More Saturday Male Beauty

Anne Rice is in Good Company

I have noted in several prior posts author Anne Rice's recent decision to leave Christianity yet not abandoning her reverence of Christ. The Christo-fascists and others have tried to beat her up on the issue. Bob Felton at Civil Commotion notes that she's in pretty amazing company in terms of disdaining the toxic, hate generating cult that Christianity has become for many of its alleged adherents. Here are a few who Bob identifies as being of the same mindset as Rice. It is indeed, good company:

*
[Anne Rice] thinks the world of Jesus but don’t, by golly, call her a Christian. She’s in good company.

•Thomas Jefferson famously decided that Bible needed some improving, edited out all the crazy stuff, and re-ordered the red-letter parts, creating what is now known as the Jefferson Bible. He approved mightily of Jesus, but was relentlessly contemptuous of the churches.
*
•Friedrich Nietzsche’s Antichrist is probably the last thing that need ever be written on the subject of Jesus and the churches that exploit his name. He, too, admired Jesus — but as for the churches: I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough,–I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race.
*
Ray Bradbury assumed a stance similar to Rice’s: Bradbury doesn’t call himself a Christian, but says “Jesus is a remarkable person” and considers him a wise prophet like Buddha or Confucius.
*
•Gandhi: I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
*
With company like that, Rice - and others who adopt her stance - ought to be flattered, not embarrassed. As for the Christianists who have denounced Rice, it is they, not Rice and others like her, who will be responsible for the ultimate death of Christianity.

An Accurate Knowledge of History - the Christianists' and Demagogues' Worse Enemy

The far right is continuing to endeavor to whip the GOP base and others into an anti-Muslim frenzy by ranting about building a mosque close to the former New York World Trade Center site. Never mind that the proposed structure is actually a community center that could be used by non-Muslim residents of surrounding area of Manhattan. Why let accurate facts, historical or otherwise, get in the way of demagoguery. Newt Gingrich - the thrice married and twice divorced and now new Catholic - has joined the fray and is disseminating more false rhetoric to heat up matters and pander to the Christianist base of the GOP. Never mind that his historical facts are seriously wrong and that during the correct time period of the incident he claims to describe, the Muslim rulers in Cordoba Spain (pictured nowadays above) allowed freedom of religion - something that neither the Christianists nor the modern day Islamic fundamentalists will tolerate. The sad truth is that if modern day Americans knew their history - a subject slighted all too frequently in our schools - this type of demagoguery would never fly. Ditto for the Christianist efforts to portray the United States as having been founded as a "Christian nation." Here are highlights from Got Medieval, a blog that seeks to provide correct historical detail as opposed to the slip shod and/or deliberately false history that is popular with folks like Gingrich:
*
There are any number of reasons why an American might oppose the Cordoba House, the planned $100 million Muslim-financed community center that has come to be known in the press as the "Ground Zero mosque." I don't think any of them are particularly good reasons. . . .
*
Last week,* Newt Gingrich released a Newt Direct statement at Newt.org concerning the project. As you may have heard, he's somewhat opposed to it. And to explain why, he offered this history lesson: . . . . It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third-largest mosque complex. [...I]n fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest.
*
The problem is that the conquest that Gingrich claims to describe was (1) against other Muslims and (2) occurred 300 years before ho claims and (3) did nothing to end religious tolerance in Cordoba at the time. But hey, Newt's a Republican and now a allegedly conservative Catholic, so what's some major lying? Truth be told, that for those who genuine, accurate history, it is easy to expose the lies of those like Gingrich who bet that their listeners will not know that they are being lied to. Here are highlights of the REAL TRUTH:
*
Notice how carefully he's [Newt's] phrased his claim to give the impression that during the medieval conquest of Spain the Muslims charged into Cordoba and declared it the capital of a new Muslim empire, and in order to add insult to injury seized control of a Christian church and built the biggest mosque they could, right there in front of the Christians they'd just conquered, a big Muslim middle finger in the heart of medieval Christendom.
*
The problem is, in order to give that impression of immediacy, Newt elides three-hundred years of Christian and Muslim history. Three-hundred years. The Muslims conquered Cordoba in 712. The Christian church that was later transformed into the Great Mosque of Cordoba apparently continued hosting Christian worship for at least a generation after that. Work on the Mosque didn't actually begin until seventy-odd years later in 784, . . .
*
Muslim historians writing about the Great Mosque don't point to it as a symbol of Muslim triumph over Christians; rather, they treat it primarily as a symbol of Muslim victory over other Muslims.
*
Keep in mind that when ground was broken on the Great Mosque, the vast majority of the men who had been personally responsible for conquering the Iberian peninsula were long dead and most of their sons were dead, too.
*
The mosque was indeed begun in the wake of a Muslim conquest--just not the conquest of the Christians. Rather, it was ordered built by the Umayyad emir Abd-ar-Ramman I, probably in part to commemorate his successful conquest of Cordoba in the 750's, fought against other Muslim chieftains, . . .
*
Most standard histories of Cordoba will note that the Great Mosque is built on the site of the Basilica of St Vincent, Martyr, a Visigothic church that was itself built on the ruins of a Roman pagan temple. Muslim historians of the late tenth century tell that Abd-ar-Ramman bought the church from the Christian congregation after sharing it with them for fifty years "following the example of Abu Ubayda and Khalid, according to the judgement of Caliph Umar in partitioning Christian churches like that of Damascus and other [cities] that were taken of peaceful accord". The Christians, we're told, took their money and relocated their church to the outskirts of Cordoba.
*
[M]aybe [Newt's] his priest ought to direct him to read a little thing called "The Catholic Encyclopedia". Allow me to quote from the 1917 edition (which has the virtue of being in the public domain and easily searchable) and its entry on Cordoba: In 786 the Arab caliph, Abd-er Rahman I, began the construction of the great mosque of Cordova, now the cathedral, and compelled many Christians to take part in the preparation of the site and foundations. Though they suffered many vexations, the Christians continued to enjoy freedom of worship, and this tolerant attitude of the ameers seduced not a few Christians from their original allegiance. Both Christians and Arabs co-operated at this time to make Cordova a flourishing city, the elegant refinement of which was unequalled in Europe.
*
So it's easy to see why a group of Muslims creating a community center in the heart of a majority Christian country in a city known for its large Jewish population might name it "The Cordoba House" . . . they're hoping to associate themselves with a particular time in medieval history when the largest library in Western Europe was to be found in Cordoba, a city in which scholars of all three major Abrahamic religions were free to study side-by-side.
*
Knowing the real history shows all too clearly that Newt is a liar. The only question that remains is whether or not he's lying deliberately or merely parroting the lies he heard uttered by other Christianists and anti-Muslim Republicans. Of course, if Americans knew real history, they'd immediately know that Newt's a liar. There are those that question the need to study and know history. This is an example of why it is so important: if you know history, you won't be duped by liars, and as a nation we can hopefully avoid repeating history's worse aspects.

It's Time for Obama To Support Gay Marriage

On this coming Tuesday I am supposed to attend the local Democratic Party Committee meeting (which is chaired coincidentally by the First Vice President of the State Democratic Party, who I greatly respect) as a liaison for the LGBT community. Candidly, it's hard to be very enthusiastic given the national Party's betrayal of LGBT citizens and refusal to push through needed legislation like ENDA which would aid LGBT citizens in reactionary backwater states like Virginia. Barack Obama has now made it even harder to be enthusiastic given his mealy mouthed statement through a spokesman indicating that our "fierce advocate" doesn't support marriage equality. The overall situation leaves me tasked to generate support for a Party that has not supported me - it can only claim that it's not as bad as the other guys. In terms of the mid-term elections, I do support the local Congressional Democrat candidates because they HAVE voted the right way on LGBT issues on the occasions the weak kneed leadership in Congress has brought matters to a vote - e.g., DADT repeal - and co-sponsoring ENDA. Unfortunately, nonpolitical junkies in the LGBT community may not even know about these these candidates (Glenn Nye, Bobby Scott and Krystal Ball) and suffer from the malaise besetting so many in the Democratic Party base. Who can change this overnight? Barack Obama provided he puts aside his own prejudicial religious beliefs and stops kissing the asses of the Christianists. David Mixner has an excellent post on this "come to Jesus" issue that Obama cannot sidestep. Here are highlights:
*
After the Proposition 8 historic decision came down on Wednesday, my email box was flooded with people from every walk of life issuing press releases praising the victory. The Republican Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger couldn't be more excited for the LGBT community in our victory. Justice and equality was having a good day and everyone was basking in it.
*
Well, not quite everyone. Our President, our fierce advocate, continued with a game of giving us begrudgingly congratulations in a tepid unemotional and uninspired statement while sending his minions out to make sure the entire country knew that he was against marriage equality. If there was anyone that should sit down and read this opinion it would be this son of an interracial couple who had to go to Supreme Court to obtain marriage equality.
*
This game has to stop. The President is either with us or against us. If he is neutral, so be it but then stop hurting us by saying over and over how marriage equality is between a man and a women. He should pay close attention to the line in Judge Walker's decision that says,
*
"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. "
*
With this case he could no longer hide behind the fact that the Attorney General would have to intervene against us. The case does not involve the federal government. The issue is here to stay. As much as they wish, they can't manage it politically for their convenience. Mr. President, that is no longer possible. The surge toward marriage equality is even going to be stronger in this coming Presidential election. In fact, the Supreme Court could even rule one way or another before the election.
*
For the President, an enormous amount is at stake surrounding this issue and it goes far beyond marriage equality. Is the President going to seize this moment in history and become a great leader or will others have to lead him? Is he going to be remembered as Harry Truman or more like those Senators in the 1960's who walked a fine line attempting to appease all sides in that great epic struggle for civil rights?.
*
Now is the time, Mr. President for you to lead, not tomorrow but today. We want you by our sides. If not, you will be the one that will always be remembered for standing on the sidelines without courage. With or without your leadership, nothing is going to stop our inevitable march to freedom.
*
As always, David has a wonderful way with words. And what he says is true - does Obama want to be remembered as a bold leader or a cowardly follower?

Saturday Male Beauty

Schwarzenegger: Let Same-Sex Weddings Resume Now

Arnold Schwarzenegger seems to be one of the few Republican office holders who remembers what the GOP used to be about - efficient and fiscally responsible government and the avoidance of interference with individual liberties. Most Republicans who followed that approach are now either dead or describe themselves as Independents or Democrats since they can no longer support a religion based political party. The GOP has become a sectarian party where only Christianist whack jobs are truly welcome. Arnold's latest move must be driving the Christiansts absolutely berserk - he's asking Judge Walker NOT to stay his ruling and stating that gay marriages should resume immediately. I can only imagine the apoplexy sweeping over professional Christians like Maggie Gallagher, Tony Perkins, Porno Pete LaBarbera, Tim Wildmon and Robert Knight (the latter is probably wetting himself at the moment) and theocrats like Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. In addition, the Registrar-Recorder/ County Clerk for Los Angeles County has stated that the office is prepared to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Obviously, I agree with Schwarzenegger completely. Karen Ocamb has related news at LGBT Pov, including the press releases from the Registrar's offices. Here are highlights from the Virginian Pilot:
*
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who twice vetoed legislation that would have legalized same-sex marriage, has surprised gay rights supporters by urging a federal judge to allow gay couples to resume marrying in the state without further delay.
*
Lawyers for Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Jerry Brown, two gay couples and the city of San Francisco all filed legal motions Friday asking Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker to implement his ruling striking California's voter-approved same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional.
*
"The Administration believes the public interest is best served by permitting the court's judgment to go into effect, thereby restoring the right of same-sex couples to marry in California," the Republican governor's lawyers said on his behalf. "Doing so is consistent with California's long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect."
*
The governor and attorney general almost always defend state laws when they are challenged, regardless of their personal views. But in this case, both Schwarzenegger and Brown refused to participate in fighting the lawsuit aimed at overturning the ban, even though they both were named as defendants. That left the job of defending Proposition 8 to its backers, a coalition of religious and conservative groups known as Protect Marriage.
*
[Jerry] Brown, the Democratic nominee who is seeking to replace Schwarzenegger when he is termed out of office this year, was more active than Schwarzenegger in supporting the lawsuit that led Walker to invalidate Proposition 8, submitting legal papers calling the ban unconstitutional. He also said Friday that it's time for gays to begin marrying again.
*
"While there is still the potential for limited administrative burdens should future marriages of same-sex couples be later declared invalid, these potential burdens are outweighed by this court's conclusion, based on the overwhelming evidence, that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional," Brown said in his legal filing.
*
Santa Cruz County Clerk Gail Peelers, president of the California Association of Clerk and Elected Officials, said county agencies that issue marriage licenses will be ready to serve same-sex couples whenever they get the green light.
*
I hope that the ruling is not stayed and that couples can quickly begin marrying. It would be yet another blow to the Christianists who seem most happy only when they are trampling on the rights and happiness of other citizens.

Enrique Iglesias Keeps His Promises - Unlike Barack Obama

I respect those who keep their promises. As for those who don't? I have a word: liars. Unlike our false "fierce advocate" in the White House, Enrique Iglesias recently kept the promise he made during the World Cup madness - he said he'd water ski across Biscayne Bay if Spain won the World Cup. I suspect that Enrique never expected to have to actually deliver on the "bet" but nevertheless he made good on his word, albeit at night to avoid the threat of being arrested for public indecency (not that I'd consider seeing Enrique naked something all that indecent). Would that the concept of keeping promise - even inconvenient ones - was embraced by the current occupant of the White House for whom the word liar seems to be the only apt term given his betrayal of most LGBT Americans. Here are highlights from The Advocate on Enrique keeping his promise:
*
Spanish pop star Enrique Iglesias made good on his word late last week, indulging in a late-night joy ride despite admonitions from Miami police. And yes, there is a video.
*
According to TMZ, Iglesias’s management deigned only to issue a vague statement: "We do not manage Enrique’s personal time schedule but we do know he was in Miami the last week of July.”
*
Miami-Dade County police also reported to the celebrity news site in mid July that they were prepared to intervene in Iglesias’s nude stunt, emphasizing, "We enforce all laws here, regardless of what your status is in the Miami community."
*
When questioned in late July as to why he had still not gone through with the stunt, the singer jokingly told People magazine, “I need to get my Brazilian wax before I do it.” He also expressed his anxieties about sharks in Biscayne Bay.
*
Iglesias made his World Cup promise during the onset of the event, confirming after Spain’s win, “A bet is a bet.

Religious Reactions to Prop 8 Ruling Underscores That It's All About Religion

I have long maintained that the ONLY justification really behind anti-gay legislation and bans against gay marriage is religion. The opinion rendered by Judge Walker in Perry v. Schwarzenegger - who naturally the Christo-fascists want impeached - thoroughly demolishes all of the other alleged justifications. Thus, one is left only with supposed "moral" justifications which is in essence religious justification. Which, if the United States Constitution means anything, illegal and must be outside the realm of the civil laws. USA Today has a compilation of reactions to the ruling and the only ones who are bemoaning the result are those who seek to impose their generally hate and fear based religious beliefs on all Americans. They are also the ones who disseminate false and demeaning anti-gay propaganda even as they demand respect and civility for themselves. Hypocrisy knows no limits with these people who in the final analysis care only for themselves and of course power, control and most of all MONEY. They are indeed the reincarnation of the Pharisees denounced by Christ in the Gospels. First some highlights on the reactions of the Pharisee set:
*
The Mormons, who were among the strongest supporters of Prop. 8. A statement released this afternoon said: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regrets today's decision. We recognize that this decision represents only the opening of a vigorous debate in the courts over the rights of the people to define and protect this most fundamental institution -- marriage. There is. . . . no doubt that today's ruling will add to the marriage debate in this country and we urge people on all sides of this issue to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different opinion.
*
The 11 Roman Catholic bishops of California spoke as one through the church's lobbying arm in the state, the California Catholic Conference. The CCC executive director Edward (Ned) Dolejsi, who also serves on the executive committee of ProtectMarriage.com and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund -- two groups that take credit for the original successful passage of Prop 8 -- said in a statement Wednesday that they were "disappointed" in the ruling, . . .
*
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Rev. Albert Mohler . . . This clearly this is a huge boost to proponents of same-sex marriage in terms of cultural momentum ... In a society like ours the sense of cultural momentum is priceless. It gives proponents a sense of impending inevitability even as it upends millennia of human experiences and wisdom on marriage. No one could possibly believe this was in the minds of the founders when they framed the Constitution. I greatly lament the social and political pitfalls.
*
No surprises here. And I would add that Mohler's alleged societal pitfalls utterly failed to be proved during the trial. As for the "political" pitfalls, the only downside is for the Christianists who, once marriage is available to all Americans, will lose their biggest cash fundraising issue and some of them will need to secure real jobs. All in all, it's just more of the same old bullshit that is the norm for these power crazed and money hungry institutions/organizations that want nothing less than a theocracy with themselves in charge. Those who grasp the concept of freedom of religion and who understand it applies to ALL citizens naturally were jubilant over Walker's ruling. Here's a sampling of their reactions:
*
[T]he Rev. Susan Russell . . . . head of the gay Episcopal group Integrity and pastor of All Saints Pasadena, points out: Progressive people of faith have biblical values, too -- and one of those values is telling the truth. And the truth is, if we're going to love our neighbors as ourselves, we need to be defending all marriages and valuing all families ...
*
This ruling, says Russell comes down to a judge considering the religious arguments against gay marriage then concluding, "No one has the right to write their theology into our Constitution. (This) should be celebrated by people of all faiths, of any faith and of no faith.
*
Rev. Barry Lynn head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State cheered the downfall of the referendum, which he says was a push by lavishly funded political front groups representing Catholic bishops, the LDS Church (Mormons) and fundamentalist Protestant churches to impose their doctrine on civil law marriage. In a statement Lynn said: A growing number of American denominations and faith groups perform same-sex marriages. Why should the state refuse to recognize those ceremonies while approving of ceremonies by other clergy? A decent respect for church-state separation means the government should not play favorites when it comes to religion.
*
While the battle is far from over, I sincerely hope that this ruling is the beginning of the end of the civil laws being used to punish gays and other minorities that the Christo-fascists don't like. P.S. The photo is of fellow blogger Jeremy Hooper and his partner who married last year in Connecticut.

Friday Rant, Homophilia Edition

I enjoy Tom Toles' political cartoons that appear in the Washington Post and other publications. Today's cartoon (shown above) has a statement that goes with it that sums up the opposition to gay marriage well and shows the farce that is the current state of the law in the USA when it comes to equality for ALL citizens. Here's Toles' rant as he calls it:

*

Every once in a while, a judicial decision gets it right in a way that makes it all so obvious. The California ruling on gay marriage is one of those. If only it could settle the politics. But, no, the spiteful right will appeal, and on it goes. As in so many ways now, conservatives don't even know what the REAL conservative position IS. Letting gay couples marry, in fact, ENCOURAGING them to marry, is the authentic conservative position, if conservatives still had the mental wherewithal to think this one through.
*
But they don't and won't. They will prefer to go on trying to pretend and legislate and adjudicate gay people away. Oh, how they pine for the days of the closet. Hey, there are walk-in closets now!
*
But the closed minds and small hearts are going to lose this one. They lost this week when a judge had the good sense to write the obvious. And whatever happens to this case down the road, gay Americans will win their full and equal rights eventually. And the dramatic pace of change in public opinion on this subject means that eventually is a lot sooner than later. This may be my only rant that ends with YAY! --Tom Toles

Friday Male Beauty

Could Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Change Virginia Law?

The caption of this post is the headline of an article in the local Daily Press which will no doubt cause the local Bible beaters to have a near swoon and cause some to wet themselves at the mere thought that eventually Virginia might have to move towards modernity and actually have to grant religious freedom to all citizens, including the dreaded gays. Religious freedom is a concept championed by Thomas Jefferson and still set forth in Virginia's constantly ignored statute for religious freedom (one of three things Jefferson for which wanted to be remembered). In Jefferson's preamble, his words almost seem to have contemplated the leaders of the anti-gay religious forces that want civil law rights doled out based on one's conformity to a particular set of religious beliefs. His condemnation of such individuals was compete and stated in amazing language that still resonates today.

*

The Virginia Supreme Court justices, Taliban Bob McDonnell and Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli might all do well to read Jefferson's statute again. If they see themselves in those condemned by Jefferson, perhaps that ought to send the message that it's time to set aside their own bigotry and follow the statute. I have no illusions that Virginia will voluntarily overturn religious based discrimination against gays in its law and, since 2006, constitution. The mindset behind the state of affairs found in Loving v. Virginia is still alive and well amongst the false Christians in this state. Here are highlights from the story:
*
A federal judge in California ruled the state's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional this week in a landmark ruling that could undermine Virginia's constitutional amendment enshrining marriage as between one man and one woman.
*
Walker's ruling is almost certainly bound for an appeal and most scholars and advocates say the court battle won't be settled until there's a showdown at the Supreme Court, which has never issued a ruling on same-sex marriage.
*
But the unconstitutional ruling in California is the first time federal courts have weighed in on same-sex marriages and it could help unravel Virginia's similar ban on marriage, which was approved by state voters in 2006 — just two years before California voters approved the same type of ban.
*
Virginia's rules on same sex marriage are likely to stay in place until the Supreme Court opines on the ruling, according to University of Virginia Law professor Kim Forde-Mazrui. He said Virginia federal judges can look to Walker's opinion, but they only need to differ to higher court on precedent.
*
Forde-Mazrui said it's not a lock that the Supreme Court is going to immediately take on the case, rather than watching how state "laboratories" treat the issue. "The Supreme Court often lets issues percolate," said Forde-Mazrui, UVA's Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Research professor. "It's almost like using the lower courts as a kind of oral argument."

*

One thing that is certain is that groups like The Family Foundation will be using the California ruling to shake down money from the bigoted and ignorant. Personally, I long for the day when folks like Victoria Cobb have to get real jobs and can no longer make a living disseminating anti-gay hate and working to subvert religious freedom for other citizens.

Mexico City's Marriage Law Upheld by Supreme Court

In yet another ruling in a foreign nation that indicates that more and more supreme courts get the concept of equality under the civil laws far better than the false "fierce advocate" in the U.S. White House, the Supreme Court of Mexico upheld Mexico City's law allowing same sex couples to marry in that city. Among opponents of the law were the morally bankrupt, child rapist protecting Roman Catholic Church bishops. It has yet to be determined whether the Court's ruling will impact other areas of Mexico. I congratulate the Mexican Supreme Court for not caving into those who continue to seek to use the civil laws to inflict the religious views of some on other citizens. Would that the Virginia Supreme Court - and Justices like Antonin Scalia - could grasp this simple concept. Also, note that the ruling was 8-2 for upholding the law. Here are highlights from Google News:
*
The Mexican Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a fledgling law allowing same-sex marriages in Mexico City is constitutional, rejecting an appeal by federal prosecutors who argued that it violated the charter's guarantees to protect the family.
*
The justices have not yet determined the scope of their 8-2 ruling, however, saying they still need to decide whether it will affect states outside of the capital. The court must also still rule on the constitutionality of a provision of the Mexico City law that lets same-sex couples adopt children. It is expected to address that issue Monday.
*
"We are very happy," said Mexico City lawyer Leticia Bonifaz, who argued the capital's case. "It fell to us to carry to a conclusion a struggle that has taken a long time." Justices who voted on the majority side stressed that while Mexico's constitution enshrines protection for families, it does not define what a "family" is.
*
Hundreds of couples have been married so far under the six-month-old law, the first of its kind to be enacted in Latin America when it took effect March 4.
*
[J]udge, Jose Fernando Franco, argued that "procreation is not an essential element of marriage." "Those who wish to procreate are free to do so, not only within marriage but in any way they see best, and this happens and can happen in heterosexual marriages, and those that are not, or among single persons," Franco said.
*
Rev. Hugo Valdemar, the spokesman for Mexico City's Roman Catholic Archdiocese, said "we regret this ruling because in our opinion, it affects the fundamental nucleus of the family."
*
City authorities said that as of earlier this week, 320 couples had been married under the law: 173 weddings between men and 147 between women. Argentina became the first country in Latin America to legalize marriage for same-sex couples with a law approved in July. Mexico City remains the only city in Mexico with a similar law.
*
If nothing else, the ruling is encouraging because it shows gays have more and more options of where to move should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn this week's ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Who would have thought that Latin American countries would get the concept of equal protection more quickly than the theocratic leaning USA.

ACLU to Virginia Police: Ignore Cuccinelli's Opinion

Would that we could all ignore Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli, Virginia's nutcase Attorney General who thinks that whatever he wants is what the law will be. The man - besides being delusional - has delusions of grander which I hope will be squelched either by the Cooch getting into trouble grossly overstepping his authority or his being outed by some former male trick - the rumors continue - who just cannot tolerate Cooch's posturing and hypocrisy (this is what ultimately took down former Congressman Ed "Mega Phone" Schrock with some help from yours truly, Mike Rogers and some other folks). Recently, Kookinelli issued an opinion in collusion with Del. Bob Marshall, the GOP's Darth Vader equivalent in Virginia, who detests immigrants almost as much as he hates gays. The outcome was Kookinelli's opinion stating that law enforcement officers could question those stopped for any reason about their immigration/citizenship status. Never mind that a federal court has stayed this activity authorized under Arizona's recently effective anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic immigration law. Now the ACLU has advised police across Virginia to ignore Kookinelli's opinion and therby avoid lawsuits and problems. Here are highlights from the Virginian Pilot on the ACLU's challenge to Kookinelli's dictatorial mandates:
*
From the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia: Ignore Cuccinelli. His opinion lacks a legal foundation and presents constitutional and public policy problems.
*
Cuccinelli issued the advisory opinion Monday at the request of state Del. Robert G. Marshall. Rebecca K. Glenberg, legal director of the ACLU of Virginia, followed up with a letter to Virginia's police chiefs Thursday saying the opinion is legally flawed and should be disregarded.
*
So how do Virginia police respond to these opposing viewpoints? They continue what they've been doing, according to Dana Schrad, executive director of the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police. "In terms of practice and policy, it varies across the state depending on the priorities of the locality," Schrad said. In some localities, police generally don't ask about immigration status because doing so could have "a chilling effect" on the immigrant community's cooperation with law enforcement, she said. In others, officers inquire.
*
Schrad emphasized that the attorney general's opinion was not requested by law enforcement, and said she received no questions from the association's members about the issue before or after the opinion's release. "It has been clearly understood by law enforcement what their authority is," she said.
*
Marshall, the legislator who asked for the opinion, represents a county whose crackdowns on its large immigrant population drew national attention in 2007 and 2008. Last week, the chairman of Prince William County's board of supervisors established a political action committee to press for legislation in Virginia similar the Arizona law.
*
Glenberg said in her letter to the police chiefs that Cuccinelli's opinion failed to acknowledge that a federal judge recently blocked the Arizona law's key provisions, including the requirement that officers inquire about immigration status when they have reason to believe a person they've stopped may be in the country illegally.

She also said that because most police officers have not been trained on immigration law enforcement, which is primarily a federal responsibility, allowing them to question people about their status "is an invitation for racial profiling and potential Equal Protection violations."
*
Given the dire financial straits of most Virginia municipalities, the last thing they need is litigation arising from some chauvinist cop with an overgrown ego acting on Cuccinelli's flawed opinion - litigation in which the municipality could lose big time financially.

More Thursday Male Beauty

The False Outrage Against "Liberal" Judges

The usual suspects among the blowhards and demagogues of the Christianists and professional Christian set have already been hyperventilating and going into near convulsions over yesterdays ruling in Perry v. Schwazenegger "outrage" of liberal judges subverting "the will of the voters." Obviously, these shrieks and overly dramatic hysterics are disingenuous - everything these folks do or say is disingenuous - but all the more so when one looks at the history of some of the federal judges who have recently handed the Christianist religious extremists major set backs. Why, because all of these judges, including Vaughan Walker, were REPUBLICAN APPOINTEES. Yep, that's right. Not a one of them was appointed to the bench by some "liberal Democrat" president. Needless to say, the Christianists don't share this reality with the sheeple who they are endeavoring to incite - and more importantly, shake down for contributions. Take Judge Walker. Here are highlights from the Cato Institute that look at Walker's appointment to the federal benech which demolish the screed of the Christianist snake oil merchants:
*
Judge Walker was first appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, at the recommendation of Attorney General Edwin Meese III (now the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation). Democratic opposition led by Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) prevented the nomination from coming to a vote during Reagan’s term. Walker was renominated by President George H. W. Bush in February 1989. Again the Democratic Senate refused to act on the nomination. Finally Bush renominated Walker in August, and the Senate confirmed him in December.
*
What was the hold-up? Two issues, basically. Like many accomplished men of the time, he was a member of an all-male club, the Olympic Club. Many so-called liberals said that should disqualify him for the federal bench. People for the American Way, for instance, said in a letter to Judiciary Committee chair Joe Biden, “The time has come to send a clear signal that there is no place on the federal bench for an individual who has, for years maintained membership in a discriminatory club and taken no meaningful steps to change the club’s practices.”
*
The second issue was that as a lawyer in private practice he had represented the U.S. Olympic Committee in a suit that prevented a Bay Area group from calling its athletic competition the Gay Olympics.
*
Because of those issues, coalitions including such groups as the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force worked to block the [Walker] nomination.
*
You can be pretty sure that you will not see Maggie Gallagher or Tony Perkins admitting the reality that Walker is not some screaming liberal. Better to lie and obscufaite - the usual "godlt Christian" approach when the facts inconveniently don't support their propaganda. As for other federal judges who have slammed Christianist idols? It's pretty much the same story. This from Andrew Sulllivan's blog:
*
The Prop 8 case now makes three consecutive judicial opinions holding that laws prohibiting same-sex marriages have no rational basis. Interestingly, all three were authored by judges who were nominated or appointed by Republicans. Today’s Northern District of California opinion was authored by Judge Vaughn Walker, who was nominated by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Last month’s District of Massachusetts opinion was authored by Judge Joseph Tauro, who was nominated by Richard Nixon. The Iowa Supreme Court (unanimous) opinion was authored by Justice Mark Cady, who was appointed by Republican Governor Terry E. Branstad.
*
Would that the mainstream media would call these Christianist demagogues on their lies in this regard. Sadly, it won't happen because (1) the MSM reporters are too lazy to feret out the facts and (2) the MSM is more worried about offending religious extremists than reporting the truth.

Mercury News Editorial: In Prop. 8 Ruling, Facts Win Out Over Fear-Mongering

I have written about Reverend Carole L. Vincent, now a retired Methodist pastor and a reader of this blog, in a previous post after she wrote a letter to Barack Obama after being inspired by the "Letters to Obama" campaign earlier this year that this blog supported. The other thing that is noteworthy about Carole is that her church (before her retirement) joined roughly two dozen other churches and houses of worship in taking out a full page ad in the San Jose Mercury urging voters to vote against Prop. 8. Since yesterday's ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger she has sent me excited e-mails and a link to a wonderful editorial in the San Jose Mercury News. Carole has been a wonderful straight Christian ally who even went so far as to call the boyfriend when I went into a melt down mode late last September after more divorce wars drama. Were all Christians like her, LGBT Americans would have secured full equality years ago and I would not find myself disavowing the name Christian because of its increasingly negative connotations. Here are highlights from the Mercury News main editorial today:
*
When opponents of Proposition 8 sued in federal court last year to overturn the ban on gay marriage, some advocates of marriage equality thought it was a mistake. If they lost in court, their cause could be irrevocably damaged.
*
It turned out that the courtroom was an ideal forum to make the case that Proposition 8 denies same-sex couples the due process and equal protection rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. A judge requires facts, not the kind of innuendo and fear-mongering that were used to sway voters during the Proposition 8 campaign. And there simply is no factual basis under U.S. law to argue that gays and lesbians don't deserve the right to marry.
*
Years from now, when all Americans finally are permitted to marry whom they choose, we'll look back on Wednesday's ruling by Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker as a historic milestone -- a moment when opponents of equality were exposed for their hypocrisy and the absurdity of their arguments.
*
Defenders of the 2008 initiative presented just two witnesses, both of whom Walker dismissed as unqualified in his decision. Not that it mattered. Neither could offer any credible evidence that gay marriage harms heterosexual marriage or that barring gays from marrying promotes any legitimate state interest.
*
The witnesses presented by the plaintiffs were, by contrast, a parade of distinguished academics, public officials and scientists. They made an airtight case that marriage, whether between same-sex or opposite-sex couples, promotes family stability. Married people are healthier, live longer and have more financial resources. The children of same-sex married couples see substantial benefits. Cities and the state would gain revenue if gays and lesbians were allowed to wed.
*
It wasn't just poor courtroom maneuvering that led to this outcome. Says David Boies, a lead lawyer for the plaintiffs: "They didn't fail because they're bad lawyers; they failed because there isn't any evidence to support the argument they're advocating."
*
Wednesday was a thrilling day for those who believe in the American ideal of equality for all. The fight is far from over -- but even before Walker's decision, this trial demolished every argument put forth by opponents of gay marriage.
*
The ruling provides a measure of hope that as the case wends its way to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and, ultimately, the Supreme Court, facts will continue to win out over bigotry.
*
The editorial does not mention the "R" word, but the reality is that only religious belief and religious based discrimination provide a basis for upholding Proposition. If the U.S. Supreme Court reverses Judge Walker, it will turn the U.S. Constitution upside down and make the promise of religious freedom a joke. In the alternative, if that Court upholds the concept that the majority can take away the rights of minorities that the majority dislikes, then every minority group in the USA ought to be terrified - because they could be next.

Barack Obama Betrays LGBT Americans - Yet Again

While LGBT citizens around the nation celebrate yesterday's historic - and well reasoned and well written ruling - that California's Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, our faux "fierce advocate" in the White House is again making it clear that he prefers illegal religious based discrimination over full CIVIL Law equality for same sex couples. Frankly, I am over Obama's mealy mouthed, double speak bullshit. By coincidence, I was invited to attend a local Democratic Party event yesterday evening celebrating Obama's birthday. My response? No way in Hell would I attend anything honoring this bald faced liar. A further irony is that I'm the liaison to the local Democratic Party for LGBT issues. Crazily, I am being asked to rally LGBT Virginians to support the Democratic Party - even as the top Democrat betrays me and countless others LGBT citizens. What doesn't the larger Democratic Party understand?

*

Personally, what really torks me with Obama is that he, as the son of a mixed race couple who would have been arrested had they lived in Virginia at the time of his birth, continues to side with the Christianist who use the Bible to denigrate gays just as they used it to oppose interracial marriage - and to suppot slavery in earlier generations. WTF is wrong with the man? Has Obama read any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson such as his draft of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom? Apparently not. Andrew Sullivan puts the question to Obama as follows:
*
If the president does not support my right to marry, then he does not support my equality, according to the ruling. And you will note that Axelrod does not provide an argument as to why the president does not support civil marriage equality. Because the real argument would be: a) I'm too afraid of the culture war to take a stand; or b) I find the notion of two women getting married icky; or c) unlike my former congregation and whole swathes of American Christianity, my religious viewpoint demands that gay people be separated from the institution of civil marriage because it offends religious sensibilities. So which is it, Mr President? Are you really for equality or not?
*
Andrew is 100% correct. You are either for equality and equal protection under the Constitution for ALL citizens or you are not. It's like being pregnant -you either are or you are not. Here are highlights from The Hill on Obama's betrayal of LGBT Americans:
*
President Obama remains opposed to same-sex marriage despite a federal judge's decision to strike down a ban on such marriages, a top White House adviser said Thursday.
*
Senior adviser David Axelrod said the president supports "equality" for gay and lesbian couples, but did not address directly Obama's position on Wednesday's court ruling, which struck down as unconstitutional California's Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage in the state.
*
"The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control," Axelrod said on MSNBC.
*

My bottom line? I will support individual Democratic candidates - locally, that translates to Booy Scott and Glenn Nye - who have voted for me and my equality under the law. Obama and the Democratic Party as a whole? They can kiss my ass. I remain committed to Don't Ask, Don't Give. Oh, and as an interesting side note, Andy Tobias, DNC Treasurer, is blaming John Aravosis and LGBT bloggers for LGBT dissatisfaction with Obama and the DNC rather than facing the blatant lies and betrayals of the LGBT community that have been forthcoming from Obama and Congressional Democrats.

Thursday Male Beauty

Pat Robertson's Group Sues to Stop Islamic Community Center Near Ground Zero

For those of us who live in the Hampton Roads area Pat Robertson is a perennial embarrassment - sort of the psychotic crazy uncle the family would prefer to keep out of sight but who persists in shooting off his mouth or getting involved in issues many would prefer he avoided. Anyone familiar with Robertson's career as a snake oil merchant/televangelist knows that he abhors the concept of freedom of religion for anyone other than his fellow Christo-fascists Kool-Aid drinkers. Now the inappropriately named American Center for Law and Justice - founded by brother Pat - has filed a lawsuit seeking to bar the construction of an Islamic community center (which the lazy in the MSM, including the Virginian Pilot, continue to call a mosque as they merely parrot the Christo-fascists) near "Ground Zero" in New York City. Can you imagine the conniption fits Robertson and his sheeple would have if the construction of a Christian community center were being blocked. Sakes alive, the spittle would be flying and brother Pat woulds be all but writhing on the floor. Here are highlights from the Virginian Pilot:
*
The debate over a planned Islamic community center and mosque near ground zero became a court fight Wednesday, as a conservative advocacy group sued to try to stop a project that has become a fulcrum for balancing religious freedom and the legacy of the Sept. 11 attacks.
*
The American Center for Law and Justice, founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson, filed suit Wednesday to challenge a city panel's decision to let developers tear down a building to make way for the mosque two blocks from ground zero.
*
City attorneys are confident the landmarks group adhered to legal standards and procedures, Law Department spokeswoman Kate O'Brien Ahlers said. A spokesman for the planned Islamic center, Oz Sultan, declined to comment on the lawsuit but said organizers were continuing to work toward choosing an architect.
*
The group behind the $100 million project, the Cordoba Initiative, describes it as a Muslim-themed community center. Early plans call not only for prayer space but for a swimming pool, culinary school, art studios and other features. Developers envision it as a hub for interfaith interaction, as well as a place for Muslims to bridge some of their faith's own schisms.
*
"We want to create a model that shows the world that you can develop moderate Muslim communities," Sultan said Wednesday. "We would admonish people to, at least, give us a fair shake."
*
Opponents, including some Sept. 11 victims' relatives, see the prospect of a mosque so near the destroyed trade center as an insult to the memory of the nearly 3,000 people killed by Islamic terrorists in the 2001 attacks.
*
For now, the court case centers on the legalities of the landmarks commission's vote, which the lawsuit seeks to overturn. The existing, Italianate building was built for shipping magnates and later occupied by the pharmaceuticals giant Merck & Co., among other businesses.
*
The law center argues it deserves landmark status for its architectural features — and for its newer historical significance as a structure that withstood being hit by debris from one of the hijacked jetliners used in the terrorist attacks.
*
What the lawsuit really comes down to is a situation where Christianist sensibilities are give special status over the constitutional rights of other citizens - the same thing that lies behind every anti-gay law on the books in this country. The Christian Right, in my view, continues to be a clear and present danger to the U.S. Constitution and needs to be stopped.

More Wednesday Male Beauty

Convicted Wall Street Felon To Speak At Peter LaBarbera’s “Truth Academy”

Back in February I wrote a post about a story that I helped break working with Wayne Besen and Norm Kent of South Florida Gay News concerning Arthur Abba Goldberg Goldberg, one of the founders of JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing) a fraudulent ex-gay program. It turned out that JONAH wasn't Goldberg's only fraudulent activity. He was convicted some years back for his role in a $2 BILLION bond fraud case. The case resulted in Goldberg doing time in federal prison. Now, Goldberg is out peddling fraudulent information yet again - this time as part of Peter "Porno Pete" LaBarbera's disingenuously named "Truth Academy." Lies, bogus experts, and con artists - it's a good summation of those involved in ex-gay ministries which seem to rely on drug addicts, male prostitutes and the down and out to recruit their ex-gays for pay and faux experts. Jim Burroway has a commentary on Box Turtle Bulletin that sums up Goldberg's involvement in Porno Pete's ex-gay circus. Here are some highlights:
*
Peter LaBarbera’s so-called “Truth Academy,” which kicks off tomorrow, has an interesting lineup of characters. Among the invited speakers is Arthur Goldberg, of JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing)
*
In 1989 Goldberg was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Government. The conspiracy, in which he engineered a phony bond and investment scheme, netted him nearly $11 million in illegal fees. U.S. Attorney William O’Connor told the court at his sentencing that Goldberg’s crime was “a fraud of spectacular scope.” More recently, one of JONAH’s so-called “life coaches” was accused by two former clients of inappropriate sexual misconduct.
*
Speaking of frauds of spectacular scope, another speaker at LaBarbera’s little confab is Cliff Kincaid, of “Accuracy in Media.” Kincaid has vigorously defended Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill which would impose the death penalty on LGBT people under certain circumstances, and would criminalize any one else knowing or providing services to gay people.

Other speakers include Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries; Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California; Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University Law School; Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel; Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute; and Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Gays and Ex-Gays. Timothy Kincaid has a great rundown of the other speakers here.
*
In his opinion released today, Judge Vaughan Walker found the anti-gay witnesses of the proponents of Propaganda to be lacking in credibility. Obviously, that conclusion applies to Porno Pete's line up. The professional Christians time again and again rely on the same tired and fraudulent "experts" who are expert at nothing except lying and disseminating false information.

Judge Walker Strikes Down Prop 8 and Shows the Backbone the Virginia Supreme Court Lacks

I have now had an opportunity to review Judge Walker's opinion handed down today in Perry v. Schwarzenegger and my reaction in a nut shell is WOW!! The reaction of professional Christians and others who are enriching themselves by beating the anti-gay marriage horse to death since anti-abortion hysteria doesn't yield the money it once did is that the world is coming to an end. What may actually be coming to an end is folks like Maggie Gallagher making nice six figure incomes by disseminating anti-gay marriage lies and hate.

*

Judge Walker's opinion properly applied prior U.S. Supreme Court precedent and was willing to call a spade a spade. While the opinion only referenced religious belief out right once, the message in numerous parts of the opinion clearly was that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does NOT allow discriminatory laws to be enacted solely because of the moral beliefs [read religious beliefs] of a majority. Reading the opinion I could not help but note the difference between Judge Walker's directness and willingness to face the mandates of the U. S. Constitution and the Supreme Court of Virginia's refusal, without opinion, to address largely the same issues in the case of Michael Moore v. Virginia Museum of Natural History. Was the Virginia Court - the justices of which are not appointed for like unlike federal judges - afraid to face the wrath of Governor Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell, Virginia Attorney General Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli, and/or the Republicans in the Virginia General Assembly who largely function as puppets of The Family Foundation, the Virginia affiliate of Daddy Dobson's Focus on the Family? We will never know since the Virginia Supreme Court rejected Michael Moore's appeal without rendering any opinion.

*

But I digress. In his opinion, Judge Walker enumerated many findings of fact that savaged the proponents of Proposition 8, particularly anti-gay Christianist witnesses who in the final analysis had nothing [other than religious belief] to support their anti-gay bigotry. Needless, the Christo-fascists will appeal the decision which is stayed for two days to allow the parties to submit arguments on why the ruling should be stayed pending an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The war is far from over, but Ted Olson and David Boies have won the first battle and Walker has written an opinion that was obviously written from a perspective of making a reversal difficult on appeal. Here are a few of the best lines from the opinion:
*
To the extent California has an interest in encouraging sexual activity to occur within marriage (a debatable proposition in light of Lawrence, 539 US at 571) the evidence shows Proposition 8 to be detrimental to that interest.
*
Proponents argue Proposition 8 advances a state interest in encouraging the formation of stable households. Instead, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 undermines that state interest, because same-sex households have become less stable by the passage of Proposition 8. The inability to marry denies same-sex couples the benefits, including stability, attendant to marriage.
*
Proponents failed to put forth any credible evidence that married opposite-sex households are made more stable through Proposition 8. FF 55. The only rational conclusion in light of the evidence is that Proposition 8 makes it less likely that California children will be raised in stable households.
*
Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples. Those interests that are legitimate are unrelated to the classification drawn by Proposition 8. The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than
their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal. FF 47-50. Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it does not treat them equally.
*
Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate. See Romer, 517 US at 633; Moreno, 413 US at 534; Palmore v Sidoti, 466 US 429, 433 (1984) (“[T]he Constitution cannot control [private biases] but neither can it tolerate them.”).
*
“[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,” has never been a rational basis for legislation. Lawrence, 539 US at 582 (O'Connor, J, concurring). Tradition alone cannot support legislation. See Williams, 399 US at 239; Romer, 517 US at 635; Lawrence, 539 US at 579.
*
Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex
couples.
*
Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Prop 8 Ruling

UPDATED: Wahoooo!!! I have a copy of the 138 page opinion and will review it once my non-profit board meeting ends. Needless to say I am HAPPY! Walker reached the only logical and honest conclusion of law and fact in my view.

*

I have signed up to receive an e-mail update as soon as the results of Judge Walker's ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger are known. The opinion when released will be available on the Court's website and I will give my reactions and legal analysis as soon as practicable.Since the opinion is to be released between 4:00 and 7:00 PM Eastern Time, how soon I get get a post up will depend on scheduled client meetings and then a non-profit board meeting this evening.

*

I am trying to remain hopefully optimistic. From following the case, knowing the talents of the lead plaintiffs' counsel, not to mention all of my research in the Michael Moore v. Virginia Museum of Natural History case, I know that the law IS ON THE SIDE OF THE PLAINTIFFS. The issue is whether or not Judge Walker has the balls to follow the law and not given in to more special rights for who engage in religious based anti-gay discrimination. In the Moore case, the Virginia Supreme Court lacked the courage to do the right thing and let the lower court ruling stand without explanation - truly the cowardly way out.

Homophobia: It's All About Religious Based Discrimination

Regardless of which way Judge Walker rules in Perry v. Schwarzenegger later today, the National Organization for Marriage's ("NOM") farcical summer tour has helped prove one thing - the only real basis for opposing CIVIL marriage equality for LGBT Americans - not to mention other civil legal rights - stems solely from religious based bigotry and discrimination. Something allegedly illegal in this country. But sadly, this country still affords special rights to the most toxic forms of fundamentalist Christianity, Catholicism and Mormonism. I'm sure this clear cut result is not what the parasites at NOM who enrich themselves denigrating gays (yes, I mean you Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown) wanted to accomplish. Nonetheless, for anyone who has followed the spectacle, this should be the only possible conclusion.

Wednesday Male Beauty

The Democrat Enthusiasm Gap

God knows that I have complained about the issue of Democratic party members' lack of enthusiasm enough times - both last year in the lead up to the disastrous 2009 Virginia elections and now as we head into the 2010 mid-term elections. And who have I blamed? Principally Barack Obama and to a lesser extent Congressional Democrats who have been afraid of their own shadow on every issue and only too willing to sell out different portions of the Party base. Robert Reich has a piece in Huffington Post which again throws much of the origins of the problem back at Obama's feet. Yes, Obama took office facing huge difficulties, but time and time again his timidity and failure to act as a LEADER has set the potentially devastating stage now facing the Democratic Party. Democrats' wounds are largely self-inflicted and - in my view - could have been avoided or lessened if we had had a leader in the White House and not a follower. Here are highlights from Reich's article:
*
Whatever the outcome of the upcoming midterm elections, the activist phase of the Obama administration has likely come to a close. The president may have a fight on his hands even to hold on to what he's already achieved because his legislative successes have been large enough to fuel strong opposition but not big enough to strengthen his support. The result could be disastrous for him and congressional Democrats.
*
A stimulus too small to significantly reduce unemployment, a TARP that didn't trickle down to Main Street, financial reform that doesn't fundamentally restructure Wall Street, and health-care reforms that don't promise to bring down health-care costs have all created an enthusiasm gap. They've fired up the right, demoralized the left, and generated unease among the general population.
*
The real choice is between achieving what's possible within the limits of politics as given, or changing that politics to extend those limits and thereby more assuredly achieve intended goals. The latter course is riskier but its consequences can be more enduring and its mandate more powerful, as both Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan demonstrated.
*
So far, Barack Obama has chosen the former course. Despite the remarkable capacities he displayed during the 2008 campaign to inspire and rally Americans behind him, as president he has for the most part opted for an inside game.
*
[T]he undeniable consequence has been to erode the capacity of the president and his party to accomplish much more from here on.
*
Again, Reid and Pelosi and the spineless Senate and House members they preside over have not helped matters and, indeed, share the blame. But time and time again, Obama has waited until the bottom is about to fall out before he gets publicly engaged. And meanwhile, he breaks one campaign promise after another to differing parts of the Party base. Is it any wonder that Democrats are not enthusiastic or motivated?

Quitting Chistianity In The Name Of Christ

I commented the other day on author Anne Rice's announcement that she was leaving Christianity - although not her following of Christ - because Christianity has become, at least as practiced by the Christianists and Bible thumpers, something truly vile. Rice has received many brickbats for her statement/decision - particularly by whiners who find it easier to attack Rice than stand up to and confront the truth about their own denominations and/or those who are increasingly making Christianity something obscene and the act of being a Christian far worse than an embarrassment. Too many church leaders are either haters themselves or too cowardly to stand up to haters in their congregations. Viewing things from the pews, members of congregations continue mindlessly give contributions to churches and denominations that pervert the Gospel message. In an interview with NPR, Rice gives more details on her decision. Here are highlights (I particularly agree with the part about when good people fail to act):
*
"This is something that had been going on really almost from the beginning of my conversion [her return to Catholicism]in 1998," she says. "From the beginning, there were signs that the public face of Catholicism and the public face of Christianity were things that I found very, very difficult to accept."
*
"I didn't anticipate at the beginning that the U.S. bishops were going to come out against same-sex marriage," she says. "That they were actually going to donate money to defeat the civil rights of homosexuals in the secular society.
*
"... When that broke in the news, I felt an intense pressure. And I am a person who grew up with the saying that all that is needed for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing, and I believe that statement."
*
"You know, I don't really like disappointing all my Catholic friends," she says. "I don't really like disappointing all my Christian friends and contacts. I really don't like it. It's painful. But I did what I felt I had to do."
*
Amongst the whiners belittling Rice is John W. Kennedy, a Catholic, at Beliefnet, and E.D. Kain on his blog. The irony is that Rice's critics utterly ignore the image of Christ in the Gospels. He raised Hell with the existing religious authorities of his culture for their greed, hypocrisy, hatred toward their fellow man, and thirst for power and control. That's right, Christ condemned the same things that have come to be synonymous with Christianity, particularly as practiced by the fundamentalist Christians, Catholic Church hierarchy, Southern Baptist Convention, and Mormons. If one is really a follower of the Christ of the Gospels, then there ought to be a furor going on against what institutional religion has become. But not so with Rice's critics. They meekly surrender to the modern day Pharisees about whom Rice seems to complain. Here's highlights from Kennedy's BS:
*
Ms. Rice's frustration with some Christians is understandable but there are a lot of sincere, loving Christians in this world who don't deserve to be lumped together with the worst acts of those who fail to uphold the faith's true ideals. It's no more right to do that to Christians than it is to hold all Muslims in disrepute because of the actions of al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic terrorists.
*
While it's proper for mainstream Muslims to condemn the heinous acts of those committing murderous acts in the name of their religion, we don't expect them to declare themselves no longer Muslim.
*
And where is condemnation that Mr. Kennedy expects from Muslims when it comes to Christians condemning the misdeeds of their fellow Christians? It's nonexistent or a faint whimper compared to the braying of the Christofascists. And even in denominations like the Episcopal Church and the ELCA that have move towards doing the right thing in terms of being gay accepting, too much worry is still being given to maintaining "unity" as opposed to calling out bigotry and an anti-knowledge mind set for what they are. Obviously, the Christ of the Gospels wasn't worried about maintaining unity with despicable religious leaders. And then Kain has this drivel that suggests he puts his personal spiritual ease ahead of condemning wrongs:
*
Certainly I disagree with much of what is said and done in the name of Christianity. Certainly I get a knot in my stomach every time the Catholic hierarchy bungles yet another sexual abuse crisis, and the more revelations of how un-Christian so many priests and pastors and others have been while peddling the words of Christianity the more angry and saddened I become over the whole state of affairs. But then I go to mass and everything is different. There are no politics. There is no divisive language, no hell and brimstone, none of this. There is the message of love and redemption and community and charity that drew me back to Christianity in the first place. It seems to me Rice isn’t doing this in the name of Christ at all. It seems she’s given up on Him altogether.
*
I don't know what Catholic church Kain is attending, but it sure as Hell isn't any of the Catholic Churches that I attended over the years. And as for "no politics," with bishops writing and priests reading letters to parishioners about voting against gay rights and other political issues and the Church giving thousands upon thousands of dollars to anti-gay causes, I would suggest that Kain get his head out of his ass and open his eyes.

*

I suspect that Kennedy and Kain - along with Pope Benedict XVI, the College of cardinals and many other Christians are precisely what motivated Anne Rice to make her statement. These individuals are either actively perpetrating evil or sitting back and allowing it to happen. Rice is 100% on the money in doing what she did. Millions more need to do the same.