure (VP of 1-800-Contacts) and Cliff Rosky (Professor of Law, University of Utah). The bottom line, according to the panelists, is that discrimination isn’t just wrong, it’s bad for business.

All of the panelists agreed that there is a perception problem outside of Utah, making it difficult for them to recruit and retain the best talent for their companies. That perception, said Magure, “is reality and it creates real harm.” eBay’s Pace indicated that his company is planning to add up to 3,000 workers this year and if they can’t bring workers to Utah because of the perception that Utah is intolerant of the LGBTQ community then they’ll be forced to fill those jobs in other places.

The panelists agreed, urging the state legislature to enact the proposed law in order to send a clear message to people and businesses around the country: that Utah doesn’t tolerate discrimination.

Currently there are 21 states and over 300 municipalities in the United States that include sexual orientation and gender identity as part of non-discrimination protections. More than half of America’s Fortune 500 has such policies in place, including major Utah employers such as Adobe, American Express, Zions Bank, and the companies involved in the panel: eBay, 1-800-Contacts, and Ancestry.

71.3% of Incoming College Freshmen Support Same Sex Marriage

2012-01-28T13:09:00.005-05:00

A new UCLA survey shows more bad news for the Christian Right and its pandering whores and sycophants in the Republican Party. It's yet more proof that the GOP is committing a slow form of long term suicide as it continues to swear sole allegiance to anti-gay generations that are literally dying off while the younger generations are trending toward full LGBT acceptance. Here's the summary of the study's findings:

An unprecedented 71.3 percent of incoming college students indicated that same-sex couples should have the right to legal marital status, compared with 64.9 percent in 2009, a remarkable 6.4 percentage-point increase over a two-year period. While support for same-sex marriage is highest among female students and those who identify as liberal, a significant amount of conservative students (42.8 percent) and an increasing number of male students (64.1 percent in 2011 vs. 56.7 percent in 2009) expressed support for this issue.

"Among students entering college, we're seeing a more unified support for same-sex marriage that reaches across political party lines," said John H. Pryor, lead author of the report and director of CIRP. "Given the influence of young voters in the last presidential election, candidates may want to pay careful attention to the student perspective on these and other civil rights issues."

Has Newt Gingrich Peaked?

2012-01-28T12:53:00.003-05:00

As noted in a previous post, the consensus is that Newt Gingrich largely bombed in the recent GOP debate in Jacksonville. Now, the question is whether or not Gingrich is on a downward slide that - if the nation is lucky - cannot be halted despite huge monetary donations from a gambling industry king pin. A piece in the Daily Beast suggests that Newt's glory days on the GOP clown car are over. I hope the analysis proves correct. If it does, then the next nutcase that needs to be ejected from the clown car is Frothy Mix. Here are highlights from the Daily Beast column:

The question that emerges from Thursday night’s debate is: Have we seen the end of Newt? Not only did he not have any South Carolina-style moments; he blew the chances he had for such moments, and blew them badly. The big moment came right before the first commercial break, when Gingrich tried to hit Mitt Romney on his investments in Fannie and Freddie, and Romney fired back about Newt’s lobbying (or advising or whatever it was). If Romney wins this nomination, that new debate coach deserves an awfully nice bonus out of that blind trust.

What arrow does Gingrich have in his quiver besides the great debate one-liner that expresses right-wing grievance? He’s an adrenaline junkie. When he has that from a crowd, he can go out on the hustings for the next two or three days with the kind of joyous malevolence we’ve seen so often over the years. But when he doesn’t, he deflates like a Macy’s balloon on Thanksgiving afternoon. And I hear the hissing of air, as I’m sure a lot of people do. Gingrich needs to play some kind of big card in the next three days. . . .
Gingrich’s only hope is to throw something new against the wall and hope that it sticks.

I think that a month or two from now, the epitaph of this contest might well end up being something like: The establishment guy won, the next-in-line guy won, but he got pushed a little farther this time than the next-in-line guy did in 2008 or 2000 or 1996. If Barack Obama wins reelection, will the next-in-line guy in 2016 finally be pushed off the cliff? Will the insurgent vote finally say, “It’s Our Time!” Who will the next-in-line guy even be in 2016, anyway? All interesting questions, but all far off. For now, it looks like Newt peaked last week.

Oral Roberts’ Gay Grandson Launches "Gay Agenda" Tour to Fight Homophobia

2012-01-28T12:14:00.003-05:00

Few forms of Divine justice are more satisfying than seeing the worse of the Bible beaters end up with gay family members. It obviously demonstrates that they are the last folks to be telling others how to raise children since, according to their own propaganda, it's flawed parenting that cases the gays. Hence, it's interesting to see that the gay grandson of televangelist and snake oil merchant Oral Roberts is launching a "Gay Agenda" tour through the Bible belt of the USA to counter the anti-gay legacy of professional Christians like his grandfather. Even better, he's scheduled to marry his boyfriend in May. Here are some highlights from the Houston Chronicle:

Randy Roberts Potts—whose grandfather Oral Roberts was a pioneering 20th-century televangelist and healer — is now touring the country hoping for his own kind of revival, comforting gay people like him, who have been told by their evangelical communities that they’re destined for hell.

Potts spoke about coming out as gay in the Roberts family on CNN recently. He lives in Dallas, where he and his fiancé do a performance art piece called “The Gay Agenda,” basically doing boring day-to-day activities like cooking and watching TV together while on display downtown. They’re now taking their show on tour.

The late Oral Roberts was a dramatic, charismatic preacher, and—like most big-name televangelist of his time — would warn audiences about the dangers of homosexuality. His eldest son ended up coming out as gay in the ‘80s, committing suicide shortly after ending his marriage.

“I think (Oral Roberts) was convinced that homosexuality killed his son,” Potts said in Details magazine profile. “Some evangelicals see it as a spirit or a demon of homosexuality that invades you, that it’s an almost personified thing that will completely strangle and kill you. Not even so much as a choice, but something you give in to, something that can afflict anybody.”

Potts’ own “It Gets Better” video was inspired by Ronnie’s experience among evangelicals and eventual suicide. He’s wearing a yellow T-shirt with an image of praying hands printed on it, much like the giant sculpture at his grandfather’s namesake university.

“My uncle and I were both raised in a world dominated by Evangelicals who taught and still teach that the fires of Hell await all gay men and women,” the clip said. “This is the Evangelical ‘Christian’ legacy for gays like my uncle and me: threats, bullying, death.”

Potts says his last visit with his grandfather was a friendly one, and Roberts did not bring up Potts’ homosexuality. His mother, though, continues to remind him of her views on his “lifestyle” (Potts told Details his parents don’t even use the word “gay”) and how it’s destined him to hell.

Through his performance art and speaking tours, he finds that a message of acceptance from a member of Roberts’ “royal family” means a lot to people who have been told the same thing.

“It’s an amazing thing that I know is a lot bigger than me. I’m just the guy who’s Oral Roberts’ gay grandson, and I don’t even think it matters what I say a lot of the time. It’s just the fact that I’m up there, gay and open about it and saying it’s okay—it’s just this huge release,” he said in the Details story.

The referenced Details magazine article can be found here. A CNN video clip on Potts' effort is here. His message is definitely needed here in the Hampton Roads area.

Saturday Morning Male Beauty

2012-01-28T11:54:00.002-05:00

White House Launches Politically Motivated LGBT "Charm Offensive"

2012-01-28T10:54:00.005-05:00

Apparently the Obama campaign doesn't think the extreme homophobia of the current slate of GOP presidential nominee contenders might not be enough to drive LGBT voters to the polls in November to cast votes for Democrats. As the Washington Blade is reporting, Obama has launched what might be called a "charm offensive" seeking to endear himself with LGBT Americans without taking a strong stand on same sex marriage equality. To me, it's more of Obama's attempt to have his cake and eat it too while still supporting a "separate but equal" approach to CIVIL law recognition of same sex relationships. Stated another way, he wants out votes, but that's about the extent of things when it comes to fully equality under the civil laws.

Where's the Executive Order enforcing ENDA like protections? Where's the "evolution" on same sex marriage? LGBT Virginians currently have ZERO legal protections under state or federal law unless we are beaten to death, in which case the federal Hate Crimes Law applies, albeit too late to help us while we are living. Here are highlights from the Washington Blade story:

The White House announced on Friday it plans to host a series of LGBT conferences throughout the country in early 2012 so the public can “hear directly” from the administration on efforts “to ensure health, well-being, security, justice, and equality for LGBT Americans.”

In a statement, the White House identified the White House LGBT Conference on Health — which will be held in Philadelphia on Feb. 16 — as the inaugural event for the initiative. The conference is set to feature remarks from Secretary of Health & Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

The statement says the events — which will take place from February to June 2012 — will be a collaboration between the White House Office of Public Engagement and other departments and agencies. Expected attendees include grassroots leaders, community organizers, advocates, students and others.

Absent from the list of planned topics for discussion at the conferences is employment discrimination. No federal law prohibits workplace discrimination against LGBT people. Advocates have been pushing President Obama to issue an executive order barring federal dollars from going to contractors that lack LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policies.

Asked whether one of these conferences would address employment discrimination, a White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, “The list of topics is not comprehensive.”

I doubt the conferences will come to Hampton Roads even thought we are more or less in Washington, D.C.'s backyard.

Ron Paul Approved Racist, Anti-Semitic, and Anti-Gay Newsletters

2012-01-28T10:19:00.005-05:00

When the media first began to focus on some of Ron Paul's former newsletters that were racist and bigoted in nature, the first story line to come out of the Paul camp was that Ron Paul had not been fully aware of the content. That story line is proving to have been a lie - are we surprised? - as Paul's associates both past and present are speaking out and confirming that the presidential candidate did in fact approve the nasty news letters. It's yet another example of candidates lying when they ought to know that eventually they will get caught. And the result is that the lying only compounds their public relations problem. Not, of course, that racism and anti-gay bigotry won't play well with a significant portion of the Christianist and Tea Party base of the Republican Party. The Washington Post looks at Paul's crumbling excuse that he was not aware of the inflammatory content of the newsletters. Here are highlights:

Ron Paul, well known as a physician, congressman and libertarian , has also been a businessman who pursued a marketing strategy that included publishing provocative, racially charged newsletters to make money and spread his ideas, said three people with direct knowledge of Paul’s businesses.

[P]eople close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman’s.

Jesse Benton, a presidential campaign spokesman, said that the accounts of Paul’s involvement were untrue and that Paul was practicing medicine full time when “the offensive material appeared under his name.” Paul “abhors it, rejects it and has taken responsibility for it as he should have better policed the work being done under his masthead,” Benton said. He did not comment on Paul’s business strategy.

[L]ast month, he told CNN that he was unaware at the time of the controversial passages. “I’ve never read that stuff. I’ve never read — I came — was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written,’’ Paul said.

A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.

“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’

The articles included racial, anti-Semitic and anti-gay content. They claimed, for example, that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “seduced underage girls and boys’’ . . . . The June 1990 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report included the statement: “Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

Paul's campaign is trying to claim that Paul's not a racist, an anti-Semite or anti-gay per se, but past actions would seem to speak louder than current defensive denials.

Former Survivor Cast Member Rudy Boesch Proves He's a Bigot at Military Event

2012-01-28T08:13:00.010-05:00

Living in Hampton Roads it's impossible to escape the huge military presence and hearing about military related events. One such event was the 50th Anniversary event for the Navy SEALS which were first organized on January, 1962. In honor of the occasion, more than 150 retired and active Navy SEALs attended a 50th anniversary ceremony Friday at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story in nearby Virginia Beach. One of the two two featured speakers at the SEALS' 50th anniversary ceremony was Rudy Boesch, a retired Navy SEAL and locally best known as a former cast member of the reality TV show "Survivor."

Boesch apparently behaved himself until asked if he keeps in touch with any members from "Survivor" cast, Boesch's response was that "I don't talk to queers — and when I say queer I mean homosexuals." Not only was the comment uncalled for and inappropriate, placing those in active military status in an awkward position, it's not true. First, I have known several gay SEAL team members, so it's all too likely Boesch has in fact spoken to gays in the military. He's simply too ignorant to know it. Moreover, years ago when we lived in the same neighborhood, Boesch spoke with me more than once. I was precinct captain for a political party and every time Boesch went to vote he spoke to yours truly. Boesch typifies the ignorance of those who think they don't know and interact with gays on a regular basis. Here are highlights from the Daily Press on the unfortunate display of bigotry:

Rudy Boesch, a retired Navy SEAL and former cast member of the reality TV show "Survivor," was one of two featured speakers at the SEALS' 50th anniversary ceremony. He spent much of his speech reflecting on his 45-year career in the military. His speech took an unexpected shift in his final remark. Boesch said when people ask him if he keeps in touch with any members from "Survivor," he responds: "I don't talk to queers — and when I say queer I mean homosexuals."

Lt. Arlo Abrahamson, a public affairs officer for Naval Special Warfare Group 2, said, "Those were his views as a retired Navy SEAL. Those views do not reflect the views of the United States Navy or Naval Special Warfare."

Members of gay-rights organizations, when told of Boesch's comment Friday, expressed dismay. "How is that pertinent to the purpose of the event?" said James Hermansen-Parker, president of Hampton Roads Pride, a gay rights organization in Norfolk. "How is that pertinent to the celebration of 50 years as Navy SEALs? I find it very closed-minded of him."

"I'm disappointed and I thought he was better than that," said Michael Hamar, a gay activist and Norfolk attorney. "I think with 'don't ask don't tell' ended, it's inappropriate now. He's making a bigoted remark at a military function where the military now — at least formally — says it's a non-issue."

Boesch was speaking at about the same time that The Virginian-Pilot reported that Navy Capt. Owen Honors would retire April 1. Honors was relieved of command of the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise for making videos that included anti-gay jokes.

Fortunately, the mindset of those like Boesch will eventually die out as bigots die off. Meanwhile, it's unfortunate that he needlessly tarnished what might otherwise have been an honorable event.

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.