Obama to Delay Action on DADT?

The Washington Times is reporting that president elect Obama's administration may delay action on the repeal of the horrid Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy until 2010, allegedly for the purpose of "reaching consensus." Since polls show that the public overwhelmingly supports a repeal of DADT, I do not understand what consensus building is needed. If the problem is with some of the homophobes in senior military positions, the answer is to tell the Neanderthals that they get on board or get out. Living in this area one sees that DADT ruins real lives and careers and that despite assurances that witch hunts do not occur, the reality is that they DO happen and all it takes is one hostile service member or one officer with a wild hare up his ass to persecute and destroy careers. Believe me, I have had it happen to clients who have been forced from the military and they have never even known for sure who was behind ending their careers. Obama needs to seriously rethink this timetable. Meanwhile, the perennial hysterical closet case windbag, Robert Knight - who needs to just go out and get himself a hot escort some night and get over his internalized homophobia, in my opinion - has his panties in a knot over a possible elimination of DADT. Here are some story highlights:

*

President-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the military's decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, two people who have advised the Obama transition team on this issue say.

*

Repealing the ban was an Obama campaign promise. However, Mr. Obama first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress, the advisers said.

*

Delaying the congressional vote a year would give the White House time for consultation, but it would also let ban proponents organize and possibly sway public opinion, as they did in 1993.

*

Mr. Obama's gay-ban pledge was not a major campaign issue. However, he provided a policy statement to the Human Rights Campaign, the largest U.S. gay rights group, pledging to repeal the exclusion and to invite back service members discharged under the law. He also said that he wants the Pentagon to school military people on how to treat gays.

*
"The eradication of this policy will require more than just eliminating one statute," he told the group, in a statement posted on their Web site. "It will require the implementation of anti-harassment policies and protocols for dealing with abusive or discriminatory behavior as we transition our armed forces away from a policy of discrimination. The military must be our active partners in developing those policies and protocols."

*

Ban proponents say removing the restriction would hurt recruiting by discouraging conservative, religiously oriented youths from signing up. "It's true that many in the military have looked the other way and served alongside people they know are into homosexuality," Mr. Knight said. "But that is with the ban in place. Open acceptance would change the atmosphere entirely. If fraternization is a problem now between men and women, imagine the conflicts with openly gay officers who no longer have to be reticent."

More Friday Male Beauty

Change Need at HRC

Like many, I am disappointed at the way HRC - and for that matter, the NGLTF as well - were caught completely flat footed on Proposition 8. So too, in the aftermath of the election defeat on Proposition 8, HRC seems to be chasing after the initiative of grass roots individuals who on their own began the protest actions through Join the Impact, etc. Sadly, all too often HRC seems more worried about not offending the sensibilities of elected political officials rather than forcefully representing the interests of LGBT citizens. It's pathetic now that I am receiving e-mails from HRC talking about the protest efforts as if somehow HRC had anything to do with their taking place or success.

*

As I have briefly commented before, my own experience with HRC is not good. For example, in a pending matter for one of my clients involving the enforcement of Executive Order 1 (2006) signed by Governor Timothy Kaine granting employment non-discrimination protections to state employees who are LGBT, HRC's biggest concern was not upsetting Governor Kaine with whom they said they had good relations. Their attitude was in effect, to Hell with the wrongfully discharged employee while we play "nicey nicey" with the Governor. This mindset must change. Here are some highlights from Chris Crain's blog:

*

A number of influential voices are echoing the view raised here (and here) about the need for fundamental change of mindset and personnel at the leadership of the gay rights movement. . . . . [I]t turns out that James Dobson's Focus on the Family is facing layoffs of more than 200 staffers because it pumped $539,000 into the Proposition 8 battle in California. Can anyone imagine HRC giving till it hurts like that?

*

It's particularly disappointing to see how behind the curve HRC is on the use of technology to push grassroots advocacy, given the dozens and dozens of young, tech-savvy staffers who work at the agency. It just goes to show you how the top-down approach to politics pushed by Smith, Joe Solmonese and other HRC leaders results in in-house management that further cripples the group's effectiveness.

*
Change may well be coming to HRC, for no other reason but that many of its leaders are no doubt jockeying for jobs in the incoming Obama administration. (Query whether they will be embraced by the White House, given how obviously they sided with Hillary Clinton during the primaries. It's noteworthy that none of the seven out gay politicos with roles in the Obama transition team hail from HRC.)

*
Either way, the gay rights movement is moving on with a retooled HRC or without it. The question is whether the D.C.-based gay groups want to remain relevant to the constituents and the movement they claim to lead.

Is She a Blithering Idiot or What?

The nation dodged a serious bullet when McCain/Palin went down to defeat. One has to wonder who is the real turkey? Click the image for a larger view.

Friday Male Beauty

Embracing the Gay Gift

For the majority of my life, I considered my sexual orientation a curse. Something to be denied even to myself at all cost and which I always saw as ruining my life. As a result, I spent years racked with self-hate and made myself and most likely others miserable. In retrospect, I should have admitted the truth to myself many, many years earlier and come to terms with it. If I had done that, I probably would have left a marriage that in hindsight had stopped working long before I ultimately came out to my ex-wife. But instead, I stayed closeted doing every kind of mental contortion imaginable to avoid admitting who I really was. I in no way regret my children and would do it all again to have them, but I should have come out at least a decade earlier and allowed both myself and the ex-wife to move on sooner.

*

Now, having found the self-acceptance that eluded me for so many years (over three decades, in fact) , I feel that my sexual orientation is a gift that God gave me for some mysterious unknown reason. Yes, the gift carries an enormous burden with it in this still far too homophobic society where ancient texts written by ignorant writers devoid of any scientific and medical/mental health knowledge - who largely sought to differentiate the Jewish people from their neighbors who did not consider same sex love a problem or a sin - are still maliciously used by those with their own severe psychological issues to condemn us simply because we are different. But the upside is that I believe we LGBT individuals have been given a whole different insight on love and what it means to be human - something the straight world will never understand fully. This gift frightens them, in fact.

*

My advice to those who are married and in the closet? Do not make my mistake and stay closeted "for the children," because you dom't want to lose possessions," or out of some sense of guilt or unworthiness. Long term, everyone will be better off if you live honestly both to yourself and those around you. In my case, I believe that my children can now see that I am a far different and happier person than during my years in the closet. True, the path of coming out is difficult and there are many who will do their damnedest to layer on the guilt and make the journey Hell - including former spouses and many judges hearing divorce cases. But don't allow yourself to listen to them because you are not guilty of anything other than being who God made you to be for some unknowable reason. None of us chose to be gay. The issue is what do we do with what has been given to us. Embrace who you are and find a way to self-acceptance. If you are lucky, you will also find true love along the way.

More Thursday Male Beauty

What's Your Blog's Type?

I found a link over at Andrew Sullivan's blog that purports to be able to determine what "type" a blog represents. The site is here. Try it out on your own blog and see what interesting results you get back. I ran this blog through it and here's what it said:

*

The logical and analytical type. They are especially attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications. They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.

*

I don't know if I agree with the last sentence, but in any event, I am not going to lose sleep over it either.

Aggressive Grassroots Activism is Needed

John Aravosis at America Blog has a great post that examines what the LGBT community needs to do to combat anti-gay elements who disingenuously spread fear and hatred against gays. He starts out talking about Perez Hilton's intent to not going to Sundance this year because of Prop 8. On his website, Perez states: You will support the Mormons if you go. You WILL support the taking away of equal rights for gays!

*

Many will whine that boycotts do not work or that not all Mormons or all Utah residents supported Proposition 8, etc., and as a result those who work against equality get a free pass and are emboldened to seek to pass even more anti-gay laws and constitutional amendments. Only when the fear of economic reprisals and lost business become a very real concern will many businesses and decision makers avoid supporting anti-gay efforts. Our enemies will not back down for the right reason, so we need make them cease gay oppression out of the impact it has on their wallets. Here are highlights from John's thoughts:

*

Go through the Prop 8 donor database, down individual donors and expose them to the light of day. Hold companies accountable for their support of bigotry. I was contacted yesterday by a Web site called BigThink that decided to partner up with the John Templeton Foundation. BigThink wanted me to promote some new thing they were doing with Templeton. Templeton gave $1 million to Prop 8. I told BigThink to stuff it . . . . then I e-mailed other top blogs to let them know not to publicize BigThink's embrace of hate. Activism should be about affecting change. I suspect BigThink, if enough of us let them know how they feel, may avoid Templeton in the future. We advance the cause of making Prop 8 donors a pariah. I'd like to see organizing in the wake of Prop 8 that specifically comes up with ways the grassroots can do things that have a practical real impact.

*

We know the Mormons like to parachute into other states and drop a ton of bucks in order to take away the civil rights of gays and lesbians. But we also know the Mormons hate being the focus of attention. They hate having the public discuss, be made aware of, some of their more unconventional beliefs, such as Jesus being the brother of the devil, Jesus having had 3 wives including his mother, Native Americans being red and Africans being black because they're bad people, and so on. . . . . Why expose this? Because the Mormons fear this kind of exposure and will learn that there's a price to paid for their anti-gay activism. Perhaps in the long-run they'll decide that the price isn't worth it.

*

Prop 8 donors and businesses, for example, and/or boycotting Utah or Sundance, if done right, keeps the story in the news and puts real pressure on those who are subsidizing this hate. It teaches Prop 8 donors not to make the same mistake twice.

*

Local activists are trying to fill a void. No one is taking the lead on Prop 8 activism at a nation level. . . . Local activists have no choice but to assume leadership. And they have, and that's admirable. But they need to move beyond "cute." This is a war we're fighting. So fight it.

Thursday Male Beauty

APA: Gay Marriage Bans Harm Mental Health

An upcoming article in the Journal of Counseling Psychology, published by APA, looks at the consequences of the gay marriage bans on the mental health status of LGBT citizens. In my opinion, the real goal behind these bans has always been to stigmatize gays and do as much emotional and psychological damage to gays as possible. To the supporters of these bans, depression and suicide in the LGBT community is a good thing and they'd be more than happy if we all hung ourselves or fatally over dosed. Some may think me too harsh, but I don't believe so. These people truly view us as less than human and something to be eradicated. and the leaders of our enemies are NOT nice people regardless of whatever insincere lip service they put out to the contrary. Here are some highlights on the APA findings from 365gay.com:

*

Amendments that restrict civil marriage rights of same-sex couples – such as Proposition 8 that recently passed in California – have led to higher levels of stress and anxiety among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender adults, as well as among their families of origin, according to several new studies the American Psychological Association said Wednesday.

*

The survey results documented increased minority stress, as well as more general psychological distress, among LGB individuals following the passage of a marriage amendment in 2006, compared to LGB people in states without an amendment on the 2006 ballot. The researchers, led by Sharon Scales Rostosky, Ph.D., at the University of Kentucky, found that those participants living in states that passed a measure in 2006 reported increased exposure to negative media messages and negative conversations.

*

“And this stress is not due to other pre-existing conditions or factors; it is a direct result of the negative images and messages associated with the ballot campaign and the passage of the amendment.”

*

Participants reported feeling not just alienated from their communities, but fearful that they would lose their children, that they would become victims of anti-gay violence or that they would need to move to a more accepting community. Some of these anxieties were mitigated by social support.

*

Brent Mallinckrodt, Ph.D., editor of the Journal of Counseling Psychology, said the three articles provide empirical evidence of the harmful psychological and emotional effects of such measures.

*

I suspect that Christianist leaders who read this article - a big if, I know - they will likely be smiling to themselves. It's sick, I know, but also probably very true. Again, these folks are not nice people.

AFA Continues to Disseminate Anti-Gay Hate

The Christianists continue to disseminate their anti-gay agenda and cultivate fear among the ignorant even though they claim they only want to "protect marriage" and that they do not hold hate and ill will towards LGBT Americans. As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words and the American Family Association's actions reveal that it is one of the most dishonest "Christian" organizations around. AFA is actively marketing a new DVD entitled "They're Coming to Your Town" to instill anti-gay fear among the sheeple. This is in addition to marketing a book entitled "It's Not Gay" that features ex-gay fraud Michael Johnston who slept around the greater Norfolk area under a false name exposing men to HIV. Here's a sample of the poison that is being disseminated:

*

Residents of the small Arkansas town of Eureka Springs noticed the homosexual community was growing. But they felt no threat. They went about their business as usual. Then, one day, they woke up to discover that their beloved Eureka Springs, a community which was known far and wide as a center for Christian entertainment--had changed. The City Council had been taken over by a small group of homosexual activists.

*

The Eureka Springs they knew is gone. It is now a national hub for homosexuals. Eureka Springs is becoming the San Francisco of Arkansas. The story of how this happened is told in the new AFA DVD “They’re Coming To Your Town.”

*

One of the first actions of the homosexual controlled City Council was to offer a “registry” where homosexuals could register their unofficial “marriage.” City Council member Joyce Zeller said the city will now be promoted, not as a Christian resort, but a city “selling peace, relaxation, history and sex.”

*
AFA’s “They’re Coming ToYour Town” documents the story of how and why this happened. And how homosexual activists plan to do the same in other towns.

*

How many gays will suffer discrimination, hate and viloence as a result of this sickening message? These people are truly horrible.

Final Wednesday Male Beauty

Bush and Christianists Stymied HIV Research

Science and medical advances should never be subverted by extremist religious dogma, but sadly it seems that this is precisely what has occurred under the Chimperator and his Christianist hacks who were placed in positions in government. These set backs happened on many fronts and perhaps most significantly in the area of HIV and AIDS research. Frankly, I suspect that the Christianists would be happy to see ever gay in the country die of AIDS. Hopefully, this sick practice will be corrected under the incoming Obama administration. Here are highlights from the Financial Times:

*

Important US research to reduce HIV infection may have been prevented in recent years because scientists have censored their funding requests in response to political controversy, according to a study published on Tuesday. Writing in PLoS Medicine, the academic journal, Joanna Kempner from Rutgers University identified a “chilling effect” on researchers seeking grants from the government-backed National Institutes of Health after their work was questioned by Republican lawmakers and Christian groups.

*

The findings suggest politics influence scientists’ willingness to conduct research, and raise warnings at a time of continued sensitivity over medical research topics from sexual behaviour to stem cells.

*

Among 82 researchers polled by Ms Kempner, who had received money from the NIH, almost a quarter had dropped or reframed studies around sexual behaviour they judged to be politically sensitive, and four had made career changes and left academia as a result of the controversy. Half reframed their studies to avoid work on marginalised populations, or dropped studies they thought would be politically sensitive, such as those on sexual orientation, abortion, childhood sexual abuse, and condom use.

*

Almost four-fifths believed NIH funding decisions had become more political under President George W. Bush than under his predecessor Bill Clinton, and more than a third believed they were less likely to receive NIH funding as a result of the controversy.

*

Bottom line: the Chimperator and his minions have cost countless lives between the needless deaths in Iraq and deaths that might have been prevented had research not been stymied. What is particularly disconcerting is that the Chimperator seems utterly oblivious to the deaths and damage he has caused.

Why Time is on the Side of Gay Rights

While there have been some major set backs in the progress of gay rights in the last election, over all, time is on our side and the demographic changes and voting pattern changes that are taking place mean that in time, our enemies will either die off and/or be out voted by younger and more tolerant voters. While this bodes well long term for gay rights, it is not good news fro the Republicans and Christianists - who increasingly make up the Republican voters who now control that party. Larry Sabato - an under graduate classmate of mine - of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia has a guest article on his site that looks at these developments and trends. Here are some highlights:

*

Discussions of the current political situation and comparisons between the 2008 election and earlier contests frequently overlook a crucial fact. As a result of changes in American society, today's electorate is very different from the electorate of twenty, thirty, or forty years ago. Three long-term trends have been especially significant in this regard: increasing racial diversity, declining rates of marriage, and changes in religious beliefs. As a result of these trends, today's voters are less likely to be white, less likely to be married, and less likely to consider themselves Christians than voters of just a few decades ago.

*

The declining proportion of married white Christians in the electorate has important political implications because in recent years married white Christians have been among the most loyal supporters of the Republican Party. In American politics today, whether you are a married white Christian is a much stronger predictor of your political preferences than your gender or your class.

*

Married white Christians have gone from close to 80 percent of the electorate in the 1950s to just over 40 percent of the electorate in the first decade of the 21st century. . . . the decline in married white Christians has been even more drastic among younger Americans. The proportion of married white Christians among voters under the age of 30 has plummeted from almost 80 percent in the 1950s to less than 20 percent in the first decade of the 21st century.

*

The danger posed to the Republican Party by the declining size of its married white Christian base was clearly illustrated by the results of the 2006 midterm election. According to the 2006 national exit poll, married white Christians made up just under half of the midterm electorate and they voted for Republican House candidates over Democratic House candidates by a decisive 62 to 38 percent margin. However, voters who were not married white Christians made up just over half of the electorate and they voted for Democratic House candidates over Republican House candidates by an even more decisive 68 to 32 percent margin.

*

Republican leaders will need to find ways to reduce the Democratic advantage among voters who are not married white Christians in order to maintain the party's competitive position. However, given the generally liberal views of this group, this will not be easy. In 2006, according to data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 57 percent of these voters supported a woman's right to choose an abortion under any circumstances, 66 percent opposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage, and 71 percent favored a single-payer health care system.

California Supreme Court to Hear Proposition 8 Challenges

UPDATED: I mentioned the lunacy of the legal briefs often filed by the Christianist organizations. A shining example of just how unhinged thes folks are can be found here. This people are simply not dealing with a full deck and it is clear that their arguments are based soley on religion. Let's hope more briefs like this are filed with the California Supreme Court.

*

I imagine the justices of the California Supreme Court are feeling tremendous pressure and have both fears of a recall effort and - some will not like me saying these - for their personal safety should they strike down Proposition 8. Frankly, the Christianist organizations behind Proposition 8 have done much to demonize the judiciary which has a sworn duty to protect minorities under the constitution from hate and discrimination by a rogue majority. It's a sad state of affairs when judges need to be fearful of alleged "Christians" who might resort to physical violence, but having regularly followed the major Christianist websites for years, that is what these hate merchants have wrought. Here's what the Los Angeles Times is reporting so far:

*

The California Supreme Court today denied requests to stay the enforcement or implementation of Proposition 8, and at the same time agreed to decide several issues arising out of the passage of Proposition 8. The court’s order, issued in the first three cases that had been filed directly in the state’s highest court challenging the validity of Proposition 8, directed the parties to brief and argue three issues: (1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the California Constitution? (3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

*

From what I have read and reviewed to date, the correct answers to these questions is as follows: (1) yes, it is unconstitutional; (2) yes; and (3) Proposition 8 is not retroactive and therefore does not impact legal marriages entered into prior to its enactment. A retroactive application would amount to an ex-post facto law which would be invalid under the U.S. Constitution.

*

Generally, the quality of the legal work of the Christianist attorneys is sub par and/or they display lunacy that helps our cause. Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel has a big mouth, but in my opinion, he's not the hotshot attorney he likes to think he is. We can only hope that such is the case in this briefing battle.

More Wednesday Male Beauty

E-Harmony Settles N.J. Lawsuit and Will Offer Gay Services

E-Harmony, founded by Christianist Neil Clark Warren, will begin providing dating services fro same sex couples in 2009 as part of a settlement with the State of New Jersey which had charged e-Harmony with violating New Jersey's non-discrimination laws. The relationship services will be offered through a Compatible Partners site which is not yet live. Personally, I'm not sure why one would want to utilize a service founded and run by anti-gay individuals (especially when there are other gay friendly services), but I am nonetheless glad that e-Harmony will be required to comply with the applicable non-discrimination laws. Here are highlights from PR Newswire:

*

eHarmony, Inc. and the New Jersey Attorney General's Division on Civil Rights (DCR) have settled allegations that the company violated New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination (LAD) by failing to offer a same-sex matching service. As a result of the settlement agreement, eHarmony, Inc. will start a new service for same-sex matching called Compatible Partners by March 31, 2009. The settlement makes clear that eHarmony, Inc. has not been found in violation of the law.

*

The case originated in 2005 when a New Jersey resident filed a formal complaint with the State alleging that eHarmony violated his rights under the LAD by not offering a same-sex matching service. For more than three years, eHarmony vigorously contested the allegations of the complaint. On July 23, 2007, however, the Director of the DCR issued a Finding of Probable Cause that eHarmony had violated the LAD. eHarmony filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the finding, which was pending at the time of the settlement.

*

The Compatible Partners site and eHarmony.com will both benefit from the company's commitment to long-term relationships. The two sites will maintain their own matching pools, registration information, and subscriptions. The separate matching pools are based on whether the user chooses to seek an opposite- or same-sex relationship. As a result, users of the Compatible Partners site and eHarmony.com cannot be matched with each other.

*
Under the settlement agreement, the company reserves the right to inform those using the new same-sex matching service that the Compatibility Matching System(TM) developed by eHarmony is solely based on research involving married heterosexual couples.

Mormons to Get 'South Park' Treatment

This development is too funny!! Not that I can say the attention - which I am sure will not be happily received - is not well deserved. I cannot say that I feel much sympathy - okay, I'll be honest, I feel NO sympathy - for a denomination that went to extraordinary lengths to impose its religious beliefs on all citizens in California. I wonder how rank and file Mormons will like the satire to which their fascist leadership has and is continuing to subject them. The Mormon Church consciously decided to discriminate against LGBT citizens and they deserve a decisive pay back. Maybe a few of its members will get the message that freedom of religion does not mean you can force your beliefs on others. Here are highlights from the Independent:

*

They've tried noisy protests, consumer boycotts, and the odd act of minor terrorism. Now supporters of gay marriage have unveiled a new weapon in their war against the Mormon Church: satire. The creators of the cartoon South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, are planning to stage a Broadway musical based on the lives and (many) loves of typical members of the Church of the Latter Day Saints.

*

Cheyenne Jackson, an openly-gay Broadway star who appeared in the film United 93, said this week that he has agreed to play the lead role, a Mormon missionary, in the show, which is currently being work-shopped and is slated to open in 2009. "It's hilarious: very acerbic and biting," he told the New York Post. "It offends everybody, but does what South Park does best, which is [that] by the end it comes around and has something great to say."

*

News of the potentially-controversial project comes at a tough time for the Mormon Church, which is fighting a propaganda war over its role in passing Proposition 8, the ballot measure that outlawed same-sex weddings in California this month.

*

The Sundance Film Festival, which begins in January, is particularly threatened by the boycott, since it takes place in the Utah ski resort of Park City, just a short drive from Salt Lake City. Actors and producers have been urged to pull their films from a Cinemark Theatres complex providing four screening rooms to the Festical. The company's CEO, Alan Stock, contributed $9,999 to the Yes on 8 campaign.

The GOP's Problem With GOD

O-M-G!! Kathleen Parker is amazing. After she had the courage and insight to flat out call out McCain and say that Bible Spice Palin was unfit to be the VP candidate, she was labeled a traitor by Republicans and apparently received all kinds of horrid abuse from the self-styled "godly Christian" set. Now Parker has taken a brick bat to her detractors and called out the harsh truth about the GOP and its real problem: the Christianists and whacked out religious fanatics who now comprise the party's base. They drive more people from the GOP with every passing day and are particularly unpopular with younger voters. I suspect that these folks will now be calling for Parker to be assassinated or burned at the stake. She speaks the truth and the question is whether there are any rational folks still left in the party to seek to recapture it from the nutcases. Here are highlights from her column in the Washington Post:

*

As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit. Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D. I'm bathing in holy water as I type. To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.

*

Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth -- as long as we're setting ourselves free -- is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that. The choir has become absurdly off-key, and many Republicans know it. But they need those votes! So it has been for the Grand Old Party since the 1980s or so, as it has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners.

*

[T]he GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle.

*

Religious conservatives become defensive at any suggestion that they've had something to do with the GOP's erosion. And, though the recent Democratic sweep can be attributed in large part to a referendum on Bush and the failing economy, three long-term trends identified by Emory University's Alan Abramowitz have been devastating to the Republican Party: increasing racial diversity, declining marriage rates and changes in religious beliefs.

*

[L]ike it or not, we are a diverse nation, no longer predominantly white and Christian. The change Barack Obama promised has already occurred, which is why he won. Among Jewish voters, 78 percent went for Obama. Sixty-six percent of under-30 voters did likewise. Forty-five percent of voters ages 18-29 are Democrats compared to just 26 percent Republican; in 2000, party affiliation was split almost evenly.

*

Given those facts, the future of the GOP looks dim and dimmer if it stays the present course. Either the Republican Party needs a new base -- or the nation may need a new party.

Wednesday Male Beauty

Focus on the Family Layoffs - Update

Just the other day I did a post that indicated that homophobe extraordinaire, James Dobson's faux Christian organization, Focus on the Family, was going to be making further staff cuts due to revenue declines after just recently eliminating 46 positions. Now the official word is out and the staff cuts are indeed significant: 202 employees. Not that I believe any of this will cause the self-absorbed, power hungry Dobson to lower the level of his own posh standard of living. With luck, Daddy Dobson will have to cut back on his bogus "Love Won Out" program that continues to market the lie that you can "pray away the gay" contrary to the findings of all legitimate medical and mental health associations. Here are some highlights from the Colorado Springs Gazette:

*

Because of a weak economy and cash-strapped donors, Focus on the Family said it is eliminating 202 jobs, the deepest cuts in the 32-year history of the Colorado Springs-based Christian nonprofit. The ministry laid off 149 workers, and cut another 53 vacant positions. . . . The layoffs come just weeks after Focus announced it was outsourcing 46 jobs from its distribution department. Focus also laid off 30 workers and reassigned 15 more in September 2007.

*

The reason for the layoffs and budget revisions Donations are down, and Focus relies almost entirely on the charity of others. . . . "It's probably going to get worse," he said. "When people have to cut back, the only place they have to go is their discretionary income."

*

Apparently, not everyone is buying the official PR on the job cuts. The "Pulpit Blog" at the Gazette indicates that the huge sum expended by FOF to support Proposition 8 came directly out of the entity's general fund, not the political action affiliate. Obviously, if such is the case, then it appears that the IRS should perhaps investigate FOF's 501(c)(3) status. While many of the comments on the article were obviously from Kool-Aid drinker supporters of Daddy D, I found this one to be fun (and reflect my own thoughts):

*

Now the Über bigots at FoF can’t con enough little old ladies out of their social security checks to keep Snake Handler in Chief Dobson in Cuban cigars and Caddys. I hate so see anyone lose their job in this republican depression, but humility can be learned by living on unemployment and food stamps. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch of con men.

Christianist Cat Fight

UPDATED: Gary Bauer fires back at Huckabee:

*

As a former candidate myself for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2000, I understand the disappointment Governor Huckabee must feel about his failure to win the GOP Presidential nomination in 2008. It is unfortunate, however, at a time when the GOP needs to close ranks and seek unity, that Governor Huckabee in his new book has aimed his fire at his fellow Republicans.

*

Nothing is more fun than watching the Christianist crowd get into a snit and start a full blown cat fight amongst themselves. That's pretty much what former GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee does in a new book that is being released. Personally, I am extremely happy that Huckabee did got the GOP nomination and I view him as a religious extremist at least as whacked out as Caribou Barbie Palin. In fact, based on his statements that the U. S. Constitution should reflect Biblical law makes him even more crazy than Bible Spice. Nonetheless, it is great sport to watch him lay into various of the self-anointed Christianist leaders and other GOP figures. Here are some highlights from Time magazine's coverage of Huckabee's new book:

*

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is not the sort of politician who likes to bite his tongue. But that's just what he found himself doing in the eight months . . . On Tuesday, that book will arrive on store shelves, and in terms of payback, it will not disappoint. At once a memoir of his campaign, a treatise on the ills of the Republican Party and a blueprint for his own political future, Do the Right Thing: Inside the Movement That's Bringing Common Sense Back to America is filled with sharp words for his fellow Republicans who frustrated his bid for the party's nomination.

*

Mitt Romney, Huckabee's principal rival in Iowa, receives the roughest treatment. Huckabee writes that the former Massachusetts governor's record was "anything but conservative until he changed the light bulbs in his chandelier in time to run for president."

*

Many conservative Christian leaders — who never backed Huckabee, despite their holding similar stances on social issues — are spared neither the rod nor the lash. Huckabee writes of Gary Bauer, the conservative Christian leader and former presidential candidate, as having an "ever-changing reason to deny me his support." . . . . He also accuses Bauer of putting national security before bedrock social issues like the sanctity of life and traditional marriage.

*

Huckabee describes other elders of the social-conservative movement, many of whom meet in private as part of an organization called the Arlington Group, as "more enamored with the process, the political strategies, and the party hierarchy than with the simple principles that had originally motivated the Founders."

*

He calls out Pat Robertson, the Virginia-based televangelist, and Dr. Bob Jones III, chancellor of Bob Jones University in South Carolina, for endorsing Rudy Giuliani and Romney, respectively. He also has words for the Texas-based Rev. John Hagee, who endorsed the more moderate John McCain in the primaries, as someone who was drawn to the eventual Republican nominee because of the lure of power.

More Tuesday Male Beauty

Nation and Senate Dodge a Bullet

Wahoo!!! The Associated Press is reporting that Ted Stevens has gone down to defeat in Alaska thereby saving the U.S. Senate and the nation from the frightening prospect of Sarah Palin appointing herself to replace Stevens had he won and then been tossed from the Senate next year. The last thing needed is for Caribou Barbie to land in the Senate and be in a position to continue to spread more of her idiocy nationwide. Leave her in Alaska where her potential to do damage - not to mention irritate anyone with a brain - will be limited. Here are some highlights:

*

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Sen. Ted Stevens, the longest serving Republican in Senate history, narrowly lost his re-election bid Tuesday, marking the downfall of a Washington political power and Alaska icon who couldn't survive a conviction on federal corruption charges. His defeat to Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich moves Senate Democrats closer to a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority.

*

Stevens' loss was another slap for Republicans in a year that has seen the party lose control of the White House, as well as seats in the House and Senate. It also moves Democrats one step closer to the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters in the Senate. Democrats now hold 58 seats, when two independents who align with Democrats are included, with undecided races in Minnesota and Georgia where two Republicans are trying to hang onto their seats.

*

Begich will be the first Democrat to represent Alaska in the Senate in nearly 30 years. He is the son of Nick Begich, Alaska's third congressman, who died in a plane crash 1972 while running for re-election.

Is Proposition 8 Unconstitutional?

All sides to the Proposition 8 related appeals to the California Supreme Court are urging the Court to quickly dispose of the issue of whether or not the proponents of Proposition 8 chose the wrong amendment process vehicle available under the California Constitution. As I have said before, I suspect that they knew they could never get a super majority in the legislature and, therefore, utilized the initiative route. Some are alleging that the California Supreme Court has already shown its hand in its May 15, 2008 ruling in the In re Marriage Cases where on page 6 the Court stated in part:
*

". . . . upon review of the numerous California decisions that have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution), we conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities . . ."

*

Thus, if the Court follows its own prior ruling, we already know what the correct result should be. A larger question is whether or not Proposition 8 can stand up to equal protection clause scrutiny under the U.S. Constitution. A column in today's Los Angeles Times suggests that the answer to that question is "No." I agree with the analysis and believe that under the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Romer vs. Evans (1996), which struck down an anti-gay amendment to the Colorado Constitution, Proposition 8 must fail, especially in the wake of Lawrence v. Texas (2003). With all due respect, I think Andrew Sullivan's comments that Proposition 8 must stand is - I'm sorry Andrew - wrong. Here are some column highlights:

*

In 1992, by a 53%-47% split, Coloradans passed an amendment to their state Constitution that repealed laws in Aspen, Boulder and Denver that prohibited discrimination against gays. The amendment barred the state and its political subdivisions from adopting or enforcing any law "whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships" are the basis of a claim of discrimination. Does this sound familiar?

*

As the proponents of same-sex marriage rights determine the proper response to Proposition 8, it is illuminating to compare Colorado's rejection of "gay rights" with California's repudiation of "gay marriage." . . . Following the enactment of Colorado's Amendment 2, its opponents filed suit claiming that it unlawfully singled out gays and lesbians as a class to deny them rights that other citizens not only possess but take for granted.

*

To the surprise of many, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. Writing for a 6-3 majority in Romer vs. Evans (1996), Justice Anthony M. Kennedy explained that it "is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance." Laws such as Amendment 2 "raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected,"Kennedy wrote, adding a reference to another 1973 ruling. "If the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."

*

Proposition 8 suffers these same constitutional flaws. It provides that gays and lesbians -- alone among consenting adult couples -- shall not have the opportunity to enjoy the rights, privileges and social approbation conferred by the status of lawful marriage. And despite their insistence that the initiative was "not an attack on the gay lifestyle," its proponents were remarkably candid about their disapproval of homosexual families. . . . . In other words, the reasons for denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry that served as the "factual" basis for Proposition 8 are but pretexts for discrimination.

*

[T]he Colorado and California initiatives are alike in their essence. Each is, to quote Kennedy, "a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the equal protection clause does not permit." Proposition 8 was explicitly designed to relegate hundreds of thousands of Californians to an inferior legal and social status.

*

Many gay-rights activists are wary of the current Supreme Court, but five of the justices who formed the majority in Romer vs. Evans remain on the bench. . . . this 12-year-old precedent from a conservative high court could be the key to reaffirming that fundamental civil rights must be available to all citizens, regardless of race, sexual orientation or other intrinsic human qualities.

Tuesday Male Beauty

Wingnuts Threaten California Supreme Court

While Subway has done the right thing, the Christo-fascists and Mormons behind Proposition 8 are threatening nasty consequences if the California Supreme Court strikes down Proposition 8 on the basis that the "Yes on 8" crowd used the wrong amendment vehicle to try to amend the California Supreme Court. Since the California legislature had TWICE passed gay marriage bills, the wingnuts knew that they could not get the proposed amendment through the legislature. Hence why they used the initiative process that they did even though it sounds more and more that it was not the correct procedure (that and the fact that the Christianist attorneys are usually strong on ideology and short on legal skills). A Daily Kos diary has a run down on some of the threats and posturing going on amongst those who want a theocracy and care nothing about the constitution or rights of minorities. Here are some highlights:

*

Another nasty trend is emerging from the homophobes behind the Yes on 8 campaign. Apparently shocked by the national uprising in support of full equality under the law for gay/lesbian families, leaders of the Prop. H8 campaign have rolled out a new tactic: threatening the Supreme Court.

*

Andrew Pugno, their attorney turned up their dangerous rhetoric this weekend: What could get opponents of same-sex marriage in the street, however, would be the state Supreme Court tossing out the vote, he said. San Francisco city officials, joined by the city of Los Angeles and Santa Clara and Los Angeles counties, have petitioned the court to do just that. "I think you'll have a revolution on your hands at that point," Pugno said.

*

They’re freaking out. Good. It’s clear that the backlash to the vote has energized and strengthened the gay/lesbian rights movement in a nearly unprecedented way...and tarred the image of the Mormon Church and of anti-marriage activists. Let’s recall that is was the Yes on 8 folks who invented the camapaign tactic of intimidating and demonizing No on 8 donors.

*

The story also looks at the hand wringing pansies among the self-crowned leaders of the gay rights movement who are being out classed and out organized by virtual unknowns who have taken grassroots organizing to levels almost unheard of previously. One has to wonder whether these self-anointed leaders care more about becoming irrelevant than the cause of gay rights:

*

Despite this, the lgbt community gatekeepers, who were so ineffective during the campaign], are criticizing the protest and boycott movement. But given this description of the online and offline activists who have been leading this movement, I don't expect the gay gatekeepers to be too successful: "They are not connected to the supposed leaders. All they know is that their rights have been taken away and that the majority has successfully curtailed the freedoms of the minority." My response, of course, is what else are we supposed to do? Let hateful attacks go unanswered? Count on the Supremes to save our bacon?

*

The bottom line is that if each one of us doesn't get off our ass and work to make an impact, we cannot expect others to look out for our interests. HRC, the Task Force and similar organizations need to get on board and stop worrying if their leaders might get invited to a few less cocktail parties.

Subway Chain Retracts Gift and Changes Policies

I have to hand it to him, Mike Rogers at BlogActive.com does know how to get things done. Yesterday he posted that he had discovered that a franchisee of an international company had supported Proposition 8. Here's what Mike said:

*

When I saw a franchisee of an international company gave $2,500 to opponents of equality, I immediately knew I would require someone at the company's world HQ to address this. Or, I would.So, after a few discussions, I informed the company's spokesperson that they had until today to take the following three actions:

*
1) Repudiate the franchisee's gift;

2) Make a gift in the same amount to an organization fighting for true equality; and

3) Immediately add sexual orientation and gender identity to the corporation's non-discrimination policy.

*

Today he is reporting he did not indicate the company in the post choosing instead to approach the company discreetly over the matter. In a conversation with Rogers on Monday, Subway Director of Corporate Communications Michele DiNello responded to the three demands. Having reviewed Subway franchise agreements fro clients, the franchisee was incredibly stupid to have made the contribution since it could reflect back on the chain and constitutes a violation of the franchise agreement. Here are highlights from PageOneQ on the steps taken by Subway which include sending a letter to all franchisees and amending the corporate policy on non-discrimination:

*

The company wrote in response to the gift made by a Merced, California location of the chain. The store is located inside the popular Merced Mall. . . . . "You should also be aware that your franchise agreement prohibits your use of the SUBWAY® trademark as part of your business or corporate name. Further, it states that you agree to '...not use the Trademark in a manner that degrades, diminishes, or detracts from the goodwill of the business associated with the Trademark' and 'to promptly change the manner of such use if requested to do so by us.'". . . "You should also be aware that your franchise agreement prohibits your use of the SUBWAY® trademark as part of your business or corporate name. Further, it states that you agree to '...not use the Trademark in a manner that degrades, diminishes, or detracts from the goodwill of the business associated with the Trademark' and 'to promptly change the manner of such use if requested to do so by us.'"

*

We are changing the discrimination policy language and that includes anything we add through headquarters human resources, not just in the field," said DiNello. "The company used the exact language you gave us," referring to BlogActive's request to add both 'sexual orientation and gender identity.'"

*

I suspect that there are many other franchise chains that have the same ability to influence the behavior of their franchisees. There are those who do not like Mike's tactics including the outing of anti-gay politicians - I am not one of them - but the reality is that if people and corporations will not grant rights to LGBT citizens because it is the right thing to do, then I'm all for having them do so to protect their asses. Here's how Mike explains it and I agree:

*

"This is a textbook example of how a company should react when they realize that one of its operating units has done something wrong. What was outrageous behavior by one franchisee has resulted in a letter to owners of 30,000 stores and a corporate policy change for the better," said Rogers, "I am particularly happy that the company added both sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected individuals under the corporate non-discrimination policies.

*

With over 30,000 outlets operating in more than 85 countries, Subway is the second largest food chain worldwide, raking second only to McDonald's.

*

I hope the LGBT community will ignore the whining of those who claim a boycott will be counter productive. The reality is that in these economic times, companies will be less and less inclined to drive away the gay dollar. We need to take advantage of that reality to foster positive change.